201–210 of 410 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People are already bitching about how much it cost I like to point out that Microsoft could have paid for seven JWSTs (development costs and all) with what they paid for one Activision.
Now imagine the funding for all the spy satellite programs over the past few decades...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, there's none of that. These pictures aren't being used for any kind of science. They're 100% PR pieces, made to look pretty - which is fine!
Which makes me wonder how all these galaxies and nebulas would look like in real life. Would they look similar to how they colored it? Are those images maybe potraying a completely wrong reality?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's quite exhaustive, but it makes me wonder why isn't anything done to correct for that. Like for example instead of taking one 15h exposure, why not take three 5h exposures and roll the telescope 5 degrees in between, then median filter out the artefacts?
It took like 5 months to cool web to operational temperatures rolling the telescope would create so much heat all new images would be useless until it cools down again.
Though I suppose now that I think of it, it's possible the main mirror assembly actually has no built in roll control but only pitch, since the yaw part could be done by moving the entire telescope while remaining shaded. I've never seen any videos showing the full movement, but the previews for LUVIOR show it having full 3 degree articulation relative to the heatsink segment, so I assumed the Webb also has it given that they're extremely similar designs.
Direct links -- Stephan's Quintet (NIRCam and MIRI Composite Image): https://stsci-opo.org/STScI-01G7DB1FHPMJCCY59CQGZC1YJQ.png Southern Ring Nebula (NIRCam and MIRI Images Side by Side): https://stsci-opo.org/STScI-01G79R28V7S4AXDN8NG5QCPGE3.png “Cosmic Cliffs” in the Carina Nebula (NIRCam Image): https://stsci-opo.org/STScI-01G7ETPF7DVBJAC42JR5N6EQRH.png Webb's First Deep Field (NIRCam Image): https://stsci-opo.org…
My god, look at the background of the first image at full scale.
Other than the big bright ones (which I guess are nearby stars) are all these things different galaxies?
This was an image of a relatively "empty" portion of sky (no stars nearby), so anything you can see has to be pretty bright by itself, which means galaxy, not star.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Existential dread pro-tip: The Wikipedia page on "Ultimate fate of the universe" is a fantastic way to compell the question of why anything ultimately matters. Coming up with personal answers to this is the ultimate character resolve exercise!
I found Kurzgesagt's video on Optimistic Nihilism helpful. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBRqu0YOH14
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Will the JWST be able to make photos of black holes, similar to the ones the EHT made? And if yes, can the JWST be used to study black holes?
Producing an "image" of a black holes requires astronomical, ahem, resolution because they're so far away (thankfully). To achieve this kind of resolution you need an aperture of thousand of kilometers. The EHT images are created using synthetic aperture techniques to create an effective aperture with a diameter of earth's orbit around the sun. But this is only currently possible at radio frequencies due to our abili…
Another question: are they already planning a successor to JWST? Is something better even possible? If it took more than 30 years, we should start sooner than later :)
Way to brighten my day with awe and wonder, way to ruin my day with existential dread about our place in the universe.
Existential dread pro-tip: The Wikipedia page on "Ultimate fate of the universe" is a fantastic way to compell the question of why anything ultimately matters. Coming up with personal answers to this is the ultimate character resolve exercise!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The gravitational lensing matches exactly how it looked in Hubble's deep field overlay, so I would guess no the JWST lens is not causing any "false" gravitational lensing? If that's what you are asking.
Thanks! I worded that poorly ; Wouldn't one be able to adjust the perceived path of the photon after time, to adjust for re-normalizing the path of the photon based on the understanding of the gravitational arc imposed on such -- meaning the astro equivalent of "ZOOM. ENHANCE!" :-)