whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in
news:7a14a5d6-6d70-4b2a-b4a3-ddbed1a73e39n@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 12:46:19 PM UTC-8, John Larkin
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 12:34:17 -0800 (PST), whit3rd
>> <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >...The goal is to collect more information, and redundant
>> >telescopes are just repeating the same info over and over. New
>> >bits of spectrum, and novel capabilities, don't result from
>> >'many ground-based telescopes'.
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Magellan_Telescope
>>
>> Estimated to cost $1 billion.
>
> Not a budget exactly comparable to the Webb, of course; it will
> also be over a couple of decades of work, but that's the
> CONSTRUCTION cost, doesn't include staffing and ongoing work after
> first light, nor does it include the ongoing support work internal
> to the dozen or so partners in the project planning. It won't do
> much for 10-28.5 um infrared, unlike the Webb.
>
> Visible light spans only 0.4 to 0.7 um, quite a small range by
> comparison.
>

You just went miles over the Larkin idiot's head.

"Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan Frank)" <spamme@not.com> wrote in
news:XnsAE191635CD933idtokenpost@144.76.35.252:

> It really strips my gears when a childish arrogant idiot cannot
> search for answers himself.
>
> PLONK

It really PISSES ME OFF, when a total retard puts science in the back
seat and mouths petty stupid claims of nothing gained.

A hell of a lot would be gained if we shot you and your pathetic
buddy Larkin Putz out of a circus cannon into a lye pit.

Oh and "PLONK" and filters in Usenet is so... 2400 baud modem
mentality dumbshit too, childish fucktard.

So don't bother announcing your retarded filter file edit moments.
We do not give a fat flyoing fuck what a zero science jackass does with
his news client.

You're a goddamned idiot, boy.

Fuck you and the whore you were shat out of, boy.

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:tfijtg5h8okjtggqco63haftkeek3j3vor@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 8 Jan 2022 17:06:36 +0000, Martin Brown
> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 07/01/2022 18:25, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 06:32:40 -0000 (UTC),
>>> DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is commendable work...
>>>>
>>>> Many nations involved.
>>>>
>>>> Many many tons of gear down here and techs and engineers to
>>>> make use
>>>> of it...
>>>>
>>>> <https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html>
>>>
>>> 10x over budget and 20 years late. Imagine how many ground-based
>>> telescopes we could have built for that cost, or how many lives
>>> we could have saved.
>>
>>Not dissimilar to any large scale cutting edge science project
>>then.
>
> It's hard to separate big science from big money.
>
Though you seem to always be trying and acting as if you are
looking out for someone, when you have done nothing to feed 1.5
billion daily starving masses either, fuckhead.

Your grasp of why science even exists is out the window decades
ago. Because you were counting beans instead.

You are no science and I would love to get the Gov boys to buy
elsewehere and then your lame ass would also be no money.

Separate the retard from the money, in your case, putz.

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:deae8f90-6dca-4c21-8eb1-7160780a97bbn@googlegroups.com:

> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 9:47:39 AM UTC-5, Beeper wrote:
>> On 1/7/22 11:12 PM, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan Frank) wrote:
>> > Beeper <bee...@acme.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 1/7/22 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>> >>> On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 06:32:40 -0000 (UTC),
>> >>> DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> This is commendable work...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Many nations involved.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Many many tons of gear down here and techs and engineers to
>> >>>> make use
>
>> >>>> of it...
>> >>>>
>> >>>> <https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html>
>> >>>
>> >>> 10x over budget and 20 years late.
>> >>
>> >> How so? Please provide citation to a credible source
>> >> supporting your
>
>> >> claims that documents the original projected budget and
>> >> expected delivery/launch date.
>> >
>> > Don't be a jerk. You can find out yourself. Google "jwst over
>> > budget an
> d
>> > late"
>> >
>> > There's about 654,000 results. Pick any of the recent
>> > (2021-2022) artic
> les.
>> >
>> > You will find John was accurate and being conservative.
>> >
>> > It really strips my gears when a childish arrogant idiot cannot
>> > search
> for
>> > answers himself.
>> >
>> > PLONK
>> Wow. I know that it is over budget and launched later than
>> anticipated,
>
>> but I don't find support for "10x over budget and 20 years late."
>> Don't be a jerk.
>
> There are lies, damn lies and budget quotes!
>
> From NPR web page, "Originally, the cost of the telescope was
> estimated to be only around $1 billion to $3.5 billion, and
> expected launch dates ranged from 2007 to 2011." So if the end
> cost is $10 billion, I suppose you could say it was 10x over
> budget if you use the minimum starting number.
>
> The difference between government overruns and commercial overruns
> is that commercial overruns have the option of shutting down or
> continuing. Oh, wait, the government does that as well.
>
> "I've got one word for you Benjamin. Nuclear!" Well, that wasn't
> the word, but in this case nuclear plants are exactly the
> commercial parallel to large military and space projects. The US
> had two nuclear plant underway on the eastern seaboard until the
> cost overruns on them caused one to be scrapped, the Virgil C.
> Summer Nuclear Power Station and the other continues construction,
> the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant. The Vogtle plant is years
> behind and many billions of dollars over budget. The problems
> with nuclear power plant construction makes a space telescope look
> like a cake walk.
>
> Both the government and industry will cancel projects when they
> are hopelessly out of control. Both the government and industry
> will continue on projects they should have canceled in the early
> stages in spite of the clear indications the projects are flawed.
>
> The James Webb space telescope is not fundamentally flawed. It
> was a research project as much as development. This device was
> not possible to build at the time they started planning it. They
> planned for technological advancement in the design and
> construction and so had to be more fluid in the process. Yeah, it
> was over budget and schedule, but in the end we got an amazing
> piece of equipment. The only question is, is it what we need?
> That is open to debate, but there was no other way to build it
> other than to start working and only stopping when it was done,
> much as they did with the SR-71 blackbird. No one complained
> about the schedule delays and cost overruns on that because they
> didn't tell anyone publicly they were building it.
>

