JWST vs EELT

[azorean5000]

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has a 6.5 meter wide mirror, but it is a space-based telescope, without atmosferic distortion.<br /><br />The European Extremly Large Telescope (EELT) has a 42 meter wide mirror and it is an earth-based telescope with adaptative optics (with compensates the atmospheric distortion, or part of it AFAIK)<br /><br /><br />Does anyone knows which of those is the best? why? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

I think they complement each other nicely. Each will have their strengths. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Telescope<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Extremely_Large_Telescope<br /><br />Two different kinds of telescopes. Can't compare them head to head. It would be like comparing apples to oranges. I like the James Webb, because it will allow observation of distant hidden (by dust) infrared sources. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[nimbus]

Magnetic liquid mirror solutions wouldn't be feasible in a time frame similar to the EELT? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><i><br />Magnetic liquid mirror solutions wouldn't be feasible in a time frame similar to the EELT? </i></font>/i><br /><br />Probably not, maybe shortly there after. Remember, there has to be a human presence on the moon, to set up the liquid moon mirror:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_mirror#Moon-based_liquid_mirror_telescopes <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[nimbus]

Thanks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[azorean5000]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> I think they complement each other nicely. Each will have their strengths <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Hmm...apart from the JWST being only infrared, not optical/near-infrared like EELT, is there any more advantages/disadvantages not mentioned so far in this thread? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

That is of course the main difference between them. JWST has (or will have) no water vapor at all to deal with.<br />The EELT will have higher resulution at shorter wavelengths. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

I agree with MeteorWayne...they compliment each other nicely and as far as I'm concerned...these days, you cannot have enough supergiant scopes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[azorean5000]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> The EELT will have higher resulution at shorter wavelengths. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />However JWST will have higher resolution in his wavelenght (infrared) i presume? This is important if it shows that space telescopes are more powerful then ground-based telescopes. I think that JWST could have had optical too if not for the cost <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Testing]

Actuators for adaptive optics at 26K are hard to build. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[azorean5000]

Will JWST have higher resolution on infrared? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>