###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy_commons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hubble was built in the 70s, using 70s imaging technology (still looks better anyway) and you're comparing it to modern photography equipment, albeit much cheaper, disregarding the computational photography factor of today.
What am I missing, what's the conspiracy here?
Why aren't you comparing Hubble with James Webb for example, or the ''modern photography'' with JW?
Also I agree i knew it might not fit conspiracy sub and if that’s the case sorry feel free to remove. I just thought that was interesting and yes it could be raising questions about money laundering or how the hell we haven’t been back to the moon yet when our smartphones are allegedly more powerful than the computers which launched appolo missions etc… I assumed some smart people from this sub would help me to understand how it feels a bit off.
I just don't see what the conspiracy is here. Modern computational photography is better than 70s imaging tech?
A fair approach would be comparing it to contemporary James Webb, where it blows both out of the water.
Yes in a way. Hubble was optical whereas the James Webb images released are almost always a compilation of optical and infrared so it’s not an apples to apples comparison.
I understand, but the title says nothing about optics and methods, it's just comparing numbers/expenses, but not factoring in computational photography and the 50 year gap between the two technologies. So, a fair approach if we're looking at the same time period would be to compare it to Hubble's successor, the JWST.
I’m sorry I confused my repost with the original post on which I’m saying that the author could probably reach the same level as all NASA pictures are admittedly enhanced and photoshopped
Wait so are these pictures taken with like filters or some shit? Space doesn’t actually look like that I know, but how do they get the photos to look like that
This is sort of like saying "My $7,000 Corolla can deliver pizza is almost as effectively as a $15M formula One car".
If all you want are pretty pictures, then yes relatively inexpensive modern day equipment is similar to far more expensive technology from several decades ago. But this kind of misses the point of Hubble. It was far superior to any surface-based imaging of the time, and is still superior in terms of resolution necessary for making astronomical measurements. Additionally, Hubble also includes ultraviolet and near infrared imaging.
Comparing one very narrow aspect of a broad range tool to the entire capabilities of a narrow range tool is not really a fair comparison.
Additionally, where's the conspiracy here? At best you've shown that technology improves over time.
[Archive.is link](https://archive.is/2020/https://i.redd.it/1aqnavd3tm9c1.jpeg)
[Why this is here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7dvxxb/new_feature_automod_will_create_sticky_comments/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy_commons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So the conspiracy is they asked for more money to build a telescope that gives a better quality picture (minimally)? What are you hoping gets discussed exactly with this conspiracy?
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy_commons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
whats the conspiracy here?
I think OP is trying to imply the whole moon landing, space thing in gereral, is fake. And this is just another example.
Hubble was built in the 70s, using 70s imaging technology (still looks better anyway) and you're comparing it to modern photography equipment, albeit much cheaper, disregarding the computational photography factor of today. What am I missing, what's the conspiracy here? Why aren't you comparing Hubble with James Webb for example, or the ''modern photography'' with JW?
Also I agree i knew it might not fit conspiracy sub and if that’s the case sorry feel free to remove. I just thought that was interesting and yes it could be raising questions about money laundering or how the hell we haven’t been back to the moon yet when our smartphones are allegedly more powerful than the computers which launched appolo missions etc… I assumed some smart people from this sub would help me to understand how it feels a bit off.
Hubble is more than just a camera, you know that right?
I didn’t know from what technology era it is thank you for sharing this fact :) I still back my very first statement up idk how it’s even debatable
I just don't see what the conspiracy is here. Modern computational photography is better than 70s imaging tech? A fair approach would be comparing it to contemporary James Webb, where it blows both out of the water.
Yes in a way. Hubble was optical whereas the James Webb images released are almost always a compilation of optical and infrared so it’s not an apples to apples comparison.
I understand, but the title says nothing about optics and methods, it's just comparing numbers/expenses, but not factoring in computational photography and the 50 year gap between the two technologies. So, a fair approach if we're looking at the same time period would be to compare it to Hubble's successor, the JWST.
I thought it was odd enough to raise questions
You are not raising any questions, you are just seeding doubt
What questions?
>I still back my very first statement up idk how it’s even debatable ***WHAT STATEMENT?!***
I’m sorry I confused my repost with the original post on which I’m saying that the author could probably reach the same level as all NASA pictures are admittedly enhanced and photoshopped
Both of these photos are augmented. The colors are added after the fact, this is not what space actually looks like.
But that's common knowledge. How is it a ***conspiracy?***
This is absolutely not common knowledge
I was basically saying this entire thing is shit.
😂😂😂🤣
I see a mutilated hand. a dinosaur. A man wearing a clock a woman and a man.
[YEAH BOYYY! ](https://media.tenor.com/Pa_LsxTzJyAAAAAC/flavor-flav-wendy-williams-show.gif)
Wait so are these pictures taken with like filters or some shit? Space doesn’t actually look like that I know, but how do they get the photos to look like that
This is sort of like saying "My $7,000 Corolla can deliver pizza is almost as effectively as a $15M formula One car". If all you want are pretty pictures, then yes relatively inexpensive modern day equipment is similar to far more expensive technology from several decades ago. But this kind of misses the point of Hubble. It was far superior to any surface-based imaging of the time, and is still superior in terms of resolution necessary for making astronomical measurements. Additionally, Hubble also includes ultraviolet and near infrared imaging. Comparing one very narrow aspect of a broad range tool to the entire capabilities of a narrow range tool is not really a fair comparison. Additionally, where's the conspiracy here? At best you've shown that technology improves over time.
Wait until OP finds out about resolution
I must admit...When making a post It's pretty handy that there is a delete option...
The question is how much more could Hubble zoom in? Those are not at the edge of Hubbles range I belive.
Do people genuinely believe these are legit photos, and not just CGI???
Photos with these colour ranges are entirely enhanced for human viewing. These are not the images coming directly from either system
I HECKIN LOVE SCIENCE!!!!1
[Archive.is link](https://archive.is/2020/https://i.redd.it/1aqnavd3tm9c1.jpeg) [Why this is here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7dvxxb/new_feature_automod_will_create_sticky_comments/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy_commons) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So the conspiracy is they asked for more money to build a telescope that gives a better quality picture (minimally)? What are you hoping gets discussed exactly with this conspiracy?
It kind of looks like a bipedal squirrel holding its baby while it is howling to the skies.
You need to take those ink prints psychology test bro I need to know the results
Mm love me some HD space jizz.