[HN Gopher] James Webb Space Telescope captures high-resolution ... ___________________________________________________________________ James Webb Space Telescope captures high-resolution image of Uranus Author : gmays Score : 565 points Date : 2023-12-19 13:37 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (webbtelescope.org) (TXT) w3m dump (webbtelescope.org) | frendiversity wrote: | Underrated submission title | gmays wrote: | 9 year old me finally gets to cross this off the bucket list. | Mashimo wrote: | As someone who does not follow space stuff, I kinda expected more | / higher resolution. | boringg wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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.... | WinstonSmith84 wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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. | peddling-brink wrote: | This is Uranus from earth: | https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/interactive-sky-watchi... | | Part of the trouble is that it's really far away. | sp332 wrote: | 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_uranu | s_show_bes... | ceejayoz wrote: | Webb is optimized for different things. | | 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. | goodcanadian wrote: | Bigger telescopes are mostly about capturing more photons | to detect fainter objects. They don't really give you | better resolution in most cases. Technically, a bigger | telescope can give better resolution, but from the ground, | the limit is usually atmospheric seeing. From orbit, it | will be down to the quality of the optics, the resolution | of the detector, and the precision of the tracking. | dylan604 wrote: | This is very much a basic misunderstanding with | telescopes. Most people expect magnification. The amount | of photons absorbed is something of a very esoteric | concept to the uninitiated. | kridsdale1 wrote: | Signal to noise ratio. | BenjiWiebe wrote: | After ~150mm aperture, right? | | Highest magnification is approximately 2x the aperture in | mm, and 300x is approximately the atmospheric limit. | bhickey wrote: | That's amazing! Through my 8in scope Uranus looks like a blue | dot -- too big to be a star, but paltry even in comparison to | Mars. | | Admittedly I've been having trouble reliably locating it. | Currently it's near the middle of a line between the Pleiades | and Jupiter. From where I am there are no naked eye visible | stars in the region to help walk the scope in. | cdelsolar wrote: | yep, I tried a few days ago. It's in the "middle of | nowhere". What star app do you use for hopping around? | dylan604 wrote: | At least you can even get that. Pluto is just a dot. And to | properly image Pluto, you basically need to image the area | Pluto is expected over several nights, and then stack the | images to see which dot is moving. | sneak wrote: | I think we got supremely spoiled by Cassini. | orbital-decay wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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 wrote: | You'll have to play up the hydrocarbons to get the US to | fund such a destination. | dylan604 wrote: | 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 wrote: | 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. | ykonstant wrote: | This is so gorgeous. I didn't even know about the existence of | rings on Uranus; it is so satisfying to be able to discern | features like storms on such a far away planet! | ohwellhere wrote: | My 9 year old daughter told me last week that Uranus had rings, | and I told her I really didn't think so, are you thinking of | Saturn? And she said nope, they both do. What a weird bit of | knowledge to get wrong, even at 9, so I looked it up. She was | delighted to have taught me something. | mykowebhn wrote: | Neptune has rings as well, as does Jupiter. | jinushaun wrote: | That's crazy to hear. To me, after Saturn, Uranus is the most | famous planet with rings because it's vertical instead of | horizontal. That's the defining feature of Uranus. | ykonstant wrote: | For me it is precisely because I always had in mind the | "featureless blue sphere" picture in mind, and never | bothered to look deeper. Goes to show how important images | are in the public sphere. | dustincoates wrote: | It's exactly why Uranus was my favorite planet growing up. | It was such an outlier, which, if I dig farther into my | psyche, probably aligned well with my self view as the only | kid in my class who geeked out on space. | euroderf wrote: | Speaking of Psyche (and mythology), the names of Uranus's | moons are excellent. | User23 wrote: | To me, after Saturn, Uranus is the most famous planet with | rings because of toilet humor. | | As an aside, either get or borrow a decent telescope and | see the rings of Saturn and the Galilean Moons for | yourself. It's a really neat experience and gives you a | direct personal shared experience with the birth of modern | astronomy. | davely wrote: | Seeing Jupiter, its Great Red Spot, and a line of dots | representing 4 of its largest moons, as well as Saturn | and its rings through a telescope at a backyard astronomy | event when I was a kid was such a ridiculously cool | experience. Granted, I was a huge space dork. | onetimeuse92304 wrote: | The defining feature of Uranus is that its axis of rotation | is at almost right angle to the axis of rotation of Solar | system. | | The rings just conform to that axis of rotation along with | moons and such. | | Also, rings are thought to be relatively recent feature of | Uranus (on the order of hundreds of millions of years). | rebolek wrote: | IIRC, Saturn's rings are also relatively recent feature. | If you think about it, what a time to be alive! Saturn | and Uranus have rings and Sun and Moon are in so precious | position, that we can experience total eclipse (this | won't last too long also, relative to age of Solar | system). | AlecSchueler wrote: | Makes me curious what past/future aspects of our solar | system we would have considered special had we been alive | then. | jackcosgrove wrote: | Liquid water oceans on Mars are believed to have existed | in the past. | onetimeuse92304 wrote: | If it makes you feel better, outer planets with all their | moons will be in habitable zone for a short time when our | Sun will reach red giant stage in some billions of years. | Vicinity9635 wrote: | "the appalachian mountains are older than saturn's rings. | the appalachian mountains are older than dinosaurs. the | appalachian mountains are older than trees. the | appalachian mountains are literally older than BONES. the | appalachian mountains should be regarded with pure | terror." | idiotsecant wrote: | Who came up with this? All I see a bunch of twitter users | reposting it. Is it from something? Other than twitter I | mean. | mandevil wrote: | I know at least at one point during the Cassini mission- | though I confess I have not followed this in more than a | decade it so I don't know if further study has refuted | this idea- a popular theory for the rings was that | basically Saturn was constantly forming and destroying | moons into rings and back: a moon would get torn up and | turned into a ring, then slowly clump back together over | time and reform as a moon, then the cycle would continue. | tnel77 wrote: | Whenever my children teach me something, it makes us so | happy. They, for teaching their dad. Me, for learning | something from such a special little person. It's just the | best. | nate wrote: | This is my favorite part of my day. Yesterday we were just | having dinner talking about god knows what when my 9 year | old drops something into convo about The Homestead Act and | how many acres you could by and how they had to be | developed and all these bullet points about it I haven't | retained when I may have read about it so many years ago. | It was delightful. | | Now, there was also the part about her thinking the | Mexican-American War was in 1989. Which is Taylor Swift's | birthday, her favorite artist. Which is hilarious on so | many levels. | dcminter wrote: | My godson once solemnly asked his