JWST images

[ONIKKINEN]

3 minutes ago, gilesco said:

Yes, on screen it looks under- well , not overwhelming, but take the full thing and look a bit deeper, you start to realise that there is real depth to the image.

They did a really poor job of showcasing this.

I agree, the stream was anemic!

[globular]

Quote from Mrs Globular was better than their commentary.... "Wow. Lots of shiny things!"

Edited July 11, 2022 by globular
typo

[gilesco]

There's stuff going on in that photo, they're not stars, they're not galaxies, there is something else no?

Photonic emissions from something other than concrete stars, another force at work at the beginning of time?

[Pixies]

About to appear on the side of Celestron Powerseeker boxes!

[billhinge]

Here is a link to a site showing Hubble vs Webb

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/universe-before-jwst/

[AndrewRrrrrr]

agree the oresentation was terrible, but the image - holy smoley it's amazing. just 12.5 hours, wait until they zero in with a couple of weeks long exposure! 

 

[Zermelo]

To have captured all that in just 12.5 hours is astonishing.

And when you remember watching the deployment not that long ago, and the dozens of things that could have gone wrong with it ... but didn't.
What an achievement.

Now, let's hope that micrometeorite was just a one-off.

[callisto]

Oh my, we are sooooo tiny 😲

[gilesco]

Just now, callisto said:

Oh my, we are sooooo tiny 😲

Not even a pixel for us anymore 🤏

[Laurieast]

HST Same target. 

 

Edited July 11, 2022 by Laurieast

[ONIKKINEN]

6 minutes ago, Laurieast said:

HST Same target. 

 

Oh wow, the difference is really stunning.

[globular]

7 minutes ago, Laurieast said:

HST Same target. 

http://hstrelics.weebly.com/uploads/5/5/4/4/55441139/_7111921_orig.jpg

Was that 12.5 hours too? Or more like 2 weeks?

[Sunshine]

Looking at the high res image my mind is mush when considering this is a patch of sky the size of a grain of sand at arms length. A 13 billion LY distant image, I wonder if it is just a product of processing or 

not but there are so many orange looking galaxies, are they proto galaxies? 

[Laurieast]

2 minutes ago, globular said:

Was that 12.5 hours too? Or more like 2 weeks?

No idea, just says: 

#23. SMACSJ0723.3-7327 (Merger, SZ-based)

 

[Sunshine]

4 minutes ago, ONIKKINEN said:

Oh wow, the difference is really stunning.

It's the difference between my 4'" refractor and a 16" dob.

[ONIKKINEN]

If i had to guess they have somehow blueshifted the spectrum to be more like one would expect from a real colour image. The reddest spots would be the furthest Infrared targets in that case.

Would love to hear a technical explanation for the chosen palette.

[ONIKKINEN]

6 minutes ago, Sunshine said:

It's the difference between my 4'" refractor and a 16" dob.

Well all right then. Looks like ill need a 16'' dob then 🤣

[Laurieast]

Apparently it won't plate solve 🤔

[DaveL59]

4 minutes ago, ONIKKINEN said:

Well all right then. Looks like ill need a 16'' dob then 🤣

only 16", I'd have thought 16 ft 😉 

[Laurieast]

Some new times for the next images:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-updates-coverage-for-webb-telescope-s-first-images-reveal

[Sunshine]

59 minutes ago, ONIKKINEN said:

Here is the full thing:

Unbelievable!

 

I find I need to click on the image like 4 times to reach the actually high res image which is so large I have to scroll around but the details are astonishing!

[Jamgood]

32 minutes ago, Laurieast said:

Some new times for the next images:

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-updates-coverage-for-webb-telescope-s-first-images-reveal

I'm glad I'm not working tomorrow. 👍

[Gfamily]

52 minutes ago, Laurieast said:

No idea, just says: 

#23. SMACSJ0723.3-7327 (Merger, SZ-based)

 

It's at least two separate sessions,  you can tell by the offset diffraction spikes around the brightest star 

[Laurieast]

Some wacky stuff going on out there:

[Sunshine]

1 hour ago, Laurieast said:

Some wacky stuff going on out there:

You mean back then 😜