Largest Ever Digital Survey of the Milky Way Released

Several readers have written to tell us that an international team of over fifty astronomers from around the globe have created the largest ever digital survey of the Milky Way. IPHAS (INT/WFC Photometric H-alpha Survey of the Northern Galactic Plane) is an image survey designed to show large-scale structure within our galaxy. IPHAS data is being released by utilizing technology from the UK government funded open source project Astrogrid. Some of the images are quite spectacular.

Comments

Lovely

[fyngyrz]

...and while the astronomers fiddle with gear you and I can only dream of having access to, take your camera and a tripod outside, and with no more than a portrait lens, you can take shots like these.

Click on the thumbnails for descriptions of the subject matter and the equipment and settings used.

The night sky is beautiful at every scale.

Re:Lovely

[CRCulver]

I live in a big city. What exactly are these "stars" that people have photographed? I've never seen one.

Re:Lovely

[__aaclcg7560]

They're little glow-in-the-dark spots painted on the ceiling that are only visible when the big yellow light is turned off at night. Some are still visible when the little night light is turned on.

Re:Lovely

[mishelley]

beautiful, or should I use WOot

Re:Lovely

[morgan_greywolf]

Wait for it to get dark. Take out your camera. Now get in your car (or SUV, truck, motorcycle, tank, whatever -- I presume you have some sort of motorized land vehicle) and drive out past the city limits. Continue driving until you reach an area with very few buildings, no lights, etc. You know. They call this "the country" or "the rural area" or something like that. Park your car and get out. Now you should be able to see these "stars". Take pictures. Good luck!

Re:Lovely

[fyngyrz]

Either is more dignified than the silly little dances I do around the tripod when I get a good shot. :-)

Re:Lovely

[CRCulver]

Except the glow from metropolitan centres extends far into the country. The only place I've seen an amazing night sky is when traveling in Siberia. Certainly in Europe and much of North America there's no untainted night skies left.

Re:Lovely

[skintigh2]

"This set is limited to photos taken with an unaided camera - no telescopes, though I do use 500mm and 600mm lenses sometimes which provide significant magnification."

Unless you're taking a woman's portrait while she undresses in another apartment building, 600mm is no portrait lens ;)

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-600mm-Super-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00009R6X9/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1197496457&sr=8-2

Re:Lovely

[Anonymous Coward]

You should have linked to that item with an Amazon referral link, someone buying it would get you nearly a month's rent in refferal fees.

Re:Lovely

[CFTM]

For those interested in a map of light pollution in the US: Light Pollution Map

Re:Lovely

[JK_the_Slacker]

You've never been to central Missouri, then.

Re:Lovely

[fyngyrz]

So far, I've only used 500mm and 600mm lenses on shots of the moon. All the shots of the stars posted so far were done with 50mm and 85mm lenses. The reason is simply practical; at 500 and 600mm, the lenses I am willing to buy tend to be about f/8, which means they don't gather a lot of light. Given that, the exposure time has to be very long, and that means unless you have a tracking mount, you're going to get a bunch of star trails, very faint, if you get anything at all. The portrait lenses I use are 50mm and f/1.8, 85mm f/1.2, and those give me exposures of just a few seconds. I tried some shots with my 100mm macro, which is f/2.8, but it was just a little too slow - tends to make trails at normal exposure levels.

If I shot for very dim exposures and processed them up later, I could go for a faster shutter speed, *but* the problem is then I can't see what I have on the camera's preview, so it's kind like shooting blind with a film camera. I suppose I could alternate... mmm, yeah, have to try that next time. The camera I use is 14 bit and puts all manner of stuff in the image that is very dark.

The other option is to build (or buy) a cheap tracking mount. Like this one. The thing is, that sort of defeats the whole thrill of just pointing the camera at the sky and letting fly, as it were.

