Difference between revisions of "Talk:2550: Webb"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
(pointy side up?)
(Comment)
 
(14 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
Ah, without edit-conflict being indicated (probably because subsequent new paragraphs could be considered as not 'treading on the toes' of the first one posted), I seem to have added repetitious information. Also I can see that I misbalanced the paragraph sizes as I went into increasingly more detail as I got into the edit. Was going to go back to wikilink/fix/etc, but I should probably leave it to a new eye to better re-edit the whole think 'nicer', taking how much or little inspiration the current mess of text might provide. Have fun! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.41|172.70.85.41]] 04:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 
Ah, without edit-conflict being indicated (probably because subsequent new paragraphs could be considered as not 'treading on the toes' of the first one posted), I seem to have added repetitious information. Also I can see that I misbalanced the paragraph sizes as I went into increasingly more detail as I got into the edit. Was going to go back to wikilink/fix/etc, but I should probably leave it to a new eye to better re-edit the whole think 'nicer', taking how much or little inspiration the current mess of text might provide. Have fun! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.41|172.70.85.41]] 04:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 
: I tried to restructure it a bit (grouping related info, rebalancing paragraph sizes) and resolve the duplication without losing any important information. Hope it looks okay? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.99|172.68.133.99]] 05:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 
: I tried to restructure it a bit (grouping related info, rebalancing paragraph sizes) and resolve the duplication without losing any important information. Hope it looks okay? [[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.99|172.68.133.99]] 05:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 +
:: wtg guys for clearly describing these abstract issues and addressing them [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.227|172.70.110.227]] 16:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  
  
Line 8: Line 9:
 
: It looks like the mirror on the telescope. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.171|172.70.110.171]] 14:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 
: It looks like the mirror on the telescope. --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.171|172.70.110.171]] 14:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 
: If a magic hexagon was possible, he would have done it. However, the numbers add up to 243, and with 5 rows, this makes it impossible for each row to add up to the same number. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.173|172.70.110.173]] 16:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 
: If a magic hexagon was possible, he would have done it. However, the numbers add up to 243, and with 5 rows, this makes it impossible for each row to add up to the same number. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.173|172.70.110.173]] 16:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 +
: I know some advent calendars go in exact order, but a lot of them are actually ordered randomly. I've got one in my living room where the top row is "2, 17, 8, 10" [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.237|172.70.210.237]] 23:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  
 
Alternate explanation:  all the astronomers are Moldovian Orthodox Catholics, and they timed the telescope to launch on Christmas Eve in their slightly out-of-sync calendar in which Christmas replaced days 2 & 3 of their week long Winter Solstice Party.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 17:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 
Alternate explanation:  all the astronomers are Moldovian Orthodox Catholics, and they timed the telescope to launch on Christmas Eve in their slightly out-of-sync calendar in which Christmas replaced days 2 & 3 of their week long Winter Solstice Party.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 17:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  
 
