NASA’s Webb Reaches Alignment Milestone, Optics Working Successfully | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 71425276 United States 03/17/2022 02:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to youtu.be (secure)] "The team behind NASA's James Webb Space Telescope released some of the first unbelievable images from the much-anticipated observatory on Friday (Feb. 11). The main photo, which doesn't even hint at the power Webb will bring to the universe once it's fully operational, shows a star called HD 84406 and is only a portion of the mosaic taken over 25 hours beginning on Feb. 2, during the ongoing process to align the observatory's segmented mirror". I guess this is just a basic image taken from 1 mirror? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 71425276 United States 03/17/2022 02:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 79679839 United Kingdom 03/17/2022 02:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 82506352 United States 03/17/2022 02:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 82163179 United States 03/17/2022 02:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 79654836 United States 03/17/2022 02:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 81066184 United States 03/17/2022 03:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | If any part of this NASA fable involves moving anything in the vacuum of space with rocket thrust then it's bullshit bullshit bullshit Quoting: Anonymous Coward 81062819 So since Newtonian mechanics is bullshit, I guess Relativity is out of the question, yes? No, Newton's laws are correct - it's NASA's shillitary which misquotes him, erroneously applies the wrong formulae, and, displays contempt for the actual science of physical chemistry |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 82433270 Spain 03/17/2022 03:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 82324969 Italy 03/17/2022 03:31 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 80379140 United States 03/17/2022 03:33 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Free me
User ID: 46636611 United States 03/17/2022 03:35 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 81677950 United States 03/17/2022 04:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 81677950 United States 03/17/2022 04:11 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | So they see the CMB super strong near earth but never once see the monopol at l2 and instead just measure the differences in microwave signals across the sky and call that an anisotropy map but if you ask me, just like the soviets said about the original paper that found the CMB near Earth that there was too much thermal emissions from the moon and earth to determine if it really were from the Big Bang. The only way to confirm is to detect the monopol at l2 which they never have. |
Astromut
Senior Forum Moderator 03/18/2022 09:24 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I have lost commercial FM signal two miles away from the tower when going under a highway overpass. But NASA's webb has no problem transmitting high bandwidth images from over a million miles away. Believable. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 79336278 Yup. Learn how to calculate a link budget. Thread: Do you trust the Pluto images to be real? Here is what I don't. (Page 6) The linked describes 300db of signal loss from distance alone. What's your point, the signal to noise ratio is still above one. The math checks out. Your refusal to double check the math is not my problem. |
Astromut
Senior Forum Moderator 03/18/2022 09:24 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Astromut
Senior Forum Moderator 03/18/2022 09:26 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 76067739 United States 03/18/2022 09:26 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I have lost commercial FM signal two miles away from the tower when going under a highway overpass. But NASA's webb has no problem transmitting high bandwidth images from over a million miles away. Believable. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 79336278 Hopefully they have multiple satellites and multiple channels in which to transmit the data. Surely they do… It is the only way that it could work. It works from deep space and Mars. It will work for the JWST also. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 79336278 United States 03/18/2022 09:34 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I have lost commercial FM signal two miles away from the tower when going under a highway overpass. But NASA's webb has no problem transmitting high bandwidth images from over a million miles away. Believable. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 79336278 Yup. Learn how to calculate a link budget. Thread: Do you trust the Pluto images to be real? Here is what I don't. (Page 6) The linked describes 300db of signal loss from distance alone. What's your point, the signal to noise ratio is still above one. The math checks out. Your refusal to double check the math is not my problem. I don't think you understand what -300db signal level is. Can you amplify a -300db signal from my electric guitar here on earth? I have stacks of neve preamps. |
Astromut
