Astronomy Picture of the Day!

2008-06-23 08:21:00

#26

Ryan: Member; +1,230|6886|Alberta, Canada

Mek-Stizzle wrote:
I want to see real pictures, not some false colour crap

Most images are combinations of optical light waves, radio light waves, and X-Ray's.
If you just want to see the original, it would be black and white, and wouldn't look very nice.

06/23/08
_{Right click > View Image for a larger image}

https://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0806/iss_sts124_big.jpg

_{The developing International Space Station (ISS) has changed its appearance again. Earlier this month, the Space Shuttle orbiter Discovery visited the ISS and added components that included Japan's Kibo Science Laboratory. The entire array of expansive solar panels is visible in this picture taken by the Discovery Crew after leaving the ISS to return to Earth. The world's foremost space outpost can be seen developing over the past several years by comparing the above image to past images. Also visible above are many different types of modules, a robotic arm, another impressive set of solar panels, and a supply ship. Construction began on the ISS in 1998.}

Last edited by Ryan (2008-06-23 08:23:45)

2008-06-23 08:23:50

#27

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6664|London, England

At least it would be the real thing, unless they're using colours that would actually be shown if you were a little closer or something. If they're just using fake colours to make it more impressive than fuck that

2008-06-23 08:26:21

#28

Ryan: Member; +1,230|6886|Alberta, Canada

Mek-Stizzle wrote:
At least it would be the real thing, unless they're using colours that would actually be shown if you were a little closer or something. If they're just using fake colours to make it more impressive than fuck that

Well since the objects are so far away, the actual colors cannot be perceived. They use some sort of computer editing that brings out the real colors according to their spectroscopy readings.

The human eye cannot see X-Rays, radiowaves, or gamma rays, so even if you were a couple lightyears away from say the Orion Nebula, you wouldn't see much.

Last edited by Ryan (2008-06-23 08:26:48)

2008-06-23 08:28:20

#29

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6664|London, England

No I'm not talking about the invisible spectrum.

Well since the objects are so far away, the actual colors cannot be perceived. They use some sort of computer editing that brings out the real colors according to their spectroscopy readings.

So are they basing the colours off the visible or invisible spectrum?

All I'm saying is, they should just base the colours off the visible spectrum. Nothing else. That way we'll be able to see what they really look like.

Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-06-23 08:29:16)

2008-06-23 08:29:41

#30

tuckergustav: ...; +1,590|5957|...

I would be interested in seeing the before and after of the coloration process.

...

2008-06-23 08:30:28

#31

Ryan: Member; +1,230|6886|Alberta, Canada

Mek-Stizzle wrote:
No I'm not talking about the invisible spectrum.

Well since the objects are so far away, the actual colors cannot be perceived. They use some sort of computer editing that brings out the real colors according to their spectroscopy readings.
So are they basing the colours off the visible or invisible spectrum?

All I'm saying is, they should just base the colours off the visible spectrum. Nothing else. That way we'll be able to see what they really look like.

I saw a picture yesterday with 3 pictures of the same object, and a 4th picture, which was a combination of the three.
I'll go try and find it, and I'll go try and find a good explanation about the color issue.

2008-06-23 09:00:34

#32

too_money2007: Member; +145|6351|Keller, Tx

Damn Kam, what is your setup with that telescope? I've always wanted something like that.

2008-06-23 09:20:28

#33

Ryan: Member; +1,230|6886|Alberta, Canada

too_money2007 wrote:
Damn Kam, what is your setup with that telescope? I've always wanted something like that.

I think he just set up a webcam into the eyepiece and connected it to his laptop.
Kmar, is the telescope pointing through the window, or is it just there for getting set up?

2008-06-23 09:22:49

#34

Hakei: Banned; +295|6038

Mek-Stizzle wrote:
No I'm not talking about the invisible spectrum.

Well since the objects are so far away, the actual colors cannot be perceived. They use some sort of computer editing that brings out the real colors according to their spectroscopy readings.
So are they basing the colours off the visible or invisible spectrum?

