Live long and prosper!

I'm only 70 years old but I share your sentiments.

Big respect to you for having an open mind to space and technology, not many older people do. Live long and prosper.

The great deception is the Un-inverse from the Catholic Jesuit priestclass, there are no gas balls burning forever in a space vacuum and these images are a lie!

Sorry you lived long enough to see these disgusting furries

Yes... but Anton Petrov did a fantastic job too ! Scott and Anton are my two go to astronomy popular educators. Scott and Tim Dodd are my two for rocketry.

@LSA & @Paul Walsh I certainly agree. Both first early presentations were outstanding. But there is so much to be seen (like a whole universe), so much detail to comprehend. The future looks bright for astronomy - and for our own "lay" enjoyment!! And there will be many other future, more powerful and innovative ways to see and sense that universe - e.g., maybe gravitational wave telescopes (like LISA Pathfinder, etc.)

Isn’t he lovely isn’t he fine , can describe in a way that we understand so thanks Scott for all your wonderful lines , and now I will shut up and listen as I’m just an ignorant kiwi fan

Yes! I was thinking the exact same thing. This is the exact sort of thing I was expecting to see when I tuned into the big reveal.

I concur :-)

“You're a smart bunch, I don't have to explain what infrared is to you as if you're stupid. Now this picture…” ― Scott Manley, probably

Anton Petrov and Fraser Caine are two others.

@@zefallafez mmm I’d argue that those two also dumb things down a bit. Great commentators though don’t get me wrong

@@steviesteveo1 Problem is unlike sports, the target audience you mention is small. Good, bad, or indifferent, news is there to capture an audience.

Unlike Hubble these images are captured via infrared sensor so all colours are "fake".

its just CGI.... artist impression rubbish

@@esecallum no it isn't lol. You think someone went through star by star and colored in every Hubble pic? The false color depends on the wavelength of light that's detected. It's just not visible light so they have to assign the wavelengths we can't see to portions of the spectrum that we can see

@@esecallum tell us you do not understand infrared images are not visible in our visual spectrum without telling us you know nothing about infrared images.

@@esecallum Oh look, a triggered space denier getting his world view crushed.

Yes, indeed. Oh, and don't forget "Dr. Becky". She was super excited and also gave some very interesting insights.

Next I want him to explain why she left me

@@askhowiknow5527 “Hello it’s Scott Manley here. This guy’s got a small pp and that’s just fascinating.”

Far Far Better then the politicians can do.

I like that Scott doesn't dumb down his explanations to the level of condescension. The layperson can get the gist of what he's saying, but he sprinkles enough technical terminology throughout his videos that those looking to gain a fuller understanding of what he's saying will be rewarded for doing additional research.

I think they built in some buffer for things going wrong, then put enourmous effort into minimizing the chance of something going wrong, and everything worked perfectly. For example, the calculated extra fuel to spin it, in case one of the 100 something pins got stuck. Then they fiddled with the pins till they only got stuck one in 10's of thousands of times. Now they can use that fuel for staying in L2 longer.

ESA is not a launch provider. 😏

@@nabormendonca5742 ESA does provide the Ariane 5. I read somewhere that the JWST didn't have to burn as much fuel as was planned in order to position itself because the ESA was so spot on with the launch.

@@julians7268 Technically Arianespace is the provider, but with the way ESA is setup, I would pretty much lump them in there.

@@fiveoneecho Everywhere I'd seen it spoken of they refer to it as though ESA is the provider. I appreciate the clarification.

فَلَا أُقْسِمُ بِمَوَاقِعِ النُّجُومِ، وَإِنَّهُ لَقَسَمٌ لَوْ تَعْلَمُونَ عَظِيمٌ، إِنَّهُ لَقُرْآَنٌ كَرِيمٌ، فِي كِتَابٍ مَكْنُونٍ

@Karl with a K it has taken damage by several micro impacters. i read at least one impacts is not fixable by recalibration of the mirrors. the overall effect is very small and calling it "catastrophic" is exaggerated.

Yessss and those proplyds of the Orion nebula too ! And Eta Carinae ! Imagine what that would look like from the mid infrared instrument of JWST !

I would really like to see the JWST take it's own images ! No more re touched Hubble photo's it is not good science to photo shop an image and lie to people , I want to see unique and new images , with much less of the gravitational lensing , that by it's self shows me there is a huge problem with JWST .

@@timc333 Gravitational lensing isn't an effect added by JWST or by processing the image. It's huge galaxy cluster *bending space time*, providing a magnification of galaxies behind the cluster! It's beyond my comprehension too, but it's not a problem with JWST - rather it shows its mindboggling capabilites.