You forgot the huge acellerator in Texas that we were at 85% on the
build of when we killed it. It would have been the biggest at that
time, but CERN puts everything to shame now.

Where is Johnny Larkin at with his pissing and moaning about CERN
and the LHC cost? Or making his lame standard claim that nothing is
gained?

Whatsa matta, Johnny, did you not get a contract years ago and have
a hatred for NASA now for decades? There has to be a reason, and
none of the shit you've spewed over the years lines up with reality.

I think you went senile two decades ago.

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:12:12 PM UTC-8, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan Frank) wrote:
> Beeper <bee...@acme.com> wrote:
>
> > On 1/7/22 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:

> >> 10x over budget and 20 years late.
> >
> > How so? Please provide citation to a credible source supporting your
> > claims that documents the original projected budget and expected
> > delivery/launch date.

> Don't be a jerk. You can find out yourself. Google "jwst over budget and
> late"

Don't be a jerk. You can find that the total time for the project was circa 20 years,
but very little of that time is 'late' duration. You can also find a projected budget
by each of several successive administrations, over a couple of decades, and
claim the total budget (going forward a few years) to be something that
does not match those estimates.

Or you can google a catchphrase that only pulls up critics, few of whom are
well-informed, but they're all mouthy.

> You will find John was accurate and being conservative.

Nah; you can't find accuracy in such a search, you need to have an
accountant look over 'the books'. And as for being 'conservative'?
In what sense? Trying to evaluate cost-and-benefits is what a conservative assessment
would do; he never considered benefits, and has only a ballpark idea
on costs. Does he think all telescope instruments are alike? It seems so.

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 4:05:18 PM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:12:12 PM UTC-8, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan Frank) wrote:
> > Beeper <bee...@acme.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 1/7/22 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>
> > >> 10x over budget and 20 years late.
> > >
> > > How so? Please provide citation to a credible source supporting your
> > > claims that documents the original projected budget and expected
> > > delivery/launch date.
>
> > Don't be a jerk. You can find out yourself. Google "jwst over budget and
> > late"
> Don't be a jerk. You can find that the total time for the project was circa 20 years,
> but very little of that time is 'late' duration. You can also find a projected budget
> by each of several successive administrations, over a couple of decades, and
> claim the total budget (going forward a few years) to be something that
> does not match those estimates.
>
> Or you can google a catchphrase that only pulls up critics, few of whom are
> well-informed, but they're all mouthy.
> > You will find John was accurate and being conservative.
> Nah; you can't find accuracy in such a search, you need to have an
> accountant look over 'the books'. And as for being 'conservative'?
> In what sense? Trying to evaluate cost-and-benefits is what a conservative assessment
> would do; he never considered benefits, and has only a ballpark idea
> on costs. Does he think all telescope instruments are alike? It seems so.

It's not like they were building a device that had never been built before or was capable of looking backwards in time or anything. Jeez, why didn't they just pick up one at Harbor Freight? I think they are currently giving away Hubble telescopes just for walking in the door.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:12:12 PM UTC-8, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan
> Frank) wrote:
>> Beeper <bee...@acme.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On 1/7/22 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>
>> >> 10x over budget and 20 years late.
>> >
>> > How so? Please provide citation to a credible source supporting your
>> > claims that documents the original projected budget and expected
>> > delivery/launch date.
>
>> Don't be a jerk. You can find out yourself. Google "jwst over budget
>> and late"
>
> Don't be a jerk. You can find that the total time for the project was
> circa 20 years, but very little of that time is 'late' duration. You
> can also find a projected budget by each of several successive
> administrations, over a couple of decades, and claim the total budget
> (going forward a few years) to be something that does not match those
> estimates.
>
> Or you can google a catchphrase that only pulls up critics, few of whom
> are well-informed, but they're all mouthy.
>
>> You will find John was accurate and being conservative.
>
> Nah; you can't find accuracy in such a search, you need to have an
> accountant look over 'the books'. And as for being 'conservative'?
> In what sense? Trying to evaluate cost-and-benefits is what a
> conservative assessment would do; he never considered benefits, and has
> only a ballpark idea on costs. Does he think all telescope instruments
> are alike? It seems so.