Senior Forum Moderator 03/18/2022 09:56 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Astromut Yup. Learn how to calculate a link budget. Thread: Do you trust the Pluto images to be real? Here is what I don't. (Page 6) The linked describes 300db of signal loss from distance alone. What's your point, the signal to noise ratio is still above one. The math checks out. Your refusal to double check the math is not my problem. I don't think you understand what -300db signal level is. Can you amplify a -300db signal from my electric guitar here on earth? I have stacks of neve preamps. I understand it better than you do. Path loss alone tells you nothing by itself. You have to finish the calculations and determine the signal to noise ratio. You didn't do that. I did. That's why I'm right and you're wrong. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 79336278 United States 03/18/2022 10:26 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 79336278 The linked describes 300db of signal loss from distance alone. What's your point, the signal to noise ratio is still above one. The math checks out. Your refusal to double check the math is not my problem. I don't think you understand what -300db signal level is. Can you amplify a -300db signal from my electric guitar here on earth? I have stacks of neve preamps. I understand it better than you do. Path loss alone tells you nothing by itself. You have to finish the calculations and determine the signal to noise ratio. You didn't do that. I did. That's why I'm right and you're wrong. I'll use your calculations, your data. The signal to noise ratio is greater than one at -300db. That can't be amplified without adding more noise than signal. Preamp noise is primarily what is being graphed in space "pictures". Like I said, generate a signal like 440Hz from an electric guitar, drop it to -300db in a lab and see if you can raise it to audible volume. Same pitch? |
Astromut
Senior Forum Moderator 03/18/2022 10:53 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Astromut What's your point, the signal to noise ratio is still above one. The math checks out. Your refusal to double check the math is not my problem. I don't think you understand what -300db signal level is. Can you amplify a -300db signal from my electric guitar here on earth? I have stacks of neve preamps. I understand it better than you do. Path loss alone tells you nothing by itself. You have to finish the calculations and determine the signal to noise ratio. You didn't do that. I did. That's why I'm right and you're wrong. I'll use your calculations, your data. The signal to noise ratio is greater than one at -300db. That can't be amplified without adding more noise than signal. If it's greater than one than the signal can be received above the noise floor. |
Astromut
Senior Forum Moderator 03/18/2022 10:54 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Preamp noise is primarily what is being graphed in space "pictures". Quoting: Anonymous Coward 79336278 False. The pictures are digital. You are conflating the pictures with the signal from the telescope. By the way dumbass, the path loss I calculated in that example is for Pluto, not the distance to JWST which is much shorter and the path loss is much less. Last Edited by Astromut on 03/18/2022 10:55 AM |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 79336278 United States 03/18/2022 11:27 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 79336278 I don't think you understand what -300db signal level is. Can you amplify a -300db signal from my electric guitar here on earth? I have stacks of neve preamps. I understand it better than you do. Path loss alone tells you nothing by itself. You have to finish the calculations and determine the signal to noise ratio. You didn't do that. I did. That's why I'm right and you're wrong. I'll use your calculations, your data. The signal to noise ratio is greater than one at -300db. That can't be amplified without adding more noise than signal. If it's greater than one than the signal can be received above the noise floor. Yes, but that signal travels a distance that contributes 300db loss. That final -300db signal is amplified on earth before being graphed. So take a signal at -10db like any old electric guitar, attenuate it to -300db and amplify it until it is detectable using NASA gear. It doesn't sound right does it? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 79336278 United States 03/18/2022 11:32 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Preamp noise is primarily what is being graphed in space "pictures". Quoting: Anonymous Coward 79336278 False. The pictures are digital. You are conflating the pictures with the signal from the telescope. By the way dumbass, the path loss I calculated in that example is for Pluto, not the distance to JWST which is much shorter and the path loss is much less. The pictures are made up of ones and zeros that are generated on the remote device, then sent out for hundreds of db of loss through distance. In the case of the JWST, it is looking at stuff further away than pluto, right? So it is amplifying signals that have undergone more than 300db of loss before even transmitting it for additional signal loss. NASA has been graphing noise for decades. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 56587788 United States 03/18/2022 11:34 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | If any part of this NASA fable involves moving anything in the vacuum of space with rocket thrust then it's bullshit bullshit bullshit Quoting: Anonymous Coward 81062819 THAT'S RIGHT HOW CAN ANYONE PUSH AGAINST NOTHING PROJECT THIS SATAN IS NOTHING WE CAN'T PUSH BACK ON SATAN THEN HE WINS THE DECEPTION THE TRICK IS REAL THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF THE WORLD AKA SATAN'S KINGDOM |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 78989291 United Kingdom 03/18/2022 11:36 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Preamp noise is primarily what is being graphed in space "pictures". Quoting: Anonymous Coward 79336278 False. The pictures are digital. You are conflating the pictures with the signal from the telescope. By the way dumbass, the path loss I calculated in that example is for Pluto, not the distance to JWST which is much shorter and the path loss is much less. The pictures are made up of ones and zeros that are generated on the remote device, then sent out for hundreds of db of loss through distance. In the case of the JWST, it is looking at stuff further away than pluto, right? So it is amplifying signals that have undergone more than 300db of loss before even transmitting it for additional signal loss. NASA has been graphing noise for decades. I'm assuming the satellite (if it's real) is basically like a digital camera. The photo sensor converts light (analog) into a digital file and then sends that digital data over a radio signal back to earth. Whether or not it's possible to do that over such distances is impossible for anyone here to confirm, not even Astro. