Forgot your password?

Close
typodupeerror
NASA Science

New Hubble Ultra Deep Field In Infrared 95

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the look-into-my-eyes dept.
Hynee writes "Just in time for Christmas, HubbleSite has released a Hubble Ultra Deep Field redux. The original was in visible light; this version, five years on, is in infrared (1.05, 1.25 and 1.6 um). The observation is in support of the upcoming JWST, which will observe exclusively in infrared, but the newly installed WFC3 does seem to provide some extra resolution over the 2004 visible observations with WFC2."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Hubble Ultra Deep Field In Infrared More

New Hubble Ultra Deep Field In Infrared

Comments Filter:

  • Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jandrese (485) <kensama@vt.edu> on Wednesday December 09 2009, @12:48PM (#30378094) Homepage Journal
    That picture represents a tiny tiny 11 arc-minute square of the sky (according to Wikipedia, it's like looking through a 1mm x 1mm square hole from 1m away) and it is absolutely jam packed with galaxies, each one containing millions of stars.

  • Need Bigger Hubble! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Favonius Cornelius (1691688) on Wednesday December 09 2009, @01:02PM (#30378238)
    The Hubble has a tiny mirror. Imagine what we could see if it was 10m or 20m. We can do it easily! Well ok maybe not easy, but we should do it, no matter the cost.

  • That is FUCKING AMAZING. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 09 2009, @01:17PM (#30378398)

    That is truly amazing. I've been out of the field for about a decade now since retiring, but when I got my PhD in Astronomy in the 1960s, we never expected to have such fantastic photography of the celestial bodies. This is truly a tremendous accomplishment by all involved.

  • Re:Need Bigger Hubble! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by taricorp (987706) on Wednesday December 09 2009, @01:55PM (#30378854) Homepage
    I'm with you that we need bigger space-based telescopes, but I don't think building more in orbit is the best solution. Given the raw material possibilities [utk.edu] presented by lunar regolith, I could see the energy cost of moving some materials to the far side of the moon being well offset by the lower amount of materials that must be shunted up there by rocket. We may not have the requisite technologies to set up a lunar optical observatory right now, but I'm confident the technologies could be developed fairly quickly, given a concerted effort.

  • Ahem... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kipsate (314423) on Wednesday December 09 2009, @02:00PM (#30378932)
    Perhaps a stupid question, but is 500 million years enough time for all of these spiral galaxies to form?

  • Re:Ahem... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ei4anb (625481) on Wednesday December 09 2009, @02:16PM (#30379104)
    not a stupid question at all, it's not enough time for some theories of galaxy formation, given the lack of lumps visible in the cosmic background radiation. However only the furthest galaxies in the view in that image are of that age. There has beem much speculation on the role of supermassive black holes in forming galaxies and that may explain why they seem to have formed faster that expected. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole [wikipedia.org]

  • Re:Ahem... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kindbud (90044) on Wednesday December 09 2009, @02:21PM (#30379158) Homepage

    To the extent that the observations and estimations of the galaxy's ages are accurate, yes it was enough time. Now they want to figure out how they formed more quickly than expected. If there is no reason to suspect that the observations and estimations are not accurate enough to rely on, then it must be our expectations of the time required for galaxy formation that is in need of revision.

  • Re:Way to make me feel tiny Hubble (Score:2, Interesting)

    by PaganRitual (551879) <markgreyam.gmail@com> on Wednesday December 09 2009, @08:07PM (#30383104)

    You laugh but I told by a pastor once that I should consider the possibilty that all the stars in the sky at night are there because his god loves us to much and wanted to give us something truly beautiful to look at. He said it honestly, like it was what he actually believed. It was really quite sad, or disturbing, or both.

Philogyny recapitulates erogeny; erogeny recapitulates philogyny.