@@luppenkogropbas5163 Yea I don't know , I am considering that just maybe I am not able to fully understand the images yet , maybe it is as you say just a bit beyond the minds ability to fully comprehend . I still find my self rather bothered by the image . I will say it is my understanding that the infrared equipment onboard is the most powerful and highest tech of it's kind ever designed by man , so maybe the visual images will be of little use other than to paint a nice picture , maybe the real power of JWST is the infrared capabilities , and there the powerful computers are still gonna have to decipher a visual image for us to understand , again time will tell , I hope for big things but I must also say I am still very biased to Hubble , still am strongly in love with Hubble (HST)and still believe in it .

@@timc333 It is not beyond the ability of the mind to understand spacetime. It requires only a little training. The JWST is basically a photocamera: It records the image of what is there. It captures photons. Unlike most cameras it records in the infrared and more than just three wavelengths. But it is still just an image. What that image shows is the interesting part. You cannot see in the infrared, so you have to select the frequencies you are interested in and assign them colours that you can see, and you get a visible image showing dust, stars, galaxies, nebulae, whatever there is where it is at. Alternatively you pick a point and look at the entire spectrum on a curve. That tells you what is going on in that particular spot. Also interesting is if there are any changes over time. Now, where you see something is not necessarily where it really is. Take a mirror for example: It shows things where they are not. Gravitational lensing is similar. Light coming from a certain direction could have been bent, like in a lens. That's the "lensing" part of the name. One thing that bends light is gravity. That is the "gravitational" part of the name. There are several ways to explain how gravity bends light, and I don't want to go into that. Suffice to say that time progresses at different rates at different points, which is unintuitive, but the acceleration this causes is gravity, and the speed of light is a universal constant, so the only acceleration it can experience is a change in direction. This is probably more confusing than it should be. The upshot is that light going around huge masses, like black holes or galaxy clusters, originating behind them, gives you several distorted images from different perspectives of the same (originating) object. You get to see things you otherwise wouldn't in spots where they actually aren't. All because a massive clump of matter somewhere in the deep sky that is most likely not directly visible itself.

15:32 The comparison of the portion of the Carina nebula was with an image from the La Silla European Southern Observatory, not Hubble.

@@dl5244 I know, I was just pointing out what i found on my own, sry for the confusion.

I've always thought Hubble images have a sort of renaissance look to them.

Also considering that JWST took its deep field in 12.5 hours, not several weeks like with the Hubble UDF, many more interesting results will be found going forward

Can't wait for the JWST real deep field with 2 weeks exposure

Hubble ultra-deep fake

@@breakalegfpv9532 Good job exposing the global conspiracy! Amazing that you can get the truth out, what with a worldwide cabal controlling absolutely everything we see! Weird that they're not blocking your Earth-shattering revelation.

@@breakalegfpv9532

Best part of the video for me too

timestamp?

@@bobguy6542 14:20

its so fun believing!!!! I love CGI and photoshop!!!! 🐑🐏🐏

What's cool is seeing space telescope images of objects you have seen with your own telescope (granted in much lower resolution).

Absolutely not.

@@xMorogothx 😐

@@xMorogothx black hole gang disagrees

@@maximum-trollage 🤡

We do appreciate them, and have for a while now

science is photoshop? hmmm weird....

Love that too! There is incredible beauty in the images.

Yeah, me too, and it was better than anyone else I have seen so far. Seeing both the Hubble and the JW pictures side by side provided much more context. And showing where the Carina nebula is located and old pictures of it before JW, made my jaw drop. Thank you, Scott. I have a much better appreciation for the JW telescope.

its so fun believing!!!! I love CGI and photoshop!!!! 🐑🐏🐏

Don’t put too much faith in science so-called or humans in general

I've always wantes to see space pictures in visible light. I suppose it's more difficult to capture and probably holds less scientific value

@@TitaniusAnglesmith You're right that it holds less scientific value, but some of the colors do exist in space and is just as beautiful. Like our own Milky Way. If you went to a completely dark area with no moon, no clouds, no fog and no light pollution while the Milky Way was rotating right above the point you were standing on, you can actually see some color to the Milky Way, and it's HUGE. Truly a beautiful sight, but it's rare to be able to see it since all of the light pollution in today's world.

@@ET-yc4wb Oh I know, I live in a isolated area. But up close would be cool, even if alot of the image is dark and "uncolourful" compared to the IR images.

That's because most people associate "infrared light" only with "TV remote".

man you got taken for a ride. its all photoshop and CGI sorry to burst your bubble

@@Justin-yp1dz Well, as a CG artist, I'm very impressed by the result ;)

@@fiveoneecho you should be with the budget that they get.

👏👏👏! I absolutely agree!

