Hubble - 11.3 day exposure... - DPChallenge Forums

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

01/05/2006 05:22:03 AM · #1

Quite amazing.

//hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2004/07/image/a

where there is also a link to the 6200x6200 images.

"The image required 800 exposures taken over the course of 400 Hubble orbits around Earth. The total amount of exposure time was 11.3 days, taken between Sept. 24, 2003 and Jan. 16, 2004."

Message edited by author 2006-01-05 05:22:11.

pix-al

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

01/05/2006 05:26:35 AM · #2

That is AWESOME!

crayon

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

01/05/2006 05:52:49 AM · #3

typical DPC comment: out of focus! here's a 1 you little slug! :p

Makka

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/05/2006 06:01:07 AM · #4

It's truly amazing when you look at pictures like this! I wonder if anything is out there looking back? It'd be stupid if we had all this space to ourselves!

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

01/05/2006 06:55:24 AM · #5

Originally posted by Makka:

It's truly amazing when you look at pictures like this! I wonder if anything is out there looking back? It'd be stupid if we had all this space to ourselves!

And that image shows an area of space 1/10 the diameter of the moon. The whole sky looks like that... plus the whole sky on the other side of the planet! The universe is huge far beyond comprehension.

notonline

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/05/2006 07:50:11 AM · #6

will that lense fit my XT or will I have to go for an upgrade???

OdysseyF22

Panasonic DC-G9

Olympus 12-45mm f/4.0 Pro

01/05/2006 07:57:42 AM · #7

Wow. That's amazing. And to think that even after we manage to explore our own galaxy, there is still all those others out there that we may never get to see. I suddenly feel sorta' tiny. :D

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

01/05/2006 08:05:03 AM · #8

Originally posted by OdysseyF22:

Wow. That's amazing. And to think that even after we manage to explore our own galaxy, there is still all those others out there that we may never get to see. I suddenly feel sorta' tiny. :D

Interstellar travel, let alone intergalactic travel, is sadly a v long way away...

//www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/research/warp/warp.html

riolobo

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

01/05/2006 08:44:57 AM · #9

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

"The image required 800 exposures taken over the course of 400 Hubble orbits around Earth. The total amount of exposure time was 11.3 days, taken between Sept. 24, 2003 and Jan. 16, 2004."

From the rules:
"Your entry must come from a single photograph, taken during the specified challenge timeframe. ;-)

Telehubbie

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/05/2006 08:50:38 AM · #10

Wow, very impressive! A lot of noise on that full-size image though. They must be using a Nikon in that 'scope. :-)

ShotMD

Canon EOS-10D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/05/2006 09:04:41 AM · #11

Hum... I love space shots, but somehow, This one makes me want to get out my lint brush.

dr rick

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

01/05/2006 09:27:50 AM · #12

This certainly isn't the most attractive Hubble photo, but it may be the most profound. The dozens of objects recognizable as galaxies are unimaginably far away. The thousands of tiny specks that make it look like someone needs to clean the Hubble's sensor are also galaxies, each containing billions of stars, even further away. Only a handful of foreground stars (the ones with spikes) are anywhere in our neighborhood. Mind boggling!

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

01/05/2006 09:32:21 AM · #13

Lots of white spots on the nice black background - no real subject - not using rules of thirds - 5 :-)))

Amazing implications of a picture like this - and it's just a very small portion of the sky WE can see, it would be the same at any of those light points.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

01/05/2006 09:32:22 AM · #14

Is it just me, or does anyone else here think that the idea of all this vastness and mass coming from a dot (aka, Big Bang) totally unbelievable, and frankly full of crap?

Yeah, that question should stir the pot :-)

-Chad

BobsterLobster

Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro

01/05/2006 09:42:15 AM · #15

People who study astrophysics believe it... they're more likely to know what they're talking about than someone who has an unfounded opinion.

