101–110 of 254 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Motion of what?
Minor changes to the satellite position? Vibration from some hardware? I dunno but the parent asks a question I ask too. When you do long exposure, any kind of movement, even very small, can degrade your image. How JWST handles movement during long exposure is a good question. Same with hubble.
For the professional (or former professional) astronomers among us, I will make my somewhat amused observation that what people are most paying attention to is not really the distinguishing features of JWST. People seem most impressed by the apparent increase in resolution of the images, which is not from a certain point of view the hardest thing to do . HST might have done that if its instruments had been of differe…
Quoted post unavailable.
Also curious about what the closest stars to our solar system would look like. Of course it also makes me wonder what would we be able to see given a 100x increase in aperture. Like for example if we could send up something extremely large on Starship. Would we be able to image planets in our local group? Exciting!
For the professional (or former professional) astronomers among us, I will make my somewhat amused observation that what people are most paying attention to is not really the distinguishing features of JWST. People seem most impressed by the apparent increase in resolution of the images, which is not from a certain point of view the hardest thing to do . HST might have done that if its instruments had been of differe…
Quoted post unavailable.
Certainly people here and discussing it among those who get to watch these announcements during their day, are a more knowledgeable and appreciative group of the details. They have the time and info to know the "new" aspect.
I was just making the point that in the most headline-grabbing and CNN/newspaper science-writer genre, probably their and their audience just sees the image sharpness as they flip through the news.
Downvote me to hell, but as a person who has zero understanding of what differentiates Hubble from Webb, the pictures alone just aren't doing it for me. I was excited to see something completely new given 30 years and 10 billion dollars and instead I feel like I'm seeing what looks like an enterprise upgrade and feel slightly disappointed. What am I missing?
Getting readings from the atmospheres of exoplanets will give us an idea of what population and percentages could harbor life. We may even get a whiff of some tell tale signs of industry, and that would change life on earth forever.
Downvote me to hell, but as a person who has zero understanding of what differentiates Hubble from Webb, the pictures alone just aren't doing it for me. I was excited to see something completely new given 30 years and 10 billion dollars and instead I feel like I'm seeing what looks like an enterprise upgrade and feel slightly disappointed. What am I missing?
For the professional (or former professional) astronomers among us, I will make my somewhat amused observation that what people are most paying attention to is not really the distinguishing features of JWST. People seem most impressed by the apparent increase in resolution of the images, which is not from a certain point of view the hardest thing to do . HST might have done that if its instruments had been of differe…
For the professional (or former professional) astronomers among us, I will make my somewhat amused observation that what people are most paying attention to is not really the distinguishing features of JWST. People seem most impressed by the apparent increase in resolution of the images, which is not from a certain point of view the hardest thing to do . HST might have done that if its instruments had been of differe…
.. and why is infra-red more useful ? Can we see through dust or something ?