Don't get in a jerk fight.

JWST is definitely late and over budget. The claims of utility are dubious.

Who cares if it can look back to the big bang. The CMB already does that.

Who cares if it can look to the edge of the Universe? The expansion of
space is moving objects faster than the speed of light. Nothing can see
beyond that.

No need to have an accountant look at the books. There is more than
sufficient evidence from qualified observers to show the trend. We are not
astronomers. We do not need 6-digit accuracy. Just get the trend and move
on with our lives.

NASA was famous for satellites that explored the planets and some comets.

However, it has lost much of its reputation on Artemis and has become a
laughing stock. It is merely a jobs program for Aerojet Rocketdyne, Boeing,
Jacobs, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman. It is far outclassed by
SpaceX.

We lost a great deal when Arecibo went down. How about funneling a small
amount from Artemis to rebuilding Arecibo?

If JWST ever detects life on other planets, Aricebo will be needed to
communicate with them. If, by chance, they use radio technology.

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:7c2be620-1219-4458-93f3-6d6da87463b6n@googlegroups.com:

> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 4:05:18 PM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:
>> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:12:12 PM UTC-8, Arnie Dwyer (ex
>> Jan Fran
> k) wrote:
>> > Beeper <bee...@acme.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 1/7/22 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>>
>> > >> 10x over budget and 20 years late.
>> > >
>> > > How so? Please provide citation to a credible source
>> > > supporting your
>
>> > > claims that documents the original projected budget and
>> > > expected delivery/launch date.
>>
>> > Don't be a jerk. You can find out yourself. Google "jwst over
>> > budget an
> d
>> > late"
>> Don't be a jerk. You can find that the total time for the project
>> was cir
> ca 20 years,
>> but very little of that time is 'late' duration. You can also
>> find a proj
> ected budget
>> by each of several successive administrations, over a couple of
>> decades,
> and
>> claim the total budget (going forward a few years) to be
>> something that
>
>> does not match those estimates.
>>
>> Or you can google a catchphrase that only pulls up critics, few
>> of whom a
> re
>> well-informed, but they're all mouthy.
>> > You will find John was accurate and being conservative.
>> Nah; you can't find accuracy in such a search, you need to have
>> an accountant look over 'the books'. And as for being
>> 'conservative'? In what sense? Trying to evaluate
>> cost-and-benefits is what a conservativ
> e assessment
>> would do; he never considered benefits, and has only a ballpark
>> idea on costs. Does he think all telescope instruments are alike?
>> It seems so.
>
> It's not like they were building a device that had never been
> built before or was capable of looking backwards in time or
> anything. Jeez, why didn't they just pick up one at Harbor
> Freight? I think they are currently giving away Hubble
> telescopes just for walking in the door.
>

Yeah, but they are really just Harbor Freight in-house knock-offs.

On 2022-01-08 22:44, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan Frank) wrote:
> whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:12:12 PM UTC-8, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan
>> Frank) wrote:
>>> Beeper <bee...@acme.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/7/22 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>>
>>>>> 10x over budget and 20 years late.
>>>>
>>>> How so? Please provide citation to a credible source supporting your
>>>> claims that documents the original projected budget and expected
>>>> delivery/launch date.
>>
>>> Don't be a jerk. You can find out yourself. Google "jwst over budget
>>> and late"
>>
>> Don't be a jerk. You can find that the total time for the project was
>> circa 20 years, but very little of that time is 'late' duration. You
>> can also find a projected budget by each of several successive
>> administrations, over a couple of decades, and claim the total budget
>> (going forward a few years) to be something that does not match those
>> estimates.
>>
>> Or you can google a catchphrase that only pulls up critics, few of whom
>> are well-informed, but they're all mouthy.
>>
>>> You will find John was accurate and being conservative.
>>
>> Nah; you can't find accuracy in such a search, you need to have an
>> accountant look over 'the books'. And as for being 'conservative'?
>> In what sense? Trying to evaluate cost-and-benefits is what a
>> conservative assessment would do; he never considered benefits, and has
>> only a ballpark idea on costs. Does he think all telescope instruments
>> are alike? It seems so.
>
> Don't get in a jerk fight.
>
> JWST is definitely late and over budget. The claims of utility are dubious.
>
> Who cares if it can look back to the big bang. The CMB already does that.
>
> Who cares if it can look to the edge of the Universe? The expansion of
> space is moving objects faster than the speed of light. Nothing can see
> beyond that.
>

One might hope that the JWST brings some order to cosmology,
because in its current form, it's little better than Genesis.

