100X more powerful than the Hubble telescope

[Hardline]

Overview
Webb often gets called the replacement for Hubble, but we prefer to call it a successor. After all, Webb is the scientific successor to Hubble; its science goals were motivated by results from Hubble. Hubble's science pushed us to look to longer wavelengths to "go beyond" what Hubble has already done. In particular, more distant objects are more highly redshifted, and their light is pushed from the UV and optical into the near-infrared. Thus observations of these distant objects (like the first galaxies formed in the Universe, for example) requires an infrared telescope.

This is the other reason that Webb is not a replacement for Hubble; its capabilities are not identical. Webb will primarily look at the Universe in the infrared, while Hubble studies it primarily at optical and ultraviolet wavelengths (though it has some infrared capability). Webb also has a much bigger mirror than Hubble. This larger light collecting area means that Webb can peer farther back into time than Hubble is capable of doing. Hubble is in a very close orbit around the earth, while Webb will be 1.5 million kilometers (km) away at the second Lagrange (L2) point.

https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/comparisonWebbVsHubble.html

https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/

 

[Runwildboys]

Overview
Webb often gets called the replacement for Hubble, but we prefer to call it a successor. After all, Webb is the scientific successor to Hubble; its science goals were motivated by results from Hubble. Hubble's science pushed us to look to longer wavelengths to "go beyond" what Hubble has already done. In particular, more distant objects are more highly redshifted, and their light is pushed from the UV and optical into the near-infrared. Thus observations of these distant objects (like the first galaxies formed in the Universe, for example) requires an infrared telescope.

This is the other reason that Webb is not a replacement for Hubble; its capabilities are not identical. Webb will primarily look at the Universe in the infrared, while Hubble studies it primarily at optical and ultraviolet wavelengths (though it has some infrared capability). Webb also has a much bigger mirror than Hubble. This larger light collecting area means that Webb can peer farther back into time than Hubble is capable of doing. Hubble is in a very close orbit around the earth, while Webb will be 1.5 million kilometers (km) away at the second Lagrange (L2) point.

https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/comparisonWebbVsHubble.html

https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/

I had to Google the timetable for the launch, because I couldn't find anything about it in the links. (Maybe it was just in plain sight and I missed it?) Anyway, according to Google, the launch is slated for this November. Between Webb and Hubble, they should be learning a lot in the near future.

 

[Hardline]

I had to Google the timetable for the launch, because I couldn't find anything about it in the links. (Maybe it was just in plain sight and I missed it?) Anyway, according to Google, the launch is slated for this November. Between Webb and Hubble, they should be learning a lot in the near future.

As mind blowing good as Hubble has been, I cannot wait to see what this new telescope produces. It might just be scary good.

 

[terra]

As mind blowing good as Hubble has been, I cannot wait to see what this new telescope produces. It might just be scary good.

for a while they were talking about setting up a telescope on the moon but it got canceled.

Hubble was originally going to be a lot more but they could not get full budget approval.

Hopefully the mirror on this one will not be warped.

 

[Runwildboys]

for a while they were talking about setting up a telescope on the moon but it got canceled.

Hubble was originally going to be a lot more but they could not get full budget approval.

Hopefully the mirror on this one will not be warped.

Yeah, because they won't be sending anyone up to replace it...or if they do, it's gonna cost a lot more than fixing Hubble.

 

[terra]

Yeah, because they won't be sending anyone up to replace it...or if they do, it's gonna cost a lot more than fixing Hubble.

Practically speaking I do not think they HAVE a way to get to it once its on station.

 

[Runwildboys]

Practically speaking I do not think they HAVE a way to get to it once its on station.

I assume it has guidance thrusters, if they're sending it 1.5 million km out to the L2, so under extreme circumstances maybe they could recall it. That's a lot of time and money to waste, if they have no way to get to it.

 

[dsturgeon]

As mind blowing good as Hubble has been, I cannot wait to see what this new telescope produces. It might just be scary good.

I doubt there will be much difference. If you look at the Herschel infrared telescope picture in the article, it is similar to what you see with the hubble. What is good about it, is the layering of colors they do, the actual pictures of the telescope are not great. I would think there is more stuff further away from the "starting point, but who knows, maybe there are things we have never seen

The looking back in time quote is what I don't get. I get the concept of what they are saying, but it doesn't work out in my mind. That is a very strange way to say the Webb will see galaxies that are further away than the Hubble. Considering that they have never even looked at these galaxies, it is arrogance

 

[Hardline]

I doubt there will be much difference. If you look at the Herschel infrared telescope picture in the article, it is similar to what you see with the hubble. What is good about it, is the layering of colors they do, the actual pictures of the telescope are not great. I would think there is more stuff further away from the "starting point, but who knows, maybe there are things we have never seen

The looking back in time quote is what I don't get. I get the concept of what they are saying, but it doesn't work out in my mind. That is a very strange way to say the Webb will see galaxies that are further away than the Hubble. Considering that they have never even looked at these galaxies, it is arrogance

The new telescope will be vastly superior to Hubble. We literally have thousands of pictures of galaxies Hubble has taken pictures of.

