APOD: Galaxy in a Crystal Ball (2018 Jun 22)

[APOD Robot]

Galaxy in a Crystal Ball

Explanation: A small crystal ball seems to hold a whole galaxy in this creative snapshot. Of course, the galaxy is our own Milky Way. Its luminous central bulge marked by rifts of interstellar dust spans thousands of light-years. On this long southern hemisphere night it filled dark Chilean skies over Paranal Observatory. The single exposure image did not require a Very Large Telescope, though. Experiments with a digital camera on a tripod and crystal ball perched on a handrail outside the Paranal Residencia produced the evocative, cosmic marble portrait of our home galaxy.

<< Previous APOD

This Day in APOD

Next APOD >>

[JohnTheWysard]

Impressive and evocative!

I used to try to tell fortunes using a crystal ball, but I gave it up. Just couldn't see any future in it!

[Iksarfighter]

This is so simple and fabulous, thanks for it !

[Ann]

Impressive and evocative!

I used to try to tell fortunes using a crystal ball, but I gave it up. Just couldn't see any future in it!

It is indeed an impressive picture. Beautiful and almost magical. Well, I can definitely see M24 in there (source), and, I think, the Lagoon Nebula plus NGC 6559 and the Trifid-M21 complex, (here, by Terry Hancock and Fred Herrmann), and most certainly the Pipe Nebula (here, by João Alves)! All trapped inside a crystal ball. That's amazing.

Ann

[Joe Stieber]

Well, I can definitely see M24 in there (source), and, I think, the Lagoon Nebula plus NGC 6559 and the Trifid-M21 complex, (here, by Terry Hancock and Fred Herrmann), and most certainly the Pipe Nebula (here, by João Alves)! All trapped inside a crystal ball. That's amazing.

Indeed, the Pipe Nebula is there, but the Pipe also comprises the hindquarters of the Prancing Horse, the combined legs of which point to the upper-right towards Antares and the upper part of the Scorpion. You can follow down from there around the J-hook to the Stinger, Shaula and Lesath. They point to M7, then above it, M6. M8, M20 and especially M24 are pretty obvious. You can also see M23 at the 1 o'clock position from M24, and (4) Vesta at the 4 o'clock position from M23. Saturn's a bright spot below-right of M24, and continuing along that line, it goes through M22 to the handle of the Teapot in Sagittarius. I have to admit that I don't really see NGC 6559. I should make a labeled version, but it's late here.

[Ann]

Well, I can definitely see M24 in there (source), and, I think, the Lagoon Nebula plus NGC 6559 and the Trifid-M21 complex, (here, by Terry Hancock and Fred Herrmann), and most certainly the Pipe Nebula (here, by João Alves)! All trapped inside a crystal ball. That's amazing.

Indeed, the Pipe Nebula is there, but the Pipe also comprises the hindquarters of the Prancing Horse, the combined legs of which point to the upper-right towards Antares and the upper part of the Scorpion. You can follow down from there around the J-hook to the Stinger, Shaula and Lesath. They point to M7, then above it, M6. M8, M20 and especially M24 are pretty obvious. You can also see M23 at the 1 o'clock position from M24, and (4) Vesta at the 4 o'clock position from M23. Saturn's a bright spot below-right of M24, and continuing along that line, it goes through M22 to the handle of the Teapot in Sagittarius. I have to admit that I don't really see NGC 6559. I should make a labeled version, but it's late here.

Click to view full size image

The Lagoon and NGC 6559 look like one single elongated object in today's APOD.

Take a look at the picture at right. As you can see, NGC 6559 (upper left) does seem to be connected to the Lagoon Nebula (below center). I'm sure there is some sort of physical connection, too.

Ann

[Nanakulikane]

What comes to mind is the consistent theme of circles and objects revolving within our galaxy and the universe. It doesn't matter on what level you observe, from molecular to the universe, it's constant. Shapes may vary slightly on a temporary basis but the motion and interaction are the same. Would appreciate discussion but no poaching.

[Ann]

Click to view full size image

The Prancing Horse.
Photo: Melinda and Dean Ketelsen.

By the way, Joe, the Prancing Horse. I've never paid attention to it, but here it is, at left in the picture:

Ann

[De58te]

I like this picture. Excellent photography Mr. Munoz. Very imaginative. It should make a lot of money. I can just wonder which astronomy or science magazine will be first to buy it for their cover?

[neufer]

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

---

[orin stepanek]

Imaginative photo!

[songwriterz]

"My God! Its full of stars!"