dad "Were dinosaurs | before or after steam engines?" which is obviously | adorable. | triceratops wrote: | > there was also the part about her thinking the Mexican- | American War was in 1989. Which is Taylor Swift's | birthday, | | So that's what _The Great War_ is about! | idiotsecant wrote: | I have learned that to most kids anything before 2000 is | basically ancient history that all blends together. | dylan604 wrote: | > Now, there was also the part about her thinking the | Mexican-American War was in 1989 | | there was a president that thought we had airplanes | during the revolutionary war, so hopefully the date mix | up wasn't judged too harshly | z3phyr wrote: | Neptune also has a ring. | | Jupiter also has ring, but it is not apparent. | antognini wrote: | They are very faint and difficult to detect. They weren't | even observed directly when they were discovered. They were | originally discovered when astronomers noticed that they | occulted light of background stats. | Log_out_ wrote: | Occluded | antognini wrote: | In astronomy we use the term "occulted" when one body | passes in front of another and blocks its light. | Log_out_ wrote: | TIL. Thank you | wholinator2 wrote: | That's so strange? 'Occluded' would be a suitable word | for that meaning-wise though right? When did astronomy | decide to use such a close sounding but different meaning | word? Did occult mean what it does now when they started? | Language is so strange | 1-more wrote: | The sciences are full of new-latin and neo-greek | formations like Biology and Astronomy. So reaching back | the the original meaning of occult "to hide (from)" isn't | that big a stretch. Especially when "occlude" comes from | a word meaning "to shut (away)" and an eclipse isn't | shutting the sun away, just hiding it. The Mahdi isn't | just standing behind something, he's hidden away in | another plane. That's why he's the occluded imam. | | But also occlude has a chemistry meaning when one | substance gets hidden inside another, so maybe it was too | overloaded to be a good word for that. | davidcuddeback wrote: | I'm not sure about the history of these words, but | astronomy also uses the noun form: "occultation" [1], for | which there's not an obvious equivalent for "occlude." | | > _Did occult mean what it does now when they started?_ | | A word can have more than one meaning. The first | definition on merriam-webster.com covers the definition | used in astronomy: | | occult (v.): to shut off from view or exposure: cover, | eclipse [2] | | The adjective form might be a source of derivation for | the meaning you're alluding to: | | occult (adj.): (1) not revealed: secret; (2) not easily | apprehended or understood: abstruse, mysterious; (3) | hidden from view: concealed [2] | | And finally, the paranormal meaning that people are more | familiar with today: | | occult (n): matters regarded as involving the action or | influence of supernatural or supernormal powers or some | secret knowledge of them -> used with _the_ [2] | | Again, I don't know the history of these words. If I had | to hazard a guess, I'd bet that the noun form, "the | occult", is derived from the adjective form since "the | occult" refers to supernatural phenomena, which is | naturally hidden from view, concealed, not revealed, | secret, not easily apprehended or understood, etc | (because it's not real). | | Edit: Another guess. If you think about the history of | astronomy, it was originally intertwined with religion | and astrology. Perhaps these words date back to a time | when "the occult" and astronomy weren't entirely | separate. Anyways, I agree. Language is strange. | | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occultation | | [2]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/occult | Pxtl wrote: | Actually all 4 gas giants have rings, they're just much | smaller and less visible than Saturn's. Jupiter and Neptune's | rings are _very_ slight, compared to Uranus ' substantial | ones and of course Saturn's gaudy decoration. | manicennui wrote: | I highly recommend checking out what we learned about | Saturn's rings from Cassini. One example: | https://science.nasa.gov/resource/the-tallest-peaks-2/ | EdwardDiego wrote: | Woah, that's amazing. | matthoiland wrote: | My daughter said there are 5 oceans ... I said she was wrong, | then we looked at a modern map. Who forgot to send out the | memo about the Southern Ocean? | patwolf wrote: | Same. That to me felt more shocking than losing Pluto as a | planet. | wholinator2 wrote: | I don't know but if you find out could you put me on the | mailing list? Or i guess i could have a child but one of | those seems a lot easier. | | In all honesty, is there any place where i can view the | curriculum that children in my area are being taught? They | don't tell us about those changes but they might put it | somewhere. I, for one, think the news should do something | useful and teach us the updates from time to time. Could | you imagine if all that politicking was instead useful | scientific information? | blindriver wrote: | My kid, after watching some YouTube videos on prehistoric | man, told me that the theory of the Missing Link was wrong. | | I was like, "Wait, what? When did that happen?" Apparently | it was disproven for decades and I never knew. I felt like | the old people who held onto their old beliefs that I felt | such disdain for. He also went on to tell me that the | brontosaurus didn't exist either and I had enough. | 1-more wrote: | Brontosaurus is controversial! A paper in 2015 asserts | that it's distinct from Apatosaurus. When I was in school | it was well understood to be just another name for the | apatosaurus. Some teacher claimed it was an apatosaurus | with the head and tail switched. But there's been some | activity in this space!! | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brontosaurus | alexchamberlain wrote: | Next she'll tell you that Pluto isn't a planet and there are | at least 5 other dinosaurs than T-Rex, diplodocus and | raptor... | | In all seriousness, it's really quite interesting to see what | has changed in 30 years. | divbzero wrote: | Yes, all four gas giants in our Solar System have rings: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_system#Ring_systems_of_pl. | .. | nsxwolf wrote: | Are the rings only that prominent because of infrared? Would they | look like that in visible light if you were close enough? Those | look like they could compete with Saturn. | ceejayoz wrote: | Nothing like this. | | Voyager saw this: | https://www.flickr.com/photos/132160802@N06/40079347843 | | Even that's better than we'd see with our eyes: | | > The rings here are significantly fainter relative to Uranus | than pictured here; the charcoal black rings would be near the | limits of naked eye visibility to a human observer. | jvanderbot wrote: | I love webb, but there is something hauntingly beautiful | about these photographs from voyager / juno and other flyby | missions. It _feels_ close, yet alarmingly far. | coffeebeqn wrote: | The flyby photos are cool but it's just so much more useful | to have a telescope at a controlled location able to focus | on any point for any amount of time. I do hope we keep | doing flybys or autonomous exploration of the planets with | a video feed | jvanderbot wrote: | Sure sure. Nobody is going to make mission decisions | based on my artistic interpretation of the results. | | Aside: I think the most useful instrument for NASA's | mission at the moment is a boolean "Life/no-life" | indicator on each planet, moon, asteroid, etc. Not very | pretty. | behnamoh wrote: | Exactly! I would rather see things the way my eyes would | see them up close. The Webb photo seems unrealistic and | photoshopped (even though it isn't). | dotnet00 wrote: | I think this is because photos from Earth are somewhat | 'uniform', they're always the same angle, and because | they're so far away, we basically always see only the day | side from Earth, which makes them look a bit 'fake'. | | Meanwhile, the photos from the probes that actually went | there are from more unusual angles