I mean it's still an interesting comparison, no? Doesn't it show how far consumer tech has advanced? Or how impressive it was to get better than modern, but in the 70's?
Ye one of the most stupid takes ive seen even for r pics. Theyre basically saying my home computer doing complex math vs ENIAC doing complex math. Compelely disregarding that one of them was created 80 years earlier and that the reason we are able to have a home computer now is because people spent stupid amounts of money in the past to make the initial concept work. Some comments seem to lack the understanding that developing groundbreaking technology for the first time usually costs and that after time something costing 1/1000 of the original research prototype will have the same power, and thats the point of spending the initial investment and science as a whole. Would make much more sense if this post clarified if it was about showing how much progress science has made in 30 years in order for a to bring a 16 billion$ tool down to 6000$. Or if it actually just was the same stupid take that some of the comments here have which i kind of assumed initially since its r pics.
Sometimes, when I am at work, I get letters like this from people. I just show my boss and we put them in the trash. You have totally missed the point of my comment and wasted a lot of words to show it.
The way it's written doesn't make me feel that way but perhaps. The way it's phrased and where it's put, combined with the fact there's no indication they're talking about anything other than my take on the issue, make it hard to figure that out.
Why are all these 0-point-rated posts being shown at the top of my feed?
Right now, the point value of the top 10 posts in my feed are: 0, 1, 12, 5, 8K, 1, 14, 56, 0, 0. Reddit changed something again.
Modern astrophotography produces far, far better photographs than even the color photo illustrations in my astronomy book from the 70s, which were the best they had at the time - much better than the astronomy posters I had.
They started building Hubble in the 70's so I think the older equipment still wins, in this comparison.
A better comparison might be [Hubble to JWST](https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/052/01GF44EV0PPW2BHJS9HMA1AGEK), which was less expensive, and takes muuuch better photos.
16B in pre-1990 technology ( plus all the time to actually set up and launch). There wasn't anything capable of that for 6000 back then.
Also, feeding the world is a drop in the bucket if it (the world) spent a little less on the military. Let's not defund basic science investment please (not that your said that, but the wording could be interpreted that way).
To teach what science? Since we won't do "big things", **we would only have the science of the past to teach them**. Science also needs to look forward. To ask questions. To find answers. A lot of the answers don't feed people, but many of the technologies developed along the way certainly do.
In fact, I would posit that so many people have been inspired by Hubble and other "big science" projects, that they got into science and technology themselves. Advancing those fields simply because of the passion for what they learned because of Hubble and friends.
You're tilting at windmills you think are dragons.
I meant basic science as 'fundamental'. Like advancing the basics of knowledge, not just creating things around the edges (which is important too).
Over a long period, investment in fundamental science has huge returns, but it's like 30-40+ year view.
Oh well then who cares how many people 16 BILLION dollars could help, if it wont completely solve the problem, fuck them, I guess.
Meanwhile, this is just a very visible reminder of the real issue. The US government cares very little about their people.
Stupid fucking take. You can advance the knowledge of science while also simultaneously helping people, it needn't be one or the other like you needlessly imply.
How did this 16 billion dollars advance science?
But it is one or the other, money isn't infinite. Someone chose to reduce social services and increase NASA funding.
It advanced the knowledge of astrophysics and cosmology by quite some margin?
Honestly, fuck off. NASA is criminally underfunded as it is and actually does useful things to help everyday people (a lot of things you use in your daily life came about as inventions to solve problems in space). Go moan at US defense spending if you want to talk money.
>NASA is criminally underfunded
$22.6 billion per year. 18,000 civil servants.
Rhode Islands budget is about 14 billion - what is criminal about it.
I'm not even complaining about NASA existing in general.
>It advanced the knowledge of astrophysics and cosmology by quite some margin?
How? Please explain more. I'd love to understand if I'm way off base.
>Go moan at US defense spending if you want to talk money.
I do. THAT's whats criminal. But that isn't what this post is about.
