3 ms·
> That is ~6.25 times the light collection area of Hubble(25.4m² vs 4m²) This would have to be scaled by the wavelength being observed, for a resolution compar
by nomel 4y ago
> That is ~6.25 times the light collection area of Hubble(25.4m² vs 4m²)
This would have to be scaled by the wavelength being observed, for a resolution comparison. Hubble actually has better absolute resolution, when viewing shorter the wavelengths that JWT can't sense (0.05 arcseconds vs JWT 0.1 arcseconds).
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y agoRight, that didn't occur to me at first, but is just obviously true when you point it out, thanks. Though I didn't know that hubble is actually higher resolution in that comparison. Then, in some sense, the first part of my explanation is most of the story in the case of comparing MIRI(mid-infrared instrument) to hubble in the near-infrared. But in comparing NIRCAM to Hubble in the near-infraread JWST would in fact have greater resolution, no?
- dtgriscom 4y agoThe resolution is limited by the diameter, not the area (although they're usually closely linked).