5 ms·
My god, look at the background of the first image at full scale.
by pwned1 4y ago
My god, look at the background of the first image at full scale.
- jcims 4y agoI really wish astronomers would come up (or use) a standard mechanism for indicating the field of view of an image. The scale of this one in the night sky is much larger than the deep field one.
- racingmars 4y agoThe image details do have the dimensions listed in a standard measure down under the "Fast Facts" section; I assume this will be included for every image release. The deep field image says it's about 2.4 arcmin across[1], Stephan's Quintet image is about 7.4 arcmin across[2], etc. [1] https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/035/01G7DCWB7137MYJ05CSH1Q5Z1Z https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/035/01G... [2] https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/034/01G7DA5ADA2WDSK1JJPQ0PTG4A https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2022/034/01G...
- oAlbe 4y agoIs there a way to rapport an arcmin to a measurement that would be more easily understandable? Not necessarily as a multiple of grains of rice.
- yvoschaap 4y ago7.3 arcminutes = 16 light-years
- mwint 4y agoWait, but it’s a ~cone, right? So it must be 16ly across at some specific distance from us?
- agrajag 4y agoThat's the distance of an object away that has a parallax of 7.3 arcminutes and a baseline of 1AU. The 7.3 arcminutes referenced here is the width of the image on the celestial sphere.
- zola 4y agoI always translate it in my mind to full moons. 30 arcmin == diameter of full moon as seen from earth.
- sbierwagen 4y agoA minute of arc is one sixtieth of a degree. (A "minute", get it?) The moon is between 29.4 and 33.5 arcminutes wide, depending on where it is in its orbit. So about a tenth of the width of the moon.
- leeoniya 4y ago> So about a tenth of the width of the moon. this is so much more digestible than "grain of sand at arm's length", and those two metrics dont feel at all equivalent -- the moon is not ten grains of sand at arm's length wide, right?
- sbierwagen 4y agoThe moon is pretty darn small. Half a degree wide. Imagine gluing ten grains of sand together, balancing it on a fingertip, then stretching your arm out. Around a degree wide? Depending on your grain of sand, of course.
- leeoniya 4y agohmmm, about the size of an asprin tablet or pea at arm's length, seems to agree with somewhat smaller than thumbnail [1]. maybe i should find and measure some sand now :). in either case, 1/10 the width of the moon is so much easier to comprehend. when is the last time anyone tried holding a grain of sand at arms length? what a weird comparison to make when everyone on earth already has a stable/familiar reference in the sky. [1] https://astronomy.com/magazine/stephen-omeara/2010/01/stephen-james-omearas-secret-sky-measure-the-moon https://astronomy.com/magazine/stephen-omeara/2010/01/stephe...
- jcims 4y agoYour thumb at arms length is ~2 degrees or ~120 arcminutes wide. The fingernail on your index finger at arm's length is ~1 degree or 60 arcminutes wide. The moon is about half a degree or 30 arcminutes wide. This doesn't make sense but give it a try tonight if the moon is out. FWIW many of the galaxies and nebula you see in astrophotography are actually bigger in the night sky than one might guess. Andromeda for example is about 6 times wider than the moon at ~3 degrees across - https://slate.com/technology/2014/01/moon-and-andromeda-relative-size-in-the-sky.html https://slate.com/technology/2014/01/moon-and-andromeda-rela...
- BurningFrog 4y agoI propose we use Moon Diameters (MD) as the official HN unit for sky distance.
- jcims 4y agoI know that's usually there. I'd just love to see a little map scale bar or something in EXIF. [-----------] ° [--------] ' [----------------------] " [----------------] ,," Super easy.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jacquesm 4y agoNice idea, really, and very easy to implement.
- DrBazza 4y agoGrain of sand at arms length for yesterday’s deep field.
- _c3ag 4y agois not lovely it reached internet just after 80% of the planet being able to see the sun?
- dredmorbius 4y agoIn the Ring Nebula image, the two galaxies just kind of casually hanging out on the left side (just above midline), one square on, the other edge on, is pretty impressive. There are a few others to be found (I suspect image duration is much shorter than for the Deep Field). Even as far-from-primary-interest-objects, amazing detail.