Hacker News Reader

Comment by asmithmd1 | Hacker News Reader

I have been following this project for years and it has had one embarrassing mis-step after another. Here is the last independent review board assessment from 2018 where they found over 300 single points of failure that would doom the telescope:

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/webb_ir...

To name a couple other problem spots: They have trouble getting the shield to deploy on earth: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/analysis-finds-james...

The IR detectors were replaced in 2015 because they were deteriorating in storge. Now the new detectors are 6 years old: https://optics.org/news/6/2/35

Even the 26Ghz downlink radio that can only be received the the 3 huge Deep Space Network dishes on earth is an experiment.

I really REALLY want the Webb to work, but I would take 10:1 action against.

View on HN

I will make my offer concrete.

You will pay me $250 if NIRCam returns one scientifically useful observation (i.e. photograph). I will pay you $25 if it does not. If the only observations are of debatable scientific value (e.g. somewhat blurry), then the wager is off.

There are three analogous wagers for NIRSpec, for MIRI, and for NIRISS (for a total of $1000/$100).

The deadline is when all four wagers are resolved in my favor, or when it is obvious that they will be resolved in your favor (i.e. loss of vehicle), or December 31st, 2023, whichever comes first.

In the event of a dispute, we will attempt to find a JWST team member, instrument team member, or active professional astronomer to resolve the dispute via a public social media post. In the event that this does not resolve the dispute, that wager is off.

My real name is Nils Enevoldsen. You can find a $10,000 wager I have accepted with Robin Hanson at https://twitter.com/robinhanson/status/1390439816148525058.

Do you accept?

Yes I accept, but how about a definition of delivering a picture better than what is currently available?

I really want the Webb to work and would like this bet to somehow hedge my happiness. I would be happy to pay $1000 if it somehow contributed to future missions like this one being successful. Is there somewhere that money would do some good? Likewise $100 is not going to move the needle off the peg of how disappointed I will be.

What do you think about the money going to: https://www.planetary.org/ In the winners name?

I don't know enough about each of the four instruments to know that they each produce something "better than what is currently available". How about substituting the text "one scientific observation (i.e. photograph) that is either within instrument specifications or is better than what is currently available"?

I am, to be honest, substantially more interested in money going to me than in money going to someone else. However in the interest of compromise I would offer a 50/50 split with the Planetary Society (which is an excellent choice of charity). In other words, if the mission fails entirely, I will pay you $50 and also donate the Planetary Society $50 in your name. If the mission succeeds entirely, you will pay me $500 and also donate the Planetary Society $500 in my name.

Are these terms acceptable? If they are, please also let me know your real identity so that we can both be held accountable.

Every finger and toe on my body will be crossed for a month straight between launch and deployment.

I would probably take this wager, but I'd need a clearer definition of "working". What do you propose?

I have not gotten any offers to take the other side of my 10:1 offer...

I was surprised to find that it's not on any of the obvious prediction markets.

Anyway, I'm a bit of a JWST pessimist too, but I don't find any of your arguments very convincing. It feels like you're cherrypicking bad things about the program without doing a very good job quantifying why they're supposed to matter in the big picture of absolute risk.

The problem comes down to diffuse leadership. The mars lander sky crane was a crazy idea. The head of JPL raised his hand in one of the early design reviews and said so, then drilled down into why it was a reasonable solution and how they would "Test Like You Fly".

The sunshield is a crazy idea and no one challenged it. Even worse, it is impossible to test it on earth. Just about every (partial) test of the shield has revealed problems that have been patched instead of starting over. If they had made the Webb telescope nuclear powered, many problems would go away - including deploying a 5 layer, experimental sun shield.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com