Re:Lovely

[networkBoy]

Assuming you have a decent film body I would highly suggest using it.
I shoot with a canon FTb and a Nikon F3 for my astronomy shots on 1600 speed film exposed at 6400. Then push process the film 2 stops. Vastly superior to any digital shots on a prosumer DSLR.
-nB

Re:Lovely

[davester666]

Good thing it's just a digital survey. I don't think there's a glove big enough for a digital probe.

Re:Lovely

[fyngyrz]

My current camera will go to ISO 3200, and I've got a sharp f/1.2 lens. That gives me a *lot* of room, lightwise. I suspect that as I learn, there's plenty of room for improvement before I reach any limitations of my gear. I'm clearly overexposing the shots by letting the camera decide when it has enough light; the thing is, up on a hill in the winter in Montana, fooling around isn't a great idea, unless you want to be found in the spring, gnawed on by critters. I am sure I'll learn more when the weather is more temperate and I can hang around out there for more than a few minutes.

I do wish you well with your film approach, though. Have any sample shots online?

Re:Lovely

[networkBoy]

Naturally not:(

The real issue with the current crop of cameras is the CMOS sensor. They are notorious for pixel and dark current noise.
A good deep depleted CCD will have noise margins so low as to be non-issues.

Naturally the advantage of your approach is near instant feedback, while in my case I take 5 or so shots of the same thing, bracketing exposure like mad.

And FWIW, those cold nights are vastly better for photography of the stars than warm ones.
-nB

Re:Lovely

[Original Replica]

I presume you have some sort of motorized land vehicle

Better still if you have a sea vehicle. On the East Coast, it's really tough to get away from light pollution. Ten miles straight out to sea and the stars open up. Good luck using a telescope or camera though.

Re:Lovely

[syousef]

...and while the astronomers fiddle with gear you and I can only dream of having access to, take your camera and a tripod outside, and with no more than a portrait lens, you can take shots like these.

Disclaimer: I have a masters in Astronomy but I've never worked in the field. I did the degree "for fun", because I never got the opportunity to study in highschool, and because I wanted to know how we know what we know about the universe. I'm very much an amateur in every respect.

Defintely worth fiddling with camera gear, but at some point if you're taking your own shots you're going to want to use a telescope. Starting with binoculars is definitely the best way. Moving to a dobsonian for viewing (but terrible for photography) is a good next step. (Don't buy anything with a small aperture unless all you're interested in is moon and planets). Next good step would be a Newtonian on EQ mount or SCT. It gets very expensive very quickly. I pretty much gave up on astrophotography. (I live in a large city and when I do get away far enough, I'm usually exhausted from the drive, and there are other priorities (family). Also a 10" scope takes up a hell of a lot of room even in a station wagon).

An alternative to the above is to get hold of sky survey data that's already available and captured by the pro images. There's a lot out there that gets released usually after a year (to give the professional scientists time to work with it). Hubble data, Chandra X-Ray data, SOHO images. It's not all pretty composite colour pictures - you often have to learn to manipulate the images with image software or with more complex data there's specialized software that's not always for the faint of heart (often free, often Linux based). "Amateurs" have done amazing things with some of the images and data. In astronomy there is an "image" (FITS) file format that is actually more than just a simple JPEG etc. You have a background in photography so while it's not strictly RAW data in the sense that it's not coming straight off a sensor, you can think of this format as containing more information the way RAW contains more than JPEG (stuff like calibration information). More information here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FITS
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/heasarc/fits.html

Please understand I'm not trying to discourage you from backyard astronomy. I just thought you might be interested in this too. These days the guys that take the images/capture data and the guys that analyse them are not always the same. ie. you often have technicians that specialise in running the machines.

Here are some links for you:

FITS data from lots of missions/instruments
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/archive.html

Digitized Sky Survey
http://archive.eso.org/dss/dss
http://archive.stsci.edu/cgi-bin/dss_form

Hubble
http://hubblesite.org/

SOHO
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/

Chandra
http://chandra.harvard.edu/
http://chandra.harvard.edu/resources/

If you want more detail and are prepared to try to work out science speak, you can get access to draft papers on:
http://arxiv.org/
Look under astrophysics

I don't have time to go into any more. Hope you're interested.