Jeroen Belleman

"Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan Frank)" <spamme@not.com> wrote in
news:XnsAE19AA5CFF8Cidtokenpost@144.76.35.252:

> whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:12:12 PM UTC-8, Arnie Dwyer (ex
>> Jan Frank) wrote:
>>> Beeper <bee...@acme.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On 1/7/22 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>>
>>> >> 10x over budget and 20 years late.
>>> >
>>> > How so? Please provide citation to a credible source
>>> > supporting your claims that documents the original projected
>>> > budget and expected delivery/launch date.
>>
>>> Don't be a jerk. You can find out yourself. Google "jwst over
>>> budget and late"
>>
>> Don't be a jerk. You can find that the total time for the
>> project was circa 20 years, but very little of that time is
>> 'late' duration. You can also find a projected budget by each
>> of several successive administrations, over a couple of decades,
>> and claim the total budget (going forward a few years) to be
>> something that does not match those estimates.
>>
>> Or you can google a catchphrase that only pulls up critics, few
>> of whom are well-informed, but they're all mouthy.
>>
>>> You will find John was accurate and being conservative.
>>
>> Nah; you can't find accuracy in such a search, you need to have
>> an accountant look over 'the books'. And as for being
>> 'conservative'? In what sense? Trying to evaluate
>> cost-and-benefits is what a conservative assessment would do; he
>> never considered benefits, and has only a ballpark idea on costs.
>> Does he think all telescope instruments are alike? It seems
>> so.
>
> Don't get in a jerk fight.

Stop trying to mentally masturbate our brains then, putz.

You know... stop trying to jerk us around, especially when you are
already a jerk, jerk-off.

> JWST is definitely late and over budget.

So what federally funded project in history hasn't been, dipshit?
What the fuck... are you fucking 7 years old, child? Your mental
age sure as fuck is.

> The claims of utility are
> dubious.

Your claims of being in possession of more than two functioning
neurons is even more dubious. As are your claims of being educated.
I mean it is hard to store much information with only two firing
neurons.
> Who cares if it can look back to the big bang. The CMB already
> does that.

Ummm... No... Not even close. OUR interpretations of the data we
have gathered through time allowed OUR intuitive minds to DEDUCE
several elements of the universe. THIS eye in the sky will allow us
to VERIFY many of the things you decidedly thought were already set
in stone.

Is your mother Sarah Palin? She can see Russia from her back
porch. You have to be fucking dirt dumb to fail to see the benefit
this will provide. But then, shit is dirt dumb, so there you have
it. Momma forgot to flush you, that bitch. Now you are a sore on
humanity. A festering fecal pustule.
> Who cares if it can look to the edge of the Universe?

Who cares if you are an order of magnitude too fucking stupid to
understand the answer to that question?

> The
> expansion of space is moving objects faster than the speed of
> light. Nothing can see beyond that.

You are an idiot. You are 100% opaque to anything anywhere. Why
the fuck are you even in this thread?
> No need to have an accountant look at the books.

Yep... the budgets are right there to see. So an intelligent
person looks, then tallies, then totals, then reports.

A retarded fuck like you spouts stupid shit from your upper anus,
which you were overbudgeted with, and what comes out of them, which
you have gone WAY overbudget on, and the *stench*. Damn boy... YOU
STINK.

> There is more
> than sufficient evidence from qualified observers to show the
> trend. We are not astronomers. We do not need 6-digit accuracy.
> Just get the trend and move on with our lives.

You're a retard. You couldn't understand 3 digit "accuracy" your
entire pathetic life, so you certainly will not get what intelligent
men are doing now. You were obsolete 3 decades ago, putz. Your
education, if you were even paying attention, was obsolete 4 decades
ago. And THEN you failed to even try to keep up.

> NASA was famous for satellites that explored the planets and some
> comets.

NASA IS FAMOUS for a myriad of things.
You are an idiot, and I dare say that you likely lost another half
decade of keeping up due to having your head stuffed up the ass of
another idiot.
Then there is that onset of senility thing your comments elude to you
suffering from. Nice try though, evidence boy. I see evidence of
lifelong stupidity followed by a recent trend toward senility.

> However, it has lost much of its reputation on Artemis and has
> become a laughing stock.

What the fuck are you mumbling about now, dumbass?

> It is merely a jobs program for Aerojet
> Rocketdyne, Boeing, Jacobs, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman.
> It is far outclassed by SpaceX.

You really are extremely stupid. You are far outclassed by the
bacteria in the shit that you are made of.
> We lost a great deal when Arecibo went down. How about funneling a
> small amount from Artemis to rebuilding Arecibo?

