• EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    92
    ·
    8 months ago

    I think it’s kind of an unfair comparison. Hubble was made decades before Webb was, when we knew a lot less than we do now.

    This is like insulting Shakespeare for not writing with a ballpoint pen.

  • Laticauda@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I would imagine that the James Webb was built at least in part utilizing the prior data and experience they had from making and using the Hubble… Aka the Hubble walked so the James Webb could run.

    • niktemadur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      8 months ago

      Plus this new fella works mainly in the infrared, there are so many more photons with a lower energy level than with visible light.
      As the energy/frequency levels go up, the number of photons decrease.

      The drop between levels can be so dramatic, that around the turn of the 20th century physicists coined a term for the shift to the next level beyond visible light in the opposite direction to infrared - The Ultraviolet Catastrophe.

  • casmael@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    Unpopular opinion: Hubble is better James Webb is shit don’t care what anyone says tbh

  • ghostblackout@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    Did you know the company that made the mirror for the Hubble telescope messed up and whenever the other company that was contracted to make the backup mirror want it to compare their mirrors to make sure they’re the same. The main company went nah. My mirror is perfect. The mirror wasn’t perfect so cute! First images came back from hubble. They were blurry so on one of the space shuttle missions they went up in pretty much added glasses to Hubble later on the removed because better equipment was put into Hubble to correct it digitally