4 ms·
In the article, the image is stated to be 665 megapixels and the width of the galaxy is given as 60,000 light years. Under the simplifying assumptions that the
by ddeck 8y ago
In the article, the image is stated to be 665 megapixels and the width of the galaxy is given as 60,000 light years.
Under the simplifying assumptions that the image is square and encompasses the exact galaxy width, that's about 22 trillion km (or ~11,000 VY Canis Majoris) per pixel. So I guess we're not seeing individual stars (edit: in the target galaxy) - or my math is also off somewhere.
- jcims 8y agoWell the stated resolution of Hubble is about 3 orders of magnitude smaller than necessary to resolve VY per my likely flawed calculation, so we're roughly within an order of magnitude of each other. Either that or all those stars are uuuuuge
- PavlikPaja 8y agoIt doesn't matter if the star is smaller than the pixel. You can see them individually as long as you can resolve the distance between them.
- gamblor956 8y agoThose are definitely individual stars. They might between us and the Triangulum galaxy.