Connect with us

Space

Can telescopes see astronaut footprints on the moon?

Published

on

footprints on the moon
Can telescopes see astronaut footprints on the moon? Some people who do not believe in the landing of man on the moon ask, if man walked on the moon, why the telescopes do not show their bootprints?

Can telescopes see astronaut footprints on the moon?

In the early 2000s, when there were occasional people who believed that the moon landing was a hoax, the argument was made that if NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope was powerful enough to see the tiny details of distant galaxies, why couldn’t it take the shoes of the Apollo astronauts on the moon?

The aforementioned argument, like many conspiracy theories, seems convincing on the surface; But with the slightest scrutiny, it loses its value. Those who are fooled by this claim are wrong about two things: how telescopes work and how big space is.

Astronomer Phil Platt explains on the Scientific American website that many people think a telescope’s job is to magnify images. Of course, manufacturers of cheap telescopes like to advertise them this way, printing statements like “150x magnification power” in big letters on the box of the telescopes, along with very misleading pictures of much larger telescopes. Although magnification is important, the true power of a telescope is in its resolution. This difference is subtle but very important.

Magnification is how much you can focus on an object and make it appear larger. This is important because while astronomical objects are physically very large, they are very far away and thus appear small in the sky. Magnifying them makes them easier to see.

Magnification is important, but the true power of a telescope is in its resolution

On the other hand, clarity or resolving power is the ability to differentiate between two objects that are very close together. For example, you might think of two stars orbiting each other (a binary star) as one star; Because their distance is very small and the naked eye cannot distinguish them. But if you look at them with a higher-resolution telescope, you may be able to see that they are two separate stars.

Isn’t that the Zoom? No; Because zooming in only makes everything bigger. This can be easily illustrated with the following image: zoom in as much as you want on the image, but once you pass a certain limit, you only enlarge the pixels and get no new information. To overcome this obstacle, you need to have high resolution rather than zoom.

Hubble image of Apollo 17 landing areaHubble Space Telescope image of the Apollo 17 landing area in the Taurus-Lytro Valley of the Moon. This image lacks the necessary resolution to show the traces of the moon landing or the movement of astronauts on the moon.
NASA/GSFC

The problem is that resolution depends on the telescope itself, meaning that a dramatic increase in resolution usually requires a much larger telescope; But no matter how big your telescope gets, it will still have limited resolution.

When light from an infinitesimal point, such as distant stars, passes through a telescope, the light is slightly scattered within the telescope’s optical instruments (mirrors or lenses). This fundamental property is called light diffraction and is unavoidable. The resolution of telescope images depends partly on the size of its mirror or lens. The larger the telescope’s light-gathering instrument, the higher its image resolution.

The way light propagates in optical equipment depends on wavelength, with shorter wavelengths producing higher resolution. So two nearby blue stars may be distinguishable in a telescope, while two red stars at the same distance may not be distinguishable.

When deciding on the size of a telescope’s camera pixels, astronomers must consider the wavelength they want to observe. Otherwise, they just magnify the noise; Like the previous example about zooming too much on the photo.

All these lead to an amazing result. The Hubble Space Telescope has a mirror with a diameter of 2.4 meters and the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has a mirror with a diameter of 6.5 meters. Therefore, the resolution of the James Webb telescope images can be expected to be much higher. At some wavelengths, it is: the shortest wavelength that the James Webb Space Telescope can see is about 0.6 microns (what our eyes perceive as orange light), and the resolution is technically much better than that of the Hubble image.

However, the James Webb Space Telescope was designed as an infrared telescope. At those wavelengths, say around two microns, the resolution is comparable to what Hubble can see at visible light wavelengths. In the mid-infrared, i.e. wavelengths of 10 to 20 microns, the resolution of the James Webb Space Telescope images is even lower. However, because the James Webb is the largest infrared telescope ever sent into space, it can provide the sharpest images we’ve ever had at these wavelengths.