Scott Manley and Anton Petrov are my two go-to astronomy popular educators by far. Just like Scott Manley and Tim Dodd are the two best when it comes to rocketry.

@@mrsam9206Lol, are you being sarcastic? Why would a satellite image need an editing room? I’ve never heard of a ‘star constellation expert’ before. I don’t know anything about whatever procedure a new sat image progresses along to go from its capture to public release, which is little enough to make me have to question the validity of your comment. Don’t lie to me now, I really really would LOVE to get a new pic of the Pillars as the one Hubble took is still breathtaking. I can’t imagine what kind of details we might be able to see with the JWST.

*indoctrination

@@aemrt5745 just align n find the passionate billionaires who truly cares!?!!

u sound just like a wizened soul i come to know n love!?!!

Web was paid for by many more than the us....

He says the name several times - Space Engine.

@@Safetytrousers The problem is that "Space Engine" sounds like if it was the technical "generic designator" for the "kind" of program/game he is using (rather than a proper name). -> It would be different if it was called "Stellae Simulacra" (or something like that).

Where _not_ to do the reveal? The White House. With all due respect to politicians, what do any of them know about astronomy or cosmology?

and so efy BRIGHT ! geezzz ... JWST will be able to see even Pluto with those ultrasensible sensors

@Cancer McAids Webb will be able to map asteroid targets for future mining.

@Cancer McAids No. But by the time it runs out, some other way may have been found.

they would have to be in our orbital plane so they could see the Earth transit the sun, and they would have be looking at the right time of the year, and then they'd detect the spectra of CFCs and other manmade stuff in the atmosphere and they'd be all Life!, WTF???

Yes but they would have to be within about 100 to 150 lightyears away. Basically we can detect the make up of other planets atmospheres and see if there is unnatural chemicals that can't form without large scale industry.

This video from Cool Worlds channel called "Are Alien Lurkers Watching Us?" will answer your question in detail. They discuss how large your light collecting mirrors would have to be to see a slug or a city or a planet etc. ukposts.info/have/v-deo/qKeFjZyAcICGzWw.html Here's a similar video, also from Cool Worlds. ukposts.info/have/v-deo/f2diraecrWlhkoU.html

@@kadendusk That's right. Any further than ~250 lightyears away and they'd be looking at the Earth as it was before the Industrial Revolution. Of course, given a long, long time our 21st century atmosphere will be visible from galaxies far, far away using a JWST-like telescope.

@@kadendusk Edit: I was thinking of 'us' as 'life on a planet, not civilization, sorry for confusion. I think the 100 Ly thing will be changing with JWST. If you can spectra 4 forms of water that far away then surely methane and company aren't out of reach.

Technically, depending on the redshift some of the images are optical in the reference frame of the source.

JWST roll limits are +- 5 degrees

LMAO awesome first reply!

Kinda a waste of rocket fuel just to get a pretty picture.

@@scottmanley Then do it six times. 😂 Just kidding.

@@Theoryofcatsndogs Isn't that the whole point of JWT? To get pretty pictures? If galaxies within the image are blocked by the spikes, then it would make sense to do what I said (if it would have been possible). :-)

As I understand they don't Look only on Hydrogen but also to Others Elements (atleast Helium) and so you know die differents between Them.

@@mariankerler2134 yeah, it’s about the ratios, and the resonances (eg there’s always more than one spike for an element, and the specific resonant period to the next spike differs between elements). But some are certainly very close together like tungsten and gold. But still easily discernible if you’re expecting it.

The pattern of lines is very specific to the element, because it depends on all the electrons in the atom and the distribution of electric charge they are moving in. And if the atom is part of a molecule, that will affect things as well, especially when you get way into the infrared.

I'm not an expert, but I'd say it's because there are known patterns. Even one element has multiple lines of emission in a particular configuration, and elements will have fixed positions relative to each other. The degree of red shift of an object is only a single parameter. I've not done it, but I shouldn't think it's very difficult. I suspect those familiar with it could look at a spectrogram and immediately spot known emission lines without looking at the x-axis.

And with just 3x cost overruns and 10 years behind schedule.

@@juhasznagyjozsef At a previous employer, they had a motivational diagram in their workshop office: "you can choose one of 3 options: 1) Do it well and do it inexpensive --> No problem, but it will cost time 2) Do it well and do it fast --> No problem, but it will cost you 2) Do it inexpensive and fast --> No problem, but it won't be working very well. Just the difference of knowing 8 weeks in advance you need something, or just figuring it out last week can add so much extra costs and disruption on a program.

@@Tuning3434 Sounds like that's just a long-winded way of saying "Good, Fast, Cheap: pick two". 😁