Starship Asterisk*

Great images! Really nice!

That's a really great find! But it just prooved the theory built up a few months ago!

Notable resolution! Quite a huge improvement!

I voted for #7 because of the colors and the high resolution!

They are all very nice!

I voted for #1, but I could as well have voted for #2 or #4! I like all of the three!

Really nice shot!

bystander wrote:So, RJN is mooning us, too? You and owlice make quite a pair.

This ought to be with owlice's Moons of our Solar System.

Quite right! But the more people are posting, the more images I get to see. Good idea!

Great image!

I like #1 best because it's so sharp.
The edge-on galaxy in #4 looks interesting!

I voted for #1 because I like this sharp stars.
#3 is also really great!

Great image! It's really sharp in relation to the conditions!

Jan wrote:That is definitely the Tardis in that picture, or something very like it.

That's true. I like it too!^^

Astronut wrote:Hey guys, does anyone know where they hid the edit button

According to my information, you can only edit your posts during a certain time after posting. But don't post such things here, you may contact bystander or any other moderator...

We are gravitationally bound to it but this was not always the case and will not always be the case. I think that this statement depends on how you define "gravitational bound". All massice objects are affected by others' gravity. If there's a lot of empty space around the cluster, the gr...

I like these deep images! They tell us a lot about our past!

Really amazing picture!
You see how much you can get out of an image by computer processing!

I voted for #4 because of the high resolution!

owlice wrote:Hofi, I do, too! Check out this thread, too; I think you'll like it!

Thanks, owlice! Really nice thread!

Really nice photos! I think they would give a great APOD!

jisles wrote:Praesepe is also Latin for "beehive".

"Praesaepe" is definitely the Latin word for "manger".
The Latin word combination "Preasaepibus arcere" means "beehive". So I just can agree with Chris Peterson.

That's right! I think that especially the "missing" colors help to see the object through a telescope as it is named. But these gray images are just something for nerds, "normal" public would not be quite interested in it. Looking at the constellations, it's different. I just can...

I have seen - on tv - when Hubble pictures have been shown, a picture similiar to this one only the horse's head was faceing to the right and it actually looked like a horse's head. It must have been a different Nebula with a different name, which figures. I think sometimes the ones that name these...

orin stepanek wrote:maybe it could just be the 'Horse Nebula'!

I'd rather say that it is also just the head of a seahorse...
I cannot see any flippers.

rstevenson wrote:I've always thought of it as more of a seahorse.

seahorse.jpg

This one fits too! Nice find!

neufer wrote:

• 1) What you have as the horse's head is really the top of its mane.
  
  2) What you have as the horse's ass is really the back of its head.
  
  3) What you have as the horse's tail is really the back of its mane.

I agree! I also always saw it this way. But this overlay also fits quite well!