01/05/2006 11:23:13 AM · #16

Originally posted by BobsterLobster:

People who study astrophysics believe it... they're more likely to know what they're talking about than someone who has an unfounded opinion.

So some people tell you that all the mass in the universe was once contained in the space of a dot, and you accept it just because people more educated than you tell you its true. What do YOU think?

And who says my opinion is unfounded?

I'm not trying to start an argument - just spark some free-thinking.

-Chad

Message edited by author 2006-01-05 11:24:23.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/05/2006 11:29:08 AM · #17

Originally posted by cpurser:

...you accept it just because people more educated than you tell you its true.

The same could be said of religion, except that we can actually test models in physics to see if they agree with observations.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

01/05/2006 11:32:23 AM · #18

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by cpurser:
...you accept it just because people more educated than you tell you its true.

The same could be said of religion, except that we can actually test models in physics to see if they agree with observations.

Hey, let's not get religion into this.

Big Bang very well could be true, but to me, common sense-wise, I just don't believe it. And the educated ones have to dream up of all kinds of off-the-wall stuff to make it work. Dark matter, dark energy, inflation, etc.

-Chad

David.C

01/05/2006 11:33:42 AM · #19

Originally posted by cpurser:

That theory is based on observations taken from this one little spot we call home -- there is a lot (talking huge here) room for error when trying to triangulate a position when all three readins come from essentially the same place. It is based on guesswork and theories from unreliable observations -- but it is easy to believe, perhaps because it mirrors so closely mainstream religious beliefs. *shrug* We are a long way from the point that it really matters. When we get closer we will be better able to say.

David

OdysseyF22

Panasonic DC-G9

Olympus 12-45mm f/4.0 Pro

01/05/2006 11:35:50 AM · #20

I believe it. It may not be totally accurate, but I'll take science over...the alternative...any day. There's some facinating theories out there, and sure, they're just theories that happen to fit what little we know, but that doesn't mean that at least one of them isn't right. Read some of Hawking's work, it's absolutly amazing.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

01/05/2006 11:40:22 AM · #21

Standard disclaimer: I believe in the validity of the big bang. I also believe what lies behind the Big Bang, is God.

I think what cpurser may be alluding to is that it's beyond our comprehension or anything even remotely in our experience to think that that amount of mass could be squeezed into a point smaller than we could see. Come on, valid or not, that'd be kooky talk in our everyday lives...

Strikeslip

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

01/05/2006 11:49:53 AM · #22

I took astrophysics as an elective (late 80's) in university from a professor who had a thick German accent. My most vivid memory of the course was him telling me, "Purrrhaps you'd bettah drrrop zee courz." After I told him I'd be absent for the first two weeks because I'd be in Europe for a geology course.

Message edited by author 2006-01-05 11:50:22.

01/05/2006 11:50:15 AM · #23

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Thanks Doc, for rephrasing it. That is what I was getting at.

Oh, to scalvert, physics don't agree with Big Bang... that's why there is dark matter, dark energy, inflation, etc, to try to force it to work. Even though, no matter how hard they try, can't see or detect dark matter or energy.

-Chad

Message edited by author 2006-01-05 11:50:41.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/05/2006 11:50:54 AM · #24

Originally posted by cpurser:

common sense-wise, I just don't believe it.

What does common sense have to do with the study of physics or cosmology? We KNOW that black holes exist- we can measure their mass and diameter with a fair degree of accuracy. We can observe the intense radiation and orbital velocities around them, yet we're talking about a ridiculous amount of matter compressed to a single point. Whether or not we understand them, they still exist. Ditto neutron stars, gamma rays bursts and the rings around Saturn. "Common sense" said that living creatures shouldn't exist in boiling, corrosive water around deep sea volcanoes, that the earth was flat, that people would never walk on the moon, that heavy airplanes couldn't fly, and that the sound barrier couldn't be broken. Obviously, common sense doesn't determine what's actually possible.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III