Top 10 Space Science Images of 2002

DarkKnightRadick writes "Here you can find what Space.com considers the Top 10 Space Science images of the past year." As the accompanying article points out, "Hubble, refurbished during 2002, continues to provide benchmark astrophotography. However, other telescopes, in space and on the ground, see things that Hubble cannot." DarkKnightRadick continues: "The site is filled with artists theoretical renderings and actual photographs from both ground and space based telescopes."

Comments

Slightly disappointing?

[Theaetetus]

Anyone else slightly disappointed by the number of 'renderings' on the site as opposed to actual images? I realize that many of the things they're rendering can not be seen (such as the black hole), but while we in the know might well realize that it's a false image, what about the rest of the public? Might these images not be a little bit misleading to the 'average' person out there, particularly when placed alongside real Hubble/Keck images?

I'd rather see a gallery of the top 10 science images, and a separate gallery of the top 10 science renderings. They're great to look at, but they don't deserve the same consideration, particularly with the technical flaws evident in them (but understandable... they're done by artists, not astronomers).

-T