5 ms·

As someone who does not follow space stuff, I kinda expected more / higher resolution.

quickthrowman 3y ago
[flagged]
boringg 3y ago
Some high def drone footage would have fit the bill for you? (FYI in case it wasn't recognized /S as your comment seems a bit silly to me in that you are dissapointed that we have a decent quality image of something ~4 LH away). The expectations humans have on new technology ceases to amaze me especially when something is unbelievably impressive and people are like, that's all?
- WinstonSmith84 3y ago
  Nope but Uranus is a mere 2.5h light hours away and the resolution appears to be roughly the same than looking at the moon with naked eyes. So it's not totally unreasonable to have expected a slightly better image for the best telescope we have. This being said, that image is still better than anything else we have seen from other telescopes
  - trelane 3y ago
    Uranus is roughly 3 light hours away. Distance from earth to Uranus varies between 2.6-3.2e12 m from Earth [1]. Speed of light in vacuum is 3e8 m/s, so calling the distance 3e12 to make the math easy, it's 1e4s (2 and 7/9 hours) for light to travel between earth and Uranus. [1] https://www.space.com/18709-uranus-distance.html#:~:text=How%20far%20is%20Uranus%20from,miles%20(3.2%20billion%20km) https://www.space.com/18709-uranus-distance.html#:~:text=How....
    - WinstonSmith84 3y ago
      yes, typo... thanks and fixed! The point was, it's not all that far away when compared to even the next star 4.3 light years away (2.5h vs 4.5years)
      - monadINtop 3y ago
        that comparison should make you appreciate the unfathomable distances between even the most local astronomical objects, not underestimate it. The distance between continents is hard enough for the human brain to comprehend, and imagine the difficulty in trying to caputure an image with a telephoto lens of some resolvable feature in japan, from europe or america (forgetting the shape of the Earth's surface for a moment). Of course ever graceful, nature offers us a compromise. Most astronomical object (galaxies, nebula) are very big, and very very far away. It is not resolution that makes it difficult to see them (since they span an appreciable arc-width of our sky, e.g. search pictures of the angular width of andromeda galaxy or the orion nebula compared to the moon), but how faint they are. The photons they emit are travelling across swathes of the observable universe. They travel across scales where the presence of galaxy clusters warp the geometry of space-time, a turbulant voyage for these light rays. They travel across distances where space itself inflates like a balloon, the expanding universe sapping energy from them until they arrive in our detectors or eyeballs redshifted beyond recognision. This is why observatories and satellite-telescopes need to place a huge emphasis on scaling up mirror size to scoop up all the photons they possibly can, as opposed to strictly focusing on resolution - as an earthbound photographer might naively expect. Now consider the nature of planets, they are not diffuse clouds of molecules or dust lanes spanning galactic widths, they are tightly bound, tangible, physical objects. Now they might be our neighbours, trapped in the same spiral around the sun's gravitational well, but that doesn't mean they're "close" in any sense that the human mind could every really fathom. If we want to resolve atmospheric or geographic (is that even the right word for other planets?) features, we need to be able to achieve precise resolutions beyond what is normally required for other types of astronomical observation. Indeed, if you've every taken a class on optics or astronomy, you might be suprised how quickly fundamental limits of resolution that arise from lights wave-like behaviour - like airy disks - begin to veil that which we wish to observe, when playing around with frequiencies and aperture widths on a "humman" scale.
      - 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
peddling-brink 3y ago
This is Uranus from earth: https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/interactive-sky-watching-tools/the-elusive-moons-ofuranus/ https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/interactive-sky-watchi... Part of the trouble is that it’s really far away.
- sp332 3y ago
  The photos on that page were taken with 8- and 14-inch telescopes. I expected a 6.5-meter one to have a more detailed image. Keck has a 10-meter aperture and its image of Uranus looks like this: https://keckobservatory.org/keck_pictures_of_uranus_show_best_view_from_the_ground/ https://keckobservatory.org/keck_pictures_of_uranus_show_bes...
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Webb is optimized for different things. https://news.berkeley.edu/2022/12/01/webb-space-telescope-keck-team-up-to-study-saturns-moon-titan https://news.berkeley.edu/2022/12/01/webb-space-telescope-ke... > Though the quality of the JWST and Keck images may look about the same to the untrained eye, de Pater noted that JWST has instruments that can measure aspects of Titan’s atmosphere that Keck cannot, complementing one another. In particular, JWST’s infrared spectroscopic capability allows it to pinpoint the altitudes of clouds and hazes with much better accuracy. > “By using spectrometers on JWST together with the optical image quality with Keck, we get a really complete picture of Titan,” she said, such as the heights of clouds, the atmosphere’s optical thickness, and the elevation of haze in the atmosphere. > In particular, at wavelengths where Earth’s atmosphere is opaque — that is, Titan cannot be seen from any Earth-based telescope — JWST can observe and provide information on the lower atmosphere and surface.
    - divbzero 3y ago
      > the heights of clouds, the atmosphere’s optical thickness, and the elevation of haze in the atmosphere It amazes me that we can detect any of those with telescopes so far away. Does anyone have a rough explanation for how this is possible?
sneak 3y ago
I think we got supremely spoiled by Cassini.
- orbital-decay 3y ago
  And Voyager 2. (not in NIR, though) A modern probe to the ice giants is long overdue. Plenty of missions were proposed over decades, but none actually made it.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    Comparing a mission to orbit and stay on mission is really unfair to one that is only whizzing by the planet. The ice bodies need their own versions of Cassini instead of just being a road side stop for souvenirs on the way to the actual destination. The plants are not the world's largest ball of twine or some other cash grab of an attraction. They should be the destination.
    - kridsdale1 3y ago
      You’ll have to play up the hydrocarbons to get the US to fund such a destination.
      - dylan604 3y ago
        It's a good thing the US is no longer the only space agency sending out probes into the solar system. Sadly, the reach of the US does extend into the other agencies in a pretty influential way though
bastardoperator 3y ago
I'll be honest, it looks fake. I don't think it is fake and I'm not trying to imply that it is. The resolution is low and high at the same time. The other zoomed out pictures are better for me personally because it gives me a little more context seeing I know nothing about space.