A boot on the moonNo telescope on Earth or in low Earth orbit can capture an image like this, a high-resolution view of a boot on the moon’s surface.
NASA

Astronomers measure resolving power as an angle on the sky. From the horizon to the highest point of the sky is 90 degrees and each degree is divided into 60 arc minutes and each arc minute into 60 arc seconds. For example, the angular diameter of the moon from our point of view in the sky is about half a degree. That is, if we look at the moon from the Earth, the moon in the sky occupies a space equal to half a degree of the full circle of the sky, which is equivalent to 30 minutes of arc or 1800 seconds of arc.

The maximum resolution of a telescope refers to the smallest angular distance between two objects that the telescope is able to distinguish as two separate objects. This resolution is expressed as an angle.

At its best, the resolution of the Hubble telescope is about 0.05 of an arc, which is considered a very small angle. But the amount of detail Hubble is able to see depends on the distance and physical size of the target. For example, 0.05 seconds of arc is equivalent to the apparent size of a small coin that can be seen from about 140 km.

In this way, we return to the discussion of conspiracy theorists and their claims regarding the observation of astronaut footprints on the moon. Galaxies are usually tens of millions or even billions of light years away from Earth. At those distances, the Hubble telescope can distinguish objects with dimensions of several light years (i.e. tens of trillions of kilometers) with its best resolution. So even though it looks like we’re seeing galaxies in great detail in those amazing Hubble images, the smallest we can see is still pretty big.

At the same time, the moon is only about 380 thousand kilometers away from us and from the Hubble telescope. At this distance, the resolution of the Hubble telescope is surprisingly limited, unable to resolve objects smaller than about 90 meters. As a result, not only can we not see the astronauts’ footprints in the Hubble images, but we can’t even see the Apollo moon landings, which are about four meters across. Hubble’s resolution at this distance is so limited that it cannot distinguish details smaller than about 90 meters, so it is not possible to see objects smaller than this on the Moon.

Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter image from the Apollo 11 landing siteAn image of the Apollo 11 landing site captured by NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO). Although the LRO telescope uses much smaller lenses than the Hubble Space Telescope, its proximity to the lunar surface has made it possible to see details such as the Apollo 11 lunar lander and astronauts’ footprints.
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center

In the images taken by the Nass Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), we can see the moon landings and the footprints of the astronauts. Although the camera of this orbiter has a mirror with a diameter of only about 20 cm, the spacecraft is in lunar orbit and passes the Apollo landing sites at an altitude of 50 km.

The reason NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter can see more detail on the surface of the moon is because it is so close to the surface of the moon. This is why we send probes to planets: it allows us to get much better pictures of them. Sometimes, there’s no substitute for being there.

The lesson we learn from this topic is that the way tools actually work is often more complex and different than we expect. Furthermore, claims that may seem reasonable fall apart with a little scientific scrutiny. If a telescope is only advertised based on magnification, it’s best not to buy it and look for other options. It may seem difficult, but with a little determination, you will succeed.

Space

Dark matter and ordinary matter can interact without gravity!

Published

on

By

dark matter
Dark matter and ordinary matter can interact without gravity! Dark matter, which has five times the mass of normal matter, helps hold galaxies together and explains the puzzling motions of stars. Now a new study has shown that these two substances can interact with each other without the presence of gravity.

Dark matter and ordinary matter can interact without gravity!

Why is dark matter associated with the adjective “dark”? Is it because it harbors some evil forces of the universe or hidden secrets that scientists don’t want us to know? No, it is not. Such fanciful assumptions may sound appealing to a conspiracy theorist, but they are far from the truth.

Dark matter is called dark because it does not interact with light. So when dark matter and light collide, they pass each other. This is also why scientists have not been able to detect dark matter until now; it does not react to light.

Although it has mass and mass creates gravity, this means that dark matter can interact with normal matter and vice versa. Such interactions are rare, and gravity is the only known force that causes these two forms of matter to interact.

