3 ms·
Speculating based on the sections: https://archive.stsci.edu/hlsp/phat https://archive.stsci.edu/hlsp/phat https://archive.stsci.edu/hlsp/phast https://archiv
by Kye 2y ago
Speculating based on the sections:
https://archive.stsci.edu/hlsp/phat https://archive.stsci.edu/hlsp/phat
https://archive.stsci.edu/hlsp/phast https://archive.stsci.edu/hlsp/phast
It took a decade to get that much. Getting the rest, assuming they aren't able to shrink the chunks, would require a project equal in duration and scope. The JWST can probably capture it with similar resolution in a fraction of the time. If the JWST didn't exist, they'd probably go for another project to fill in the gaps, but it doesn't make sense when a much better telescope is available.
- dylan604 2y agoThe JWST and Hubble are two totally different telescopes in that Hubble is mainly visible light spectrum where JWST is totally IR spectrum. They can both take an image of the exact same object and the images will look different. They cannot use JWST to fill in the gaps of a Hubble project.
- Kye 2y agoI didn't say anything about JWST filling in the gaps. I said it wouldn't make sense to do another project with Hubble to finish the image when it would take another decade. They can get a scientifically useful image from the missing spots in less time with the new telescope.
- mixmastamyk 2y agoDon't need another decade. A few months to get some of the holes at the bottom.