[flagged]

Some high def drone footage would have fit the bill for you? (FYI in case it wasn't recognized /S as your comment seems a bit silly to me in that you are dissapointed that we have a decent quality image of something ~4 LH away). The expectations humans have on new technology ceases to amaze me especially when something is unbelievably impressive and people are like, that's all?

WinstonSmith84 3y ago
Nope but Uranus is a mere 2.5h light hours away and the resolution appears to be roughly the same than looking at the moon with naked eyes. So it's not totally unreasonable to have expected a slightly better image for the best telescope we have. This being said, that image is still better than anything else we have seen from other telescopes
- trelane 3y ago
  Uranus is roughly 3 light hours away. Distance from earth to Uranus varies between 2.6-3.2e12 m from Earth [1]. Speed of light in vacuum is 3e8 m/s, so calling the distance 3e12 to make the math easy, it's 1e4s (2 and 7/9 hours) for light to travel between earth and Uranus. [1] https://www.space.com/18709-uranus-distance.html#:~:text=How%20far%20is%20Uranus%20from,miles%20(3.2%20billion%20km) https://www.space.com/18709-uranus-distance.html#:~:text=How....
  - WinstonSmith84 3y ago
    yes, typo... thanks and fixed! The point was, it's not all that far away when compared to even the next star 4.3 light years away (2.5h vs 4.5years)
    - monadINtop 3y ago
      that comparison should make you appreciate the unfathomable distances between even the most local astronomical objects, not underestimate it. The distance between continents is hard enough for the human brain to comprehend, and imagine the difficulty in trying to caputure an image with a telephoto lens of some resolvable feature in japan, from europe or america (forgetting the shape of the Earth's surface for a moment). Of course ever graceful, nature offers us a compromise. Most astronomical object (galaxies, nebula) are very big, and very very far away. It is not resolution that makes it difficult to see them (since they span an appreciable arc-width of our sky, e.g. search pictures of the angular width of andromeda galaxy or the orion nebula compared to the moon), but how faint they are. The photons they emit are travelling across swathes of the observable universe. They travel across scales where the presence of galaxy clusters warp the geometry of space-time, a turbulant voyage for these light rays. They travel across distances where space itself inflates like a balloon, the expanding universe sapping energy from them until they arrive in our detectors or eyeballs redshifted beyond recognision. This is why observatories and satellite-telescopes need to place a huge emphasis on scaling up mirror size to scoop up all the photons they possibly can, as opposed to strictly focusing on resolution - as an earthbound photographer might naively expect. Now consider the nature of planets, they are not diffuse clouds of molecules or dust lanes spanning galactic widths, they are tightly bound, tangible, physical objects. Now they might be our neighbours, trapped in the same spiral around the sun's gravitational well, but that doesn't mean they're "close" in any sense that the human mind could every really fathom. If we want to resolve atmospheric or geographic (is that even the right word for other planets?) features, we need to be able to achieve precise resolutions beyond what is normally required for other types of astronomical observation. Indeed, if you've every taken a class on optics or astronomy, you might be suprised how quickly fundamental limits of resolution that arise from lights wave-like behaviour - like airy disks - begin to veil that which we wish to observe, when playing around with frequiencies and aperture widths on a "humman" scale.
    - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

