'Clearest' Images of Space Ever Taken

[Vertex]

A team of astronomers from the US and the UK has obtained some of the clearest pictures of space ever taken....

Twice as sharp as those of the Hubble Space Telescope...

BBC News

I hope some of these images are made available to the public, they would make some amazing desktop backgrounds, assuming they are large enough.

 

[Bill Morris]

Fabulous. Now, if that could be somehow combined with the technology of the Terrestrial Planet Finder . . .

 

[Adagio]

Wow, the Cat's Eye Nebula looks like it is from a painting or a CGI for a sci-fi series! I didn't expect nebulas actually looked like that (note: I am an astronomy n00b).

 

[James Bond]

That picture is pretty clear, but it isn't THAT clear. I'm sure I've seen clearer photos before, particularly from the HST. Am I missing something?

 

[Vertex]

I don't know, most of the images I see from the HST are blurry when at full size, if that makes sense. Once there's a few full size images from this new technology, and maybe some side-by-side comparisons it'll be easier to decide.

 

[Arrqh]

Zed.P.M. said:
That picture is pretty clear, but it isn't THAT clear. I'm sure I've seen clearer photos before, particularly from the HST. Am I missing something?

A comparison is meaningless unless you are looking at photos of the same object... or at least objects that are roughly the same size at roughly the same distance away.

 

[Lookingglassman]

Wow! God's wonders never cease to amaze me.

What puzzles me is how can we see objects billions of light years away, but when a planet is found a couple hundred million light years away, we can't see it?

 

[Who_Trek]

I saw those on the BBC news -- WOW! Fantastic! (Wish I could go and see them in person ...)

 

[Vertex]

Starblazers said:
Wow! God's wonders never cease to amaze me.

What puzzles me is how can we see objects billions of light years away, but when a planet is found a couple hundred million light years away, we can't see it?

Well, my guess would be light. Star clusters and nebulae emit/absorb huge amounts of light, making them clearly visible against the dark of space. However, this is not necessarily true of planets, they may reflect light but not enough to reveal details about them, or to make them look like those in Trek. That's just my guess, but I wish we could see all the 'new' planets I've been hearing so much about.

 

[farmkid]

Starblazers said:
Wow! God's wonders never cease to amaze me.

What puzzles me is how can we see objects billions of light years away, but when a planet is found a couple hundred million light years away, we can't see it?

The things we can see (stars, galaxies, etc.) are visible because they emit something we can detect (visible light, X-rays, radio waves, etc.) Planets don't emit any radiation we can detect, they only reflect radiation from their sun. The level of radiation given off is so low compared to the sun that we can't detect it with current technology. We can only detect planets by their effect on their sun. We may see a slight dimming of their sun as the planet passes in front, or we may detct a shift in position of the star as the planet moves around it.

 

[James Bond]

Arrghman said:

Zed.P.M. said:
That picture is pretty clear, but it isn't THAT clear. I'm sure I've seen clearer photos before, particularly from the HST. Am I missing something?

A comparison is meaningless unless you are looking at photos of the same object... or at least objects that are roughly the same size at roughly the same distance away.

Fair enough. It's just that in the photo on the BBC website, the image taken from the Lucky camera doesn't seem all that impressive. I'll bet that I'm just missing something here.

farmkid said:

Starblazers said:
Wow! God's wonders never cease to amaze me.

What puzzles me is how can we see objects billions of light years away, but when a planet is found a couple hundred million light years away, we can't see it?

The things we can see (stars, galaxies, etc.) are visible because they emit something we can detect (visible light, X-rays, radio waves, etc.) Planets don't emit any radiation we can detect, they only reflect radiation from their sun. The level of radiation given off is so low compared to the sun that we can't detect it with current technology. We can only detect planets by their effect on their sun. We may see a slight dimming of their sun as the planet passes in front, or we may detct a shift in position of the star as the planet moves around it.

So how will new satellites like the Terrestrial Planet Finder and ESA's Darwin work? Will they be able to actually photograph new planets, or at least provide enough info to make up reasonable CGI representations?

 

[Candlelight]

Meh. I can get better images with my cellphone.

 

[watermelony2k]

the pictures probably look more impressive in their full size

 

[Vertex]

Further Information from the Observatory's Official Site

 

[Turbo]

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/09/05/346553.aspx

Then again, maybe not.

 

[BCI]

One astronomer explained to me that the so far detected extra solar planet candidates are still a hypothetical, depending on the correctness of certain calculations.

 

[James Bond]

BCI said:
One astronomer explained to me that the so far detected extra solar planet candidates are still a hypothetical, depending on the correctness of certain calculations.

Hmm I see. Perhaps Twilight can shed some light on the subject if he's reading this.