[Sa Ji Tario]

If it is crystal ball it is refraction, but as it says it is marble it is reflection

[neufer]

If it is crystal ball it is refraction, but as it says it is marble it is reflection

---

<<The Blue Marble is an image of planet Earth made on December 7, 1972, by the crew of the Apollo 17 spacecraft at a distance of about 29,000 kilometers (18,000 miles) from the surface. It is one of the most reproduced images in human history. The image reproduces the view of the Earth as seen by the Apollo crew traveling toward the Moon. This was the first time the Apollo trajectory made it possible to photograph the south polar ice cap, despite the Southern Hemisphere being heavily covered in clouds. The image is one of the few to show an almost fully illuminated Earth disk, as the astronauts had the Sun behind them when they took the image. To the astronauts, the slightly gibbous Earth had the appearance and size of a glass marble, hence the name. It has been mostly shown with Antarctica at the bottom, although the actual view the astronauts had was with Antarctica on top.>>

[MarkBour]

It has been mostly shown with Antarctica at the bottom, although the actual view the astronauts had was with Antarctica on top.

It occasionally surprises me how strong a hold this convention has on us (myself included). I assume the original image was taken when the astronauts came around the Moon, saw the Earth rise, and captured the photo. I would think that to them, the Moon "below" would feel like "down", though they were surely in a free fall state. So, I wonder if, when they looked at the Earth, with Antartica at the "top", they had any feeling like: "Oh, the Earth is upside down from here."

It would be a nice Stanley Kubrick moment to show this image, and slowly zoom out, and have the surface of the Moon come into view at the top of the frame.

[neufer]

It has been mostly shown with Antarctica at the bottom,
although the actual view the astronauts had was with Antarctica on top.

It occasionally surprises me how strong a hold this convention has on us (myself included). I assume the original image was taken when the astronauts came around the Moon, saw the Earth rise, and captured the photo... It would be a nice Stanley Kubrick moment to show this image, and slowly zoom out, and have the surface of the Moon come into iew at the top of the frame.

<<The Blue Marble is an image of planet Earth made on December 7, 1972, by the crew of the Apollo 17 spacecraft at a distance of about 29,000 kilometers (18,000 miles) from the surface. The image reproduces the view of the Earth as seen by the Apollo crew traveling toward the Moon. >>

[Sa Ji Tario]

Thank you for the clarification of the idiom, in my lares "marble" is a mineral and what is referred to here is a "little ball", a "canny", small toy sphere of children

[MarkBour]

<<The Blue Marble is an image of planet Earth made on December 7, 1972, by the crew of the Apollo 17 spacecraft at a distance of about 29,000 kilometers (18,000 miles) from the surface. The image reproduces the view of the Earth as seen by the Apollo crew traveling toward the Moon. >>

Okay, forget the Stanley Kubrick moment.
I guess I was imagining this was a shot done similar to Apollo 8's Earth rise,
an image of which I used to have a nice poster.

But then, if the "Blue Marble" image was taken from a flight position in transition from the Earth to the Moon, I'm wondering what the heck that really even means, to say "It has been mostly shown with Antarctica at the bottom, although the actual view the astronauts had was with Antarctica on top." They really would not have had any predominant reference frame to say that, right?

[Ann]

<<The Blue Marble is an image of planet Earth made on December 7, 1972, by the crew of the Apollo 17 spacecraft at a distance of about 29,000 kilometers (18,000 miles) from the surface. The image reproduces the view of the Earth as seen by the Apollo crew traveling toward the Moon. >>

apollo08half.jpg

Okay, forget the Stanley Kubrick moment.
I guess I was imagining this was a shot done similar to Apollo 8's Earth rise,
an image of which I used to have a nice poster.

But then, if the "Blue Marble" image was taken from a flight position in transition from the Earth to the Moon, I'm wondering what the heck that really even means, to say "It has been mostly shown with Antarctica at the bottom, although the actual view the astronauts had was with Antarctica on top." They really would not have had any predominant reference frame to say that, right?

In the iconic picture you posted, Mark, the Earth's oceans are a vivid blue. In the much more recent photo posted by Neufer, the oceans of the Earth are a dull, muted shade of blue.

Is there a reason for that?

Ann

[geckzilla]

apollo08half.jpg

Okay, forget the Stanley Kubrick moment.
I guess I was imagining this was a shot done similar to Apollo 8's Earth rise,
an image of which I used to have a nice poster.

But then, if the "Blue Marble" image was taken from a flight position in transition from the Earth to the Moon, I'm wondering what the heck that really even means, to say "It has been mostly shown with Antarctica at the bottom, although the actual view the astronauts had was with Antarctica on top." They really would not have had any predominant reference frame to say that, right?

In the iconic picture you posted, Mark, the Earth's oceans are a vivid blue. In the much more recent photo posted by Neufer, the oceans of the Earth are a dull, muted shade of blue.

Is there a reason for that?

Ann

Here's one that's less modified from the original:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasacommo ... 059305918/

Whatever we're seeing now had to be digitized from the film versions, so that process can yield varying results. The film itself could have been different, and so could the cameras, lenses, and exposure settings. Plus someone could easily have done some subjective modifications using Photoshop or any other image editing software.

