First, the oversubscription was stated as 1:4 in the article, not 1.4 as in Bob’s commentary. That would imply I think a 4X oversubscription which is decent, but still trivial for such an incredibly unique resource. I’m sure the expectation was they’d be wading in proposals like Hubble which for much of its life ran at like a 100X kind of number.

That said, Webb will study a new part of the spectrum with unrivaled sensitivity, and I’m quite sure (presuming it works) that the proposed studies will yield incredibly useful new insight as I’m certain that among those in hand are some that are very well considered.

Second, with regard to bleeding edge I think the term is quite appropriate. The materials science and mechanical design and assembly tech in this instrument are simply mind boggling. The mirror segments for instance are ground to tolerances typical of semiconductor manufacturing, not mechanical components that are physically machined. As a manufacturing engineer who works in the semiconductor business color me impressed. And the fact that this thing will launch folded up through a bumpy 3+G 10 minute ride to orbit, and then play transformer to become an operating telescope with all of the components precisely assembled, really IS bleeding edge.

None if this is to say this has been a wise investment, as $10B is a lot even in these demented days of lunatic spending. But for sure Webb has developed some incredible technology.

John, I guess I put it into a space context in order to call it “bleeding edge”. For example, quantum computers exist that far exceed the sophistication of Webb, but they can function only within the confines of the most precisely controlled conditions achievable on Earth. At a Lagrange point they would be impossible to operate. You are correct that the technology of Webb is decades old, but this is a common phenomenon in space science – by the time a technology can be made robust enough to move from the lab into space via a wild rocket ride, it will have to have matured greatly. But in my mind it can still be bleeding edge “out there”.

Fragile and sensitive I can see. How can a decade(s?) old design be screaming bleeding edge when it should be wearing antique plates on launch?

Something of an understatement if NASA is involved, perhaps not if someone can make money doing it.

One of these years, we are going to have to commercialize space telescopes, as companies are less tolerant of waste than Congress is. There once was a time when ground telescopes were often funded by private citizens. Now that so much science is being funded by government, we are getting much less science for our dollar.

NASA is a fantastic resource, but Congress and various administrations have managed this resource very badly.

I believe that’s likely the driving factor for the low subscription rate: my thought when I read the headline. I expect the rate will increase when (if) the astronomical community gains confidence in the instrument.

Webb was originally budgeted for $500 million? In some cultures, heads would literally roll.