Top 10 Space Science Images of 2002

DarkKnightRadick writes "Here you can find what Space.com considers the Top 10 Space Science images of the past year." As the accompanying article points out, "Hubble, refurbished during 2002, continues to provide benchmark astrophotography. However, other telescopes, in space and on the ground, see things that Hubble cannot." DarkKnightRadick continues: "The site is filled with artists theoretical renderings and actual photographs from both ground and space based telescopes."

when did people forget how to write?

[Anonymous Coward]

and no, I don't mean slashdot. A bunch of these 'images' are RENDERED. As in they're not real, but "artists conceptions". Dude, a half hour with Bryce or a trip to the video store can get you images like that.

The other thing, is who edits their copy? I quote:

There was nothing unusually stunning about the first photos taken with the new, more powerful camera installed on the Hubble Space Telescope. Except for one thing: They came.

I have no idea what they're trying to say with that paragraph.

Re:when did people forget how to write?

[majestyk2000]

I think they were saying that the first photos taken with the 'new, more powerful camera' on the Hubble were orgasmic for They, since it states that 'They came'. Pretty impressive.

Slightly disappointing?

[Theaetetus]

Anyone else slightly disappointed by the number of 'renderings' on the site as opposed to actual images? I realize that many of the things they're rendering can not be seen (such as the black hole), but while we in the know might well realize that it's a false image, what about the rest of the public? Might these images not be a little bit misleading to the 'average' person out there, particularly when placed alongside real Hubble/Keck images?

I'd rather see a gallery of the top 10 science images, and a separate gallery of the top 10 science renderings. They're great to look at, but they don't deserve the same consideration, particularly with the technical flaws evident in them (but understandable... they're done by artists, not astronomers).

-T

Re:Slightly disappointing?

[p3d0]

It's as though they thought of the top 10 science discoveries/events, and then looked around for images to represent them.

Re:Slightly disappointing?

[GrandCow]

I can't see how the images would be misleading. At the bottom of every picture that was a rendering it was specifically stated that it was an artist rendering. It might be a bit misleading if you couldn't read english, but aside from that it's pretty explicit.

More than disappointing...

[Peter T Ermit]

... it's appalling. Every image that comes through the NASA PR machine winds up on their site. And surprise, surprise, almost all the images come from NASA; nothing from ESO, nothing from DASI or CBI... almost all of it is NASA stuff, made up or not.

When Space.com was younger, it had its offices in NASA's HQ building. Seems like they haven't gotten any more independent as they got older.

Re:Slightly disappointing?

[InfiniteWisdom]

many of the things they're rendering can not be seen (such as the black hole)

On the contrary, black holes can be seen (indirectly... because of things they're sucking in etc)... they look quite fascinating, in fact

Re:Slightly disappointing?

[taphu]

yeah.. but they didn't show one. They have a rather silly looking illustration of a black hole.

Re:Slightly disappointing?

[Theaetetus]

Yes - you see the effect of the black hole... Not the hole itself, which is what they drew.

I'm sure you've seen the renderings of Cygnus X-1, which tend to look much better than this one did.

-T

Pa-Thetic

[msheppard]

I dunno who chose these images, but I can come up with at least 10 images that I find much more interesting. And HOW can I find all these wonderfull astronomy images? HERE:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

The "Astronomy Picture of the Day" site. Over 7 years online, never a format change, and never an advertisement.

The site mentioned in the article has the most annoying advertising I have yet to see on the internet.

M@