and you can see some | more amount of the night side. | | Similar to how images from something like the Himawari | satellite (from geostationary orbit) quickly become a lot | less visually interesting than photos from the ISS. | owenversteeg wrote: | I completely agree, the Voyager photographs have a certain | je ne sais quoi to them that Webb never did. Of course | there are differences in processing, and the visible vs | infrared plays a role, but at the end of the day I think | the biggest part is the various artifacts of the | lens+sensor systems JWST has. This is most obvious in the | lower quality images; compare JWST's Uranus and Voyager 2's | Neptune for two "low-quality" images with artifacts. Or, | for higher quality, Hubble vs JWST's Pillars of Creation. | To me, the former could be on a poster on any kid's wall | and the latter could not. | | That said, JWST does have some images with an ethereal | quality of that bygone age of space. Its images of | Jupiter's auroras and the Whirlpool Galaxy make me feel | quite some things, and it did by far the best NGC 1433. | BurningFrog wrote: | Uranus' orbit is 20x further from the Sun than Earth, which | means it only gets 0.25% as much sunlight. | | Not sure what exactly that means for human eyesight, but it's | probably less spectacular out there than we'd hope. | kridsdale1 wrote: | Human vision is strongly exponential in terms of brightness | sensitivity. In photography we talk about "stops" which are | powers of two of light intensity. | | Consumer digital cameras around 2005 could see maybe 9 stops | for a single exposure. Now they can do maybe 10-14 (which | means they're ~30x more capable of a range of light values). | | Human vision can handle adapting to a much wider range | because we don't see with a single exposure. The iris | adjusts, we saccade around the scene collecting data and | mentally aggregating it. A good approximation is the iPhone's | panorama mode. It's really recording video and adapting the | dynamic range window as you pan, so the sun tends not to | blown out the rest of the image. | | The main point I want to make is that outdoor sunlight on | earth is indeed a million times more intense in terms of lux, | lumens, candelas, or watts, than interior living (say lit by | a nightlight or candle). This works out to 20 stops. | | - 100,000 lux outdoors on earth | | - 0.1 lux finding your seat in a theater | | So we can see already when the light is 0.0001% the power of | "Earth, noon". We could see Uranus. | | Sunlight on earth is extremely intense! You feel it direct on | your skin like being 2 feet from a fire. It damages your | cells. It evaporates the sea and propels hurricanes. I'd we | hadn't evolved to live with it, we'd find it quite | intolerable. | jl6 wrote: | For comparison, daytime on Earth is about 100,000 lux while a | typical moonlit night is 0.1 lux[0]. | | Uranus gets 350 lux[1], which is similar to the light level | at sunrise on Earth. | | So quite dim but not dark. | | [0] | https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/58/1/1.31/2938119 | | [1] https://oikofuge.com/same-sun-other-skies/ | jetrink wrote: | You'd be surprised by the dynamic range of the human eye. I | happen to have my camera on my desk, so I used it to take a | couple measurements just now. It's a bright, sunny day. | | Pointed out the window[1]: 1/2000th | | The interior of my office[2]: 1/30th | | My office feels brightly lit to me, but the ambient light | level is only about 1-2% of what it is outdoors. I estimate | that 0.25% is roughly how bright it is indoors on an overcast | day or outdoors at twilight on a clear day. It's dim, but | people with unimpaired vision have no trouble seeing in that | light level and the planet would still look spectacular. | | 1. Grass and trees with no sky in frame. | | 2. Shades open, light grey walls mostly. Same ISO and | aperture. | bloopernova wrote: | I wish we were capable of sending manned missions to the gas | giants. Uranus and Neptune are such mysterious and beautiful | worlds, I'd really like to see them up close with my own eyes, | however dim such an image would be. | | Maybe if we make it past the ecosystem collapse, one day people | will take the Grand Tour in person. (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, | Neptune) | z2 wrote: | I recall from the New Horizons media blitz that noon on Pluto | is roughly the brightness of dawn or dusk, so the image of | these planets should be bright enough! | ianai wrote: | Agree. The more I see of Uranus the more mysterious it seems. | Like it's got to be much more complex than we imagine. | hutzlibu wrote: | "Like it's got to be much more complex than we imagine." | | That is, how it usually is .. | dylan604 wrote: | The Grand Tour is a hard one, and was only possible due to a | convenient alignment of the planets that does not happen | frequently. For example, if Jupiter is on one side of its orbit | while Saturn is on the 180deg opposite point of its orbit, | that's a really long way to go between destinations on the | tour. I think going on a Grand Tour where you had to skip one | of the planets due to a misalignment would be like going to | Disneyland and never seeing Mickey. Even if you saw all of the | other characters, it would still feel like you missed | something. | LeifCarrotson wrote: | It wouldn't be too dim, your eyes have remarkable dynamic | range. Brightness is experienced more like sound, with sensory | capacity of many orders of magnitude, than a physical scalar | sense like weight or distance. | | Wikipedia says [1] the solar radiation on Uranus is 3.4-4 | W/m^2. Imagine lighting up a square meter of wall with a 3W | pocket inspection light, or a mood-lit room with just a few 8W | bulbs. Reading might be a little bit of a strain after a while, | but I think your eyes would quickly adjust. | | When New Horizons was going past Pluto, Nasa put out the | #PlutoTime website [2]. Pluto is about 30 AU from Earth, Uranus | is about 20 AU out, so at a particular moment around twilight - | when it's bright enough to walk around without artificial | lighting and to take a photo - it will be as bright as it is on | Uranus. The widget is dead, but it's still accessible through | archive.org. Unfortunately, it's no longer accurate, it seems | to be linked to the time and date when the site was archived. | I'm neither a web dev nor an astronomer, but I exported the JS | and it seems to provide reasonable results: | | https://jsfiddle.net/9btumsj6/ | | Anyone have an idea of what solar_angle should be to simulate | Uranus or Neptune? Apparently, when the sun is -1.5 degrees | below the horizon here, that's about right for Pluto | illumination. Just reducing the angle by three from -1.5 to | -0.5 changes the time by about 6 minutes of twilight... | | [1] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#Intensity_in_the_Sola... | | [2] | https://web.archive.org/web/20150827083531/http://solarsyste... | bloopernova wrote: | Thank you for a very interesting comment, I appreciate the | work you put into it. | bastardoperator wrote: | I wouldn't mind taking a closer look, but being inside of a gas | giant seems questionable given the pressure. I've heard | astronomers compare the atmosphere of some gas giants to the | density of a 7-11 slurpee... and that sounds terrifying. | gambiting wrote: | The problem that most people aren't even aware of is that | Jupiter(and maybe others? I'm actually not sure) is throwing a | massive amount of radiation around - getting anywhere close to | it would kill any human very quickly. It's a huge factor in any | proposed missions to its moons - like, it would be awesome to | explore Europa, the concept is fascinating, but its surface is | _deadly_ due to radiation coming from Jupiter. | bloopernova wrote: | Yeah, the radiation was partly why I wrote "capable of | sending people". You'd probably need quite a few metres of | water ice surrounding your livable space if you don't want to | get fried. | | Which makes me wonder: if a ship was covered in, say, 10 | metres of ice, would the top layer get