View Single Post
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 12-July-2006, 05:24 PM
ngc3314's Avatar
ngc3314 ngc3314 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 87.5W 33.2N
Posts: 1,408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToSeek
James Webb isn't actually a replacement, even though it's being billed as such. It's intended to focus on the infrared part of the spectrum, while Hubble deals mostly with visible light.

And even if it were a replacement, Hubble is oversubscribed by something like a factor of 5 (ngc3314 can probably provide an exact figure). You could have five Hubbles up there, and astronomers could keep them all busy.
Oversubscription factors for Hubble have generally been 5-7 depending on the year (new instruments generate spikes of demand).

JWST has less overlap in capability with HST than was once planned - to reduce cost overruns, much potential visible-light capability and image quality have been sacrificed to protect the core IR capability. The IR is particularly valuable for the triple questions driving much of the JWST design - formation of galaxies, formation of stars, formation of planets.
Reply With Quote