Thread 16745399

>ruins every image with hexagonal lens flare on every star.
$10 billion well spent.
how the fuck wasn't this picked up during 10 years of testing?

>>16745399 (OP)
It's not meant to take pretty images, the lens flare as you say doesn't impact it's scientific mission

>>16745402
considering my taxes paid for this I demand a refund. its only purpose to the public is pretty desktop images.

>>16745416
that's very nice, you can file the complaint with your local congressman

>>16745399 (OP)
how would you know if they are lens flares and not the actual star tho

>>16745423
because the Sun doesnt have spikes either

>>16745399 (OP)
guys, cool it with the anti hexoganolism for a second

isnt there an method of removing the stars from these images yet. NASA are good with CGI

>>16745399 (OP)
Even Hubble had diffraction spikes. Every telescope with mirrors will have some degree of diffraction due to the arms keeping the secondary mirror in front of the primary, it's an inherent flaw of this type of telescope.

They can be useful though, only point sources cause diffraction so you can easily tell apart distant galaxies from stars by looking for diffraction spikes.

>>16745399 (OP)
>how the fuck wasn't this picked up during 10 years of testing?
When i remember right it was a tradeoff of the tech they use. The image you think you see isn't real anyway. That's another trade off an infrared telescope.

>>16745399 (OP)
>muh lensflare
Hubble reboot, directed by J.J. Abrams.

>>16745399 (OP)
>he hasn't noticed his eyes do it too
Sometimes you have to wonder.

>>16745441
?

>>16746419
>The image you think you see isn't real anyway.
Its literally right there in the OP you dumbass

I'm gonna be rich

>>16745402
>Lens anomalies that scatter waves aren't a big deal on a device created to study waves given off by distant objects.
You retards never fail to amuse me.
>>16745423
Because optical physics is MUCH more developed than Standard Model physics.
SPIE has much more rigorous standards for science than the IAU.

>>16745399 (OP)
I told you over and over. When you clamp the umbilical cord early, vaccinate, and circumcise, as well as fill things with low IQs, this is what you get. It's only going to get worse, and all because you let an ancient cult ritually mutilate your neurodevelopment out in the open. The world is so poisoned at this point basically everyone just wants to die so the torment can stop.

>>16749086
>>Lens anomalies that scatter waves aren't a big deal on a device created to study waves given off by distant objects.
Notice you don't see spikes for those faint distant objects. Having a weird shaped PSF does not magically prevent you from studying faint galaxies. Also, it's not a lens.

>>16745399 (OP)
looks kino to me

>>16749096
if only we worshipped the LORD God of Israel harder...

>>16749695
My bad--it has a parabolic dish that using parabolic lensing.

I never said it "prevented" I said it has an impact. Especially when you're taking aggregate images over time. The whole system is constantly in motion and when you take several days worth of images and try to run them through a program to resolve a single image Occam's Razor applies.

Unlike what most idiots who actually quote Einstein and not Occam believe: Occam actually said mistakes compound. For example the people claiming "we took a picture of a black whole" ignore the very strong possibility that they're actually looking at a lens anomalies from compounded errors from the detector system itself.

>>16750255
>I never said it "prevented" I said it has an impact.
You said "a big deal", which is not true. The effect was also calculated long before JWST launched.
>Especially when you're taking aggregate images over time.
Stacking images isn't a complicated problem, the algorithm uses is from the early days of Hubble. And having multiple days does not mean the roll angle is changes.

>For example the people claiming "we took a picture of a black whole" ignore the very strong possibility that they're actually looking at a lens anomalies from compounded errors from the detector system itself.
Nope. You have no idea how VLBI works. Don't talk shit.

>My bad--it has a parabolic dish that using parabolic lensing.
Nope. The primary mirror is neither parabolic, nor hyperbolic.