Re:Lovely

[fyngyrz]

at some point if you're taking your own shots you're going to want to use a telescope.

I'm looking at a Celestron NexStar 8SE GoTo Schmidt Cassegrain, with a T-ring and a prime focus camera adapter. It's my first telescope, so I'm not inclined to go much larger until I have a little experience. In the mean time, my camera is already challenging me.

In astronomy there is an "image" (FITS) file format

I'm familiar with it. I wrote the FITS loader for our image processing software.

Please understand I'm not trying to discourage you from backyard astronomy. I just thought you might be interested in this too.

Understood, and I very much appreciate your comments. I am interested. I'm just interested in what you can do with a bare camera, too. Thanks for all the pointers.

Re:Lovely

[syousef]

No problem.

By all accounts your NexStar should be an excellent scope for viewing. You should however be aware that there are limitations when it comes to long exposure astrophography on an alt-az mount, even with a field de-rotator. The Celestron C8-SGT 8" Go-To XLT shouldn't be much different in price, has goto, and is on an EQ mount. Bear in mind that I've not used either scope. I just know if I was going to want to do any photography I'd pick an EQ mount. It's your choice, of course.

http://www.celestron.com/c2/product.php?CatID=11&ProdID=60

I haven't had much experience with GOTO, bascially because I'm too cheap and you can pretty much double the price for buying astro gear in Australia. (I have considered buying one of the baby NexStar gotos and using it as a spotting scope with green laser pointer attached, but I don't imagine that would be anywhere near as worthwhile as true GOTO). The sad truth is I don't use the gear I do have because I don't have much time to observe these days.

Re:Lovely

[beav007]

My question is: How do we know it's the biggest digital survey of the Milky Way ever? Are we to assume that the other intelligences in the universe progressed beyond digital before they surveyed it? Perhaps they surveyed it in analogue and decided that was enough?

Re:Lovely

[morgan_greywolf]

Well, I thought of that since I live in Florida, but I do realize that not everyone has ready access to the open seas.

Re:Lovely

[skintigh2]

I took some nice shots of the moon with a 200mm (x1.6) on my Digital Rebel XTi, but not as nice as yours. I haven't intentionally tried to take pictures of stars, but I got some in the background of 8"-13" city shots. I'm guessing I don't need a really long exposure to take star photos, and maybe if I make it to NH at Christmas I'll try some Milkyway shots. I guess I haven't thought about taking pictures of stars with a lens because I'm chomping at the bit to try my parents new 10" telescope -- computerized, auto level, GPS, compass... *drool*

How much were your big lenses? I did see one on amazon for $300 but wasn't sure of it's quality.

Re:Lovely

[fyngyrz]

I'm guessing I don't need a really long exposure to take star photos,

The big question: What ISO will your DR go to? At 1600 ISO, I can take a good star shot in 2 seconds at f1/8, basically a $70 lens. If I let the bright stars overexpose, say 6 seconds, then all kinds of faint detail comes out, like the nebulosity in Orion, even a little bit of the Pleides nebulosity, which is considerably fainter. As your ISO goes down, your time goes up, or your glass has to get faster. I have a freaky-good f/1.2 lens I treated myself to, but I've only had it out shooting stars one night thus far. I'm thinking I can go sub one-second with it, but haven't tested that. Next time! Right now it's socked in overcast, as it has been most nights the last month or so. Sigh.

How much were your big lenses?

The 500mm one is a Phoenix catadioptric (reflex and refractor combo) lens, available on Amazon for about $100. Don't get the kit with the 2x teleconverter, the lens isn't sharp enough (and neither is the teleconverter.) The Sigma catadioptric is better quality, you can find it on EBay, prices range from $100 (but you need to find an adaptor) to $250 or so for the right Canon hookup. Unfortunately, they don't make it any longer. Both lenses are fixed f/8 lenses, and your camera will balk and tell you they are f/0, just shoot aperture priority and the camera will figure out what to do. They're great for lunar shots and for long range wildlife, but they're manual focus and that can be tricky.