irradiated and thus | need to be replaced every so often? I wonder if it was left | exposed to space, would the water ice sublimate away? Then | "all" you'd need to do is replace the top layer. | | Humans safe behind ice while robots do the work isn't quite | as romantic as _The Expanse_ but it 'll get the job done! | lacker wrote: | What is even the benefit of being physically located right | next to Jupiter, if you have to stay enclosed in 10 meters | of ice at all times? Sure, you have an hour lag or so to | communicate from Earth, but that seems easier to solve than | all the problems of shipping humans around. | clort wrote: | given that the moons are tidally locked, is it going to be | safer on the far sides? | gambiting wrote: | Sure! It still leaves the issue of getting there, and you | can't stay in the shadow of a moon the whole way there. | ianburrell wrote: | The radiation doesn't come from Jupiter but from its | magnetosphere. The radiation comes from belts, like Earth's | Van Allen belts, but much stronger. The Galilean moons are | all inside the magnetosphere and Io is in the middle of the | strongest belt. | HPsquared wrote: | Ah, the gas giants. | jmyeet wrote: | Utanus (and Neptune) are more accurately ice giants than gas | giants. | flkenosad wrote: | Does James Webb do video? | Symbiote wrote: | I doubt it -- would anything move fast enough to be usefully | recorded? | nirav72 wrote: | Most likely not. Other than maybe stitch several images | together in post-processing. Although not sure what use video | would be on JWST. It's mostly staring at distant objects where | motion wouldn't be perceivable. Unless it's taking images of a | planet with several orbiting moons. Even then, it would just be | would a handful of frames stitched together here on earth. | schainks wrote: | No, but it does run Javascript: | https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/18/23206110/james-webb-space... | dclowd9901 wrote: | Unreal; you mean I could actually potentially write software | for a space telescope? | deadfish wrote: | The first contact from aliens will surely be them exploiting | this with an XSS attack to set window.location to a Rick Roll | video. | acqq wrote: | "the language the scripts are written in is called Nombas | ScriptEase 5.00e." | | https://brent-noorda.com/nombas/us/index.htm | | "Nombas doesn't exist any more. All the good stuff was sold | to Openwave, then sold to someone else, then sold to someone | else, then I lost track." | _joel wrote: | No, these are targets that are planned months in advance and at | relatively long exposures in order to collect enough photons | to, well, actually see the thing. | | You certainly wouldn't get 60FPS, that's for sure. | petabyt wrote: | Of a planet, I guess in theory it could take a 15fps video, I | dont think the sensor was designed for that. | hk1337 wrote: | Only if you tip $20 or more. | gorgoiler wrote: | Uranus is on its side. The moons orbits are on their side too, | and do they also rotate on their sides, all with respect to the | solar plane? The dance of the Sun in the sky must be very exotic | for the moon folk of that mini system. | bloopernova wrote: | I think that due to angular momentum, they do all rotate | aligned to the same plane. | gorgoiler wrote: | The large moons have zero inclination with respect to Uranus' | equator but the smaller irregular moons are all over the | place. Wikipedia has this nice graphic showing orbital | distance (x), eccentricity (x error bar) orbit inclination | (y), and moon size: | | https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/TheIrreg. | .. | | The only thing missing from the graphic is each moons axial | tilt with respect to either its orbit or the rest of the | solar system. | wyldfire wrote: | The ring plane is aligned with the solar planetary plane? | onetimeuse92304 wrote: | No, not really. "aligned" would suggest some kind of | connection. It is very likely a complete accident. | Literally. | | It most likely that at some point Uranus was hit by a | planet and the collision changed the spin axis. Must have | been pretty early for everything else to be aligned with | the new axis. | wyldfire wrote: | Sorry, I meant more something like "coincident" or | "parallel". | | Probably a stupid question but how'd it get this vantage? | Isn't JWST at a LaGrange point from Earth? Wouldn't that | be on the same plane? I suppose it must not be in order | to have taken this image. | pvg wrote: | Maybe you're missing the 'Uranus axis of rotation is | super tilted' part? Its equatorial plane (along with its | rings) is not at all 'parallel' to the ecliptic, that's | what the toplevel comment is pointing out. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#Axial_tilt | tomkat0789 wrote: | From your link; | | "Near the solstice, one pole faces the Sun continuously | and the other faces away, with only a narrow strip around | the equator experiencing a rapid day-night cycle, with | the Sun low over the horizon. On the other side of | Uranus's orbit, the orientation of the poles towards the | Sun is reversed. Each pole gets around 42 years of | continuous sunlight, followed by 42 years of darkness." | | Very different from Earth! Wow. | alberth wrote: | Real or not? | | Anyone else get frustrated with the accepted practice in | astronomy to (a) alter colors and (b) show the non-visible light | spectrum. | | Because it results in radically different images from what we can | see with our human eye and its hugely misleading to the general | public. | | NASA has a whole article on this subject; it's a great read. | | https://science.nasa.gov/mission/hubble/science/science-behi... | JohnMakin wrote: | JWST is an infrared telescope. The human eye does not see | infrared. | swells34 wrote: | I sure do. But at the same time, isn't this a near infrared | camera, so outside the visible spectrum? | ijustlovemath wrote: | NIRcam studies objects in the near infrared, so invisible to | human eyes. This is true of most of JWSTs instruments; | everything you see is false color. | malfist wrote: | That's how photos are in general. No camera captures exactly | what the eye sees. | | Is setting an ISO radically changing things? | | Is setting an exposure time radically changing things? | | Is having an RGGB bayer pattern radically changing things? | | Is having only a 91% quantum efficiency sensor radically | changing things? | | The questions keep going, I could ask about hot pixel removal, | denoise, contrast and saturation, wavelength response curves. | | Cameras aren't eyes. | | Photos aren't biochemical reactions. | crazygringo wrote: | No, there's a huge difference. | | Regular consumer cameras _are_ designed to be as close as | possible to what the human eye sees. They 're very obviously | chosen to be responsive to R, G and B. Not infrared, yellow | and UVB. | | An image like this is _not_ meant to try to match the human | eye. | | To try to say all cameras don't match the eyes is a false | equivalence. Some are purposefully _trying_ to match, some | are purposefully trying _not_ to (like this one). | malfist wrote: | I'd argue it isn't a false equivalence. Every time someone | drags that contrast and saturation slider up they're doing | something that's no different than assigning RGB to sulfur | II, hydrogen alpha, and oxygen III. | | It's all false color to make something look good. | crazygringo wrote: | That's photo editing, not camera settings like ISO or | shutter speed. | | Cameras are still designed to try to be able to match | what the human eye perceives, regardless of what you edit | afterwards. | | An infrared telescope is not. Totally and utterly | different. They're not the same. | pengaru wrote: | Considering it's from NIRCam I don't think there's reason to | expect a "real" visible light image... that's not what this | sensor does. | cpuguy83 wrote: | With my eyes, when I look at a light source I see light | refractions (rays) coming from the source that people without | astigmatism do not see. | | I do get what you are trying to say here and I know I'm taking | your argument to the