Starship Asterisk*

Sure this photo looks a little strange but its completely fake.
I understand using filters, trick photography for objects in
space to get a different perspective, etc. But to illuminate this
dome with a red light from the inside is just inane and
pointless.

Personally, I enjoy seeing pictures of the technology that goes into making [apod] photos. Of course, my favorite [apod] photos are usually the real, man-made objects that are _actually_used_ to observe extra-terrestrial objects (for example, I really liked http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap070808.html).

I'm always willing to put up with some "fake," man-modified, inanely-colored picture of a star or galaxy because I know that we'll get an explanation of _how_ that picture was captured. Today's [apod] shows us a dramatic, outlined-black-on-red, interior image of a telescope, similar to the kind of instrument that has produced many of your favorite [apod] "trick-"images.

I think everyone here likes [apod] because of its talent for striking a balance between everyone's notions of "good" and "bad" "pictures."

Professionally done, the image would look as follows:

http://www.lonestarobservatory.org

W Barry Smith
Lone Star Observatory

I think the image is a (reasonably) professional image taken with the exact effect provided as intended for the context of the image. There is no trick photography involved in its production but for a long term exposure as the dome is rotated. It is a very imaginative method to image the interior of the observatory dome from the outside through the slit opening.

Great shot.

Chill out. Loosen up. Have fun like they did.

Don't damn the site with your first posts. It's not nice.

There's nothing fake about the image... Maybe they used red light to make a wicked picture, or maybe they used it because red light intereferes least with night vision.

I apologize. The picture IS very beautiful and "cool".
I must have been in a poor mood yesterday, which
somehow also gave me the spur to post up to this forum.

I guess the opening question of the caption led me
to expect a celestial cause to the red effect. I'm not
familiar enough with the site to know that its not only
illuminating us about the heavens but also demonstrating
how trick photography is done.

Fake is the wrong word. Trick is better?

Trick...sort of. I'd say it's art more than science. They did it to create the picture rather than study something...still the aesthetic element is a part of astronomy.

The art effects are ok I guess, , *yawns* but what I come here for is great astronomy pictures about things off this planet. This type of picture I can get any time I want to.

Now a great picture of Iapetus would be worth a hundred of these artsy fartsy images, , how about it NASA, going to release any more of Iapetus? hmmmm?

Sail Away wrote:I apologize. The picture IS very beautiful and "cool".
I must have been in a poor mood yesterday, which
somehow also gave me the spur to post up to this forum.

I guess the opening question of the caption led me
to expect a celestial cause to the red effect. I'm not
familiar enough with the site to know that its not only
illuminating us about the heavens but also demonstrating
how trick photography is done.

Fake is the wrong word. Trick is better?

Don't worry too much about it. There are often (heated) discussions on this board concerning anything that would be best considered ART as opposed to science.

wbsjets wrote:Professionally done, the image would look as follows:

http://www.lonestarobservatory.org

W Barry Smith
Lone Star Observatory

And why is this so much more professional? Because you did it? or because you paid to have it done?

I liked the affects, thought it was a "professionally" executed photograph.

Art has its place; I just prefer it not on the APOD.

How about more NASA pictures of Hyperion or Enceladus? So NASA what say you?!

I can't wait to see Pluto and Charon as clearly as Enceladus and Hyperion

FieryIce wrote:Art has its place; I just prefer it not on the APOD.

How about more NASA pictures of Hyperion or Enceladus? So NASA what say you?!

Unfortunately, we only get new closeups during flyby's. Cassini is in a very elliptical orbit that takes almost a month to complete, swinging it in as close as the rings, then back out to almost 3 million miles away. The reason is this lets it make the very close approaches it does to this myriad of objects it's observed, despite them being at widely varying distances from Saturn.

However, it looks like there are a quite a few more flyby's of the various targets, including a (I did a double-take when I read this) scheduled 14 mile pass over Enceladus next March!

The schedule is here. It only runs through the formal end of mission in 2008, so hopefully we'll see some more observations of the less well-covered targets during the mission extension.

craterchains, FieryIce,

You've missed an obvious conspiracy here. 'Trick' illumination of the telescope dome - Phooey! It's a cloaking device being tested.

We demand more pictures and schematics of the building!
Who owns it again?
New Mexico Tech?
Just next door to Area 66!
Or whatever it's called.

John

JohnD wrote:craterchains, FieryIce,

You've missed an obvious conspiracy here. 'Trick' illumination of the telescope dome - Phooey! It's a cloaking device being tested.

We demand more pictures and schematics of the building!
Who owns it again?
New Mexico Tech?
Just next door to Area 66!
Or whatever it's called.

John

To be more blunt than my previous post of

Art has its place; I just prefer it not on the APOD.

Art is nice if you're a horses tail and wanna get brushed but it has no place as an APOD picture! So John you can guess where you can put your schematics.

FI,
Answer the (implied) question!
Not descend into insult.

That transparent dome is as good evidence of some spooky experiment as the pictures from Iapetus and Enceladus are of aliens. How do you answer that point?

John

FieryIce wrote:Art has its place; I just prefer it not on the APOD.

How about more NASA pictures of Hyperion or Enceladus? So NASA what say you?!

My answer is as it was before.