Real Engineering made a video that covered this and more, which is well worth a watch. [1]
[0] https://webb.nasa.gov/content/about/innovations/cryocooler.h...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aICaAEXDJQQ (The Insane Engineering of James Webb Telescope)
Furthermore, even the ideas of “let’s use X to measure Y” are VERY rarely completely new and unheard of ideas from a single individual. Far more common that those ideas come from long term collaboration/discussions between multiple field experts.
I’ve definitely been a part of teams where we came up with ideas as a team. Individuals contributed, but the actual innovation came from the collective bouncing back-and-forth of ideas.
We could get pedantic and say “it was still individuals coming up with the ideas” but that’s needlessly splitting hairs and in my experience it’s the team environment/cohesion that facilitates people coming up with said ideas.
Ideas on large projects are almost always collaborative. There's never just one spark of insight - you've talked about the problem for a long time, and the whole team slowly chipped away at "but we can't do that because X, Y, Z".
The idea of a single genius motivating it belies pretty much every large project in existence. (Based on personal experience, the threshold where it's not just a single person having the crucial breakthroughs seems to be at projects requiring teams of ~20+ persons)
You solve problems via "Yes, and", not via "behold the genius".
You might be right in the strictest sense that an idea comes from one person, but it's a largely worthless observation, because the idea gets you absolutely nothing without the work.
Like what?
However. The most important part of innovation on a large project. Getting the team motivated by the vision and having each individual feel free to try to innovate. Otherwise individual problems being solved mean jack all and no single individual is going to build a very complicated project. There are some people who try but they are quickly outrun by dedicated teams. At a minimum it’s to have team members help you stay focused and motivated when you have moments of disbelief.
I mean I'm not saying there weren't any with these things, but they had a lot more leeway than in your average 9-5.
[0]https://www.esmats.eu/amspapers/pastpapers/pdfs/2006/warden....
But let's assume you are right: Then how does the blue gear at top of the lead screw simultaneously turn the shaft and move upwards too?
The sensor and stabilizer on the right side are flexible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_Corporation
That move was made on account of the Indian Gas Boom, which ran from the 1880s through the early 20th century, when it was discovered that there were large reserves of readily-accessible natural gas to be found in Indiana in field generally centered around Muncie.
As with other natural resource extraction booms before and since, proponents argued that the resources were inexhaustible, that prospectors had freedom to use or waste the resource in any way they saw fit --- large natural torches called flambeaux were a frequent sight. Over 90% of the gas was ultimately wasted, vented to the atmosphere.
The boom died out in the first decade of the 20th century.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/aligning-the-prima...
> To measure the shape of the Webb telescope’s primary mirror, engineers use a test device called an interferometer, which shines a laser down onto the mirror.
The next phase you’re referring to also uses a laser, but this time it’s shone off the mirrors into the actual scientific observation sensors, hence they describe it as being used as a source of artificial starlight.
On the ground, you can easily place a laser in an optically identical position as a star (near infinity). In space, I don't think this would be possible, since it would require that the laser, and the optics that would be required, would all be within a fraction of a wavelength of the true optical path. In the end, you would still need to align to a star anyways.
Interferometry works just fine with starlight.
A number of Apple devices employ this technique, like the new iMacs. I know the 2019 (and presumably, the 2021) 16" MBPs do: https://thenextweb.com/news/the-new-imacs-have-force-canceli...
It's popular in higher-end subwoofers. While not the cheapest solution, a whole host of design issues is solved by simply adding a second amplifier and a second driver firing in the other direction. https://us.kef.com/kf92-subwoofer.html
If I'm not mistaken a fair number of portable Bluetooth speakers use something similar. If you're hearing a surprising amount of rattle-free bass come from a device that seems too small to pull it off, there's a decent chance they're using dual opposed drivers.
p.s. I'm so tired of random websites blocking Russian IPs because reasons
"A high-fidelity six-speaker sound system features two tweeters for a clearer soundstage and four force-cancelling woofers, resulting in 80 percent more bass"
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/10/apple-unveils-game-ch...
I'm not sure what this "80% more bass" claim is in comparison to. But the 2019 models are definitely impressive. I'm looking forward to hearing the 2021 at some point.
Anyway yeah, I was already impressed with these little portable speakers.
The idea of the "lone inventor" is a lovely one.. but I submit that they have not been the majority of force behind much of the invention our world now enjoys. Humanity itself is an iterative process.
[1] https://eyeofmidas.com/scifi/Turtledove_RoadNotTaken.pdf
The atom bomb, nuclear power, iPhones , the list is endless indeed.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/c/ChristianReady [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv7QiNjx_MY