Comments
ergo-ogre t1_iz2vn2o wrote
Is that a threat?
Properjob70 t1_iz3xwte wrote
In terms of the JWST instruments? Not actually that long, maybe 15 years? JWST was already on the "drawing board" when Hubble was launched. The decades between JWST & Hubble were mostly working out the proving of the engineering origami i.e. folding it up into a rocket fairing, surviving the launch vibration of the solid rocket boosters, then unfurling successfully after parting company from the launch vehicle. The mirror on JWST gives a huge advantage in speed of observation, so tens of days for Hubble to collect light is now half a day & the things it can resolve are a fair bit better (witness the observations of planets in the solar system for example, or the Ultra Deep Field).
But mostly it operates in a different part of the spectrum, which is a game changer when comparing what JWST can reveal when looking at the same area of the sky as Hubble did.
[deleted] t1_iz45d6n wrote
[deleted]
the_fungible_man t1_iz35d2q wrote
Stupid headline. It's a different instrument observing at different wavelengths. Hubble can see plenty that Webb is blind to.
MindfulLovingSoul t1_iz6a3x3 wrote
Thanks for the correct information, is there a way to report this post and have it corrected for misinformation?
TheRealOsciban t1_iz3cb3i wrote
Such as?
the_fungible_man t1_iz3ec1s wrote
Anything that primarily radiates in the UV spectrum.
Hubble can image from far UV through near IR. Webb can make observations in orange light through mid-IR. Hubble is blind to light longer than 2500 nm. Webb is blind to light shorter than 600 nm. The instruments are not competitors. Their observations complement one another.
[deleted] t1_iz3x67p wrote
[deleted]
r_a_d_ t1_iz48fl1 wrote
I mean, that's why it can see something that Hubble can't? It's not wrong.
McKavian t1_iz325am wrote
Why is anyone surprised that a more advanced telescope is showing more detailed images?
In 20/30 years, there will be another telescope that will make JWT look like the Hubble.
I am not downplaying the JWT in the slightest, I am sure it will do great things.
deadindead t1_iz5iutp wrote
Is anyone saying they’re surprised? I think we’re just amazed by the level of detail they achieved with JWST. It just so happens that it’s a lot more detail than the ~30 year old Hubble
McKavian t1_iz5nobg wrote
It's in the title. "...finding things that Hubble didn't." That seems dismissive of Hubble's accomplishments.
deadindead t1_iz5odo5 wrote
I mean factually speaking, hubble didn’t see those things. Should they sugarcoat it to spare Hubbles feelings? I’m confused what you’re upset about 😂
CosmicRuin t1_iz3aiko wrote
Oh yay, another misleading and factually incorrect headline/article.
JWST literally sees wavelengths of light that Hubble is blind to and vice versa. Yes, JWST has higher resolution, but visible light =/= infrared light.
[deleted] t1_iz2xc8r wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iz379et wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_iz4fv5x wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iz4fx8e wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iz4py5v wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iz51rji wrote
[removed]
krichard-21 t1_iz4vvrj wrote
Anything longer than just a year or two would make a big difference.
Tech is evolving so very quickly.
DrSendy t1_iz3tcrl wrote
All that money to see green powerpoint arrows.
Sheesh!
DrMaybeDead t1_iz33ocv wrote
Not finding anything different, just better detail
citznfish t1_iz2pkua wrote
Honestly I would be shocked if this wasn't true. How many decades of advancement was there between Hubble and JWT? It better show us more, lol.