peddling-brink 3y ago

This is Uranus from earth: https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/interactive-sky-watching-tools/the-elusive-moons-ofuranus/ https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/interactive-sky-watchi... Part of the trouble is that it’s really far away.

sp332 3y ago
The photos on that page were taken with 8- and 14-inch telescopes. I expected a 6.5-meter one to have a more detailed image. Keck has a 10-meter aperture and its image of Uranus looks like this: https://keckobservatory.org/keck_pictures_of_uranus_show_best_view_from_the_ground/ https://keckobservatory.org/keck_pictures_of_uranus_show_bes...
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Webb is optimized for different things. https://news.berkeley.edu/2022/12/01/webb-space-telescope-keck-team-up-to-study-saturns-moon-titan https://news.berkeley.edu/2022/12/01/webb-space-telescope-ke... > Though the quality of the JWST and Keck images may look about the same to the untrained eye, de Pater noted that JWST has instruments that can measure aspects of Titan’s atmosphere that Keck cannot, complementing one another. In particular, JWST’s infrared spectroscopic capability allows it to pinpoint the altitudes of clouds and hazes with much better accuracy. > “By using spectrometers on JWST together with the optical image quality with Keck, we get a really complete picture of Titan,” she said, such as the heights of clouds, the atmosphere’s optical thickness, and the elevation of haze in the atmosphere. > In particular, at wavelengths where Earth’s atmosphere is opaque — that is, Titan cannot be seen from any Earth-based telescope — JWST can observe and provide information on the lower atmosphere and surface.
  - divbzero 3y ago
    > the heights of clouds, the atmosphere’s optical thickness, and the elevation of haze in the atmosphere It amazes me that we can detect any of those with telescopes so far away. Does anyone have a rough explanation for how this is possible?

sneak 3y ago

I think we got supremely spoiled by Cassini.

orbital-decay 3y ago
And Voyager 2. (not in NIR, though) A modern probe to the ice giants is long overdue. Plenty of missions were proposed over decades, but none actually made it.
- dylan604 3y ago
  Comparing a mission to orbit and stay on mission is really unfair to one that is only whizzing by the planet. The ice bodies need their own versions of Cassini instead of just being a road side stop for souvenirs on the way to the actual destination. The plants are not the world's largest ball of twine or some other cash grab of an attraction. They should be the destination.
  - kridsdale1 3y ago
    You’ll have to play up the hydrocarbons to get the US to fund such a destination.
    - dylan604 3y ago
      It's a good thing the US is no longer the only space agency sending out probes into the solar system. Sadly, the reach of the US does extend into the other agencies in a pretty influential way though

bastardoperator 3y ago

I'll be honest, it looks fake. I don't think it is fake and I'm not trying to imply that it is. The resolution is low and high at the same time. The other zoomed out pictures are better for me personally because it gives me a little more context seeing I know nothing about space.