However, a new study suggests that dark matter and ordinary matter interact in ways other than gravity.

If this theory is correct, it shows that our existing models of dark matter are somewhat wrong. In addition, it can lead to the development of new and better tools for the detection of dark matter.

Read more: There is more than one way for planets to be born

A new missing link between dark and ordinary matter

Dark matter is believed to have about five times the mass of normal matter in our universe, which helps hold galaxies together and explains some of the motions of stars that don’t make sense based on the presence of visible matter alone.

For example, one of the strongest lines of evidence for the existence of dark matter is the observation of rotation curves in galaxies, which show that stars at the outer edges of spiral galaxies rotate at rates similar to those near the center. These observations indicate the presence of an invisible mass.

Also, for their study, the researchers studied six ultra-dim dwarf (UFD) galaxies located near the Milky Way. However, in terms of their mass, these galaxies have fewer stars than they should. This means they are mostly made up of dark matter.

According to the researchers, if dark matter and normal matter interact only through gravity, the stars in these UFDs should be denser in the centers and more spread out toward the edges of the galaxies. However, if they interact in other ways, the star distribution looks different.

The authors of the study ran computer simulations to investigate both possibilities. When they tested this for all six ultra-dim dwarf (UFD) galaxies, they found that the distribution of stars was uniform, meaning that the stars were spread evenly across the galaxies.

This was in contrast to what is generally observed for gravitational interactions between dark matter and normal matter.

What causes this interaction?

The results of the simulations showed that gravity is not the only force that can make dark matter and normal matter interact. Such an interaction has never been observed before, and it could change our understanding of dark matter and dark energy.

However, this study has a major limitation. What caused the interaction between the two forms of matter is still a mystery. While the current study provides tantalizing hints of a novel interaction, its exact nature and underlying causes remain unknown. Hopefully, further research will clarify the details of such interactions.

This study was published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters.

Continue Reading

Space

James Webb Space Telescope deepens cosmology’s biggest controversy

Published

on

By

James Webb Space Telescope
Despite the published data from the James Webb Telescope of the early universe, the question of the Hubble tension, or discrepancy in measurements of the cosmological constant, has not yet been resolved.

How the James Webb Space Telescope deepens cosmology’s biggest controversy

Summary of the article:

  • Almost a century ago, Edwin Hubble discovered the expansion of the universe and calculated the expansion rate or the cosmic constant.
  • Since Hubble, many groups have tried to measure the expansion rate of the universe. However, the values ​​they obtained differed from the theoretical predictions. This difference is called Hubble tension.
  • Scientists today use three methods to measure the expansion rate of the universe: Cephasian variable stars, TRGB red giant stars, and JAGB asymptotic giants.
  • However, the Hubble tension still exists, indicating that the methods for calculating the Hubble constant suffer from a systematic flaw.
  • Researchers hope to be able to use the James Webb telescope in the coming years to achieve more accurate measurements of the universe’s expansion rate and thus resolve the Hubble tension.

Almost a century ago, Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was getting bigger. However, today’s measurements of how fast the universe is expanding are contradictory. These discrepancies show that our understanding of the laws of physics may be incomplete. On the other hand, everyone expected the sharp eyes of the James Webb telescope to bring us closer to the answer to the riddle; But a new analysis of the telescope’s long-awaited observations once again reflects inconsistent expansion rates from different types of data, while pointing to possible sources of error.

Two competing groups have led efforts to measure the rate of expansion of the universe, known as Hubble’s constant, or H0. A group led by Adam Reiss of Johns Hopkins University, relying on the known constituents of the universe and the governing equations, has consistently calculated the Hubble constant to be approximately 8 percent higher than the theory predicts the universe’s expansion rate. This discrepancy, known as the Hubble tension, indicates that the model of the cosmological theory may have missed some elements such as raw materials or effects that speed up the expansion of the universe. Such an element can be a clue to a more complete understanding of the world.

