Question for anyone who happens to be an expert: Is there any way to quantify how much better Webb is independently of the amount of time used to take the exposures? Like, could Hubble achieve the same quality of images as Webb if it was given 100x (or whatever) more time exposure?
I'm trying to understand how much the improvement is "speed of convergence" vs. "quality of asymptotic result". (Though... is that even a valid way of trying to understand things?)
I'm trying to understand how much the improvement is "speed of convergence" vs. "quality of asymptotic result". (Though... is that even a valid way of trying to understand things?)