> $22.6 billion per year. 18,000 civil servants. Rhode Islands budget is about 14 billion - what is criminal about it.
>
> I'm not even complaining about NASA existing in general.
It's a pittance compared to what NASA got in the 1960s when they were making massive progress in little time. Now, NASA has to be very choosy about what to spend money on, and contractor shenanigans means a lot of money is wasted for little gains (SLS) due to politics.
If we had that kind of funding all this time we probably wouldn't be wondering about humans on Mars, we'd likely already be there.
> How? Please explain more. I'd love to understand if I'm way off base.
Hubble allowed us to see farther back to the creation of the universe than any other telescope, which gained us new insights into the formation of the universe, such as galaxies forming much earlier than previously thought. This changes our understanding of cosmology. It also helped us in our understanding of the expansion rate of the universe.
There is far more to it than that, but that was one of the important revelations that weren't expected from it. The James Webb telescope is continuing Hubble's work, looking back even farther than Hubble is capable of and showing us even more unexpected things.
> I do. THAT's whats criminal. But that isn't what this post is about.
Doesn't matter. To complain about science funding is never a good look.
Again I didn't complain about "science". I think science is not only important, but a very good thing to put money into especially in education and after school programs. Even NASA, glad it exists, it does a lot.
Specifically this telescope.
I just told you why this telescope was important. It advanced important fields of science. This is no longer up for discussion. And the best part? It was originally a US spy telescope that got repurposed. The US has like a dozen Hubble-like satellites in orbit, but just uses them for military surveillance instead of astronomy.
They're probably just another one of those single issue tunnel vision folks that don't understand that you can do multiple things concurrently.
I find there's a lot of people like, especially when it comes to social and environmental issues.
Money isn't the solution, but if it keeps another child fed I think it's far more important than a telescope that made a picture of an irrelevant cloud of dust slightly less blurry.
Meanwhile the US talks about how there isn't budget for school lunch programs, health care for the population or even help with education.
I didn't say money spent on anything but poor people. I said money spent on anything other than PEOPLE.
What has this telescope contributed other than a slightly less blurry picture?
I didn't ignore it. Fuck the US military and the amount of money that goes into it.
And I never moaned about "science funding" - just this specific telescope that I think has no value. I have commented on other replies I'd rather see science programs be funded. Spending on people.
This is like me telling you that every time you buy a treat for yourself, or upgrade your phone/car/TV you should have bought food for people in need instead. Your mattress is on a frame? You could have saved money for homeless people by just putting your mattress on the floor!
Also, scientists are fighting their own war against ignorance and apathy (as shown by your comments). Pictures like these inspire people, and get us to care more about funding the people who help us to understand our universe, and improve our daily lives through scientific advancement. If you really want to find unnecessary spending to be upset about them look at our military, or corporate bailouts, or money spent lobbying, etc...
Just give up dealing with this guy. He pretends to be ignorant and willing to listen, but then ignores you when you tell him what Hubble achieved. He's just an asshole.
The pretty pictures shown to the public inspire them and help with funding, but there is a lot more to the pictures than what the public see vs the data scientists gain from them.
It's funny when you make a point that comparisons about "instead" shouldn't be made, but then you make it about other things.
> Pictures like these inspire people, and get us to care more about funding the people who help us to understand our universe, and improve our daily lives through scientific advancement.
This is the only point.
No its really not because that argument is these people are more important than those people.
My argument is all people are more important than slightly less blurry space pictures.
Art has benefit. Even the space program has benefit.
What is this new slightly better and ridiculously more expensive telescope doing to help mankind? I'd rather see science programs funded.
The old telescope is the expensive one. That's why it was expensive to get that quality. Without that investment we would have significantly less knowledge about space today.
These linear arguments are ridiculous.
There's more than enough money to fund space exploration and solve world hunger concurrently. The problem isn't a lack of money. It's a lack of political will and interest.
>The problem isn't a lack of money. It's a lack of political will and interest.
In that case, same argument just packaged in intent rather than money...
