1.5 TB of James Webb Space Telescope Data Just Hit the Internet

A NASA-backed project using observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has released more than 1.5 TB of data for open science, offering the largest view deep into the universe available to date. From a report: The Cosmic Evolution Survey (COSMOS), a joint project from the University of California, Santa Barbara and Rochester Institute of Technology, has launched a searchable dataset for budding astrophysics enthusiasts worldwide.

As well as a catalog of galaxies, the dataset includes an interactive viewer that users can search for images of specific objects or click them to view their properties, covering approximately 0.54 square degrees of sky with the Near Infrared Camera (NIRCam) and a 0.2 square degree area with the Mid Infrared Instrument (MIRI). Although the raw data was already publicly available to the science community, the aim of the COSMOS-Web project was to make it more usable for other scientists.

Get it now

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump will have it down before tomorrow.

Re:

[FritzTheCat1030]

Outer space violates anti-DEI policies by being almost entirely black.

Re:

[Sique]

And they might have the disk space available.

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

Me: “I swear honey, it’s not 1.5TB of porn. It’s JWST data.”

wow have not see the slashdot effect in decade

[ghinckley68]

Whooo we still got good job nerds.

More data for AI to scrape

[xack]

Putting data on the internet is just too much trouble these days.

Still waiting for a telescope for Starship

[greytree]

James Webb cost $10 billion, due mainly to gross mismanagement but partly due to technical difficulty.
It weighed 12 tons and had to fit in Ariane's 5m wide fairing.

Starship can launch 100+ tons and has a payload bay with a width of 9m.
So we can soon cheaply launch a much larger, but simpler and therefore cheaper, telescope.

Are there any plans for a such a telescope ?

Re:

[Sique]

No. Starship is a LEO and SSO transport ship. At maximum, it will transport 21 tonnes to a geostationary orbit. It is a two stage system. It can't reach L2. It can't even reach the Moon in the current design, because it is not able to accelerate to the necessary 11.2 km per second. For that, you would need a third stage, and on average, the third stage has to be about 10 times the size of the second stage.

Re:

[Sique]

PS: For larger payloads, Starship plans refueling in a Low Earth Orbit (LEO). This means at least ten single launches of rockets to get all the fuel up there. It will show if that is indeed cheaper than Ariane and similar launch systems.

Re:

[greytree]

Yes, I should have written "100+ tons to LEO".
That would allow Hubble2

As you point out, Webb2 would require orbital refueling.
Maybe all those refueling flights could also bring up more large mirror segments !

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

That would allow Hubble2

Using Starship to deliver Hubble 2 if it existed is like using an 18 wheeled semi-tractor trailer to deliver a single bale of hay. It could be done that way does not mean it is a wise use of resources.

As you point out, Webb2 would require orbital refueling.

1) No, he never pointed out Webb2 would require refueling because Webb 2 would not be in orbit. L2 is not in orbit around the Earth. 2) LWST does not allow refueling and I cannot imagine Webb 2 would either. Refueling at L2 is technically possible but highly impractical.

Re:

[greytree]

User name checks out.

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

You have yet to address the actual point: 1) Launching JWST2 or Hubble2 is a bad match of Starship capabilities . 2) There is no refueling of something at L2 as that is not practical. L2 is not LEO (Low Earth Orbit). L2 is Lagrange Point 2 which is nowhere considered "orbit" of Earth

Re:

[UnknowingFool]

Starship can launch 100+ tons and has a payload bay with a width of 9m. So we can soon cheaply launch a much larger, but simpler and therefore cheaper, telescope.

1) The word “can” has not been demonstrated yet. Didn’t the last Starship explode on a test flight on May 27, 2025? It certainly would not be cheaper if telescope explodes before reaching orbit.

2) Since Starship has not yet successfully delivered a payload, what is the actual cost per launch? The estimates are $100M but that is factoring it is reusable and not debris after every launch.

3) Why would any telescope use Starship when it can use other rockets, even SpaceX Falcon ones? Telescope

Re:

[Tablizer]

Considering how complicated it was to fold and unfold the sprawling structure, cost overruns are par for the course. Doing something new and unique is very hard to budget. Perhaps they should have pulled a Scotty and multiplied the estimate by four.

Either way, it seems to be worth it, because it's seeing things that no other scope currently can. And making revolutionary discoveries, such as early galaxies seem more mature and plentiful than expected. The birth textbook will have to be rewritten.

Some even su

Big deal

[PPH]

The Internet could handle The Fappening. It can easily handle a James Web data dump.

Is 1.5TB really that much?

[devslash0]

Given how vast the space is, is 1.5TB really that much? Surely it's just a very small slice of what they've collected.

Re:

[Tablizer]

640 TB should be enough for any universe.
- Zill Gatesoid

Re:

[thegarbz]

You'd be surprised how much raw data goes into processing a usable piece of data in this field. You'd also be amazed at how much downtime is required between jobs. The satellite isn't measuring continuously. It does its thing, then moves to the next job, needs to be setup, verified, and then takes many hours at best to produce a result, then rinse / repeat.
Remember it's most detailed camera is 40mpxl and on a really bright object takes a couple of hours to generate data that ultimately fits in under 100MB.