extreme, but... bear in mind that even 2 | randomly selected humans would see different things looking at | the same object. | | Even though no human can see the light that JWST is capturing | doesn't mean it is not there. The colors are false indeed | (compared to what a typical human would perceive as color), but | then we also would get absolutely no pictures from JWST to look | at. | tekla wrote: | I prefer to be able to see things instead of black | ceejayoz wrote: | > Because it results in radically different images from what we | can see with our human eye... | | Good! That's why we have spent $10B on it! | jacquesm wrote: | What a lot of nonsense. There is absolutely nothing | 'misleading' about this: the general public doesn't stand a | chance trying to observe Uranus with the naked eye so | regardless of what you would like to see you are always going | to be dependent on a telescope (which alters the perceived | size), possible color filters, color shifting in case you are | looking at non-visible wavelengths and so on. The JWST is so | interesting _especially_ because it can see wavelengths that we | can not. | | If you want to take issue with something then I'd save my anger | for the cameras that no longer show you what you are looking | at, not for a scientific instrument doing exactly what it is | meant to do and adaptations to show the output to the general | public. | FranOntanaya wrote: | I think you can barely see the outer ring (R/2003 U 1) in the | bottom left. | | I really hope we get a better look at the moons of Neptune and | Uranus sooner than later. They seem to have lots of interesting | history. | jkestner wrote: | If you're middle-aged, you might get a chance: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus_Orbiter_and_Probe | | It's the highest priority probe, but wouldn't get there until | the 2050s. To borrow a thought from idlewords, we could be | sending cameras to every large object in the solar system for | way less than it's costing to develop the current Moon program | ($93 billion through 2025). | world2vec wrote: | When will I stop giggling at headlines mentioning "Uranus"? Maybe | never? | | Gorgeous images tho, everything seemed perfectly angled for a | glamour shot. | winwang wrote: | I hope we don't stop giggling. Lighthearted humor should be | kept alive! It was fun even in uni. | throwup238 wrote: | That looks like its straight out of an 1980s scifi book cover. | TestUser00 wrote: | Very Cool, it looks like a pearl floating in space | SonicSoul wrote: | astrology ignorant here. | | are those light rings portrayed this way because its debris | orbiting at a very long exposure ? | guhcampos wrote: | *astronomy | _joel wrote: | Astrology? I think you mean Astronomy. | DonHopkins wrote: | Astrology Ignorance is a Good Thing! Cultivate it. | ceejayoz wrote: | No; the rings are made up of tiny particles, so they appear | contiguous. You'd have to get very close to see the individual | chunks. | neuronic wrote: | To me it's kind of insane (again) that in the full picture behind | Uranus there are several casual galaxies floating through space ( | https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2023/150/01H...). | | Probably capturing a bunch of civilizations with their own | Caesars, revolutions and a variety of delicious cocktails in the | background. | kridsdale1 wrote: | And their own JWST And HN writing that comment. Millions of | them. | eutropia wrote: | I rather prefer the wide shot that the featured image was cropped | from: https://stsci-opo.org/STScI-01HHFQ09W5PKSA6EBKJMW51R5M.png | | Image Description from Nasa site: | | > This image of Uranus from NIRCam (Near-Infrared Camera) on | NASA's James Webb Space Telescope shows the planet and its rings | in new clarity. The planet's seasonal north polar cap gleams in a | bright white, and Webb's exquisite sensitivity resolves Uranus' | dim inner and outer rings, including the Zeta ring--the extremely | faint and diffuse ring closest to the planet. | | > This Webb image also shows 14 of the planet's 27 moons: Oberon, | Titania, Umbriel, Juliet, Perdita, Rosalind, Puck, Belinda, | Desdemona, Cressida, Ariel, Miranda, Bianca, and Portia. | | > One day on Uranus is about 17 hours, so the planet's rotation | is relatively quick. This makes it supremely difficult for | observatories with a sharp eye like Webb to capture one simple | image of the entire planet - storms and other atmospheric | features, and the planet's moons, move visibly within minutes. | This image combines several longer and shorter exposures of this | dynamic system to correct for those slight changes throughout the | observing time. | | > Webb's extreme sensitivity also picks up a smattering of | background galaxies--most appear as orange smudges, and there are | two larger, fuzzy white galaxies to the right of the planet in | this field of view. | leipie wrote: | I just love almost all the dots, photobombing, are detailed | galaxies instead of just stars | bmurphy1976 wrote: | It is amazing. I really wish I could see that level of detail | with my own eyes. Queue Battlestar Galactica rant | (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPnx3zO3SDc). | xeromal wrote: | If you find yourself out in the Mojave desert camping in a | new moon, you'll swear you can see stuff like this. It's | almost unbelievable. | riversflow wrote: | > I really wish I could see that level of detail with my | own eyes. | | Straying off topic, but be careful what you wish for. I | have great eyesight, and have developed my ability to | see/notice details considerably throughout my life. (Which | btw is super under rated, "seeing" is about much more than | just light being focused in your retinas, its incredible to | me how things that used to look really complicated or | looked a complete mess when I was a teenager are now just a | bunch of components and as a result easy to see.) | | My experience is that I notice how imperfect everything is, | constantly. I go to someones place they lived in for years | and notice all kinds of things they never picked up on, | mismatched moulding or paint or texture, wood grain not | matching in furniture, light limescale on porcelain, heat | marks, cammed out fasteners, fixtures that are not square, | plumb and flush, bubbling peeling paint. I could go on and | on. | | Being discerning is kind of a bummer if you can't put it to | good use. | WXLCKNO wrote: | That is magnificent. Thanks for sharing. | jcims wrote: | I'm sure it's a challenge at some level but I like seeing the | JWST 'fingerprint' on images. | 0xfacfac wrote: | Gotta say I chuckled when I read the headline. | josefresco wrote: | I'm going to enjoy sharing this headline with my family and I | expect maximum eye rolls. | jdksmdbtbdnmsm wrote: | life is too short not to | manojlds wrote: | ...and when I saw the headline above the photo. | rkagerer wrote: | Journalists have been waiting their whole life to publish | those headlines :-p | sim7c00 wrote: | + comments haha. i am so sorry. | | u so fat that: "Uranus' orbit is 20x further from the Sun than | Earth, which means it only gets 0.25% as much sunlight." | | wish i was an astronomer :'). | jwcacces wrote: | Were there Klingons? | adolph wrote: | its mostly gas, so no | wiz21c wrote: | Everytime I see these pictures I feel a little despaired... Are | there people here who believe one day we could travel fast enough | to go there ? | jl6 wrote: | NASA is planning a robotic mission launching in the 2030s, | arriving in the 2040s. | | Humans? There are probably better destinations in the solar | system that we'd go during the period between it becoming | technically/economically feasible, and humans being replaced | with robots. | Falimonda wrote: | Go there and do what? | segasaturn wrote: | Humans won't be landing on the surface of the Gas Giants | anytime soon due to their hostile atmospheres, but many of | their moons are prime candidates for human settlement! | _joel wrote: | I'm sure people said the same thing about being able to travel | to the other side of the world in less than a day, when it used | to take years. Yet here we are. | digging wrote: | I'm confused... What's causing your despair? Do you think we'll | never be able to visit Uranus in human-compatible travel times? | Assuming we (organic humans) survive this century, I'd consider | it almost certain we'll find a way to make travel within the | solar system a normal thing eventually. | mrguyorama wrote: | >travel within the solar system a normal thing eventually. | | How? Science isn't magic. If you want to get to places in the | solar system on human time scales, you have to go FAST. Mars | already is about 6 months away in the IDEAL circumstances. We | don't have a good idea of how to go faster than we can now | without literally blowing up nukes behind our ship, and | hoping we can magically ride the waves reliably, and even | that is not exactly revolutionary in terms of speed. | | So now you're literally hoping for some scientific | advancement that either bends space so that most things are | "closer", allows humans to not die after a significant amount | of down time but also makes humans not care about missing out | on family and friends and making a brand new life anytime you | want to go somewhere else, or a way to magically reach insane | speeds. This is ignoring the fact that we don't even think | massless propulsion is _possible_ , let alone useful, so we | would be stuck with using electricity to accelerate the | lightest particles we can manage to as near light speed as | physically possible. | | People keep acting like science is some magic world and it's | only a matter of time until science somehow does science | fiction, but that's just as absurd as thinking it's only a | matter of time until psychologists unlock the secret of | telekinesis. It's fantasy. Reality has put very rough | boundaries on everything, and while there is some wiggle room | for new things to refine our understanding of the universe, | any effects and forces we have yet missed would have to be so | small or inconsequential as to be meaningless. If you think | some future discovery would NOT be inconsequential, now you | have to explain how it has hidden from us for all this time. | Even "revolutions" in the field of physics that changed how | we understand reality itself, like quantum anything, didn't | totally change the math. Newton's equations are still mostly | valid at human scales! The "wrong" model that caused the very | Ultraviolet Catastrophe that lead to the discovery and | building of quantum mechanics is still mostly correct for low | frequency radiation! | digging wrote: | > any effects and forces we have yet missed would have to | be so small or inconsequential as to be meaningless | | This is a level of unwarranted confidence far exceeding my | own, in my opinion :) | | Uranus is 2.66 light-hours from the sun. At 0.01% light- | speed, that's about 3 years. 3 years is a long time to | travel, especially in the modern age, but not a long time | to be alive, even for a human _today_. Is it possible we | dramatically extend our lifespans or achieve technological | immortality in the future? I certainly think so. | | Can we reach 0.01c traveling between Earth and Uranus? | Maybe not, because we have to accelerate half way and | decelerate the second half. But I would feel much sillier | saying that sub-decade interplanetary travel is absolutely | impossible than saying that it's possible. Than saying | we'll unlock new materials and techniques that make it | possible _eventually_. I 'm not even saying to expect them | within a century. Think about _millennia_ of uninterrupted | technological advancement driven by superhuman AI - you 're | saying with certainty that it's not possible we'll figure | out how to travel within our own solar system on human | timespans after all that time? It'll be a boring future if | we're already hitting the absolute limits of space travel | and we've _just_ started. | | > Science isn't magic. | | No, magic is just science we haven't figure out yet. | wizzwizz4 wrote: | > _allows humans to not die after a significant amount of | down time_ | | Death appears inevitable, but there's little difference | between a century and a millennium as far as physics is | concerned. I don't think it's far-fetched to assume we'll | crack this one eventually. | | > _and making a brand new life anytime you want to go | somewhere else_ | | This has been the norm for travellers for most of human | history. The modern two-day circumnavigation / | perceptually-instant transatlantic broadband is nice, but | not _necessary_. The solar system is a light-day in | diameter (order of magnitude), so a _round-trip_ by radio | is faster than letters used to be. | claar wrote: | Absolutely, but we'll need to develop some future technology | that allows multiple days of constant acceleration. | | At 2G constant accel/decel, it'll take ~8.5 days to get to | Uranus, reaching a top speed of 2.3% of light speed (14.2 | million m/s), and experiencing 17 seconds of time dilation (htt | ps://chat.openai.com/share/b93297e1-b089-46d1-8314-a2235b...). | :) | riversflow wrote: | Unless we develop force fields[1] I don't understand how | traveling at such relativistic speeds would work, at .023C a | 1 gram micrometeor would have the same potential energy as 25 | tons of dynamite (100B Joules) | | Ice shielding sounds good, but then we are back to the | tyranny of the rocket equation. | | [1] which we don't even have a path to, afaik. Straight scifi | right now. | mrguyorama wrote: | Assuming perfect efficiency in terms of adding energy to the | velocity of an 80kg human payload, with zero other power | usages, losses, etc, simply accellerating a human up to and | back down from that speed takes about 1.6*10^16 joules, or | about half of the daily output of the worlds nuclear | reactors, or the ENTIRE volume of the Hindenburg as a bladder | full of gasoline and a magic machine to extract 100% of the | energy. | owenversteeg wrote: | We can reach those speeds using the technology of today; | Project Orion remains entirely possible and could be built in | this decade, if we so chose. | | We are gods of our solar system, bound only by ourselves. | dgroshev wrote: | This is incorrect, and I think this kind of low effort copy- | paste of whatever ChatGPT came up with is actively harmful to | the discussion. Honestly, I think this practice should be | explicitly banned here. | | > Distance: The average distance from Earth to Uranus is | about 2.6 billion kilometers, but this can vary greatly | depending on the planets' positions in their orbits. | | Space.com (a relatively relatable source) thinks otherwise | [1]: | | > Because the solar system is in constant motion, the | distance between Earth and Uranus changes daily. The closest | the two get is 1.6 billion miles (2.6 billion kilometers). At | their farthest, they are separated by 1.98 billion miles (3.2 | billion km). | | ...which works out to ~2.9b km. | | We can also calculate it ourselves. Earth is ~0.15b km from | the Sun [2], Uranus is 2.7-3b km from the Sun on average [3]. | Thus the distance varies between 2.65b km and 3.15b km, which | means the average is (again) ~2.9b km. | | _Not_ 2.6b km as ChatGPT claimed. | | Which changes the result to 8.9 days. | | Which is not a huge difference, but would you know any better | if ChatGPT said the distance is 5b km? | | [1]: https://www.space.com/18709-uranus-distance.html | | [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth | | [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus | z3phyr wrote: | Of course. Its in our solar system. Although it is very far | away, if we get on to it, we can plan it at a huge cost. | fatbird wrote: | Given how much is still unknown about the planets in our own | solar system, I wonder why we haven't prioritized putting a | satellite or two around each one, starting with Mars. We can | obviously get the satellites there, and I'd imagine it's a lot | easier to get better longitudinal data by watching it directly | over time. Even something as simple as our current weather | satellites over Earth would provide a ton of useful