3 ms·
JWST and Hubble have roughly similar angular resolution. Hubble marginally better. JWST needs larger mirror for the same angular resolution because it uses long
by nabla9 4y ago
JWST and Hubble have roughly similar angular resolution. Hubble marginally better. JWST needs larger mirror for the same angular resolution because it uses longer wavelengths.
Hubble: 0.04 arcsec at 500 nm
JWST: 0.068 arcsec at 2 μm
The difference is in wavelengths, image quality, and light collecting ability (size of the mirror). Hubble has to stare longer into a same spot to collect the same amount of light as JWST.
(If I remember correctly JWST took this image in less than 12 hours, Hubble stared at it for much longer. Correct me if I'm wrong).
- sph 4y agoWould JWST have made a more detailed picture if it had stared on that spot as long as Hubble did?
- Synaesthesia 4y agoThe longer you "expose" the more detail is revealed yes.
- gliptic 4y agoResolution would not improve, but contrast would and you would be able to see fainter objects with less noise.
- 0x_rs 4y agoHubble's composite of SMACS took 5 orbits, which ends up being about a couple hours maximum. Most websites talked about the deep fields such as XDF (hundreds of orbits) while showing the comparison between the RELICS and JWST pictures, which I believe was very misleading from how this is repeated. Not to detract from its capabilities, of course.