Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Bubbagumpredditor t1_j7kddf9 wrote

We REALLY need to spend more time and money mapping these things before we get dinosaured

238

Sdwingnut t1_j7klksr wrote

Wow!

"...but the JWST's incredible sensitivity made it possible to see this roughly 100-meter object at a distance of more than 100 million kilometers [over 62 million miles."

1,067

slickhedstrong t1_j7l9j57 wrote

i hate these they're using an artist's rendering to represent a speck of light in these stories

239

Cesum-Pec t1_j7l9ztg wrote

Replying to VillhelmSupreme (#1,744,976)

It was all explained in a 70s documentary about the first time we sent astronauts to the far side of the sun. There resides an alt earth where our doppelgangers read English from right to left. Everything is backwards there. So I guess any rogue asteroids over there will be absorbed by alt earth and we'll be safe here. It's sciency stuff. Might be too sophisticated for you to understand.

76

Riegel_Haribo t1_j7lc8h3 wrote

The telescope doesn't find asteroids. People do.

There's observatories that specifically monitor for small bodies. JWST takes science observations that have been designed long before.

12

MrMunchkin t1_j7ld0nr wrote

Replying to Riegel_Haribo (#1,745,211)

It's both. JWST produces imaging data without any intervention by a human. Generally, that data is modeled by a human, but there's also a huge amount of these findings that are discovered by an algorithm, and have little to no human interaction to find.

32

ActualMis t1_j7lf8kl wrote

Maybe now we can finally find Russell's teapot.

111

Cesum-Pec t1_j7lg2wq wrote

Replying to Novabella (#1,745,392)

In the 70s, one of the more popular TV shows was the TV movie of the week. You never knew what you'd get and they weren't big budget special effects masterpieces. It was a pretty bad story in retrospect, but as a little kid, I was fascinated by the thought that there could be stuff on the other side of the sun that we've never seen.

On alt earth, there is someone who looks just like you, lives your identical life, but slightly backwards. When our hero astronaut got stranded on akt earth, his twin from alt-earth was stranded here. The drama was the astronaut coming to the realization that he was not home and that wasn't his wife

37

saluksic t1_j7m1g3p wrote

Replying to Sdwingnut (#1,745,485)

And, like, maybe we *could* see a soccer pitch next to mars if it was glowing incandescently. But this is just a rocky asteroid, not particularly warm, caught on the near-vis IR camera. That's pretty dang cool

13

theangryintern t1_j7m7cr9 wrote

So is it "Washington Monument" sized or "Colosseum in Rome" sized because those are two very different things?

1

danielravennest t1_j7mbh4v wrote

Replying to Crontab (#1,746,251)

We use survey telescopes to look for asteroids. Typically they have been much smaller than the research telescopes. This is about to change with the Rubin Observatory which has an 8 meter mirror, putting into the research size range.

This telescope has a 3200 megapixel camera, and a wide field of view. It will survey the sky frequently, looking for anything that changes (moving asteroids and comets, variable stars, planetary transits, etc.)

3

jackduloz t1_j7mfhz6 wrote

Wouldn’t the small bits that collided with it early on technically be the smallest objects it has “found”?

21

axialintellectual t1_j7mjsi4 wrote

Replying to MrMunchkin (#1,745,260)

JWST doesn't. In this case, it's arguable (they picked it up on calibration data, which are taken regularly) that it sort of did, but given Webb's limited lifetime and extreme pressure on observing time, it's essentially always being directed to look at something, calibrating, or changing its orientation. It's not an automated survey telescope!

−1

vonvoltage t1_j7mr74q wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,748,121)

No problem friend. Was just making a joke with you anyway, so thanks for being a good sport.

Cricket and rugby are also generally played on what's called a pitch. All 3 are huge international sports even if less so in North America. Although rugby is pretty popular here.

2

grimtrigger86 t1_j7msc2r wrote

Replying to vonvoltage (#1,748,028)

... I played soccer for the better part of 16 years and never heard it called a pitch before. It's something I'd expect a European to say, but they called it soccer instead of futbol or football, which is confusing.

That being said, I assumed they meant field.

−6

vonvoltage t1_j7mssyw wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,748,266)

I don't. But I played a little growing up in Canada. The thing is these sports are massive all over the world. Like mammoth massive. Our little North American niche sports are tiny in comparison. Like a soccer pitch next to Mars.

3

Double_Distribution8 t1_j7mt0hs wrote

Replying to Superman246o1 (#1,748,182)

If that teapot is ever found I can't even imagine the consequences for science, logic, religion, and philosophy. That would literally mean that unicorns and samsquanches live in black holes (which is likely why we haven't seen them lately).

