Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

coffeesippingbastard t1_ix9863u wrote

I know statistically it was bad luck but man- for it to happen so soon after launch. Just a statistical middle finger.

265

5yleop1m t1_ix9d6vy wrote

I figure its the universe trying to tell us to stop looking at its nethers.

127

nickeypants t1_ix9hv8q wrote

It's revenge for sniffing the universe's fart.

"A unique atmosphere with oaky notes"

-James Webb, celestial flatulence connoisseur

38

night_dude t1_ixbdw3b wrote

No universe, YOU'RE not wearing pants

Universe: ARGH! MY UNIVERSAL PARTS ARE SHOWING

1

night_dude t1_ixbdt31 wrote

To be fair, I read that the whole launch and deployment went so well that it actually exceeded expectations. So in the scheme of things, pretty good luck on average.

7

South-Ad3793 t1_ixdf9w3 wrote

Before the JWT was lauched i was worried about this happening

1

Clementinesm t1_ix98t8s wrote

This headline had me scared it had been struck again, but I’m glad it was only just about the event that happened when it first opened

140

PrimarySwan t1_ix9jht3 wrote

Oh good. I hate these articles. They could have also wrote JWST performing above expectstions despite early bad luck with micrometeroids but who clicks on that... well I do but I'm a nerd.

62

Clementinesm t1_ix9kph5 wrote

Honestly that would’ve been a much better headline. I wish “science journalists” would be more educated and involved in sciences. It annoys me how much they write for clicks.

17

PrimarySwan t1_ixa6hya wrote

It's all for clicks. Phys.org is a great news site. Obviously geared towards physics news but they have a big astronomy and space exploration section with some great writers that usually have STEM education. And they also cover all the sciences, you have a chemistry section, bio etc... but focus on physics. So a great place to get your JWST and CERNor LIGO news without clickbait. And they do magical stuff like publish corrections for articles if something was wrong.

3

dr4d1s t1_ixclcdh wrote

Oh it's been struck 14 times now. 13 really small ones and that one bigger one. At the time "the big one" struck JWST, it had only been hit 5 times. And that was as of 2 weeks or so ago. It could be more now.

1

Alberiman t1_ix9algb wrote

It was honestly hilariously unlikely, but it makes me happy because it means we'll probably have extra drive to get bigger and better versions of these things out at the lagrange point to make up for the damage

39

BecomingCass t1_ix9bw26 wrote

The hit sucks, but they're also still able to make observations at double their requirements for the mission

20

Latyon t1_ix9ooy6 wrote

Precisely.

Yeah, we lost $10,000, but we still have almost a million dollars.

17

Prehistory_Buff t1_ix9gsfd wrote

It really makes you wonder how many undetectable space rocks are milling about the universe, to scattered even for gaseous appearing formations like planetary rings. On a small scale, they're inconsequential and their effects imperceptible, but on a larger scale, they could be a force of nature. Kind of like large geological phenomena on earth formed by moisture and dust.

29

xabrol t1_ix9k5a3 wrote

An unimaginable number of them, but space is so huge the probability of being hit hy one is near 0, but not 0.

20

BubbhaJebus t1_ixaewbm wrote

Considering phenomena like shooting stars and gegenschein, there are a lot. Especially inside the Solar System (probably a lower concentration in interstellar space).

3

colexian t1_ix9h4fj wrote

>Analysis of the event indicates the impact was a statistical anomaly and the telescope will be less susceptible to space rock damage in the future.

D...Did... the meteor make the telescope stronger?
It got the Zenkai boost!

28

navand t1_ix9vuxf wrote

Sounds like gambler's fallacy TBH.

14

BenP785 t1_ixa6eij wrote

Well if the first meteor made the telescope smaller then technically speaking it is less susceptible to future ones. The next one could theoretically go straight through the hole the first one left.

13

mfb- t1_ixbx51t wrote

Less susceptible than feared after the first strike. After more data analysis, they are now confident this large strike was a big outlier instead of something we should expect every few months.

2

TheDotCaptin t1_ixa6hux wrote

If the rock that hit it was destroyed to the point it can't reencounter Webb, then that is one less bullet in the revolver.

8

colexian t1_ixa71ty wrote

By jove, you're right! We just need to overload the meteor's kill limit and they all shut down. We can defeat them by sending wave after wave of telescopes at them.

6

Goregue t1_ixa9iht wrote

The JWST team will now avoid pointing the telescope towards meteor-heavy fields

2

colexian t1_ixa9v34 wrote

Headline: "Entomologist stung by bee moves research to area with less bugs"

3

Tex-Rob t1_ix99fw2 wrote

I don't believe in jinxing things, but if you were to, this is how you'd do it.

7

Equoniz t1_ixab65e wrote

I wonder how worried they were that there would be another statistically unlikely random hit right after releasing this statement lol

4

Brendo-Dodo9382 t1_ixasgw6 wrote

No matter how big space is a pebble is eventually gonna find something to bump into

2

Dyolf_Knip t1_ixdgbbi wrote

So if mass were less of an issue, what could we do to armor up a telescope like this against these sorts of strikes?

1

James_CV t1_ix9qp3i wrote

We should send junk spacecraft like dart to these experimental orbits as debris collectors that can self burn out when the real satellite showed up

0

SlipCritical9595 t1_ixafziz wrote

For a comedic anecdote, watch “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead” — an absurdist tragicomedy featuring the two minor characters from Hamlet (one played by Tim Roth) made in 1990…. and then watch what happens as Roth keeps flipping a coin…. talk about odds!

0

Athox t1_ixbmbgf wrote

I called it before launch. So many billions and delays, you'd probably have it crushed by a pebble.

−2

NumpyNimpy t1_ixbib7c wrote

Don’t know how I feel about the decision to put this thing on a Lagrange point now..

−4