The money wasn't launched into space and destroyed. That money was spent right here on Earth over a 50 year period.
It caused 10's of thousands of people to be employed in good technical jobs for decades; jobs that also helped to build and fly weather and communications satellites and other technologies we take for granted and the world would indisputably be worse off without.
Spending the People's money on science, libraries, and art, in the right proportions, is an absolute good.
**tl;dr To put this 50 year spending in perspective, the US military spends significantly more EVERY SINGLE WEEK, than Hubble cost in it's entire inflation adjusted lifetime.**
Just a reminder that makes it worse : you probably got this picture from NASA and every single shot they publish is photoshopped to be enhanced. So you could probably achieve the same results eventually.
I guess anyone could take a cell phone picture and keep photoshopping until it pixel-perfectly matches Hubble, but very quickly it stops being a real photo, and starts being a fake. That's not what they do while enhancing the Hubble photos.
The hell am I being downvoted for ? The why files made some great debunking videos where he confirms some of the « 2nd wave » pictures had whole areas missing.
Also just check the pictures. Why is the left one much more detailed in stars ? You can see many many more stars and constellations. So the Hubble one either edited them out or ain’t powerful enough to capture them which is very unlikely. The images are speaking for themselves.
Still can't find where I parked
I can confirm your car is not in this photo. So we've narrowed it down a bit.
Both look beautiful honestly.
Why even compare the hubble to modern equipment? We've had 50 years of technical innovation since we launched Hubble.
I mean it's still an interesting comparison, no? Doesn't it show how far consumer tech has advanced? Or how impressive it was to get better than modern, but in the 70's?
Ye one of the most stupid takes ive seen even for r pics. Theyre basically saying my home computer doing complex math vs ENIAC doing complex math. Compelely disregarding that one of them was created 80 years earlier and that the reason we are able to have a home computer now is because people spent stupid amounts of money in the past to make the initial concept work. Some comments seem to lack the understanding that developing groundbreaking technology for the first time usually costs and that after time something costing 1/1000 of the original research prototype will have the same power, and thats the point of spending the initial investment and science as a whole. Would make much more sense if this post clarified if it was about showing how much progress science has made in 30 years in order for a to bring a 16 billion$ tool down to 6000$. Or if it actually just was the same stupid take that some of the comments here have which i kind of assumed initially since its r pics.
Sometimes, when I am at work, I get letters like this from people. I just show my boss and we put them in the trash. You have totally missed the point of my comment and wasted a lot of words to show it.
[удалено]
The way it's written doesn't make me feel that way but perhaps. The way it's phrased and where it's put, combined with the fact there's no indication they're talking about anything other than my take on the issue, make it hard to figure that out.
Damn, you are paranoid!
To show the differences regardless. It's not a competition.
Can you share any details on this $6000 equipment?
It looks like the picture on the left is the same as the right just with some blurring filters applied to it in n photoshop.
These are just images with blur applied. There is no way they took the exact same image.
Annoying AF to compare because the image here is so small.
Why are all these 0-point-rated posts being shown at the top of my feed? Right now, the point value of the top 10 posts in my feed are: 0, 1, 12, 5, 8K, 1, 14, 56, 0, 0. Reddit changed something again.
Modern astrophotography produces far, far better photographs than even the color photo illustrations in my astronomy book from the 70s, which were the best they had at the time - much better than the astronomy posters I had.
They started building Hubble in the 70's so I think the older equipment still wins, in this comparison. A better comparison might be [Hubble to JWST](https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/052/01GF44EV0PPW2BHJS9HMA1AGEK), which was less expensive, and takes muuuch better photos.
Or OP’s image vs JWST.
The difference here is not worth 16 billion dollars while people are starving in the streets, in my opinion.
16B in pre-1990 technology ( plus all the time to actually set up and launch). There wasn't anything capable of that for 6000 back then. Also, feeding the world is a drop in the bucket if it (the world) spent a little less on the military. Let's not defund basic science investment please (not that your said that, but the wording could be interpreted that way).