Because if you had read up, you would know that there is no
rebuilding of Arecibo going to take place, ever.

We 'gained a great deal' in that same vein with the new HUGE dish
that was constructed in China. But a dope like you will piss and
moan now about having to wait in line for dish time. You know...
like we used to make them do. And I'll bet the fact that it is in
Chine just has your TrumpTarded ass fuming.
> If JWST ever detects life on other planets, Aricebo will be needed
> to communicate with them.

Now you are being truly and completely stupid. We are not going to
talk to anyone we may find. They are not going to talk to us. You
have no grasp of time, and decidedly after your remarks, no grasp of
anything close to the bigger picture.

> If, by chance, they use radio
> technology.

Nope. No thing like that will happen. The time thing again,
dipshit. However IF we were going to do something like that with
some planet we spotted with the right atmospheric constituents, we
would use a high powered, highly directional "antenna" to do it, not
a recieving dish on a hillside. The choice would even most likely
result in choosing laser light, not radio waves.

But again... not something we are interested in. We will not be
visiting either as we have yet to make a single planetary jump in our
own solar system.

One step at a time, jerkass. Next time you want to jerk off, don't
do it in public.

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 6:03:13 PM UTC-5, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 2022-01-08 22:44, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan Frank) wrote:
> > whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:12:12 PM UTC-8, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan
> >> Frank) wrote:
> >>> Beeper <bee...@acme.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 1/7/22 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> 10x over budget and 20 years late.
> >>>>
> >>>> How so? Please provide citation to a credible source supporting your
> >>>> claims that documents the original projected budget and expected
> >>>> delivery/launch date.
> >>
> >>> Don't be a jerk. You can find out yourself. Google "jwst over budget
> >>> and late"
> >>
> >> Don't be a jerk. You can find that the total time for the project was
> >> circa 20 years, but very little of that time is 'late' duration. You
> >> can also find a projected budget by each of several successive
> >> administrations, over a couple of decades, and claim the total budget
> >> (going forward a few years) to be something that does not match those
> >> estimates.
> >>
> >> Or you can google a catchphrase that only pulls up critics, few of whom
> >> are well-informed, but they're all mouthy.
> >>
> >>> You will find John was accurate and being conservative.
> >>
> >> Nah; you can't find accuracy in such a search, you need to have an
> >> accountant look over 'the books'. And as for being 'conservative'?
> >> In what sense? Trying to evaluate cost-and-benefits is what a
> >> conservative assessment would do; he never considered benefits, and has
> >> only a ballpark idea on costs. Does he think all telescope instruments
> >> are alike? It seems so.
> >
> > Don't get in a jerk fight.
> >
> > JWST is definitely late and over budget. The claims of utility are dubious.
> >
> > Who cares if it can look back to the big bang. The CMB already does that.
> >
> > Who cares if it can look to the edge of the Universe? The expansion of
> > space is moving objects faster than the speed of light. Nothing can see
> > beyond that.
> >
> One might hope that the JWST brings some order to cosmology,
> because in its current form, it's little better than Genesis.

We are talking about the answer to the great question if life, the universe and everything. Do you really expect science to be able to answer that any better than the great works of fiction?

I bet if you look hard enough, you will fine the fundamental message of the Bible is 42.

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1f3d1d5d-95fa-4855-bf7c-1e335fd9c92an@googlegroups.com:

> On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 6:03:13 PM UTC-5, Jeroen Belleman
> wrote:
>> On 2022-01-08 22:44, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan Frank) wrote:
>> > whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:12:12 PM UTC-8, Arnie Dwyer
>> >> (ex Jan Frank) wrote:
>> >>> Beeper <bee...@acme.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On 1/7/22 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>>> 10x over budget and 20 years late.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> How so? Please provide citation to a credible source
>> >>>> supporting your claims that documents the original projected
>> >>>> budget and expected delivery/launch date.
>> >>
>> >>> Don't be a jerk. You can find out yourself. Google "jwst over
>> >>> budget and late"
>> >>
>> >> Don't be a jerk. You can find that the total time for the
>> >> project was circa 20 years, but very little of that time is
>> >> 'late' duration. You can also find a projected budget by each
>> >> of several successive administrations, over a couple of
>> >> decades, and claim the total budget (going forward a few
>> >> years) to be something that does not match those estimates.
>> >>
>> >> Or you can google a catchphrase that only pulls up critics,
>> >> few of whom are well-informed, but they're all mouthy.
>> >>
>> >>> You will find John was accurate and being conservative.
>> >>
>> >> Nah; you can't find accuracy in such a search, you need to
>> >> have an accountant look over 'the books'. And as for being
>> >> 'conservative'? In what sense? Trying to evaluate
>> >> cost-and-benefits is what a conservative assessment would do;
>> >> he never considered benefits, and has only a ballpark idea on
>> >> costs. Does he think all telescope instruments are alike? It
>> >> seems so.
>> >
>> > Don't get in a jerk fight.
>> >
>> > JWST is definitely late and over budget. The claims of utility
>> > are dubious.
>> >
>> > Who cares if it can look back to the big bang. The CMB already
>> > does that.
>> >
>> > Who cares if it can look to the edge of the Universe? The
>> > expansion of space is moving objects faster than the speed of
>> > light. Nothing can see beyond that.
>> >
>> One might hope that the JWST brings some order to cosmology,
>> because in its current form, it's little better than Genesis.
>
> We are talking about the answer to the great question if life, the
> universe and everything. Do you really expect science to be able
> to answer that any better than the great works of fiction?
>
> I bet if you look hard enough, you will fine the fundamental
> message of the Bible is 42.
>