This spring, Reiss and his team published new measurements of the Hubble constant based on data from the James Webb Telescope and found a value consistent with their previous estimates. However, a rival group led by Wendy Friedman of the University of Chicago warns that more precise measurements are needed. The team’s measurements of the Hubble constant are closer to the theoretical estimate than Riess’ calculations, suggesting that the Hubble stress may not be real.

Since the commissioning of the James Webb Telescope in 2022, the astrophysical community has been waiting for Friedman’s multidimensional analysis based on telescope observations of three types of stars. The results are now as follows: the two-star types provide estimates of the Hubble constant that are in line with the theoretical prediction; While the results of the third star, which is the same type used by Reiss, are consistent with his team’s higher estimates of Hubble’s constant. According to Friedman, the fact that the results of the three methods are contradictory does not mean that there are unknown physical foundations, but that there are some systematic errors in the calculation methods.

Contradictory world

The difficult part of measuring cosmic expansion is measuring the distance of space objects. In 1912, American astronomer Henrietta Levitt first used pulsating stars known as Cephasian variables to calculate distances. These stars flicker at a rate proportional to their intrinsic luminosity. By understanding the luminosity or radiant power of a Cephasian variable, we can compare it with its apparent brightness or dimming to estimate its galaxy’s distance from us.

Edwin Hubble used Levitt’s method to measure the distances to a set of galaxies hosting the Cephasian variable, and in 1929 he noticed that the galaxies that are farther away from us are moving away faster. This finding meant the expansion of the universe. Hubble calculated the expansion rate to be a constant value of 500 km/s per megaparsec. In other words, two galaxies that are 1 megaparsec or approximately 3.2 million light years apart are moving away from each other at a speed of 500 km/s.

As progress was made in calibrating the relationship between the pulsation frequency of Cepheids and their luminosity, measurements of the Hubble constant improved. However, since the Cephasian variables are very bright, the whole approach used has limitations. Scientists need a new way to measure the distance of galaxies from each other in the infinite space.

In the 1970s, researchers used Cephasian variables to measure the distance to bright supernovae, and in this way they achieved more accurate measurements of the Hubble constant. At that time, as now, two research groups undertook the measurements, and using supernovae and Cephasian variable stars, they achieved contradictory values ​​of 50 km/s per megaparsec and 100 km/s per megaparsec. However, no agreement was reached and everything became completely bipolar.

Edwin Hubble next to the telescopeEdwin Hubble, the American astronomer who discovered the expansion of the universe, stands next to the Schmidt telescope at the Palomar Observatory in this photo from 1949.

The launch of the Hubble Space Telescope in 1990 gave astronomers a new and multi-layered view of the universe. Friedman led a multi-year observing campaign with Hubble, and in 2001 he and his colleagues estimated the expansion rate to be 72 km/s/Mpa with an uncertainty of at most 10%.

A Nobel laureate for the discovery of dark energy, Reiss got into the expansion game a few years later. In 2011, his group found the Hubble constant to be 73 with a three percent uncertainty. Soon after this, cosmologists excelled in another way. In 2013, they used Planck’s observations of light left over from the early universe to determine the exact shape and composition of the early universe.

In the next step, the researchers connected their findings to Einstein’s theory of general relativity and developed a theoretical model to predict the current state of the universe, up to approximately 14 billion years into the future. Based on these calculations, the universe should be expanding at an approximate rate of 67.4 km/s per megaparsec with an uncertainty of less than one percent.

Reese’s team measurement remained at 73, even with the improved accuracy. This higher value indicates that the galaxies today are moving away from each other at a faster rate than theoretically expected. This is how the Hubble tension was born. According to Reiss, today’s Hubble tension shows us that something is missing in the cosmological model.

The missing factor could be the first new element in the universe to be discovered since dark energy. Theorists still have doubts about the identity of this agent. Perhaps this force is some kind of repulsive energy that lasted for a short time in the early universe, or perhaps it is the primordial magnetic fields created during the Big Bang, or perhaps what is being missed is more about ourselves than the universe.