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 79336278 United States 03/18/2022 11:39 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Preamp noise is primarily what is being graphed in space "pictures". Quoting: Anonymous Coward 79336278 False. The pictures are digital. You are conflating the pictures with the signal from the telescope. By the way dumbass, the path loss I calculated in that example is for Pluto, not the distance to JWST which is much shorter and the path loss is much less. The pictures are made up of ones and zeros that are generated on the remote device, then sent out for hundreds of db of loss through distance. In the case of the JWST, it is looking at stuff further away than pluto, right? So it is amplifying signals that have undergone more than 300db of loss before even transmitting it for additional signal loss. NASA has been graphing noise for decades. I'm assuming the satellite (if it's real) is basically like a digital camera. The photo sensor converts light (analog) into a digital file and then sends that digital data over a radio signal back to earth. Whether or not it's possible to do that over such distances is impossible for anyone here to confirm, not even Astro. It's possible to confirm by dropping a wired instrument level signal to -300db and amplifying it back. Analog or digital, use a digital synthesizer keyboard. Sure, drop it to even -100db and bring it back to audible. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 78989291 United Kingdom 03/18/2022 11:42 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Astromut False. The pictures are digital. You are conflating the pictures with the signal from the telescope. By the way dumbass, the path loss I calculated in that example is for Pluto, not the distance to JWST which is much shorter and the path loss is much less. The pictures are made up of ones and zeros that are generated on the remote device, then sent out for hundreds of db of loss through distance. In the case of the JWST, it is looking at stuff further away than pluto, right? So it is amplifying signals that have undergone more than 300db of loss before even transmitting it for additional signal loss. NASA has been graphing noise for decades. I'm assuming the satellite (if it's real) is basically like a digital camera. The photo sensor converts light (analog) into a digital file and then sends that digital data over a radio signal back to earth. Whether or not it's possible to do that over such distances is impossible for anyone here to confirm, not even Astro. It's possible to confirm by dropping a wired instrument level signal to -300db and amplifying it back. Analog or digital, use a digital synthesizer keyboard. Sure, drop it to even -100db and bring it back to audible. Digital data isn't affected by noise like analog is. If you send digital data with a lot of noise in the signal, you still receive the exact same data as if it were sent with no noise. Analog is different, you will see that noise in your final data. With that said, I still doubt whether anything NASA says is legit. |
Astromut
Senior Forum Moderator 03/18/2022 01:38 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Astromut I understand it better than you do. Path loss alone tells you nothing by itself. You have to finish the calculations and determine the signal to noise ratio. You didn't do that. I did. That's why I'm right and you're wrong. I'll use your calculations, your data. The signal to noise ratio is greater than one at -300db. That can't be amplified without adding more noise than signal. If it's greater than one than the signal can be received above the noise floor. Yes, but that signal travels a distance that contributes 300db loss. That final -300db signal is amplified on earth before being graphed. Wrong. The pictures are not graphs of a radio signal. You really are this fucking stupid, aren't you? The signal is received by a giant radio telescope and the math for it was already given. The signal is stronger than the noise, even assuming non-ideal conditions. So take a signal at -10db like any old electric guitar, attenuate it to -300db and amplify it until it is detectable using NASA gear. It doesn't sound right does it? Quoting: ACFor fuck's sakes, A RADIO FUCKING TELESCOPE IS NOT AN AMPLIFIER FOR YOUR OLD ELECTRIC GUITAR YOU GODDAMN FUCKING IDIOT! |
Astromut
Senior Forum Moderator 03/18/2022 01:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Preamp noise is primarily what is being graphed in space "pictures". Quoting: Anonymous Coward 79336278 False. The pictures are digital. You are conflating the pictures with the signal from the telescope. By the way dumbass, the path loss I calculated in that example is for Pluto, not the distance to JWST which is much shorter and the path loss is much less. The pictures are made up of ones and zeros that are generated on the remote device, then sent out for hundreds of db of loss through distance. In the case of the JWST, it is looking at stuff further away than pluto, right? So it is amplifying signals that have undergone more than 300db of loss before even transmitting it for additional signal loss. NASA has been graphing noise for decades. JWST isn't an amplifier for your goddamn guitar, NOR IS IT A RADIO TELESCOPE! It's capturing PHOTONS OF LIGHT YOU FUCKING IDIOT, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PATH LOSS OF THE RADIO SIGNAL FROM IT BACK TO EARTH! |