"if life"? "You will fine"?

OK... Fine...

The answer to everything, not just the Bible... is 42.

Or is it 3 4 7 ?

<https://youtu.be/oEN0o9ZGmOM>

On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 8:44:56 AM UTC+11, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan Frank) wrote:
> whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:12:12 PM UTC-8, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan
> > Frank) wrote:
> >> Beeper <bee...@acme.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 1/7/22 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:
> >
> >> >> 10x over budget and 20 years late.
> >> >
> >> > How so? Please provide citation to a credible source supporting your
> >> > claims that documents the original projected budget and expected
> >> > delivery/launch date.
> >
> >> Don't be a jerk. You can find out yourself. Google "jwst over budget
> >> and late"
> >
> > Don't be a jerk. You can find that the total time for the project was
> > circa 20 years, but very little of that time is 'late' duration. You
> > can also find a projected budget by each of several successive
> > administrations, over a couple of decades, and claim the total budget
> > (going forward a few years) to be something that does not match those
> > estimates.
> >
> > Or you can google a catchphrase that only pulls up critics, few of whom
> > are well-informed, but they're all mouthy.
> >
> >> You will find John was accurate and being conservative.
> >
> > Nah; you can't find accuracy in such a search, you need to have an
> > accountant look over 'the books'. And as for being 'conservative'?
> > In what sense? Trying to evaluate cost-and-benefits is what a
> > conservative assessment would do; he never considered benefits, and has
> > only a ballpark idea on costs. Does he think all telescope instruments
> > are alike? It seems so.
> Don't get in a jerk fight.
>
> JWST is definitely late and over budget. The claims of utility are dubious.

Since it hasn't looked at anything yet, no such claim could be anything but dubious at the moment.
> Who cares if it can look back to the big bang. The CMB already does that.

Not in the same way. Te Cosmic Microwave Bankground consists of rather lower frequency radiation that the James Webb telescope is designed to look at, and consequently offers rather less spatial resolution.

> Who cares if it can look to the edge of the Universe? The expansion of
> space is moving objects faster than the speed of light. Nothing can see
> beyond that.

Getting close to it effectively means that we are looking at the very early universe. The big bang theory embodies the proposition that there wasn't anything to see before that.

> No need to have an accountant look at the books. There is more than
> sufficient evidence from qualified observers to show the trend. We are not
> astronomers. We do not need 6-digit accuracy. Just get the trend and move
> on with our lives.

You clearly don't know anything about astronomy. Getting on with your life involves staying just as ignorant as you are now, which isn't ambitious. Wanting the rest of the world to share your complacent ignorance, so that taxpayers money only gets spent on projects that you find interesting is an understandable desirem but a little parochial.
> NASA was famous for satellites that explored the planets and some comets.
>
> However, it has lost much of its reputation on Artemis and has become a
> laughing stock. It is merely a jobs program for Aerojet Rocketdyne, Boeing,
> Jacobs, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman. It is far outclassed by
> SpaceX.

Artemis was endorsed by Donald Trump. Dumbing it down until he could like it can't have helped.
> We lost a great deal when Arecibo went down. How about funneling a small
> amount from Artemis to rebuilding Arecibo?
>
> If JWST ever detects life on other planets, Aricebo will be needed to
> communicate with them. If, by chance, they use radio technology.

They probably won't, Higher frequencies allow more precisely aimed transmitters and receivers.

A big and rather imprecisely shaped antenna isn't going to be all that attractive.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
> It's hard to separate big science from big money.

Or big movies. It would make more sense to complain about how much goes
to Spiderman etc.

Of course there is the issue of public funding.

Eisenhower said, "Beware the military-industrial complex" and "Beware
public funding of the academy."

Nobody remembers the latter, so we have corrupted science first in
climate and now in medicine.

At least astronomy won't be corrupted until either we find ET's or when
we start mining planets.

But this would be no different with telescopes on the ground.

--
Defund the Thought Police
Andiamo Brandon!

