Pretty cool. I thought images weren't being released till 14th, how you get this?
There's no way for super computer simulations to see a section of the background specks of galaxies, zoom enhance and gather any information about them to make an image of what that area of space would appear as if the image was taken billions of light years closer?
I love that the stars have black bodies in this image. I wonder if they purposefully blacked them out due to the effects of exposure on the lens or if it’s some arbitrary aesthetic choice, but either way it looks awesome
I don't give a shit, the US Army has been over budget by hundreds of billions for years and they've managed to loss track of $21 trillion since 9/11, eat shit wienersucker
How much money are we talking about? How money Africa gets?
Oh and the USA is a net receiver of foreign money. Germany, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, the Netherlands send together about 400 billions to the USA, as pure tribute. Other countries also send money so the USA gets about 500 billions in tribute each year
>This Fine Guidance Sensor test image was acquired in parallel with NIRCam imaging of the star HD147980 over a period of eight days at the beginning of May. This engineering image represents a total of 32 hours of exposure time at several overlapping pointings of the Guider 2 channel. The observations were not optimized for detection of faint objects, but nevertheless the image captures extremely faint objects and is, for now, the deepest image of the infrared sky.
So just by testing how stable the thing is, they already broke a record.
Reminds me of this: https://youtu.be/L9azolYtJhI
I think its interesting if the faintest sections, north south east west, all over, each million light years or much more, what I'm trying to say is every further distance you go there is an allignment of galaxies on that axis of distance,
Now at the furthest visible distance; if there is a stand out in density location clusters of galaxies at that distance.
Every regular incremental interval distance
Section A)+50 million light years
Section B)+50 million light years
Section C) +50 million light years
Etc etc
50 million ........100 million.....150 million
Each distance has some cross section of galaxies roughly alligned with that area;
As x amount of towns are 50 miles from me, y amount of towns in the grouping of 100 miles from me, groups of towns in a band 150 miles from me.
The faintest dots of galaxies furthest away in the image, there is an amount that allign on these distant bands;
Now the furthest band away; I'm wondering how homogeneous the distribution of galaxies are, as it would be interesting, if at the furthest distance band for instance in the south west of the image there were densely packed billions of galaxies in that most distant, and in the northeast of the image, only some 100 thousand;
Like wise if deep field images were taken
In all directions, and the deepest band showed some extreme descrepency of galaxy cluster quantity in particular direction/s
Looks good actually, the spirals in the distance. Amazing. Isn't this greater detail of the furthest reaches of space? Is there even more behind, say this image?
>Is there even more behind, say this image?
Isn't this telescope supposed to see into the early beginnings of the universe, and so beyond here be dragons
On the bottom and the right it looks like there is some different filter effect or something, and you can see a lot more tiny white dots, much more than average through out the rest of pic, are those all galaxies?
The white dots are probably noise or hot pixels, it looks like that part of the image is much shallower. That's why it looks different. You can also see black dots which are probably bad pixels. You need a few exposures to reject the junk.
>Those are artifacts from the shape of the mirrors
they’re diffraction spikes. your eyelashes make them when you look at bright objects, and the shape of the mirror makes them in telescopes
>the shape of the mirror makes them in telescopes
Why would they spend billions of dollars to make a telescope that can't take pictures right? It makes no sense
they're called solar flares
>they're called solar flares
Finally a non moronic answer. Thanks
That's nothing, imagine how people felt when this came out.
tbf, wasn't hubble fricked from the beginning? Didn't they manufacture the lens wrong or some shit?
Pretty cool. I thought images weren't being released till 14th, how you get this?
There's no way for super computer simulations to see a section of the background specks of galaxies, zoom enhance and gather any information about them to make an image of what that area of space would appear as if the image was taken billions of light years closer?
It’s just a test image
I love that the stars have black bodies in this image. I wonder if they purposefully blacked them out due to the effects of exposure on the lens or if it’s some arbitrary aesthetic choice, but either way it looks awesome
okay I just answered my own question it’s actually an artifact produced by the saturation of exposure, pic related
they're the micrometeor impacts
>10 billion dollars
I don't give a shit, the US Army has been over budget by hundreds of billions for years and they've managed to loss track of $21 trillion since 9/11, eat shit wienersucker
US Army... think of all the wasted money sent to Africa, trillions of burned money.
