Page 1 of 1
80 Telescopes (APOD 2009 April 3)
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:25 pm
by orin stepanek
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap090403.html
I started watching the web cast and had trouble backing out! I hope it was just a glitch.
Orin
Re: 80 Telescopes (APOD 2009 April 3)
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:49 pm
by aristarchusinexile
I have a vague, uneasy feeling this photo is a composite.
Re: 80 Telescopes (APOD 2009 April 3)
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 4:02 pm
by Indigo_Sunrise
Who cares if it's a composite? The description and the included links are what you (viewers/readers in general, not
you specifically) should be following/perusing.
Re: 80 Telescopes (APOD 2009 April 3)
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 4:17 pm
by aristarchusinexile
Indigo_Sunrise wrote:Who cares if it's a composite? The description and the included links are what you (viewers/readers in general, not
you specifically) should be following/perusing.
Well, don't you think apod should clearly identify the composites so we'll know they're not genuine, like this one for instance?
I mean, I don't like guesswork.
Re: 80 Telescopes (APOD 2009 April 3)
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:17 am
by starnut
aristarchusinexile wrote:
Well, don't you think apod should clearly identify the composites so we'll know they're not genuine, like this one for instance?
I mean, I don't like guesswork.
Well, it is obviously a composite, so why point out the obvious in the explanation? No guesswork needed!
Gary
Re: 80 Telescopes (APOD 2009 April 3)
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:24 am
by apodman
The composite is centered on the Galapagos Islands, an obvious reference to the evolution of the telescope.
The distortion of the dishes is cool. It looks like the clay sagged before they got them into the kiln. The curved Hubble should prove useful in capturing light rays that have been bent by strong gravitational fields. Each observatory dome appears to have received a head upgrade, too.
Re: 80 Telescopes (APOD 2009 April 3)
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 4:43 pm
by aristarchusinexile
starnut wrote:aristarchusinexile wrote:
Well, don't you think apod should clearly identify the composites so we'll know they're not genuine, like this one for instance?
I mean, I don't like guesswork.
Well, it is obviously a composite, so why point out the obvious in the explanation? No guesswork needed!
Gary
What's obvious about it? 8)