 

[dsturgeon]

The new telescope will be vastly superior to Hubble. We literally have thousands of pictures of galaxies Hubble has taken pictures of.

What do you think will be vastly superior about the pictures we look at?

 

[Hardline]

What do you think will be vastly superior about the pictures we look at?

Clarity and closer looks.

 

[dsturgeon]

Clarity and closer looks.

maybe, but with the way they make them, it doesn't seem like they will be able to have clearer pictures.

 

[dsturgeon]

I don't know much about the big bang theory, but is this just a piece of the pie diagram of it? It should be 360 degrees in concept, and expanding in all directions with a central point right?

Either their are borders that hold everything together like this diagram, or it is 360 degrees, and once you see past the starting point of the big bang, with their terminology you will be looking into the future of the other side

 

[terra]

maybe, but with the way they make them, it doesn't seem like they will be able to have clearer pictures.

Hopefully NASA did not waste so much money on something that is not vastly superior to Hubble....

wait...

They already did it with Orion... It is only an upgraded Apollo.

 

[Runwildboys]

I doubt there will be much difference. If you look at the Herschel infrared telescope picture in the article, it is similar to what you see with the hubble. What is good about it, is the layering of colors they do, the actual pictures of the telescope are not great. I would think there is more stuff further away from the "starting point, but who knows, maybe there are things we have never seen

The looking back in time quote is what I don't get. I get the concept of what they are saying, but it doesn't work out in my mind. That is a very strange way to say the Webb will see galaxies that are further away than the Hubble. Considering that they have never even looked at these galaxies, it is arrogance

It's pretty simple really. The farther away an object is, the longer it takes the light to reach us, therefore what you're seeing happened much earlier in the history of the universe.

 

[Hardline]

I don't know much about the big bang theory, but is this just a piece of the pie diagram of it? It should be 360 degrees in concept, and expanding in all directions with a central point right?

Either their are borders that hold everything together like this diagram, or it is 360 degrees, and once you see past the starting point of the big bang, with their terminology you will be looking into the future of the other side

The Big Bang theory is exactly that .A theory.
The big bang is scientifically impossible. Nothing exploded and became everything.

 

[dsturgeon]

The Big Bang theory is exactly that .A theory.
The big bang is scientifically impossible. Nothing exploded and became everything.

which is why i brought up using the term looking back into time is a weird way of saying looking at something further away. A way to reinforce a theory using words

 

[Runwildboys]

The Big Bang theory is exactly that .A theory.
The big bang is scientifically impossible. Nothing exploded and became everything.

I don't necessarily subscribe in full to the theory, but there's a difference between the definition of "theory" and the definition of "scientific theory", the former being pretty much a guess, and the latter being a working model of a scientific concept. That said, the evidence is strongly in favor of it.

They know the universe is expanding, and that it's speeding up. When they do the math, it works out to everything originating from a singularity smaller than an atom and infinitely hot.

This is considered a fact by the vast majority of astronomers, astrophysicists, and quantum physicists.

I personally don't know why it has to be so small, except that it would require that much energy to cause such an expansion.

 

[dsturgeon]

I don't necessarily subscribe in full to the theory, but there's a difference between the definition of "theory" and the definition of "scientific theory", the former being pretty much a guess, and the latter being a working model of a scientific concept. That said, the evidence is strongly in favor of it.

They know the universe is expanding, and that it's speeding up. When they do the math, it works out to everything originating from a singularity smaller than an atom and infinitely hot.

This is considered a fact by the vast majority of astronomers, astrophysicists, and quantum physicists.

I personally don't know why it has to be so small, except that it would require that much energy to cause such an expansion.

It is fun to think about. Sometimes the stars and moon look so close that it does not seem real. Besides in pictures, I have never seen the milky way. I am hoping to see that soon

 

[Runwildboys]

It is fun to think about. Sometimes the stars and moon look so close that it does not seem real. Besides in pictures, I have never seen the milky way. I am hoping to see that soon

Are you heading South? BTW, technically every star you see with the naked eye is in the Milky Way, but I assume you mean you want to see the center of the galaxy. I'd like to that myself someday.