Why does it have the small hexagons oriented "pointy side up"? I know this is generally considered a good thing, as far as rocket launches are concerned, but in this case? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.91|162.158.88.91]] 20:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 
Why does it have the small hexagons oriented "pointy side up"? I know this is generally considered a good thing, as far as rocket launches are concerned, but in this case? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.91|162.158.88.91]] 20:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 +
:That's the way the hexagonal mirrors are oriented in the JWST [[User:256.256.256.256|256.256.256.256]] ([[User talk:256.256.256.256|talk]]) 12:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 +
 +
The cells on the calendar go from 5 to 22, which I assumed was a reference that astronomers have been waiting since 2005 (when the current mission was replanned) until 2022 (the year the telescope will become active).  Rather than counting down 25 days until Christmas, astronomers are counting down 18 years (inclusive) until they get their new toys to play with.  [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.23|172.70.134.23]] 00:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 +
: It's also just the number of mirrors the telescope has, and the day it launches. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.227|172.70.110.227]] 16:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC) [[User:Cwallenpoole|Cwallenpoole]] ([[User talk:Cwallenpoole|talk]])
 +
: I was wondering why 1–4 were missing. [[User:Cwallenpoole|Cwallenpoole]] ([[User talk:Cwallenpoole|talk]]) 14:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 +
 +
JWST is as fixable as Hubble, if you have Starships. Which NASA is already counting on (and funding) for Artemis.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.191|172.70.134.191]] 21:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 +
:Not yet available... Current tech is woefully unable (or unwilling to be put to use) to help with HST, never mind JWST. Retired tech could do Hubble, as proven, but would have been stretched to deal with the Webb. And the Webb isn't even designed ''to'' be fixed (though I'm sure they'll still have people working on it if they discover a washer's-worth of mirror misalignment, or whatever...).
 +
:That sweet smell of Musk isn't yet right for the job. Even if the business plan says that it will be flying within the next few months, it'd be wishful thinking to rely on it at this point.
 +
:(More so than with the sample-driller/collect/return chain of missions currently only a fraction of the way through realisation upon Mars. There's the Return stage to implement almost from scratch (setting up remote launch-site, fully fueled, etc) but the whole rover-with-manipulator thing isn't really an engineering challenge, more a matter of design nuances and the usual amount of (apparently increasing, but surely not infallible) skill and luck in executing the required landings.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.155|172.70.162.155]] 00:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 +
::Off topic now, but the point about manned missions to Mars is that you _don't_ come back, you colonise. good luck.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.77|172.70.162.77]] 13:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 +
 +
Could it also have to do with the fact that so called "Advent Calendars" tend to have 25 days, even though the Advent Season (Starting 4 Sundays before Christmas) is dependant on what day of the week Dec 25th falls on, and at a minimum 28 days long? Or am I the only one bothered by the fact that the companies making these calendars ignore the meaning of "advent" in the Christmas context, and just arbitrarily start them in December?[[Special:Contributions/172.70.34.165|172.70.34.165]] 14:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 +
:In Denmark we just call it a Christmas Calender (Julekalender) and has no reference to Advent (or the Christ for that matter, they never managed to make us real Christians ;-p ) Also we celebrate on th Eve before the 24th so Santa ha to come while we are still up, as we open the presents on the 24th and thus our x-mas calenders end on the 24th.  --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 +
::In Finland it's complicated. My Lego calendar has 24 windows, daughters L.O.L. toy calendar has 25 windows (haven't seen this kind before) and church sells ones that start on 28.11. since that's the first advent this year.
 +
[[Special:Contributions/162.158.238.239|162.158.238.239]] 04:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 +
It's because hexagons are the bestagons. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.98|172.69.71.98]] 17:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 +
:[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thOifuHs6eY Hexagons are the Bestagons]! love it ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 +
 +
In retrospect, Cueball wasn't wrong - it should have been all the way to December 25. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.79|172.70.85.79]] 16:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 +
 +
This is actually awesome.  I wonder if anyone actually made this?  I certainly hope so! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.30|162.158.63.30]] 10:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:46, 27 May 2022


Ah, without edit-conflict being indicated (probably because subsequent new paragraphs could be considered as not 'treading on the toes' of the first one posted), I seem to have added repetitious information. Also I can see that I misbalanced the paragraph sizes as I went into increasingly more detail as I got into the edit. Was going to go back to wikilink/fix/etc, but I should probably leave it to a new eye to better re-edit the whole think 'nicer', taking how much or little inspiration the current mess of text might provide. Have fun! 172.70.85.41 04:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I tried to restructure it a bit (grouping related info, rebalancing paragraph sizes) and resolve the duplication without losing any important information. Hope it looks okay? 172.68.133.99 05:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
wtg guys for clearly describing these abstract issues and addressing them 172.70.110.227 16:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


Could someone explain why the numbers are arranged the way they are?