8

Tichrom t1_j7mtr73 wrote

Replying to slickhedstrong (#1,745,027)

It serves two purposes. It makes it more accessible. The average person would see the actual image from the telescope (a speck of light) and have no clue what they are looking at. This way, they get an idea of what is being talked about.

It's also sensationalism to try and drive funding up.

10

grimtrigger86 t1_j7muv8h wrote

Replying to legend11 (#1,748,398)

Assuming "over here" is somewhere in Europe. I mean, they called it soccer, which is an American term, but also used pitch... if they'd said football pitch, I'd have known which sport they were referring to. Just a odd choice of words I guess.

−4

JohnyFive128 t1_j7mvqpp wrote

Replying to vonvoltage (#1,748,133)

Is this your criteria to determine intelligence and "having a life"?

"Hey honey, I think little bobby doesn't go outside enough"

"Don't worry babe, he knows what a soccer pitch is, remember?"

"Oh! How dumb of me! Of course!"

−2

NimusNix t1_j7mx97y wrote

By accident? Isn't that just called discovery when your purpose is to observe?

−3

Shervi t1_j7mzi7g wrote

Replying to Bubbagumpredditor (#1,743,145)

Why don‘t you educate yourself before you share your ignorant opinion?

First: 30% of earth is land and only 45% is inhabited. So not even 15% Second: Not every asteroid hits earth Third: We have the moon Fourth: There is something called atmosphere Fifth: How are you so entitled ? Those are the top scientists on earth and see get most of them. You are just scared blindly. You REALLY need it. Then go do it. 6: What would it even change or matter ?

Please read books people. Sorry that I snapped but this shit is making me mad.

−5

WaitForItTheMongols t1_j7n1g5l wrote

Replying to Shervi (#1,748,740)

Sorry friend but you seem to be misinformed. Please reduce your level of vitriol, especially given that your facts aren't quite right.

The extinction caused by an impacting meteorite is not related to directly getting hit. The biggest issue is that it kicks up so much dust that the atmosphere can lose its transparency. When less sunlight reaches the ground, plants can't thrive, and then we have a food crisis. Doesn't matter where it hits, everyone is affected. If it hits ocean, then we have tsunamis that destroy multiple coastal cities all at once.

Of course not every asteroid hits earth, but we don't know which ones are headed our way (or, more accurately, which ones have orbits which, factoring in uncertainty, may result in a conjunction with the orbit of the earth) until we find them and track them.

Having the moon is nice, but the moon isn't a magic vacuum cleaner. Asteroids have every capability of coming down. One killed the dinosaurs, one caused the Tunguska event, and one was in Chelyabinsk just a decade ago. Clearly the moon isn't sufficient to protect us. It orbits around so it only has an effect on one side of earth at a time.

The atmosphere is a joke compared to an extinction-level meteorite. The velocity is high enough to not be sufficiently slowed to a safe level, and the object's mass is sufficient to maintain integrity despite aerothermal ablation.

How would we know if we saw most of the asteroids? We don't know which ones we're missing because... we're missing them. And what makes you think that the top scientists are choosing asteroid-hunting as their science of choice? Why aren't the top scientists biologists, geologists, chemists, or anything else? How many organizations can you name which have a chief purpose of asteroid hunting?

What would it change? If we can detect asteroids early enough, then we can do something about them and prevent them from impacting us. That was the whole point of the DART mission last year. We took an asteroid that wasn't coming toward us, and deflected it into a different path, which was still not coming toward us. But it proved that we have the active, current, present technology to deflect an asteroid, presuming we can send a spacecraft to it soon enough. But we can only do that if we detect the asteroid and have enough time to deflect it onto a new course.

Please, chill a bit. This type of hostility won't win anyone over to your side. Have a nice day.

3

[deleted] t1_j7n4mrc wrote

Replying to Double_Distribution8 (#1,748,316)

Hell, I would say there is a greater than 0 chance that humans have already put a teapot in orbit. That team certainly wouldn't announce what they've done to the press, or their bosses at NASA. After all, there is already a car out there thanks to Musk's whimsy.

4

[deleted] t1_j7n5faq wrote

Replying to Bubbagumpredditor (#1,743,145)

The Chicxulub impactor was about 6 miles across (10k). This rock is nowhere near that size and is located in the asteroid belt rather than the outer reaches of the solar system where, to my understanding, impactors generally originate.

2

Aethelric t1_j7n6i9w wrote

Replying to SgtPepe (#1,749,104)

This is reductive, but think of a telescope like a zooming lens on a typical camera. When you zoom in on an object to get a clear shot, you need to set your focus to do so. Objects that are closer or farther than where you've set your focus will be progressively more blurry and harder to make out.

