Picture of a large collection of lights

I would hazard a guess that this would be unequaled on Earth.

(** Mod edit - to redirect to a reasonably-sized image. If anybody wants to see the larger image - for screen-saver, or whatever, find it here: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0211/sky_ctio_big.jpg )

WOW! Isn't that an amazing shot? As hard as we try....I don't think that we can truly comprehend the how vast and incredible the universe actually is. Thanks for sharing that pic with us Wits'end.

Just to think that this picture of only a small portion of the visible sky. And, that the visible sky is only a small portions of what's visible from all over the Earth. And, that what is visible in our galaxy is only a portion since a lot of it is not visible to the naked eye. And then to think that our Milky Way Galaxy is one of (millions, billions, or trillions???) of other galaxies (and all of them producing light). Also, our small to average size sun has at least 9 planets buzzing around it. Multiply that by the number of stars (trillions?) in the Universe and it really does boggle the mind.

I don't think the human mind can comprehend the vastness of the universe. Someone can write it down & you can read it, but actually comprehending is another matter. TX

Hey where's you get that, it looks like a decent astrophotographer is at work there. The exposure is long enough that it had to be on a mount, I wondered what it was and what the camera was. Looks like Pleides on the left, and the Milky Way on the right. This is what the sky should look like EVERYWHERE not just on some mountiantop in the Rockies. It could, if the awareness of light pollution was where it should be.

This photo seems too wonderful to be real. Perhaps it has been digitally altered or even created. I've been high up in the Rockies and the stars never looked quite that present.

Regardless of how it was done, that photo evokes the feelings of wonder and awe that always hit me when I look at the night sky.

Brightnorm

I don't have the proper background to say for sure, but its my understanding that a long enough exposure (leaving the shutter open long enough) with a camera will easily yield a photo like this--that film will turn out lots of stars the eye can't see, even without a telescope.

Just a stunning photo.

rusty

I do have the proper background, and I believe you are correct rusty. The camera has the luxury of keeping it's shutter open long enough to expose even the faintest of light onto the film. Even light (and stars) that are not visible to the naked eye.

I don't believe this photograph was altered in any way. I think it was taken where there was no light polution (from city lights, etc.) and with a long enough exposure to capture more light and stars than are visible to the naked eye.

Not to mention that it was probably taken at a relatively high elevation so there's a bit less atmosphere to penetrate. Wherever it is, it is quite obviously a good observation point judging by the observatory parked right there.

Yup the pic is taken on a mountain top in Chili.

From this site:
Explanation: High atop a Chilean mountain lies one of the premier observatories of the southern sky: the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO). Pictured above is the dome surrounding one of the site's best known instruments, the 4-meter Blanco Telescope. Far behind the dome are thousands of individual stars and diffuse light from three galaxies: the Small Magellanic Cloud (upper left), the Large Magellanic Cloud (lower left), and our Milky Way Galaxy (right). Visible just to Blanco's right is the famous superposition of four bright stars known as the Southern Cross. A single 20 second exposure, this digital image was recorded with a sensitive detector intended for astronomical imaging. The observatory structures are lit solely by starlight.

Beautiful shot Wits' End! Breath-taking.

Could you do us a small favor and reduce it just a tad so it'll fit without making us scroll to read the text in the thread? Thanks!

Wouldn't the earth's rotation blur the picture if the film is exposed for a long time?

Yes, it would. However, the exposure time for this picture was only 20 seconds. Not long enough to blur the picture. A longer timed exposure would actually make the stars appear as "streaks" of light instead of "points" of light.

That is indeed splendidly amazing. Its nice to be reminded every now and then that the universe is truly a beautiful piece of work. Thanks, Wit's End!

Indeed. I liked the picture so much that it is now the background on my computer.

Thanks again for sharing it with us Wit's End.

Beam shot appears spotty, irregular, and unbalanced. Must be from light sources that were created years ago.

(Not totally without merit,however.)

Re: Lemlux comment: "Beam shot appears spotty, irregular, and unbalanced. Must be from light sources that were created years ago.

(Not totally without merit,however.)"

Yep, you're right there, but WOW WHAT A THROW! And lookit the lifespan on those hydrogen and/or helium batteries.

Just hate like heck to have to buy a new one huh?

LH

We should also mention the size of the vacuum heat insulation envelope.

Lemlux,

You're correct, how did I miss this vital point? Sound of head smack, D'Oh! Guess I was too enthralled with the throw.

LH

An alert member found a more reasonably-sized image. Now no scrolling is needed to read this thread.

The link to the original, larger jpg is still intact in the fist post.

There are some sweet photos on that NASA site. I'm gonna grab me some..

Graham