"Should have sent a poet".... but what would we really see?

[Swithin StCleeve]

In the movie Contact, the character played by Jodie Foster gets to see a galaxy up close. It's a great cinematic moment, and she can't find the words to describe it, and says "you should have sent a poet" 


This is the view, as the side of the spaceship becomes translucent..

You see this a lot in sci-fi and space movies. And I've always thought how amazing it must be to get so close to a galaxy, and see it like that.

But would we see it like that? I mean, what exactly would the human eye pick up, if we were that close to a galaxy? Would it appear as bright as that anyway? It's like when films show spaceships going through nebulosity. Wouldn't the gasses be that spread out, that we wouldn't know we're in nebulosity?
Are Hollywood depictions of star-scapes like the above picture, romantic ideas based on long exposure photographs? Like looking at Orion with the naked eye won't show you Barnard's loop, but a long exposure photo will.
And when I say Jodie Foster was 'close to a galaxy', well we're actually inside a galaxy, and we don't see a sky like the picture above, do we?
Or do we not see the sky like the picture above because we're relatively close to a star, and if we were in space, light years away from the nearest star, the surroundings would be that dark, that we'd see much, much more. Is that how it works? Would we see large nebula with our naked eye (like Barnard's loop), if we were far enough away from the sun? Or is would it always be only viewable through long exposure photos? 
 

Edited October 6, 2021 by Swithin StCleeve
typos

[vlaiv]

I think that we would see something similar - a bit darker but rather similar.

Anyone who had opportunity to view Milky way from very dark site under great transparency with good dark adaptation - sees tons of features. I had once such experience by accident - but I do remember that I was shocked by what I saw. I was traveling by bus to Greece at night.

We stopped at border crossing between Northern Macedonia and Greece. This border crossing is known for constant wind so air is always clear. It is away from major LP sources - or at least then it was. This was back around 2006 or so. While waiting for border crossing - we got out of the bus to stretch our legs - and then I saw it. I was speechless. Quite memorable experience.

Here are some experiences under truly dark skies:

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/692768-what-is-the-impression-under-a-bortle-1-sky/

Floating in outer space will be "even darker" - as there is no atmosphere to interfere at all. Not extinction - and no even natural LP. Just darkness.

[Swithin StCleeve]

In the back of James O'Meara's Messier edition, he asks why we spend so much time looking for faint fuzzies, when the Milky Way is there, bigger and better than all the Messier objects. I should imagine a Bortle 1 sky is an experience akin to a solar eclipse, for its 'wow' factor.
I wonder what nebulosity you'd see under a Bortle 1 sky? Would you see Barnards Loop for example? (I know I keep mentioning that, but it's an obvious large nebula that is invisible to the naked eye, I assume!). 

[vlaiv]

6 minutes ago, Swithin StCleeve said:

wonder what nebulosity you'd see under a Bortle 1 sky? Would you see Barnards Loop for example? (I know I keep mentioning that, but it's an obvious large nebula that is invisible to the naked eye, I assume!). 

That is tough question to answer.

We would need to know its surface brightness. Fact that it is Ha object does not help much as we don't have good sensitivity in Ha. We would need to know how much Hb is there along Ha (how much hydrogen is excited to emit Hb as well) - as that is easier to see.

Size of it also plays a part - but how much - that bit is still not quite clear to me

[Swoop1]

We had a talk at our recent meeting about Dark Nebulae and our speaker, Owen Brazell said when asked about dust density/ distribution in the nebulae, that it was thought by some to be around 1 part per cubic meter so, probably a lot more diffuse when you are in the middle of it.

[Swithin StCleeve]

It's easy for me to think that if I were to fly to one of the stars in the trapezium, and look around, the sky would be full of colours and swathes of gas, because you'd be 'in' the Orion Nebula.
But in reality, the gas clouds can only be seen visually from much further away . . .  Is that how it works I wonder?

[vlaiv]

Just now, Swithin StCleeve said:

But in reality, the gas clouds can only be seen visually from much further away . . .  Is that how it works I wonder?

Yes - inside nebula - we would just see empty space around us.

[John]

NASA put this movie together from Hubble and Spitzer imaging:

 

[John]

M 42 is spectacular for us but it looks rather puny compared with NGC 604 in the Triangulum Galaxy M 33. If that nebula was within our galaxy just think what that might look like !

 

[Swithin StCleeve]

2 hours ago, John said:

NASA put this movie together from Hubble and Spitzer imaging:

 

That's stunning, but I wonder if it's based on long exposure photographs, or it's what the human eye would actually see?

There's such a difference in what's there, and what we (humans) can see. I think sci-fi has fooled us a little, about what we'd actually see out there, in deep space.

[Swithin StCleeve]

1 minute ago, Swithin StCleeve said:

 I think sci-fi has fooled us a little, about what we'd actually see out there, in deep space.

I say us, I mean me.

[Captain Scarlet]

I’ve been asked on occasion when I’ve shown people the streak of the Milky Way, and that it’s “our” galaxy, why does it not look anything like galaxies whose pictures they’ve seen on Hubble?

I reply by saying that it’s like looking at a tree. It looks quite different when you’re inside looking up than when it’s a familiar object a few hundred meters away.