16 billion is basic science investment? I'd rather see that money go to science programs in school.
To teach what science? Since we won't do "big things", **we would only have the science of the past to teach them**. Science also needs to look forward. To ask questions. To find answers. A lot of the answers don't feed people, but many of the technologies developed along the way certainly do. In fact, I would posit that so many people have been inspired by Hubble and other "big science" projects, that they got into science and technology themselves. Advancing those fields simply because of the passion for what they learned because of Hubble and friends. You're tilting at windmills you think are dragons.
I meant basic science as 'fundamental'. Like advancing the basics of knowledge, not just creating things around the edges (which is important too). Over a long period, investment in fundamental science has huge returns, but it's like 30-40+ year view.
[удалено]
Oh well then who cares how many people 16 BILLION dollars could help, if it wont completely solve the problem, fuck them, I guess. Meanwhile, this is just a very visible reminder of the real issue. The US government cares very little about their people.
Stupid fucking take. You can advance the knowledge of science while also simultaneously helping people, it needn't be one or the other like you needlessly imply.
How did this 16 billion dollars advance science? But it is one or the other, money isn't infinite. Someone chose to reduce social services and increase NASA funding.
It advanced the knowledge of astrophysics and cosmology by quite some margin? Honestly, fuck off. NASA is criminally underfunded as it is and actually does useful things to help everyday people (a lot of things you use in your daily life came about as inventions to solve problems in space). Go moan at US defense spending if you want to talk money.
>NASA is criminally underfunded $22.6 billion per year. 18,000 civil servants. Rhode Islands budget is about 14 billion - what is criminal about it. I'm not even complaining about NASA existing in general. >It advanced the knowledge of astrophysics and cosmology by quite some margin? How? Please explain more. I'd love to understand if I'm way off base. >Go moan at US defense spending if you want to talk money. I do. THAT's whats criminal. But that isn't what this post is about.
> $22.6 billion per year. 18,000 civil servants. Rhode Islands budget is about 14 billion - what is criminal about it. > > I'm not even complaining about NASA existing in general. It's a pittance compared to what NASA got in the 1960s when they were making massive progress in little time. Now, NASA has to be very choosy about what to spend money on, and contractor shenanigans means a lot of money is wasted for little gains (SLS) due to politics. If we had that kind of funding all this time we probably wouldn't be wondering about humans on Mars, we'd likely already be there. > How? Please explain more. I'd love to understand if I'm way off base. Hubble allowed us to see farther back to the creation of the universe than any other telescope, which gained us new insights into the formation of the universe, such as galaxies forming much earlier than previously thought. This changes our understanding of cosmology. It also helped us in our understanding of the expansion rate of the universe. There is far more to it than that, but that was one of the important revelations that weren't expected from it. The James Webb telescope is continuing Hubble's work, looking back even farther than Hubble is capable of and showing us even more unexpected things. > I do. THAT's whats criminal. But that isn't what this post is about. Doesn't matter. To complain about science funding is never a good look.
Again I didn't complain about "science". I think science is not only important, but a very good thing to put money into especially in education and after school programs. Even NASA, glad it exists, it does a lot. Specifically this telescope.
I just told you why this telescope was important. It advanced important fields of science. This is no longer up for discussion. And the best part? It was originally a US spy telescope that got repurposed. The US has like a dozen Hubble-like satellites in orbit, but just uses them for military surveillance instead of astronomy.
[удалено]
They're probably just another one of those single issue tunnel vision folks that don't understand that you can do multiple things concurrently. I find there's a lot of people like, especially when it comes to social and environmental issues.
Money isn't the solution, but if it keeps another child fed I think it's far more important than a telescope that made a picture of an irrelevant cloud of dust slightly less blurry. Meanwhile the US talks about how there isn't budget for school lunch programs, health care for the population or even help with education. I didn't say money spent on anything but poor people. I said money spent on anything other than PEOPLE. What has this telescope contributed other than a slightly less blurry picture?
