The Most Detailed Image of Our Galaxy Ever Taken | Hacker News Reader

The Most Detailed Image of Our Galaxy Ever Taken

bmgoau.nfshost.com

118 pointsjaybol34 comments

If you zoom in (and give it a sec) it'll load the high-res version.

Just remember, every point of light is a star. And then remember, there are as many galaxies in the universe as points of light in that picture.

Now go watch Pale Blue Dot on youtube.

As Carl Sagan would say, "billions of billions".

Also this quote from the book "Pale Blue Dot" is equally amazing: http://vimeo.com/2822787

The original "Pale Blue Dot": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

Thanks for that.

"How perilous our infancy. How humble our beginnings."

Don't forget "The Powers of Ten" by the Eames: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7xwu2i0mMU

Zooms out and then back in.

As much as I'd give anything to be in deep space exploring the galaxy, the universe is a creepy looking place. You know the feeling when you're noclipping in a game? I imagine it would be weird like that.

Would you really give anything? Because it's possible. We could do it.

There just aren't enough people yet that are willing to give enough to do it.

Most people today are interesting in 'exploring' exceptionally populated areas of the planet that they've heard to be great places of interest. While these places are fascinating, it is hardly 'exploring'.

I hope that within my lifetime we will be able to convert enough of these people to want to explore places like the moon and Mars. Before long, we'll have people demanding we explore Alpha Centauri and going out with a battering-ram to see if we can find life in the universe rather than playing with a ham-radio to see if the neighbours are in.

If there was a realistic chance I'd get to do some of the exploring myself, I know I would, short of my life (and by that I mean dying for it, not making it my life's work which would be cool. Whether I'd risk my life for it, I'm not sure).

That's the most detailed? Google Sky has about 2x the magnification of a random, boring spot I picked, and much higher on interesting locations. Maybe there's some small spot which goes to 8x, but otherwise I think they've been beat.

(comparison: both scale roughly 2x on each level. linked: 9 levels. Google: 10 levels before informing of no more data, many boring locations go higher. Apparently, I found one of the least interesting sections to try first.)

I think that the title is a bit misleading. Indeed, this image is the most detailed infrared image of the galaxy[1]. Also, it is the most detailed image of the galaxy centre, since Spitzer can see through the huge amounts of dust that obscure the centre of of the galaxy in the optical wavelengths.

Caveat to my first point: with the advent of Herschel (which also performs in the near and far infrared wavelengths), more detailed pictures of the Milky Way emerged[2], although they have yet to image (or maybe just release) a full mosaic.

[1]http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080605.html [2]http://herschel.esac.esa.int/FirstParallelModeImages.shtml

Maybe this is a single composite take from the same satellite, not an agglomeration of many photos from different locations and times? I'm not sure.

It's definitely more consistent... and more blue.

Not saying it's not neat, and it appears to be quicker than Sky. Just that it's kinda lame if that really is the highest density.

How are these images created? We can't have space probes that have covered a significant distance from earth yet (or can we??), so I suppose essentially they must all be "as seen from earth"?

Yep, as seen from here. The denser parts are looking towards the center of the galaxy.

Yes. Since we are near the "edge" of the Milky Way, we have a great view of the centre!

i think the images were taken from spitzer. so yes, it is as seen from earth.

Anyone else tried to find the supermassive black hole ? :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duoHtJpo4GY

Submitted: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1390960

Thank you for that !

Can someone clarify if the colours visible in the image are an artifact of instrument used for capturing the image? Or are they natural colours of stars?

Judging from the name of the image, it was taken by Spitzer, which is an Infrared telescope [1]. The colors you see in this image do not represent visible light.

[1] http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/

Are these all true colors? Seems like a lot of red and yellow floating around? Or maybe thats just the way the galaxy is, I'm no expert.

As I responded to a similar question, I believe that these images are created through a composite of Spitzer images taken at different wavelengths, where the colours have been added artificially. There's more information here: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080605.html

these images were taken using the spitzer space telescope, which is an infrared telescope. so no, those aren't "true colors".

on a related note: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAVjF_7ensg

Does anybody know approximately where our solar system is in that picture?

It's about 75% from the center of the galaxy, but would it be on the left side or the right side?

(I know I won't be able to SEE it, but it just sort of feels good to be able to look at a picture like this and imagine a "YOU ARE HERE" arrow.)

Um, the picture was taken from Earth orbit. You will NOT find the solar system in this image.

Facepalm.

It would be great to have the same image but with labels for all the stars. It looks certainly great, but I would really like to click on certain points and get more information. Like what's the difference between a red, blue and green star here.

Amazing. Is Sol visible in that image?

Of course not. These images are taken FROM Sol. How could it be there?

Oh. Duh. Thanks. I guess the framing of the image gave me the (unconsidered, of course) impression that it was an outside view of the galaxy.

Hey, I can see my house from here!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com