data. | pvg wrote: | We have? There have been piles of orbiter missions over the | years to all the inner planets as well as to Saturn and | Jupiter. | WendyTheWillow wrote: | It's exceptionally hard to financially justify exploration, | when so many other problems could see substantial improvement | given the costs required. | floxy wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mars_orbiters | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juno_(spacecraft) | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_Icy_Moons_Explorer | KillerRAK wrote: | The jokes just write themselves... | tzs wrote: | 2620 can't come soon enough [1]. | | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0czFnIvKOJY | dickersnoodle wrote: | My inner middle-schooler is giggling over the headline. | feoren wrote: | I couldn't help it either. Astronomy is just going to be | forever plagued by this name. | gambiting wrote: | It's a problem just in English, because for some reason that | I really don't understand, in English it's pronunced like | (ur)anus, instead of pronuncing it like the name of the Greek | god it's named after - ooranos(Uranos). | euroderf wrote: | and if you shift the stress to the first syllable, it comes | out as Urinous. Ya can't win. | elwell wrote: | first two syllables | abledon wrote: | really wishing HN had a LLM powered 'Sort by humor' feature | right now | denysvitali wrote: | I can't believe I had to scroll this much. Thank you! | GBond wrote: | finally found my people | queuebert wrote: | I have a PhD in astronomy, and I did too. | billiam wrote: | It's gonna be super useful to train on Uranus data to help with | understanding exoplanets, since many will be like Uranus. | qayxc wrote: | Just curious: how would that help exactly? So far we can get | two relevant data points for exoplanets: mass or if we're lucky | size and maybe spectra. That's one Uranus size, one Uranus mass | and the atmospheric spectrum of Uranus. Since neither of those | is variable (at least on human timescales) I don't see how a | training dataset with one entry would help. | | Finding Uranus analogues would also be particularly challenging | since we cannot expect to ever confirm one using telescopes, | given that a Uranus orbit takes ~84 years and you need to | observe at least 3 full orbits to confirm a planet. | | Any Uranus-sized object orbiting significantly closer to its | host star (i.e. able to be confirmed within a human lifetime) | would likely differ from Uranus as it would either receive | substantially more energy from its host star or have a | completely different host star altogether (e.g. a red dwarf), | which may have an impact on its composition. | lowbloodsugar wrote: | Tee hee. | Pxtl wrote: | Gorgeous... | | But I've always been curious, I've heard it both ways: If I were | on a space ship exploring the outer planets looking out a | regular-ass glass window, would the rings of Jupiter, Neptune, | and Uranus even be visible to the naked eye? I mean I know | Saturn's rings are incredibly apparent, but for the other 3 gas | giants? | | For example, many of the Voyager pics of Uranus don't have the | rings visible, and the ones that do are colored oddly and make me | assume that this is some kind of massive false-color high-gain | thing to make them visible. | KyleBerezin wrote: | I don't believe so. Many things you see in space like nebula, | would not really be visible to the naked eye even if you were | in the middle of them. Don't let the fact that primate eyes | can't see it detract from the grandeur though. | | Even the planet itself would be dim, at 20AU from the sun, it | would be 400x dimmer than the earth, close to the brightness of | dawn/dusk on earth. | seattle_spring wrote: | > With its exquisite sensitivity, Webb captured Uranus' dim inner | and outer rings, including the elusive Zeta ring - the extremely | faint and diffuse ring closest to the planet | | This is pretty amazing. I knew Uranus required sensitive | instruments, but didn't realize the payoff would be so rewarding. | notsahil wrote: | I never thought Uranus would be like this. Wonderful! | runjake wrote: | Neat! Voyager 2 took a high resolution _true color_ photo[1] of | Uranus in 1986, as well, but you can 't make out the rings. | | 1. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranus#/media/File:Uranus_as_s... | sopchi wrote: | Can you elaborate: why are the rings not visible on that image? | Is it because they are outside the frame, or too faint, or | don't appear in the visible spectrum? Something else? | kokanee wrote: | The rings are extremely dark, reflecting only 2% of incoming | light. The James Webb image is an infrared photo, and doesn't | show what the planet looks like. | rebolek wrote: | ...doesn't show what the planet looks like _to us_. | ttul wrote: | It's also why you can see galaxies in the background! | kokanee wrote: | Your emphasis on true color is worth underscoring. I think it's | a bit unfair to publish a photo like this one from James Webb | without providing a few less-stylized edits for comparison, and | an explanation of what the colorization process entailed. | Obviously as an infrared photo there isn't going to be any edit | that gives us a great idea of what it would look like to the | eye, but it seems like they chose the most wondrous-looking | settings in photoshop on this one, as opposed to the truest. | aaroninsf wrote: | _Truest_ is a problematic word in this stuff, JW as you say | doesn 't even see the visible spectrum, and I don't find it | helpful to ask for the least-inspiring fiction of those | available. | | Arguably there _is_ no "true" translation; the point of JW | capturing what spectrum it does, is to reveal features | obscured or invisible in the visible spectrum. | | Over the years I have come to reject the "what would the | plain eye see" position as not helpful. We're tool-using | monkeys and the phones we carry around now run supercomputers | to quietly show not what the plain eye sees but something | which works better for our needs--to be both evocative and | information-rich. | | If and when we ever get a chance to gaze on Uranus ourselves, | I myself imagine and hope it will be courtesy of some | transformation of our embodiment that will look an order | richer than even the most stylized images we have today, | because they will be broad spectrum and be overlayed with | semantic content rendered as perceptual to aid our executive | functions... all of which will probably be running on some | computation substrate other than our monkey mammal selves. | Space isn't kind to those. | lsaferite wrote: | FWIW, according to the specs the JWST starts at 600nm, | which means it does at least cover the red visible | spectrum. (R from RGB being 600-700nm per my understanding) | | It seems a shame they didn't include the 400-600nm range as | well. | dylan604 wrote: | > It seems a shame they didn't include the 400-600nm | range as well. | | This seems to be a basic misunderstanding of the purpose | of the telescope. | hnburnsy wrote: | True color, visible spectrum images could help garner | public support for missions like this. When I see these | images, I imagine future humans enjoying a fly by, | looking out a large transparent window, and seeing these | amazing views. | wholinator2 wrote: | What happens when the true color, visible spectrum images | are exponentially less interesting and more dull? Does | that increase public support? I don't think anyone in the | "general public" cares or even realizes what exact | wavelengths are captured and translated in every image, | they care how awesome it looks. | | To my understand, you cannot see the rings of uranus in | the visible range. And remember all those first images | from the JWST, those garnered public support preeetty | heavily and those were all infrared and translated. | | On the science side, some wavelengths just do not survive | interstellar travel. You need the entire range to get the | most data. Lots of times visible phenomena are just white | or grey or blue anyways. When there's something that's | actually