Re:Lovely

[readin]

I bet they get to see some awesome night sky views in North Korea.

Re:Lovely

[Anonymous Coward]

Astrophotography is indeed a sinkhole for cash. After having spent about $4,000 on an initial setup ($2,000 of which was the telescope/mount) I've come to the conclusion I need to spend about another $6,000 on the mount alone to get it to a state where astrophotography is feasible. Here in the UK, clear time is so precious that I realised you just can't afford all the setup time to account for declination drift, and despite my scope being a German equatorial type mount, the motor drives are barely sufficient - with an RA error of approaching an arcminute. Whether I'll spend such cash upgrading the telescope is questionable. Only 10-15% of days are good enough for observing of recent.

That said, professional telescopes generally are a little over-rated. It all feels very virtual sitting in the control room staring at a computer monitor. You end up looking at single stars for 8 hour+ runs and it is so very easy to fall asleep once it hits about 4am and you still have another couple hours to go. I suppose this is why we have an alarm which goes off every half hour.

I guess what I'm saying is that 95% of professional astronomy doesn't come out with pretty pictures anymore. In that sense IPHAS is good stuff for the public at least (there's a couple guys here involved in it). The best thing about these scopes in La Palma/Chile etc though, is that they have a kitchen.

And it's warm.

Re:Lovely

[skintigh2]

I think 1600, but the one time I used that setting it was very noisy and I couldn't adjust the photos. Of course, if the stars are properly exposed I wouldn't need to adjust it...

I will play with the lens I have and hopefully the telescope and see how into it I am. I kinda want the telescope...

Thanks for the links

Way to link to a 2 MB file in the summary

[gumpish]

I'm sure the admins appreciate that.

Re:Way to link to a 2 MB file in the summary

[morgan_greywolf]

There is no such thing as a "forward slash".
There is only "slash" and "backslash". What I want to know is why does every newbie user think that "\" == "slash" and "/" == "backslash"?

Re:Way to link to a 2 MB file in the summary

[vranash]

DOS:
C Colon Slash
C : \
C:\

And the options were referred to as backslash so and so.

At least that was the terminology as I learned it when I was 8 or 10 or so.

Re:Way to link to a 2 MB file in the summary

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Sorry, no. It was always "C colon backslash." At least for grownups. :-)

Survey results

[Kohath]

52% of stars surveyed said they were in favor of equality for dark matter
41% were opposed
7% had no opinion

Margin of error 2.7%

Re:Survey results

[dkleinsc]

But remember the rule about all digital surveys:

This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.

Wow....

[CFTM]

All I can say about that image is wow! Set it as my work PC desktop and have just been sitting at my desk starring at it for the past five minutes....incredible.

Re:Wow....

[Liquidrage]

Can you post a link to your desktop so we can all see the image.

I really hate when /. thinks it's OK to link to some large image file on some little server somewhere.

Re:Wow....

[Anonymous Coward]

Coral cache: http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk.nyud.net/~nwright/iphas/rosette_dustlanes.jpg

Re:Wow....

[jarom]

If you like that, you should try this: http://nightskylive.net/software/apod/ It takes the Astonomy Picture of the Day, and puts it on your desktop, along with a description. Very nice.

not enough for christmas gifts

[peter303]

The guy on radio who promises to name a star after your request for $54 (includes name book) is advertising on the radio for Christmas again. Claims the name will be "coyrighted" because he submits the book to the copyright office. With only 200 million objects and 310 million people in the USA (and more int he rest of the world), this is not enough!

Re:not enough for christmas gifts

[Penguinshit]

You better hurry up and order, then!

Re:not enough for christmas gifts

[eggfoolr]

What? There are people outside of the USA? I thought there were only savages!

What are you going to do when you find out the aliens that inhabit those stars have already named them?