All I'm saying is, they should just base the colours off the visible spectrum. Nothing else. That way we'll be able to see what they really look like.

Clearly the invisible, not much in space has amazing colours that you can just take a picture of, remember that these objects are mega parsecs away, we're talking a huge distance for visible light to travel - coloured radio/gamma rays look a lot better and do more for astrophysicists than a visible image of a galaxy, they all look the same, blobs of white.

M82 is the sexiest galaxy anyway, looks the sex.

2008-06-23 09:24:50

#35

Ryan: Member; +1,230|6886|Alberta, Canada

Check out this image. This was the one I was searching for.

https://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0801/cena_comp.jpg

You can see the different colors as a result of the different light waves.

2008-06-23 09:35:37

#36

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6664|London, England

Optical is still showing some colour, see, why do they need to add that other shit.

2008-06-23 09:39:04

#37

Airwolf: Latter Alcoholic; +287|6763|Scotland

Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Yeah it's thought that most galaxy's have a supermassive blackhole in the galactic centre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole

man... that's a tough read.

Conceptually difficult.

2008-06-23 09:39:14

#38

Ryan: Member; +1,230|6886|Alberta, Canada

I don't know. It's more eye-appealing. It shows you have active the object is, and that it is giving off other types of light as well.

2008-06-23 09:43:32

#39

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|6664|London, England

Ryan wrote:
I don't know. It's more eye-appealing. It shows you have active the object is, and that it is giving off other types of light as well.

It's giving off other types of Electromagnetic radiation, not light. Light = Visible/Optical portion of the EM spectrum. But yeah, I suppose it is interesting to see what other types of radiation is being emitted, but they shouldn't mix it up with different sections just to make things look cooler

2008-06-23 09:57:03

#40

Ryan: Member; +1,230|6886|Alberta, Canada

Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Ryan wrote:
I don't know. It's more eye-appealing. It shows you have active the object is, and that it is giving off other types of light as well.
It's giving off other types of Electromagnetic radiation, not light. Light = Visible/Optical portion of the EM spectrum.

Yea, because the eye can only see light at the visible wavelength.
So x-rays and radio waves aren't really considered light, yet radio telescopes can see it? That's weird.

2008-06-24 09:29:16

#41

Ryan: Member; +1,230|6886|Alberta, Canada

06/24/08
_{Right click > View Image for a larger picture}

https://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0806/tethys3_cassini_big.jpg

_{What created the Great Rift on Saturn's moon Tethys? No one is sure. More formally named Ithaca Chasma, the long canyon running across the right of the above image extends about 2,000 kilometers long and spreads as much as 100 kilometers wide. The above image was captured by the Saturn-orbiting robotic Cassini spacecraft as it zoomed by the icy moon last month. Hypotheses for the formation of Ithaca Chasma include cracking of Tethy's outer crust as the moon cooled long ago, and that somehow the rift is related to the huge Great Basin impact crater named Odysseus, visible elsewhere on the unusual moon. Cassini has now been orbiting Saturn for about four years and is scheduled to continue to probe and photograph Saturn for at least two more years.}

Last edited by Ryan (2008-06-24 09:29:36)

2008-06-25 08:31:33

#42

Ryan: Member; +1,230|6886|Alberta, Canada

06/25/08
_{Right click > View Image for a larger picture}

https://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0806/hannysvoorwerp_wht_big.jpg

_{What is that green thing? A volunteer sky enthusiast surfing through online Galaxy Zoo images has discovered something really strange. The mystery object is unusually green, not of any clear galaxy type, and situated below relatively normal looking spiral galaxy IC 2497. Dutch schoolteacher Hanny van Arkel, discovered the strange green "voorwerp" (Dutch for "object") last year. The Galaxy Zoo project encourages sky enthusiasts to browse through SDSS images and classify galaxy types. Now known popularly as Hanny's Voorwerp, subsequent observations have shown that the mysterious green blob has the same distance as neighboring galaxy IC 2497. Research is ongoing, but one leading hypothesis holds that Hanny's Voorwerp is a small galaxy that acts like a large reflection nebula, showing the reflected light of a bright quasar event that was visible in the center of IC 2497 about 100,000 years ago. Pictured above, Hanny's Voorwerp was imaged recently by the 4.2-meter William Herschel Telescope in the Canary Islands by Matt Jarvis, Kevin Schawinski, and William Keel.}