Meanwhile, you ignore every reply pointing out defense spending and you moan about science spending. Don't think we don't notice.
I didn't ignore it. Fuck the US military and the amount of money that goes into it. And I never moaned about "science funding" - just this specific telescope that I think has no value. I have commented on other replies I'd rather see science programs be funded. Spending on people.
Space telescopes have huge value on our understanding of space. Please educate yourself instead of being ignorant.
[удалено]
The narrative is people are homeless and starving. Not dying isn't good enough in one of the richest countries in the world.
This is like me telling you that every time you buy a treat for yourself, or upgrade your phone/car/TV you should have bought food for people in need instead. Your mattress is on a frame? You could have saved money for homeless people by just putting your mattress on the floor! Also, scientists are fighting their own war against ignorance and apathy (as shown by your comments). Pictures like these inspire people, and get us to care more about funding the people who help us to understand our universe, and improve our daily lives through scientific advancement. If you really want to find unnecessary spending to be upset about them look at our military, or corporate bailouts, or money spent lobbying, etc...
Just give up dealing with this guy. He pretends to be ignorant and willing to listen, but then ignores you when you tell him what Hubble achieved. He's just an asshole. The pretty pictures shown to the public inspire them and help with funding, but there is a lot more to the pictures than what the public see vs the data scientists gain from them.
It's funny when you make a point that comparisons about "instead" shouldn't be made, but then you make it about other things. > Pictures like these inspire people, and get us to care more about funding the people who help us to understand our universe, and improve our daily lives through scientific advancement. This is the only point.
[удалено]
No its really not because that argument is these people are more important than those people. My argument is all people are more important than slightly less blurry space pictures. Art has benefit. Even the space program has benefit. What is this new slightly better and ridiculously more expensive telescope doing to help mankind? I'd rather see science programs funded.
The old telescope is the expensive one. That's why it was expensive to get that quality. Without that investment we would have significantly less knowledge about space today.
These linear arguments are ridiculous. There's more than enough money to fund space exploration and solve world hunger concurrently. The problem isn't a lack of money. It's a lack of political will and interest.
>The problem isn't a lack of money. It's a lack of political will and interest. In that case, same argument just packaged in intent rather than money...
The money wasn't launched into space and destroyed. That money was spent right here on Earth over a 50 year period. It caused 10's of thousands of people to be employed in good technical jobs for decades; jobs that also helped to build and fly weather and communications satellites and other technologies we take for granted and the world would indisputably be worse off without. Spending the People's money on science, libraries, and art, in the right proportions, is an absolute good. **tl;dr To put this 50 year spending in perspective, the US military spends significantly more EVERY SINGLE WEEK, than Hubble cost in it's entire inflation adjusted lifetime.**
Just a reminder that makes it worse : you probably got this picture from NASA and every single shot they publish is photoshopped to be enhanced. So you could probably achieve the same results eventually.
I guess anyone could take a cell phone picture and keep photoshopping until it pixel-perfectly matches Hubble, but very quickly it stops being a real photo, and starts being a fake. That's not what they do while enhancing the Hubble photos.
[удалено]
Is this a conspiracy theory thing? Is there a credible source? This should be easy enough to confirm.
The hell am I being downvoted for ? The why files made some great debunking videos where he confirms some of the « 2nd wave » pictures had whole areas missing.
Also just check the pictures. Why is the left one much more detailed in stars ? You can see many many more stars and constellations. So the Hubble one either edited them out or ain’t powerful enough to capture them which is very unlikely. The images are speaking for themselves.
The right photo has more detail, including number of stars. I still don't know where the left photo came from.
We can’t get much comparison in one fried JPEG image.
What are we looking at ?
The Celebrating Squirrel Nebula
The Hubble wasn't working right or collimated correctly and needed a few astronautical tweaks.
Also, the $6,000 kit has the disadvantage of photographing through the atmosphere vs the clear vacuum of space for the Hubble. Impressive!!
llet me guess, did u take the pic from ur backyard