Re:not enough for christmas gifts

[Fallingcow]

What are you going to do when you find out the aliens that inhabit those stars have already named them?

Well, if we can kick their asses, then we'll rename them whatever the hell we want.

See "The Naming of Names" in Ray Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles.

This should be the most accurate galactic census

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the first time they've sent people door-to-door in the case of unanswered questionnaires.

Why do some so love staring into space?

[TheLazySci-FiAuthor]

I am always amazed at the large-scale structures of the universe. Especially the way that these structures are almost always analogous to physical phenomenon on earth (perhaps no surprise or coincidence if you adhere to the anthropic principle ;)

I was showing my wife the computer-generated 3D maps of the uneven, filamentous distribution of galaxies in the known universe and she commented on how it reminded her of the fingers and tendrils of water being thrown from a bucket - but thrown out in all directions. I suddenly saw gravity as a sort of surface tension, trying to bring everything back together into a nice, neutral sphere. I also suddenly saw the dark energy as the momentum of the thrower and the dark energy as the buffeted air through which the splash disperses.

It's amazing how an analogy can take something so intangiable and make it immediately accessable. I feel, however, that sometimes a simple analogy can have a negative effect as well.

Without a true appreciation of the reality of astronomical images, comparisons to clouds and swirling water can diminish the wonder.

For me, in this image I see a stunning display of incomprehensible size and volume. I see the very heart and soul of our universe laid bare; the very stuff from which everything is made - amazing!

But for someone more lay in the ways of science and astronomy (and less enthused) this simply looks like a puff of smoke.

How is it that some of us wonder and wander and some of us do not?

Re:Why do some so love staring into space?

[Anonymous Coward]

> I suddenly saw gravity as a sort of surface tension,
> trying to bring everything back together into a nice,
> neutral sphere. I also suddenly saw the dark energy
> as the momentum of the thrower and the dark energy
> as the buffeted air through which the splash disperses.

Were you both completely stoned at the time?

Re:Why do some so love staring into space?

[morgan_greywolf]

How is it that some of us wonder and wander and some of us do not? The average IQ in the United States is only in the high 90s? (Note: I am an American, so, no I'm not eurotrolling)

Re:Why do some so love staring into space?

[TheLazySci-FiAuthor]

> I suddenly saw gravity as a sort of surface tension,
> trying to bring everything back together into a nice,
> neutral sphere. I also suddenly saw the dark energy
> as the momentum of the thrower and the dark energy
> as the buffeted air through which the splash disperses.

Were you both completely stoned at the time?

Not completely.

Re:Why do some so love staring into space?

[moderatorrater]

this simply looks like a puff of smoke Some people see the human circulatory system as nothing more than pipes, etc. A sense of wonder comes with knowledge about a subject (I wouldn't stand in awe of Einstein if I didn't know how much he advanced science), and it also requires you to care about the subject. I'm willing to bet that everyone has something they're awed by, whether it's celestial phenomena, the human body, or Paris Hilton's ability to manipulate the press. Each of those things is amazing if you care to find it so.

Re:Why do some so love staring into space?

[TheLazySci-FiAuthor]

Thanks for the info. Now instead of being confused, I'm depressed! ;)

Re:Why do some so love staring into space?

[TheLazySci-FiAuthor]

That's a very good point. I can see how narrow my interests are when I look at things from that perspective. And I now in fact wonder how important a knowledge of the milky way really is. The old phrase, "in the grand scheme of things" leaps to mind as well as it's counterpart, "for the task at hand".

At our current state as a civilization I wonder if it is more important to focus on the big picture, or if we really should be working a little harder at home before tackling the cosmos. After all, Paris Hilton's ability to manipulate is certainly noteworthy when looked at from a sociological perspective, while from that same viewpoint a knowledge of the makeup of Saturn's rings is irrelevant.

Still, I cannot help but find more interest and wonder with what's "out there", rather than "down here". Am I just wasting my time?