On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 4:08:42 PM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >
> > It's hard to separate big science from big money.
> Or big movies. It would make more sense to complain about how much goes
> to Spiderman etc.
>
> Of course there is the issue of public funding.
>
> Eisenhower said, "Beware the military-industrial complex" and "Beware
> public funding of the academy."
>
> Nobody remembers the latter, so we have corrupted science first in
> climate and now in medicine.

Or so every last QAnon fan thinks. There's nothing remotely corrupt about climate science, or the fossil carbon extraction industry would have bought them up years ago, rather than wasting their money on the kind of half-witted propaganda that's barely up to persuading dim-wits like John Larkin and Tom Del Rosso.

Corruption in medicine isn't new, but we are now doing rather better at rooting it out.
> At least astronomy won't be corrupted until either we find ET's or when we start mining planets.
>
> But this would be no different with telescopes on the ground.

Particularly for a clown like Tom Del Rosso.

> Defund the Thought Police

Not a problem for Tom Del Rosso - there's no thinking going on in that head, merely the dim-witted repetition of right-wing propaganda of the dumber kind.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 1:44:56 PM UTC-8, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan Frank) wrote:
> whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > ...you can google a catchphrase that only pulls up critics, few of whom
> > are well-informed, but they're all mouthy.

> JWST is definitely late and over budget. The claims of utility are dubious.
>
> Who cares if it can look back to the big bang. The CMB already does that.
>
> Who cares if it can look to the edge of the Universe?

Other than inhabitants of the Universe, I can't imagine.

The expansion of
> space is moving objects faster than the speed of light. Nothing can see
> beyond that.

So, of no interest to us, inhabitants of the Universe, I guess.

> No need to have an accountant look at the books.

Those are infamous words! You should be writing scripts for
the Donald; submit a resume NOW, before he's convicted.

On 2022-01-09 06:08, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>
>> It's hard to separate big science from big money.
>
> Or big movies. It would make more sense to complain about how much goes
> to Spiderman etc.
>
> Of course there is the issue of public funding.
>
> Eisenhower said, "Beware the military-industrial complex" and "Beware
> public funding of the academy."
>
> Nobody remembers the latter, so we have corrupted science first in
> climate and now in medicine.
>
> At least astronomy won't be corrupted until either we find ET's or when
> we start mining planets.
>
> [...]

Didn't I read somewhere that SpaceX is gearing up to take a close
look at asteroid 16 Psyche? Now what could possibly be their motive?

Jeroen Belleman

On 2022-01-09, Tom Del Rosso <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:
> jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>
>> It's hard to separate big science from big money.
>
> Or big movies. It would make more sense to complain about how much goes
> to Spiderman etc.
>
> Of course there is the issue of public funding.
>
> Eisenhower said, "Beware the military-industrial complex" and "Beware
> public funding of the academy."
>
> Nobody remembers the latter, so we have corrupted science first in
> climate and now in medicine.

Without public funding, Tetra-ethyl lead, and asbestos would still be safe
and smoking, homeopathy, and radium water would be good for you. Life
would be so much better - oh wait that's not how science works.

Ignorance is (also) no protection under the laws of nature.

--
Jasen.

On Sunday, 9 January 2022 at 10:01:04 UTC, Jasen Betts wrote:

> > Nobody remembers the latter, so we have corrupted science first in
> > climate and now in medicine.
> Without public funding, Tetra-ethyl lead, and asbestos would still be safe
> and smoking, homeopathy, and radium water would be good for you. Life
> would be so much better - oh wait that's not how science works.

The USA still allows the widespread use of leaded aviation gasoline which
contains tetra-ethyl lead.

John

On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 5:01:04 AM UTC-5, Jasen Betts wrote:
> On 2022-01-09, Tom Del Rosso <fizzbin...@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:
> > jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> >>
> >> It's hard to separate big science from big money.
> >
> > Or big movies. It would make more sense to complain about how much goes
> > to Spiderman etc.
> >
> > Of course there is the issue of public funding.
> >
> > Eisenhower said, "Beware the military-industrial complex" and "Beware
> > public funding of the academy."
> >
> > Nobody remembers the latter, so we have corrupted science first in
> > climate and now in medicine.
> Without public funding, Tetra-ethyl lead, and asbestos would still be safe
> and smoking, homeopathy, and radium water would be good for you. Life
> would be so much better - oh wait that's not how science works.
>
> Ignorance is (also) no protection under the laws of nature.

Heh, heh,... heh, heh, heh, heh, he said homeopathy!

