What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Gibson Guitar Pack view!
bestbuygiftadvice.com - A Best Buy(R) Twelpforce(TM) carol about the righteousness of the Gibson Guitar Pack.
57 Comments
- SuckMyDigg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+29Enhance... enhance.... enhance.... JUST PRINT THE DAMN THING!
- qsqueeq, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22I disagree that this is the clearest..
Please check this one out: http://www.qsopht.com/images/space.jpg
And no, it's not 'shopped. - sotopheavy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+18Finally an "enhance" button for images (I wish)
- arcooke, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18Why did you post that...?
- theragu40, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Now if only they had them in a resolution bigger than 400x200
- K3ITHK, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10So go there and get some high resolution ones for us.
- catastrophee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8For a phone on the other hand . . .
- OKeric, on 05/12/2008, -0/+8Too bad they don't have the Cat's Eye Nebula big enough to use as a wallpaper.
- Barbarino, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I know nothing about how all this stuff works, but I always wondered why a moon based system on the dark side wouldn't be the best solution to all of this?
- isunktheship, on 10/10/2007, -1/+71.) I live like 5 min away from there
2.) Why are the pictures like 180 * 180 pixels :(. - jpwhitmore, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5that's going as my new background
- tonycomputerguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4After tooling around here http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~optics/Lucky_Web_Site/LI_Results.htm (some good stuff there by the way) I came across a press release with (slightly) higher res versions of the above.
http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~optics/Lucky_Web_Site/LI_Press_Releases_0807.htm - bsmang, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I was gonna say, which dark side of the moon?!
- GiggleStick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It's not his fault. He learnt all his astronomy from Pink Floyd while high.
- chroko, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Okay... but what about in the non-visible spectrum?
Proponents of space-based telescopes always push the argument that ground-based adaptive optics will *never* be as good as space-based ones, because of atmospheric absorption that makes observation of non-visible wavelengths (like infrared) impossible from the ground - no matter how good the adaptive optics are.
Would anyone who actually knows what they are talking about care to comment about how that applies to this telescope? - Crynos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Anyone know where to find a high resolution version of the Cat's Eye Nebula picture?
- tonycomputerguy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Here's the Lucky Cam's offical site (I think...) http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~optics/Lucky_Web_Site/LI_Results.htm
Here's some double rez action for ya guys. Found from the above link, http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~optics/Lucky_Web_Site/LI_Press_Releases_0807.htm - fultonla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2it's on the moon?
- link5280, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/dark_side.html
- Joffan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Quick explanation for Dusco2k7: moon lander is close but tiny; galaxies are far distant but ridiculously enormous.
- flibby, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There are a couple of different points here. First, the atmosphere is not transparent in many (some would say most) interesting wavelengths. So for most of the shorter wavelengths, Gamma-ray, X-ray, UV, one has to go to space to get these observations.
Second, since the resolution of a telescope is proportional to its diameter, you need a large telescope to make "clearer" images. Palomar is a 5 meter telescope and Hubble is a 2.5 meter telescope. This is why these "lucky" images are "better" than Hubble.
Third, the larger the ground-based telescope, the more atmosphere you need to correct (across the entire diameter of your telescope). This gets exceedingly difficult.
Finally, it is all about cost. Astronomers would love to have every telescope in space, but it cost billions to put and support Hubble (at launch 2.5 billion). Hubble successor will likely cost 10 billion. On the ground you can now make a world class telescope for $50 million. - Rub3s, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But can it see Bowie's in space?
- link5280, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Wrong...
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/dark_side.html - link5280, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hubble doesn't have to wait for optimum conditions, like no clouds or haze. Plus there are wavelengths that don't make it through the atmosphere, which Hubble can detect.
- tonycomputerguy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2*****, sorry for the double post, browser crashed, didn't think it went thru
- xpankrat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This image - http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44093000/jpg/_44093211_stars_palomar_203body.jpg - looks _exactly_ like a hyperspace in Star Control II ... :)
- Dardoush, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It look like a flower to me, not cat's eye
- qsqueeq, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sadly, after reading the post title the first thing I thought was to create a black/blank image.
- wassim2k, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Thanks BBC for providing a link to the full collection. Tease.
- Sophistifunk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Well there's a dark(er) side of the moon, right?
- Artzealot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dugg down for bad sense of humor.
- Seanpr123, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1just give em more time
- tkotam, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Told you not to get a car but a bicycle instead... Told ye!!
- madbadger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/wallpaper3/opo9501c.jpg
(taken by the Hubble) - Livewire, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1the one not facing the sun.
- lvflashguru, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Amateur astronomers have been doing this for a long time.
In fact looking through even a fairly large telescope gets kinda boring when looking at anything other than planets or the moon. Stars appear as only small globs of light at best so even if you are looking at a cluster it's just small globs spaced more closely together. However the experience is made much more enjoyable when you make the jump to astrophotography. Sounds expensive but it's not. Take a cheap 75-100 dollar webcam like the Tuocam Pro, make a simple modification so you can attach to the telescope and hook it up to your laptop. The instructions are easy to find on google. Then use any capture program you prefer and shoot pictures until your hearts content. Take short video clips or if you have a nice scope with tracking capabilities, you can take long video clips. Each shot is avarage at best but with the help of a very powerful program, you can produce stunning images right from your backyard. Fortunately, very powerful doesn't equal very expensive. Probably the most widely used program for post processing your images is called Registax and it's free. That's right, FREE. It lets you select a number of blurry images of an object and automatically stacks, aligns and enhances producing a final image of unbelievable clarity. It will even import an avi and separate the frames then stack and process them into an image. There are even some great tutorials online to help you get started.
So I can't see why this is such a big deal. - Proctor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Amateur Astronomers have been doing this for years. You can find these images by amateurs in much higher resolution and a lot more clear.
- madbadger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0taken by the Hubble:
http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/wallpaper3/opo9501c.jpg - madbadger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Probably because it's being reported by a mainstream news media such as BBC or CNN. The editors don't know much about certain subjects, and they think it's a new discovery.
- madbadger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I agree. http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/html/opo9501c.html
- madbadger, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The angular resolution of hubble is about 0.1" arcseconds. A 50 foot object on the moon viewed from earth is about 0.01" arcseconds. The Cat's Eye Nebula halo is about 350" arcseconds.
- Tetr1s, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Now all we just need a legit power ranger vehicle, and we'll be flying through space in no time.
- s0rce7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0lol give that one some thought buddy...
- burnerjack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Get your mind out of the Oort cloud!
- compulsive1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0The pictures of Cat's Eye Nebula from Hubble are much better. Maybe they are taken in different spectrum, but still.
- Piedramente, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1I lol'd
- todd987, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Heh, sounds like good marketing to me.
- lex0429, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3so left is looking through the eyes of a drunk guy and right is a sober guy, got it
- Cornrider, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1High-Def Space Porn!!!
-
Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