[Ann]

apollo08half.jpg

Okay, forget the Stanley Kubrick moment.
I guess I was imagining this was a shot done similar to Apollo 8's Earth rise,
an image of which I used to have a nice poster.

But then, if the "Blue Marble" image was taken from a flight position in transition from the Earth to the Moon, I'm wondering what the heck that really even means, to say "It has been mostly shown with Antarctica at the bottom, although the actual view the astronauts had was with Antarctica on top." They really would not have had any predominant reference frame to say that, right?

In the iconic picture you posted, Mark, the Earth's oceans are a vivid blue. In the much more recent photo posted by Neufer, the oceans of the Earth are a dull, muted shade of blue.

Is there a reason for that?

Ann

Here's one that's less modified from the original:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasacommo ... 059305918/

Whatever we're seeing now had to be digitized from the film versions, so that process can yield varying results. The film itself could have been different, and so could the cameras, lenses, and exposure settings. Plus someone could easily have done some subjective modifications using Photoshop or any other image editing software.

Click to view full size image

Air glow.
Photo: Miguel Claro.

Thanks, Geck. In the picture in your link, showing the Earth as seen from the Moon in 1969, the Earth's oceans are brilliantly blue indeed, and very different from the recent picture posted by Neufer.

I guess that what I'm asking is if the Earth's oceans have changed color. That is theoretically possible, perhaps, with the amount of trash that has been dumped in them since the days of Apollo. Similarly, the color of the Earth's atmosphere seems to have changed from clear blue to a lot more green and orange because of all the air glow that seems to be present these days. In the picture at left, the band of the Milky Way looks blue, but the sky of the Earth looks anything but.

Whatever we're seeing now had to be digitized from the film versions, so that process can yield varying results. The film itself could have been different, and so could the cameras, lenses, and exposure settings. Plus someone could easily have done some subjective modifications using Photoshop or any other image editing software.

These are very good points. But as a lover of blue things, I'm acutely aware that shades of brilliant blue are unfashionable these days. I simply can't buy blue things the way I used to be able to to buy them, because they don't exist the way they used to. And while Sky&Telescope magazine used to tell me what stars look blue when you observed them, the current expert on double stars and star clusters only ever talks about orange, yellow and white stars.

So what is the most likely reason for "the fading of the Earth's blue oceans and skies"? Technical equipment? A real change of the Earth's oceans and air? Simple fashion?

Ann

[Cousin Ricky]

If it is crystal ball it is refraction, but as it says it is marble it is reflection

The ground (the dark crescent) is on top in the sphere image, indicating refraction, not reflection. The orientation of the Milky Way is also inverted for Paranal’s location, confirming that this is a refracted image. “Marble” clearly indicates the metaphor for Earth in this context.

[geckzilla]

So what is the most likely reason for "the fading of the Earth's blue oceans and skies"? Technical equipment? A real change of the Earth's oceans and air? Simple fashion?

Only 4 years had elapsed between the two images. You'd have to come up with an explanation for the entirety of Earth's oceans to change color that quickly, or for atmospheric conditions to explain the difference. Modern satellite imagery spans for longer time periods than that, but the oceans more or less remain exactly the same color. Far more likely in my opinion are the differences in the tools used to produce the image.

[Ann]

So what is the most likely reason for "the fading of the Earth's blue oceans and skies"? Technical equipment? A real change of the Earth's oceans and air? Simple fashion?

Only 4 years had elapsed between the two images. You'd have to come up with an explanation for the entirety of Earth's oceans to change color that quickly, or for atmospheric conditions to explain the difference. Modern satellite imagery spans for longer time periods than that, but the oceans more or less remain exactly the same color. Far more likely in my opinion are the differences in the tools used to produce the image.

Thanks, Geck.

Ann

[neufer]

So what is the most likely reason for "the fading of the Earth's blue oceans and skies"? Technical equipment? A real change of the Earth's oceans and air? Simple fashion?

Only 4 years had elapsed between the two images. You'd have to come up with an explanation for the entirety of Earth's oceans to change color that quickly, or for atmospheric conditions to explain the difference. Modern satellite imagery spans for longer time periods than that, but the oceans more or less remain exactly the same color. Far more likely in my opinion are the differences in the tools used to produce the image.

The Greens of Summer?
Posted on August 7, 2009 by Stephen Fletcher

Hugh Morton comparison

---

<<If Paul Simon’s verdant lyric about Kodachrome giving us “the greens of summer” was true, then why, oh why, was Fujichrome invented? At the risk oversimplification, let’s take a look at that question. After all, in his own way, Hugh Morton did!

Manufacturers make different films with different “extended sensitivities.” That means that one film may be more sensitive to reds and yellows, for example, and another film may be more sensitive to greens and blues. This is the case between Kodachrome and Fujichrome, and Kodachrome and Ektachrome. Can you see the differences between the films in the two examples?>>