It looks like the mirror on the telescope. --172.70.110.171 14:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
If a magic hexagon was possible, he would have done it. However, the numbers add up to 243, and with 5 rows, this makes it impossible for each row to add up to the same number. 172.70.110.173 16:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I know some advent calendars go in exact order, but a lot of them are actually ordered randomly. I've got one in my living room where the top row is "2, 17, 8, 10" 172.70.210.237 23:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Alternate explanation: all the astronomers are Moldovian Orthodox Catholics, and they timed the telescope to launch on Christmas Eve in their slightly out-of-sync calendar in which Christmas replaced days 2 & 3 of their week long Winter Solstice Party.Seebert (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Why does it have the small hexagons oriented "pointy side up"? I know this is generally considered a good thing, as far as rocket launches are concerned, but in this case? 162.158.88.91 20:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

That's the way the hexagonal mirrors are oriented in the JWST 256.256.256.256 (talk) 12:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The cells on the calendar go from 5 to 22, which I assumed was a reference that astronomers have been waiting since 2005 (when the current mission was replanned) until 2022 (the year the telescope will become active). Rather than counting down 25 days until Christmas, astronomers are counting down 18 years (inclusive) until they get their new toys to play with. 172.70.134.23 00:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It's also just the number of mirrors the telescope has, and the day it launches. 172.70.110.227 16:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC) Cwallenpoole (talk)
I was wondering why 1–4 were missing. Cwallenpoole (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

JWST is as fixable as Hubble, if you have Starships. Which NASA is already counting on (and funding) for Artemis.172.70.134.191 21:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Not yet available... Current tech is woefully unable (or unwilling to be put to use) to help with HST, never mind JWST. Retired tech could do Hubble, as proven, but would have been stretched to deal with the Webb. And the Webb isn't even designed to be fixed (though I'm sure they'll still have people working on it if they discover a washer's-worth of mirror misalignment, or whatever...).
That sweet smell of Musk isn't yet right for the job. Even if the business plan says that it will be flying within the next few months, it'd be wishful thinking to rely on it at this point.
(More so than with the sample-driller/collect/return chain of missions currently only a fraction of the way through realisation upon Mars. There's the Return stage to implement almost from scratch (setting up remote launch-site, fully fueled, etc) but the whole rover-with-manipulator thing isn't really an engineering challenge, more a matter of design nuances and the usual amount of (apparently increasing, but surely not infallible) skill and luck in executing the required landings.) 172.70.162.155 00:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Off topic now, but the point about manned missions to Mars is that you _don't_ come back, you colonise. good luck.172.70.162.77 13:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Could it also have to do with the fact that so called "Advent Calendars" tend to have 25 days, even though the Advent Season (Starting 4 Sundays before Christmas) is dependant on what day of the week Dec 25th falls on, and at a minimum 28 days long? Or am I the only one bothered by the fact that the companies making these calendars ignore the meaning of "advent" in the Christmas context, and just arbitrarily start them in December?172.70.34.165 14:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

In Denmark we just call it a Christmas Calender (Julekalender) and has no reference to Advent (or the Christ for that matter, they never managed to make us real Christians ;-p ) Also we celebrate on th Eve before the 24th so Santa ha to come while we are still up, as we open the presents on the 24th and thus our x-mas calenders end on the 24th. --Kynde (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
In Finland it's complicated. My Lego calendar has 24 windows, daughters L.O.L. toy calendar has 25 windows (haven't seen this kind before) and church sells ones that start on 28.11. since that's the first advent this year.

162.158.238.239 04:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC) It's because hexagons are the bestagons. 172.69.71.98 17:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Hexagons are the Bestagons! love it ;-) --Kynde (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

In retrospect, Cueball wasn't wrong - it should have been all the way to December 25. 172.70.85.79 16:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

This is actually awesome. I wonder if anyone actually made this? I certainly hope so! 162.158.63.30 10:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)