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:80ab267a-a314-47b5-99de-070930c63ef6n@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 5:01:04 AM UTC-5, Jasen Betts wrote:
>> On 2022-01-09, Tom Del Rosso
>> <fizzbin...@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:
>> > jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It's hard to separate big science from big money.
>> >
>> > Or big movies. It would make more sense to complain about how
>> > much goes to Spiderman etc.
>> >
>> > Of course there is the issue of public funding.
>> >
>> > Eisenhower said, "Beware the military-industrial complex" and
>> > "Beware public funding of the academy."
>> >
>> > Nobody remembers the latter, so we have corrupted science first
>> > in climate and now in medicine.
>> Without public funding, Tetra-ethyl lead, and asbestos would
>> still be safe and smoking, homeopathy, and radium water would be
>> good for you. Life would be so much better - oh wait that's not
>> how science works.
>>
>> Ignorance is (also) no protection under the laws of nature.
>
> Heh, heh,... heh, heh, heh, heh, he said homeopathy!
>

Fire that mother up! That's what Willie and Tommy would say.

On 1/8/2022 3:44 PM, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan Frank) wrote:
> whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 11:12:12 PM UTC-8, Arnie Dwyer (ex Jan
>> Frank) wrote:
>>> Beeper <bee...@acme.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/7/22 10:25 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>>
>>>>> 10x over budget and 20 years late.
>>>>
>>>> How so? Please provide citation to a credible source supporting your
>>>> claims that documents the original projected budget and expected
>>>> delivery/launch date.
>>
>>> Don't be a jerk. You can find out yourself. Google "jwst over budget
>>> and late"
>>
>> Don't be a jerk. You can find that the total time for the project was
>> circa 20 years, but very little of that time is 'late' duration. You
>> can also find a projected budget by each of several successive
>> administrations, over a couple of decades, and claim the total budget
>> (going forward a few years) to be something that does not match those
>> estimates.
>>
>> Or you can google a catchphrase that only pulls up critics, few of whom
>> are well-informed, but they're all mouthy.
>>
>>> You will find John was accurate and being conservative.
>>
>> Nah; you can't find accuracy in such a search, you need to have an
>> accountant look over 'the books'. And as for being 'conservative'?
>> In what sense? Trying to evaluate cost-and-benefits is what a
>> conservative assessment would do; he never considered benefits, and has
>> only a ballpark idea on costs. Does he think all telescope instruments
>> are alike? It seems so.
>
> Don't get in a jerk fight.
>
> JWST is definitely late and over budget. The claims of utility are dubious.
>
> Who cares if it can look back to the big bang. The CMB already does that.
>
> Who cares if it can look to the edge of the Universe? The expansion of
> space is moving objects faster than the speed of light. Nothing can see
> beyond that.
>
> No need to have an accountant look at the books. There is more than
> sufficient evidence from qualified observers to show the trend. We are not
> astronomers. We do not need 6-digit accuracy. Just get the trend and move
> on with our lives.
>
> NASA was famous for satellites that explored the planets and some comets.
>
> However, it has lost much of its reputation on Artemis and has become a
> laughing stock. It is merely a jobs program for Aerojet Rocketdyne, Boeing,
> Jacobs, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman. It is far outclassed by
> SpaceX.
>
> We lost a great deal when Arecibo went down. How about funneling a small
> amount from Artemis to rebuilding Arecibo?
>
> If JWST ever detects life on other planets, Aricebo will be needed to
> communicate with them. If, by chance, they use radio technology.
>

They use frequency modulated neutrinos. Good luck.

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:32:46 AM UTC-5, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
> This is commendable work...
>
> Many nations involved.
>
> Many many tons of gear down here and techs and engineers to make use
> of it...
>
> <https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html>

It's just government welfare to keep the crappy space agencies alive. Only a simple minded fool would take anything they say at face value. They're just a bunch of career liars and cheats.

Jasen Betts wrote:
> On 2022-01-09, Tom Del Rosso
> <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:
>> jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>
>>> It's hard to separate big science from big money.
>>
>> Or big movies. It would make more sense to complain about how much
>> goes to Spiderman etc.
>>
>> Of course there is the issue of public funding.
>>
>> Eisenhower said, "Beware the military-industrial complex" and "Beware
>> public funding of the academy."
>>
>> Nobody remembers the latter, so we have corrupted science first in
>> climate and now in medicine.
>
> Without public funding, Tetra-ethyl lead, and asbestos would still be
> safe
> and smoking, homeopathy, and radium water would be good for you. Life
> would be so much better - oh wait that's not how science works.
>
> Ignorance is (also) no protection under the laws of nature.

Ike said "beware", not "banish."

--
Defund the Thought Police
Andiamo Brandon!

On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 3:41:41 PM UTC-5, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:32:46 AM UTC-5, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
> > This is commendable work...
> >
> > Many nations involved.
> >
> > Many many tons of gear down here and techs and engineers to make use
> > of it...
> >
> > <https://webb.nasa.gov/content/webbLaunch/whereIsWebb.html>
> It's just government welfare to keep the crappy space agencies alive. Only a simple minded fool would take anything they say at face value. They're just a bunch of career liars and cheats.

I know. I don't give them any more credence than some guy posting in newsgroups.

Well, maybe a bit more.

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209