It also may just be technologically obsolete in 20 years.
A telescope that can see back to the beginning of the universe is never obsolete to astronomers. The Hubble is 'obsolete', but there are plenty of astronomers that would step over their own mothers to get time on it.
> but there are plenty of astronomers that would step over their own mothers to get time on it.
May I suggest "there are plenty of astronomers who would cut their left hands to get time on it". Similarly florid, but does not propagate the meme "people will often be evil for the right price" -- that meme is self reinforcing, the more we believe in it, the more true it becomes, and the worst the world becomes as a result
I believe the world becomes even worse when people are unable to speak candidly, frankly, and in their own way. Being able to extract and recognize the meaning behind someone's words, in spite of any perceived flaw in word choice or phrasing, is one of the hallmarks of a mature and intelligent individual.
This belief that controlling how people speak will somehow make the world a better place seems somewhat quixotic.
100% agree. The way we talk, I think, matters. The stories we tell ourselves help shape us. But so does it matter how we try to change it.
Forcing/controlling the way people speak is a remedy worse than the malady 97% of the time, and certainly in the present case.
(Also, it is reasonable that you would interpret my suggestion as an attempt to control, given some elements of the current political climate)
Another example of a poorly told story that worries me: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-...
My point it is, we have so few space telescopes that even having time on an "outdated" one is still pretty valuable.
EDIT: Maybe a better example, it's not much use for a first-world person to use a ten year old smartphone, since current smartphones are much more capable and they're comparatively cheap. Planes, on the other hand, are used for decades, since simply buying a new one is very expensive. This is despite it's tech being far superior.
It's the massive capital expenditure on the telescope and its infrastructure that is the significant limiting factor on the pace of putting newer and better telescopes in place.
Same thing in this case: instead of visiting Webb, they could build a new Webb without all the origami, and assemble it by hand in orbit for a tiny fraction of the cost, and end up with two of them. Then, maybe put different instruments on the second one.
best case you have two working mid-IR telescopes in space instead of one. i don't hear any astronomers complaining about that scenario!