Ways of seeing

Some cosmologists, including Friedman, suspected that unknown errors were to blame for Hubble’s tension. For example, Cephasian variable stars are located in the disks of younger galaxies in regions full of stars, dust, and gas. Even with Hubble’s fine resolution, you don’t see a single Cephasian variable, according to George Afstatio, an astrophysicist at the University of Cambridge. Rather, you see it overlapping with other stars. This density of stars makes measurements of brightness difficult.

When the James Webb Telescope launches in 2021, Reiss and his colleagues will use its powerful infrared camera to peer into the crowded regions that host the Cephasian variables. They wanted to know whether the claims of Friedman and other researchers about the effect of the area’s crowding on the observations were correct.

James Webb telescope mirrorsThe 6.5-meter multi-section mirror of the James Webb Space Telescope at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland. This mirror passed various test stages in 2017.

When the researchers compared the new numbers to distances calculated from Hubble data, they saw a surprising match. The latest results from the James Webb telescope confirmed the Hubble constant measured by the Hubble telescope a few years ago: 73 km/s/Mpa with a difference of one kilometer or so.

Concerned about crowding, Friedman turned to alternative stars that could serve as distance indicators. These stars are found in the outer reaches of galaxies and away from the crowd. One of those stars belongs to the group ” Red Giant Branch ” or TRGB for short. A red giant is an old star with a puffy atmosphere that shines brightly in the red light spectrum. As a red giant ages, it eventually burns helium in its core, and at this point, the star’s temperature and brightness suddenly decrease.

A typical galaxy has many red giants. If you plot the brightness of these stars against their temperature, you reach a point where the brightness drops off. The star population before this brightness drop is a good distance indicator; Because in each galaxy, such a population has a similar distribution of luminosity. By comparing the brightness of these star populations, astronomers can estimate their relative distances.

The Hubble tension shows that the standard model of the cosmos is missing something

Regardless of the method used, physicists must calculate the absolute distance of at least one galaxy as a reference point in order to calibrate the entire scale. Using TRGB as a distance index is more complicated than using Kyphousian variables. MacKinnon and colleagues used nine wavelength filters from the James Webb telescope to understand how brightness relates to their color.

Astronomers are also looking for a new indicator: carbon-rich stars that belong to a group known as the “Jay region asymptotic giant” (JAGB). These stars are far from the bright disk of the galaxy and emit a lot of infrared light. However, it was not possible to observe them at long distances until James Webb’s launch.

Friedman and his team have applied for observation time with the James Webb Space Telescope in order to observe TRGBs and JAGBs, along with more fixed spacing indices and Cephasian variables, in 11 galaxies.

The vanishing solution

On March 13, 2024, Friedman, Lee, and the rest of the team meet in Chicago to find out what they’ve been hiding from each other. Over the past months, they were divided into three groups, each tasked with measuring distances to 11 galaxies using one of three methods: Cephasian variable stars, TRGBs, and JAGBs.

These galaxies also host related types of supernovae, so their distances can calibrate the distances of supernovae in many more distant galaxies. The rate at which galaxies move away from us divided by their distance gives the value of the Hubble constant.

Wendy FriedmanWendy Friedman at the University of Chicago is trying to fit the James Webb Telescope observations into the Standard Cosmological Model.

Three groups of researchers calculated distance measures with a unique, random counterbalancing value added to the data. During the face-to-face session, they removed those values ​​and compared the results.

All three methods obtained similar distances with three percent uncertainty. Finally, the group calculated three values ​​of Hubble’s constant for each distance index. All values ​​were within the theoretical prediction range of 67.4. Therefore, Hubble’s tension seemed to be resolved. However, they ran into problems with further analysis to write the results.

The JAGB analysis was good, But the other two were wrong. The team found that there were large error bars in the TRGB measurements. They tried to minimize the errors by including more TRGBs; But when they started doing this, they found that the distance to the galaxies was less than they first thought. This change caused the value of Hubble’s constant to increase.

