Re: Question on focus
Joe asked,
What I can't understand is why Jupiter is in sharp focus while the moonscape is slightly fuzzy.
They both equally fuzzy - the result of the telescope pushing its diffraction limit near its limit of useful magnification per inch of aperature. The mind is better able to interpret the Moon mountains in the "foreground" as blurred since mountainous terrain has terresterial analogues that the mind is used to seeing. Conversely, there is less resolvable detail in Jupiter's bands that can que the mind into the level of imaging blurring. The mind is not used to perceiving cloud bands from above. The same blurry level is less bothersome to view. Try grabbing a copy of the image and view a group of pixels from the Moon and Jupiter image on a highly magnified zoom. The pixelization should show similar levels of detail. - Canopus56 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Here's the headline on an extensive, illustrated piece in "The Forum" secton of Wednesday's USA Today: "FADE TO BLACK. 15 years ago, the Hubble Space Telescope cracked open the universe for all to see. In an instant, a foolish bureaucratic decision may pull the plug on it forever." You might be able to dig it up on the USA Today Internet site, but I couldn't get it to come up correctly -- maybe not enough memory in the browser I use. Anyway, it's an interesting discussion topic. -- Joe
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-02-15-oberg_x.htm Siegfried Quoting Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com>:
Here's the headline on an extensive, illustrated piece in "The Forum" secton of Wednesday's USA Today:
"FADE TO BLACK. 15 years ago, the Hubble Space Telescope cracked open the universe for all to see. In an instant, a foolish bureaucratic decision may pull the plug on it forever."
You might be able to dig it up on the USA Today Internet site, but I couldn't get it to come up correctly -- maybe not enough memory in the browser I use. Anyway, it's an interesting discussion topic.
-- Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Joe Bauman wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something but didn't ESA report this last year? I'm pretty sure ESA's Mars Express found methane over likely water bearing areas shortly after arriving at Mars. Patrick
Yes Patrick, ESA said they discovered methane near the remnants of a body of water and determined that it was proof that life did exist. It was determined, based on the amount of methane present, that the life form was more than likely man. Last I heard, they were searching the area for signs of fishing lures and bottle tops... ;) Quoting Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net>:
Joe Bauman wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something but didn't ESA report this last year?
I'm pretty sure ESA's Mars Express found methane over likely water bearing areas shortly after arriving at Mars.
Patrick
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I think this one supposedly has much more definite indications of life, not just the big "maybe" that Mars Express picked up on. -- Joe
participants (5)
-
Canopus56 -
diveboss＠xmission.com -
Joe Bauman -
Patrick Wiggins -
ziggy943＠xmission.com