What's happened here is that JWST was interested in something at a completely different distance, but caught a blurry image of something much closer.

13

slickhedstrong t1_j7nd6od wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,749,188)

we only have like 250 years of coal left. we are hitting critical mass. we're not solving existential problems.

if we're here for 20,000 times long than we've been keeping historical record, that would be a miracle.

1

Decronym t1_j7ocpag wrote

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |C3|Characteristic Energy above that required for escape| |F1|Rocketdyne-developed rocket engine used for Saturn V| | |SpaceX Falcon 1 (obsolete medium-lift vehicle)| |JWST|James Webb infra-red Space Telescope|

^(3 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 10 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8527 for this sub, first seen 8th Feb 2023, 06:10]) ^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])

1

Bubbagumpredditor t1_j7p9pb3 wrote

Replying to Shervi (#1,748,740)

>Why don‘t you educate yourself before you share your ignorant opinion? >

Hahaha. Let's break down your comment.

>First: 30% of earth is land and only 45% is inhabited. So not even 15%

So you think an asteroid impact is only bad if it lands on a city? More importantly you think it would only be bad if it hit land?

>Second: Not every asteroid hits earth

Really? I thought every single one hit us ever time. /S

>Third: We have the moon

Yes. Yes we do. And I have a Prius.

>Fourth: There is something called atmosphere

100 miles of air would stop an asteroid? Whuhu we're all saved! But how do you explain the dinosaurs and that iridium layer? Oh and all those giant craters around?

>Fifth: How are you so entitled ? Those are the top scientists on earth and see get most of them. You are just scared blindly. You REALLY need it. Then go do it.

I am assuming English is not your first language? Either way this is kinda incoherent.

>6: What would it even change or matter ?

See, this is an actual valid point. > >Please read books people.

Yeah. WE'RE the ones who need to educate ourselves, not you. Sure thing sparky.

>Sorry that I snapped but this shit is making me mad.

You're ranting because I think we don't spend enough resources tracking potentially human extinction causing objects? Is that you Dr. Moriarty?

1

JoeFTPgamerIOS t1_j7psctn wrote

Replying to nybble41 (#1,751,463)

That’s really cool thanks for sharing the link. I remember when the JWST was cooling there was a lot of discussion on the first pictures and it was rarely mentioned that it doesn’t take pictures. Everything shared is a rendering.

2

MrMunchkin t1_j7qnst8 wrote

Replying to axialintellectual (#1,747,733)

That's just not true. Because time is limited, they use JWST to point at a sector, and then use it to capture hundreds of composite images. Those images are processed by humans using algorithms, and in a lot of cases machine learning.

I think you're coming from the standpoint of a telescope on Earth, which has an extremely narrow view of space. With JWST, the images it takes are truly, truly massive and produce hundreds of gigabytes of data, which can be used to produce images.

0

axialintellectual t1_j7qpecg wrote

Replying to MrMunchkin (#1,755,537)

That does not - at all - resemble the work my colleagues and I are doing with JWST data. MIRI MRS has a FoV of 6.6'' x 7.7''; that's really quite large but it's not gigantic by any means (the size of the detector is impressive, but that's because this is an IFU). Also, I haven't seen particularly unusual amounts of machine learning in any of the data processing papers so far. Could you clarify what you're talking about here?

0

MrMunchkin t1_j7rb14a wrote

Replying to axialintellectual (#1,755,626)

Yikes, there's too much to unpack here but I think what you're referencing is the images that are created from the archive. Are you familiar with the 3 stages of the pipeline?

Remember too, there are 10 detectors in the JWST, and the limit in the SSR is only 65GB, so much of the processing is done on board to reduce data excess. Tons more info can be found here: https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/jwst-general-support/jwst-data-volume-and-data-excess

More info on the data pipeline can be found here: https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/jwst-science-calibration-pipeline-overview/stages-of-jwst-data-processing#:~:text=The%20processing%20of%20JWST%20data%20goes%20through%203,%28slope%29%20images.%20Stage%202%20calibrates%20the%20slope%20images.

Also keep in mind JWST does thousands of exposures using many of the instruments. That data is accumulated in the SSR and is streamed every 12 hours or so to earth.

0

axialintellectual t1_j7rmtl1 wrote

Replying to MrMunchkin (#1,756,604)

> there's too much to unpack here

Well, no, there really isn't. You say Webb produces data 'without intervention by a human', and 'a huge amount of findings [are] produced by an algorithm'. That's a really weird way of putting it, because the vast majority of Webb time is obtained by individual projects designed to look at specific things, with dedicated analysis plans. Of course there's a nonneglible amount of bycatch, so to speak - but that's not what I read in your comment.

1