Yeah, I’m pretty sure they do, but just like how other creatures in the universe can’t see the same way we can see (dogs), it doesn’t make what we can perceive with the naked eye any less impressive, IMO.
Top 1000 Space Pictures
I feel like saying it isn’t a world preserves a useful distinction, as in “a world and its moon(s)”. But it’s an interesting question. In an ontological sense, the moon itself certainly could be a “world”, and human settlement also could create a “world”
I predict this is going to get reposted on facebook with the following title in ~3 days with the following caption: “Look, God put Mary’s face in the stars!”
They are nice, I have a Mac and I guess I just never bothered to look at the default ones. I knew it came with the Andromeda one (I think it’s Andromeda) but that is it. I’ve always used my own. I love the
I don’t know about the Very Large Telescope which took this photo, but I can tell you how amateur astronomers make colors come out in nebula photographs. They use what are called filters, which let some light through, and block others. Some use simple
Of which none have contained any firm evidence of fossilized microbes…. There’s simply not enough evidence yet for a solid, scientific claim. Your belief which you seem to cling to so dearly is entirely hypothetical until proven true. It doesn’t seem like you’re the
There are actually problems with chips in space, unlike what flesjewater has said. In short: there’s a lot of radiation in space that can randomly flip bits here and there. There are several things to note for this problem: 1) Rad-harding is a thing.
I keep looking for an eclipsed moon. Is it that bright star? Is that the moon from the other side? I feel stupid not being able to see it. EDIT: Wait, is this an exposure thing? Is the black, eclipsed moon that bright when
If everyday we as humans could walk outside and see the night sky for its true value and beauty, we would see the birth of ideas, and values that go beyond our world and our reality. New perceptions of what really matters and maybe
Source: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120720.html >Moon Meets Jupiter > >Image Credit & Copyright: Cristian Fattinnanzi > >Explanation: Skygazers around planet Earth enjoyed the close encounter of planets and Moon in July 15’s predawn skies. And while many saw bright Jupiter next to the slender, waning crescent, Europeans
>so in a photo it basically bleaches them out into darkness in comparison. Not really it has to do with proper exposure. The proper exposure for the earth and moon in way less than the exposure needed to get the stars. It does not
At the speeds these objects are flying, even say a glancing 45 degree impact has enough kinetic energy to cause a massive explosion that is powerful enough to annihilate the rest of the meteor. This explosive force radiates outward, creating a spheroid shape, vaporizing
[This will explain the colors in a fun little walkthrough.](http://hubblesite.org/gallery/behind_the_pictures/meaning_of_color/) I’m not actually aware of how the above image was colorized, though it appears to just be augmented true coloration. The telescope collects data on the light wavelengths coming from the galaxies and colors
Depends, I guess. If you are referring to guys like Messner, who climb eight-thousanders without oxygen, then it’s true. But they usually spend a couple of weeks on a plateau level, maybe 5000m or so, to get acclimatized to altitude, before they try to
I agree that it is not a natural photo, but I would never call this for a piece of trash, or an awful composition. If anything, this is a very well done manipulation from a photographer who understands how to combine colors and contrasts
Probably sitting in their bedrooms, listening to Linkin Park and complaining about Call of Duty hackers on the internet.
ISO is highly dependent on the camera you are shooting with. Newer sensors enable users to get up into the ISO 5000 range with very little noise in the shadows. As far a star trailing goes, exposure length is best determined by your focal
I don’t have a clue why you were downvoted (at the time of this post anyways). It was of course a ballsy move to do this EVA, but still, he was not in significantly more tremendous danger compared to a typical tethered EVA. The
> In mid-August 2010 ESO Photo Ambassador Yuri Beletsky snapped this photo at ESO’s Paranal Observatory, Chile. A group of astronomers were observing the centre of the Milky Way using the laser guide star facility at Yepun, one of the four Unit Telescopes of
How about rotated so as to better fit a landscape format? I kind of like the different perspective of the scene. The black of space also gives a clutter-free area for icons, if desired. [1920 x 1080](http://i.imgur.com/iSdZ1.jpg)
[Here](http:[email protected]/5866368512/in/pool-imthere/) is the photo from the photographer. It seems it isn’t Photoshopped, but has been messed with? I’m not entirely sure what all of his wording means, in all fairness. **Lunar Eclipse – June 16, 2011** This image is a hybrid of medium resolution
The angle covered by the lens on the camera is very wide, much like with our eyes. To view this picture “properly” it would have to be printed on the inside of a sphere, so that the image could curve around you, like it
It’s all about exposure time and aperture. In order for visible light from the stars to be seen, you’d need a longer exposure to allow the camera’s sensor’s to “soak” up more of that light. Since light is reflecting off the surface of the
Your title made me think I was in a normal photography sub and I got a tad confused as to how OP took a picture from space. I then looked at the sub and felt stupid.