Friedman’s team also discovered an error in Cephaus’s analysis: in almost half of the pulsating stars, the term crowd was applied twice. Correcting this error increased the value of Hubble’s constant significantly. Hubble’s tension was revived.

Finally, after efforts to fix the errors, the researchers’ paper presents three distinct values ​​of Hubble’s constant. The JAGB measurement yielded a result of 67.96 km/s/megaparsec. The TRGB result was equal to 69.85 with similar error margins. Hubble’s constant was obtained at a higher value of 72.05 in the Kyphousian variable method. In this way, different hypotheses about the characteristics of these stars caused Hubble’s stress value to vary from 69 to 73.

By combining the aforementioned methods and uncertainties, the average Hubble stress value equal to 69.96 was obtained with an uncertainty of four percent. This margin of error overlaps with the theoretical prediction of the expansion rate of the universe, as well as the higher value of Tim Reiss.

Tensions and resolutions

The James Webb Space Telescope has provided methods for measuring the Hubble constant. The idea is simple: closer galaxies look more massive; Because you can make out some of their stars, while more distant galaxies have a more uniform appearance.

A method called gravitational convergence is more promising. A massive galaxy cluster acts like a magnifying glass, bending and magnifying the image of a background object, creating multiple images of the background object when its light takes different paths.

Brenda Fry, an astronomer at the University of Arizona, is leading a program to observe seven clusters with the James Webb Space Telescope. Looking at the first images they captured last year of the G165 cluster, Fry and his colleagues noticed three spots that were not previously seen in the images. These three points were actually separate images of a supernova that was located in the background of the aforementioned cluster.

After repeating the observation several times, the researchers calculated the difference between the arrival times of the three gravitational lensing images of the supernova. This time delay is proportional to Hubble’s constant and can be used to calculate this value. The group obtained an expansion velocity of 75.4 km/s/Mpa with a large uncertainty of 8.1%. Fry expects the error bars to correct after several years of similar measurements.

Both Friedman’s and Reiss’ teams predict that they will be able to get a better answer with James Webb’s observations in the coming years. “With improved data, the Hubble tension will eventually be resolved, and I think we’ll get to the bottom of it very quickly,” Friedman says.

Continue Reading

Space

James Webb vs. Hubble

Published

on

By

James Webb vs. Hubble
The first full-color image of James Webb was finally released this week after a long wait; But how are these new photos different from the Hubble Space Telescope images?

James Webb vs. Hubble; Comparing the images of two space telescopes

The James Webb Space Telescope is now the flagship of the world of space telescopes. James Webb uses the largest mirror of any telescope launched into space and orbits the Sun at a distance from Earth (approximately 1.5 million kilometers). This telescope is supposed to make a big change in astronomy and astrophysics by looking at the farthest parts of the world and unveiling new secrets.

However, in the past three decades, the Hubble Space Telescope has been the main player in the field of space telescopes. Launched in 1990, this telescope has recorded many epic images of planets, stars, galaxies, nebulae and many other astronomical wonders.

Since Hubble was in near-Earth orbit, it could take accurate pictures of the universe without the Earth’s atmosphere interfering with its operation. The telescope captured amazing images during its prolific career and continues to serve its mission. According to NASA, over the past 32 years, Hubble has made 1.5 million observations and contributed to more than 19,000 scientific papers.

Now James Webb is going to take the flag from Hubble and further enhance our understanding of the universe. In a blog post comparing the two space telescopes, NASA called James Webb the “scientific successor” to Hubble. Without Hubble’s observations of the cosmos, researchers would not have prioritized building a telescope that could go beyond Hubble’s field of view. Continue with Zoomit to have a closer look at the images of celestial targets in both telescopes.