Well, I guess it doesn't hurt to think ahead :)

Re:Why do some so love staring into space?

[syousef]

Not completely.

I respectfully submit that you're wrong. Perhaps the pot affected your assessment of your stone-briety :-)

Re:Why do some so love staring into space?

[onion_joe]

I am always amazed at the large-scale structures of the universe. Especially the way that these structures are almost always analogous to physical phenomenon on earth (perhaps no surprise or coincidence if you adhere to the anthropic principle ;)

I agree, the images are fascinating, but it is important to remember that geometries and processes scale very differently. Geometries may scale in a fractal nature, but the processes driving the creation of said geometries may vary tremendously.

Or not, of course. My whole point is that you can't equally scale geometry and process; they are independent.

$10 says there is life out there

[Fieldgeek]

I also have it set on my screen at work as my background. It creates such a nice glow.

My God!

[StefanJ]

It's full of stars!

Um, sorry. I just had to.

Think they'll spot any dyson spheres?

Re:My God!

[Jugalator]

You're joking, but dyson spheres have actually crossed the mind of astronomers.
None found yet however. :-)

According to Wikipedia:

Given the amount of energy available per square meter at a distance of 1 AU from the Sun, it is possible to calculate that most known substances would be re-radiating energy in the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Thus, a Dyson Sphere, constructed by life forms not dissimilar to humans, who dwelled in proximity to a Sun like star, made with materials similar to those available to humans, would most likely cause an increase in the amount of infrared radiation in the star system's emitted spectrum. Hence, Dyson selected the title "Search for Artificial Stellar Sources of Infrared Radiation" for his published paper.

SETI has adopted these assumptions in their search, looking for such "infrared heavy" spectra from solar analogs. As of 2005 Fermilab has an ongoing survey for such spectra by analyzing data from the Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS). And from the SETI Institute:

DATE: 1980
OBSERVER(S): WITTEBORN
SITE: NASA - U OF A, MT. LEMMON
INSTR. SIZE (M): 1.5
SEARCH FREQ.(MHz): 8.5 microns - 13.5 microns
FREQUENCY RESOL.(Hz): 1 micron
OBJECTS: 20 STARS
FLUX LIMITS (W/m**2): N MAGNITUDE EXCESS < 1.7
TOTAL HOURS: 50
REFERENCE:
COMMENTS: Search for IR excess due to Dyson spheres around solar
type stars. Target stars were
chosen because too faint for spectral type.
 
DATE: 1984
OBSERVER(S): SLYSH
SITE: SATELLITE
INSTR. SIZE (M): RADIOMETER
SEARCH FREQ.(MHz): 37x10**3
FREQUENCY RESOL.(Hz): 4x10**8
OBJECTS: ALL SKY 3K BB
FLUX LIMITS (W/m**2): T/T =< .01
TOTAL HOURS: 6000
REFERENCE: 27
COMMENTS: Lack of fluctuations in 3K background radiation on
angular scales of 10**-2 Strd. rules
out optically thick Dyson spheres radiating more than 1 solar
luminosity within 100 pc.
 
DATE: 1987
OBSERVER(S): TARTER, KARDASHEV & SLYSH
SITE: VLA
INSTR. SIZE (M): 26 (9 ANTENNAS)
SEARCH FREQ.(MHz): 1612.231
FREQUENCY RESOL.(Hz): 6105
OBJECTS: G357.3-1.3
FLUX LIMITS (W/m**2):
TOTAL HOURS: 1
REFERENCE:
COMMENTS: Remote observation (by VLA staff) of IRAS source near
galactic center to determine if
source could be nearby Dyson sphere. Source confirmed as OH/IR
star.

Re:My God!

[Chief Camel Breeder]

Dyson spheres are hard to see by definition. They're supposed to capture all the radiation of of a star, so not much to see. The outside would be a bit hotter than background, so possibly visible in the mid/far IR. But not in Halpha light, so not in IPHAS. Sorry.

The headline made me think of livejournal...