With inflation being high you want money sinks like actually burning money
How much money are we talking about? How money Africa gets?
Oh and the USA is a net receiver of foreign money. Germany, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, the Netherlands send together about 400 billions to the USA, as pure tribute. Other countries also send money so the USA gets about 500 billions in tribute each year
a whole 88 billion....
no bros....
How many people was that money split between though? Because all those people spend money and help the economy you know
OK but let’s assume it will produce 9 or 10 images before it breaks
>This Fine Guidance Sensor test image was acquired in parallel with NIRCam imaging of the star HD147980 over a period of eight days at the beginning of May. This engineering image represents a total of 32 hours of exposure time at several overlapping pointings of the Guider 2 channel. The observations were not optimized for detection of faint objects, but nevertheless the image captures extremely faint objects and is, for now, the deepest image of the infrared sky.
So just by testing how stable the thing is, they already broke a record.
Reminds me of this: https://youtu.be/L9azolYtJhI
I think its interesting if the faintest sections, north south east west, all over, each million light years or much more, what I'm trying to say is every further distance you go there is an allignment of galaxies on that axis of distance,
Now at the furthest visible distance; if there is a stand out in density location clusters of galaxies at that distance.
I don't get it
Every regular incremental interval distance
Section A)+50 million light years
Section B)+50 million light years
Section C) +50 million light years
Etc etc
50 million ........100 million.....150 million
Each distance has some cross section of galaxies roughly alligned with that area;
As x amount of towns are 50 miles from me, y amount of towns in the grouping of 100 miles from me, groups of towns in a band 150 miles from me.
The faintest dots of galaxies furthest away in the image, there is an amount that allign on these distant bands;
Now the furthest band away; I'm wondering how homogeneous the distribution of galaxies are, as it would be interesting, if at the furthest distance band for instance in the south west of the image there were densely packed billions of galaxies in that most distant, and in the northeast of the image, only some 100 thousand;
Like wise if deep field images were taken
In all directions, and the deepest band showed some extreme descrepency of galaxy cluster quantity in particular direction/s
I don't really give a shit. Can we work on building settlements on the Moon already? You know, do real shit?
Teh stars look like copy/paste bullshit.
what are the cheese holes on the hexagonal artifacting?
>americans send space telescope at 1.5 Mkm
>gets shot
How was this image taken?
With a microscope
Very carefully
the jwst has a selfie cam
https://www.universetoday.com/140734/micrometeorite-damage-under-the-microscope/
>we are seeing tiny blobs that we couldn't see before! yay more galaxies that we were 100% certain we'd see!
Looks good actually, the spirals in the distance. Amazing. Isn't this greater detail of the furthest reaches of space? Is there even more behind, say this image?
>Is there even more behind, say this image?
Isn't this telescope supposed to see into the early beginnings of the universe, and so beyond here be dragons
There is a lot more behind.
10 billion dollars could have payed for an a new oil drill, refinery and everything needed
But not, we fricking space pictures that were merged and processed with Photoshop of some shit
On the bottom and the right it looks like there is some different filter effect or something, and you can see a lot more tiny white dots, much more than average through out the rest of pic, are those all galaxies?
The white dots are probably noise or hot pixels, it looks like that part of the image is much shallower. That's why it looks different. You can also see black dots which are probably bad pixels. You need a few exposures to reject the junk.
is this how you cope with the total absence of that failure you were wishing for?
1 mirror is smashed, 17 to go. six impacts in six months and its not even turned on yet.
tick tock
i know right...could have pbotoshopped some shit and nobody would know thw difference
Do stars really shoot out rays of light like that?
Have you ever looked up in the sky and seen such rays? Those are artifacts from the shape of the mirrors.
>Those are artifacts from the shape of the mirrors
>the shape of the mirror makes them in telescopes
Why would they spend billions of dollars to make a telescope that can't take pictures right? It makes no sense
>they're called solar flares
Finally a non moronic answer. Thanks
they’re diffraction spikes. your eyelashes make them when you look at bright objects, and the shape of the mirror makes them in telescopes
they're called solar flares
Space is boring