more interesting in visible light, we'll see it. | dylan604 wrote: | Let's also not forget that we have so many visible light | telescopes already. JWST specifically needed to be a | space platform way the hell away from the earth since it | is essentially looking at heat. Being on earth or even in | earth orbit would not be cold enough to make it worth | while. Even still, we have to cool the systems because | the heat from the electronics doing the science could | interfere with its own readings. Once that coolant is | gone, the platform will be pretty much useless. So it's | not going to be wasting any time looking at things in the | same spectrum that pretty much any telescope on the | ground can do. Sure, we still have Hubble, but even the | larger ground based telescopes with adaptive optics can | see in more detail than Hubble at this point. | dylan604 wrote: | The mirrors on this are coated with an element that is | specifically good at reflecting IR wavelengths. If it was | meant for visible spectrum, it would potentially be | coated with a different material. | | Complaining about JWST not making visible spectrum light | images is like complaining that a hammer doesn't really | work driving in a screw. It's not meant to do that, so | stop trying to do it, and definitely stop complaining | about it since it's just a misunderstanding of its | purpose. | Sporktacular wrote: | Chill out Dylan | dandelany wrote: | Imagine scientists discovered colonies of ants that | compose elaborate symphonies of music that they perform | for each other. Two problems: they're small, so the music | is quiet. And for the same reason, it's extremely high- | pitched and just sounds like mouse squeaks. In fact, half | of it is ultrasonic, above the range of human hearing. | | Which device is more impressive and would garner more | public support for the project: an amplifier which just | makes the squeaks louder? Or one which also pitches down | the squeaks into a range where we can actually perceive | and appreciate the tune & dynamics of the underlying | music? | queuebert wrote: | Wavelength ranges for astronomical detectors are often | tuned to the emissions of particular phenomena and for | what gets through interstellar and intergalactic gas and | dust the best. Unfortunately blue to green isn't very | useful by these metrics. | saiya-jin wrote: | Isn't whole JWT infrared since there is generally much more | info for astronomers compared to visible-for-human-eye | spectrum? Also infrared passes better through cosmic dust and | nebulae much better, going back to first sentence. | | And since showing infrared picture to folks who can't see in | it is less than pointless, they just shift it all into | visible to a 'place' on spectrum which makes most sense for | given picture. There can be some choosing fancier shades done | there for general public but I would be surprised if they | completely re-painted original 'shift' just to look more | fancy (happy to learn the facts if anybody knows in any | case). | matt_j wrote: | The way I understand it, light from far away, very far | away, is red-shifted because the universe is expanding at | every point and the wavelength of the traveling light is | stretched. Stretching the wavelength means light from the | blue end of the spectrum moves closer to, or indeed, into | the red end of the spectrum. | | If you want to look very deep into the past, say, 13 | billion years ago, any light from galaxies that old has | traveled 13 billion light years PLUS however much the | universe has expanded and will be red-shifted out of the | visible spectrum, so you need an infra-red telescope to see | it. Hence, JWST. | | You simply can't see these things without using instruments | that can detect the right light. | | On top of that, everything in the universe emits light | across a broad spectrum, above and below the visible | spectrum. We can enhance our knowledge of these things; | stars, planets, galaxies, etc by using instruments that can | "see" infra-red, radio, x-ray, gamma ray and that is | additional information on top of what our eyes can see in | the visible spectrum. | ComplexSystems wrote: | Are they not in front of the planet in this picture? | weaksauce wrote: | honestly both of them look like bad clipart from the early | 2000s. cool and all but they don't have the gravitas you'd | want. | tunnuz wrote: | This is so beautiful, I'm sure this will be one of those shots | that will inspire an interest in astronomy for generations to | come. | redm wrote: | I have to say, with all the discussion about how magnificent the | JWST was going to be, and now it is, I expected a better picture. | It puts into perspective just how far away Uranus is, which is | hard to wrap my mind around... | doublemint2203 wrote: | lmao | theodric wrote: | They didn't just get Uranus, they got the ring around it, too! | HarHarVeryFunny wrote: | Ursphincter ? | dbg31415 wrote: | > Urectum is the alternative name the planet Uranus was changed | to in 2620 to avoid people making the "your anus" joke. | | https://futurama.fandom.com/wiki/Urectum | VladimirGolovin wrote: | What amazes me about this photo is how many galaxies are visible | in it, just casually laying around. Probably hundreds in this | particular photo, and likely thousands in each of the "Hubble | Deep Fields" between the visible galaxies. | | For some reason, the original Hubble Deep Field image didn't | viscerally affect me much -- but this one did. Maybe because it | helped me to imagine just how much Hubble Deep Fields are there | in our night sky. | divbzero wrote: | It's hard to imagine life _not_ being out there somewhere. | sydbarrett74 wrote: | So that means colonoscopies are no longer necessary? j/k | | Amazing that the JWST is paying such dividends. The long wait was | worth it. | divbzero wrote: | The angle of Uranus in this photo is striking compared to the | photo of Neptune from last year: | | https://www.nasa.gov/solar-system/new-webb-image-captures-cl... | yieldcrv wrote: | do any of the moons have any value to us? is there anything | intriguing about any of them | lencastre wrote: | WOW | domatic1 wrote: | Am I the only immature one who laughed at the title? | martincmartin wrote: | My Ph.D. work was on a robot called Uranus. Let's just say it | was the butt of many jokes. Like when my advisor was fixing it | once, and I said "get your head out of Uranus!" | | https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~gwp/robots/Uranus.html | andrew-dc wrote: | Absolutely opened the comments for the jokes.... | kgwxd wrote: | They knew exactly what they were doing. All the work put into | that telescope was just building up to this very day. | Night_Thastus wrote: | We'll just have to wait for it to be re-named in 2620 | throwup238 wrote: | Why wait until the ass-end of civilization? | Night_Thastus wrote: | It's a reference to _Futurama_ | daveslash wrote: | You called him out on not catching the reference. _You | Wrecked Em '!_ | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0czFnIvKOJY | ahi wrote: | I was recently diagnosed with rectal cancer. Damn near | everyone's got high res images by now, why not James Webb too. | alex_young wrote: | Not quite the same ring as the original title of "NASA's Webb | Rings in the Holidays with the Ringed Planet Uranus", but the | rings are off a bit from your normal planet, so maybe that's | OK? | jader201 wrote: | To be fair -- and unfortunately -- the original title is | different: "NASA's Webb Rings in the Holidays with the Ringed | Planet Uranus". | | The submitter actually changed it from the original title | (unless the title has been updated since it was submitted). | userbinator wrote: | I think it's a base human nature to find humour in such things. | | As the saying goes: "You can grow old, but you don't need to | grow up." | legitster wrote: | We really need a national program in the US to change the | pronunciation. It would be more accurate to actually pronounce | it "ooranus". | | ...butt yes I giggled. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-12-19 23:00 UTC)