2008-06-25 08:37:01

#43

Surgeons: U shud proabbly f off u fat prik; +3,097|6532|Gogledd Cymru

Ryan wrote:
Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Ryan wrote:
I don't know. It's more eye-appealing. It shows you have active the object is, and that it is giving off other types of light as well.
It's giving off other types of Electromagnetic radiation, not light. Light = Visible/Optical portion of the EM spectrum.
Yea, because the eye can only see light at the visible wavelength.
So x-rays and radio waves aren't really considered light, yet radio telescopes can see it? That's weird.

Light is one of several elements of electromagnetic radiation, the others being, radio-waves, microwaves, infra-red, gamma-rays, x-rays and ultra-violet. Light is just classified as the waves which have 400-700 something nm wavelength

See here;

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Electromagnetic-Spectrum.png

2008-06-25 08:59:16

#44

kylef: Gone; +1,352|6536|N. Ireland

^ Learnt all that for my Physics tests!

2008-06-26 09:07:36

#45

Ryan: Member; +1,230|6886|Alberta, Canada

06/26/08
_{Right click > View image for a larger picture}

https://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0806/M27FTN_szymanek.jpg

_{Born on June 26th in 1730, astronomer Charles Messier scanned 18th century French skies for comets. To avoid confusion and aid his comet hunting, he diligently recorded this object as number 27 on his list of things which are definitely not comets. In fact, 21st century astronomers would classify it as a Planetary Nebula, but it's not a planet either, even though it may appear round and planet-like in a small telescope. Messier 27 (M27) is now known to be an excellent example of a gaseous emission nebula created as a sun-like star runs out of nuclear fuel in its core. The nebula forms as the star's outer layers are expelled into space, with a visible glow generated by atoms excited by the dying star's intense but invisible ultraviolet light. Known by the popular name of the Dumbbell Nebula, the beautifully symmetric interstellar gas cloud is over 2.5 light-years across and about 1,200 light-years away in the constellation Vulpecula. This impressive color composite highlights subtle jet features in the nebula. It was recorded with a robotic telescope sited in Hawaii using narrow band filters sensitive to emission from oxygen atoms (shown in green) and hydrogen atoms. The hydrogen emission is seen as red (H-alpha) and fainter bluish hues (H-beta).}

Last edited by Ryan (2008-06-26 09:08:04)

2008-06-26 09:34:02

#46

too_money2007: Member; +145|6351|Keller, Tx

Stupid universe and all of its secrets. That's the only thing I'll hate at the end of my life. That we'll never know what we are and what the universe is.

2008-06-26 09:39:09

#47

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6750|67.222.138.85

Light is everything in the EM spectrum. Visible light is the term for the ~400-700 nm wavelength range.

2008-06-26 09:43:33

#48

Airwolf: Latter Alcoholic; +287|6763|Scotland

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Light is everything in the EM spectrum. Visible light is the term for the ~400-700 nm wavelength range.

but for everyone to understand.... they're waves in essence.

2008-06-26 09:48:33

#49

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6750|67.222.138.85

Airwolf wrote:
Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Light is everything in the EM spectrum. Visible light is the term for the ~400-700 nm wavelength range.
but for everyone to understand.... they're waves in essence.

Oh oh...but are they

2008-06-26 10:26:35

#50

naightknifar: Served and Out; +642|6604|Southampton, UK

Kickass pics, Kickass thread.

BF2S Forums Astronomy Picture of the Day!

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

too_money2007 wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Ryan wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Ryan wrote:

Ryan wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Ryan wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Airwolf wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Board footer