[Glowing Fish]

And the "surveys" that some livejournal users clutter up their pages with.

If the Milky Way had a livejournal, would it fill it up with digital surveys of such questions as

"What shape are you? Spiral, elliptical, or irregular?"

and

"What is your spectrum?"

Taste

[Anonymous Coward]

I never thought astronomers had such bad taste http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way_bar

Those Images

[Radtastic]

...made me snicker.

Anyone care to annotate the Rosette image?

[Aliks]

http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~nwright/iphas/rosette_dustlanes.jpg

Thats a great eye catching image (1.8Mb) but the notes on the website are sketchy. Does anyone know more about what to look for? Is there any kind of annotated image labelling the key parts and giving more info on why they are important?

Survey SAYS ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... that most of the galaxy prefers Peanut Butter almost 2-to-1 over any other sandwich spread.

3d maps

[wwmedia]

are there any 3 dimensional interactive maps of the local space in the galaxy? or applications?

Re:3d maps

[ross.w]

Yes, but Kamino is missing for some reason.

Re:3d maps

[ZERO1ZERO]

http://www.shatters.net/celestia/download.html

Re:3d maps

[Tastecicles]

check out Celestia, an open-source and cross platform 3-D isometric of the known universe. Oh, it runs realtime, too.

Re:3d maps

[Kohath]

are there any 3 dimensional interactive maps of the local space in the galaxy?

Yes, but the turn-by-turn driving directions are soooo boring. They just tell you to keep going straight every 2 minutes for like ten thousand years.

The sweet you can eat...

[daniel23]

Giant black hole whistles happily, than sings to itself:
"The sweet you can eat between meals - without ruining your appetite. (slurp.) Milky Way."

Can anyone find any other pictures but the.....

[DavidKlemke]

one linked in the article? I've had a snoop around and I'm coming up with nothing. Right shame to because I love big pictures of space but I've never really found a good repository of large images (1024 x 768 just doesn't cut it when you have monitors capable of much higher resolutions).

Re:Can anyone find any other pictures but the.....

[spidercoz]

The NASA main website and the JPL site both have a ton of full-res images http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/index.html http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/index.html

Re:Can anyone find any other pictures but the.....

[DavidKlemke]

Champion! Thanks so much, I'm sure to lose hours looking through all these.

More photos, and an easter egg

[dotancohen]

More photos here, including a Firefox easter egg.



Bonus goatse easter egg

Re:More photos, and an easter egg

[Anonymous Coward]

God uses Firefox?

Steve Ballmer must be pissed.

Somewhere in Southampton...

[Anonymous Coward]

60,385,673
60,385,674
60,385,675
60,385,676
60,385,677

What what that? ... Ask Ted, I think he has it. ...

Buggers.

1 ...

Science is for children of all ages

[jd]

You cannot have awe without wonder, you cannot have wonder without curiosity and a delight in asking. The best scientists are, in many ways, childlike in their need to ask and discover. The same is true of geeks, inventors and other such individuals that society routinely calls "mad", "eccentric", "crazy" or "abnormal". Which is why geniuses are also usually outcasts from the very societies that revere them.

Is discovery possible without such qualities? I'd say no - you wouldn't think of asking enough questions until you hit on the key, fundamental questions, let alone gotten around to answering them. Which is why "normal" people don't usually make key discoveries. Not all science costs billions, some can cost next to nothing. But who is going to try for even the nearly-free discoveries if they're not hyped up about knowing the answers? Discoveries don't make one rich, often have no impact on the quality-of-life, won't interest any friends at the social clubs, and won't grab the interest of hotly desired individuals. That only leaves those people who discover because discovering is what they do and who they are. In other words, the people who have all the curiosity and tenacity of a child but also have the maturity and resources to do something more than bug others with questions.

Wonder would cease to be in short supply if the child-like qualities that make or break the discovery power of a person were nurtured and not crippled by societies and schooling. There seems little point in learning how to do something if doing so destroys your ability to learn why you learned it.