Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NASA’s Webb takes star-filled portrait of Pillars of Creation

nasa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 196 posts

Re: NASA’s Webb takes star-filled portrait of Pillars of Creation

#31

Post by abcc8 »

nuccy wrote: post #28
technonerd wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Handy Dandy Slider action between the two! https://esawebb.org/images/comparisons/weic2216/

Technically the comparison is not totally fair, that Hubble image was taken in visible light, while Webb's in infrared. Dust blocks visible light stronger, so background stars are effectively hidden from Hubble, but not from Webb. Here [1] you can see same field in visible and close infrared taken by Hubble. Webb of course shines in all the fine details and faint stars number. [1] https://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archi…

I think the comparison is (rightly) meant to highlight the different imaging capabilities of the two telescopes.

Re: NASA’s Webb takes star-filled portrait of Pillars of Creation

#34

Post by xeromal »

abcc8 wrote: post #31
nuccy wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically the comparison is not totally fair, that Hubble image was taken in visible light, while Webb's in infrared. Dust blocks visible light stronger, so background stars are effectively hidden from Hubble, but not from Webb. Here [1] you can see same field in visible and close infrared taken by Hubble. Webb of course shines in all the fine details and faint stars number. [1] https://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archi…

I think the comparison is (rightly) meant to highlight the different imaging capabilities of the two telescopes.

But if the hubble can take an infrared picture, that would be a better comparison point, no?

Re: NASA’s Webb takes star-filled portrait of Pillars of Creation

#35

Post by [deleted] »

abcc8 wrote: post #31
nuccy wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically the comparison is not totally fair, that Hubble image was taken in visible light, while Webb's in infrared. Dust blocks visible light stronger, so background stars are effectively hidden from Hubble, but not from Webb. Here [1] you can see same field in visible and close infrared taken by Hubble. Webb of course shines in all the fine details and faint stars number. [1] https://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archi…

I think the comparison is (rightly) meant to highlight the different imaging capabilities of the two telescopes.

[deleted]

Re: NASA’s Webb takes star-filled portrait of Pillars of Creation

#36

Post by xeromal »

ars wrote: post #19

When I go outside I can barely see any stars, unlike my ancestors who saw a sky utterly filled with stars. Then I go on my computer and I can see more stars, with more details, than my ancestors even imagined. I can't decide if it's a worthwhile tradeoff.

Take a trip out to the mojave and you can see stars like your ancestors. It's awe-inspiring and otherwordly.

Re: NASA’s Webb takes star-filled portrait of Pillars of Creation

#37

Post by melling »

system2 wrote: post #18

I wish our planet was closer to it so we could send some probes into it. Knowing it wouldn't look like this up close, I still like to imagine.

Nothing outside our solar system is close enough to send probes to explore.

Perhaps we could blanket our system with robotic explorers for now. In the big scheme of things, it would be inexpensive.

Re: NASA’s Webb takes star-filled portrait of Pillars of Creation

#38

Post by [deleted] »

abcc8 wrote: post #31
nuccy wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically the comparison is not totally fair, that Hubble image was taken in visible light, while Webb's in infrared. Dust blocks visible light stronger, so background stars are effectively hidden from Hubble, but not from Webb. Here [1] you can see same field in visible and close infrared taken by Hubble. Webb of course shines in all the fine details and faint stars number. [1] https://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archi…

I think the comparison is (rightly) meant to highlight the different imaging capabilities of the two telescopes.

[deleted]

Re: NASA’s Webb takes star-filled portrait of Pillars of Creation

#39

Post by nuccy »

xeromal wrote: post #34
abcc8 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the comparison is (rightly) meant to highlight the different imaging capabilities of the two telescopes.

But if the hubble can take an infrared picture, that would be a better comparison point, no?

Webb observes "much further" into the IR [1].

1. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/hu... (this image is from [2])

2. https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/hubble-vs-webb-on-the-s...

Re: NASA’s Webb takes star-filled portrait of Pillars of Creation

#40

Post by dwringer »

nuccy wrote: post #39
xeromal wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if the hubble can take an infrared picture, that would be a better comparison point, no?

Webb observes "much further" into the IR [1]. 1. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/hu... (this image is from [2]) 2. https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/hubble-vs-webb-on-the-s...

JWST is undeniably a superior and remarkable instrument, but there has been a bit of a trend I have noticed on social media - and this may just be my perception rather than reality - of comparing it with suboptimal alternatives rather than the best image we had prior to the JWST, often making the new images look dramatically better when in fact the improvements to the best images we already had are more subtle (perhaps because they are particularly subtle on low res article thumbnails and mobile devices?)
Post reply on HN