Deep field

Hubble Deep Wallpaper

The top right photo is the deep Hubble wallpaper taken in 1995 and released in 1996. At the time of recording, this photo was considered the deepest image taken of the universe. In order to make it, the researchers took 342 photos during 10 days with a total of 100 hours of exposure. The final result revealed more than three thousand scattered galaxies in a very small part of the sky. Over the next few decades, Hubble operators took better pictures of this type and looked much deeper into space.

Hubble Ultra Deep Wallpaper
The Hubble Ultra Deep Image or XDF was released in 2012.

The photo above is the Hubble Ultra Deep Wallpaper released in 2012. More than 5500 galaxies are visible in this photo. Over the course of a decade, the researchers collected 50 days of observations from a concentrated area, resulting in two million seconds of exposure (over 23 days).

Then along came James Webb. The first full-color scientific photo by James Webb was released on Tuesday morning Iran time by US President Joe Biden as a preview for the first set of telescope images. While capturing Hubble’s deep fields required days, if not weeks, of exposure, James Webb managed to capture this image after just 12.5 hours of exposure.

The recorded area of ​​the sky in the image above is incredibly small; So small that it is about the size of a grain of sand on a person’s hand on the ground. In that part of the sky, a galaxy cluster called SMACS 0732 is located 4.6 billion light-years away. This cluster is so large that it bends space-time around it and, like a cosmic microscope, reveals faint galaxies far behind it. Some of these galaxies are considered to be the faintest infrared objects ever observed, and scientists are eagerly waiting to learn more about them.

Shahabhi Nebula (Karina)

The image above shows one of Hubble’s most popular targets, the Carina Nebula, at a distance of 7,200 light years from us. The image on the right, released by the Hubble Heritage Project in 2008, shows part of the star-forming region in the corner of the nebula.

The picture looks like an impressionist landscape with hills, valleys, and columns of gas and dust scattered around, with only a few bright stars behind the nebula. Now James Webb’s updated image shows the same stunning landscape in much greater detail and clarity. In the photo, there are stars that were previously hidden behind gas and dust.

Read more: Why is Jupiter one of the first targets of the James Webb Space Telescope?

Stephan’s quintuplets

This group of five galaxies is stunning in a Hubble image taken in 2009 after the telescope’s camera was upgraded earlier that year. That year, the space shuttle made its fifth and final visit to Hubble and applied a major upgrade. In addition to the new camera that took this photo, the telescope was also upgraded and repaired. The ability of astronauts to rendezvous with Hubble in near-Earth orbit kept the space telescope operational for a very long time.

However since James Webb is so far from Earth, he will not have the advantage of meeting astronauts. However, the spacecraft has enough fuel for at least 20 years; This means that in the future we will see many more images like the one above.

The photo above shows a group of galaxies that were first observed in 1877. The upper left galaxy is considered the alien mass of the group and is much closer to Earth than the other four members. However, the other four galaxies are so close that James Webb can see the shock waves from the interaction between them as they kill each other.

Stephen’s quintuplet is the largest image taken by the James Webb Telescope and is actually a mosaic made up of more than a thousand separate images captured by the telescope’s two instruments: the Near Infrared Camera (NIRCam) and the Mid-Infrared Instrument (MIRI). Both cameras collect infrared wavelengths of light and help James Webb see through gas and dust; But as their names suggest, both collect different wavelengths of infrared light.

Southern Ring Nebula

The last image is the Southern Ring Nebula, which was imaged by Hubble in 1998. The “ring” is the dying star particles (the faintest of the two bright spots in the center of the image). The little white dwarf causing all this chaos was a star the size of our Sun. At some point, the star ran out of fuel and ejected its outer layers, creating the ring seen in the image. The diameter of the ring is about half a light year and the gases are moving outward at a speed of nearly 14.5 km/s.

On the left, the Southern Ring Nebula is seen through the eyes of James Webb’s two instruments, Nirkem and Miri. The image we have chosen for comparison was captured by Nirkam’s near-infrared camera. Another version of the image is also recorded in mid-infrared.

Continue Reading

Popular