Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Shuttle and Hubble Passing In Front of the Sun

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the ad-astra-per-alia-porci dept.

Space 161

GvG was one of several readers to point out this "incredible photo clearly showing the silhouette of Atlantis and the Hubble Space Telescope as they passed in front of the Sun was taken Wednesday, May 13, 2009, from west of Vero Beach, Florida. The two spaceships were at an altitude of 600 km and they zipped across the sun in only 0.8 seconds." The image is all over the Web now, for good reason.

cancel ×

161 comments

Try this (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27983747)

on Wolfram Alpha : "King of England".
Man, that thing is an embarrassment.

Astronomy Picture of the Day (5, Informative)

gibbled (215234) | more than 5 years ago | (#27983769)

It was todays astronomy picture of the day!

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

Re:Astronomy Picture of the Day (4, Insightful)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984251)

"Today" is relative. I saw a different one. Use a fixed date: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090516.html [nasa.gov]

Re:Astronomy Picture of the Day (1)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 5 years ago | (#27985415)

How about using a lunar calendar? After all, this is the Internet. You know! The place where it is more usual to browse for pictures of missiles, passing in front of a moon!

Re:Astronomy Picture of the Day [ISS] (5, Interesting)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984321)

Here's one with the space-station taken a few years ago:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060921.html [nasa.gov]
     

Re:Astronomy Picture of the Day (4, Interesting)

deglr6328 (150198) | more than 5 years ago | (#27985025)

nary a sunspot
no faculae here at all
last chance to see this

Reminds me... (3, Interesting)

Daemonax (1204296) | more than 5 years ago | (#27983777)

Reminds me of the scene in the new Star Trek movie with all the people escaping from the Enterprise, and you see the scene with a massive star behind them, and they look like tiny specks against it.

Re:Reminds me... (-1, Flamebait)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#27983861)

..of course it's all a trick of perspective. Being able to see them at all against the sun is about as accurate as holding your hand up to your face and squishing the sun between your fingers.

Re:Reminds me... (5, Funny)

davester666 (731373) | more than 5 years ago | (#27983943)

...my eye's...I can't see anymore...

Re:Reminds me... (2, Funny)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 5 years ago | (#27985397)

may I suggest that you try the goggles?

Re:Reminds me... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27984265)

That's why I don't get what's so "incredible" or "awesome" about this picture. It isn't a photograph. It's more of a recreation of the scene using positional data from a photograph. Might as well have rendered or drawn it.

Re:Reminds me... (5, Informative)

timster (32400) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984315)

Your understanding seems off -- the picture we're discussing is a photograph in every sense. "Trick of perspective" is an odd way to speak of it, since the perspective is simply that as visible from the ground, where the photo was taken.

Re:Reminds me... (1)

m50d (797211) | more than 5 years ago | (#27985245)

The sun and shuttle look like they're about the same distance away (obviously with the shuttle in front), so naively interpreting that photo you'd think the shuttle was a substantial proportion of the size of the sun. That's the trick of perspective.

Re:Reminds me... (5, Informative)

pfft (23845) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984343)

From the link: "Thierry made this image using a solar-filtered Takahashi 5-inch refracting telescope and a Canon 5D Mark II digital camera." If that's not a photo, then what is?

Re:Reminds me... (3, Funny)

cencithomas (721581) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984587)

Wow. I have mod points but without a "-1 flat-out-wrong" option it just doesn't seem worth it.

Re:Reminds me... (2, Interesting)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984291)

..of course it's all a trick of perspective. Being able to see them at all against the sun is about as accurate as holding your hand up to your face and squishing the sun between your fingers.

Not sure what you mean by "accurate" here. True, a silhouette is not a view the unprotected human eye could ever see (except maybe against a brown dwarf) due to the brightness, but an alien eye, filtered eye, or camera could capture such perspective. I have a little sun filter that allows me to stare directly at the sun. I use it to watch solar eclipses while mobile.
   

Re:Reminds me... (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984473)

I just meant that it's funny how you can see the space shuttle occluding an area of the sun because the sun is so ridiculously enormous.

Re:Reminds me... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27984425)

..of course it's all a trick of perspective. Being able to see them at all against the sun is about as accurate as holding your hand up to your face and squishing the sun between your fingers.

Don't you know that if you stare in the sun you can the Virgin Mary? It's a proven fact. Try it the next time you're outside during the day.

Re:Reminds me... (5, Funny)

byornski (1022169) | more than 5 years ago | (#27985305)

I just accidentally my eyes.

Fly (3, Funny)

mrops (927562) | more than 5 years ago | (#27983813)

is that me or is that a housefly on an orange.

Re:Fly (1, Insightful)

drew (2081) | more than 5 years ago | (#27983995)

That's about what I thought. While I appreciate the difficulty in actually taking the picture, I don't really find it to be very impressive.

Re:Fly (0)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984135)

It really does help clarify just how big the sun is, in a way numbers can't. That something as big as the space shuttle looks so tiny against the sun, even though it is hundreds of thousands of times closer... it's amazing to actually see.

Re:Fly (3, Funny)

mkiwi (585287) | more than 5 years ago | (#27983997)

It's just you.

It's actually a mosquito on a grapefruit.

Re:Fly (0, Redundant)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984099)

That's absolutely ridiculous, if you had eyes at all you'd notice that its really fruit fly on a honeydew.

Re:Fly (1, Interesting)

calzones (890942) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984381)

it does look a lot like an orange.

more to the point: why does the brightest object in the solar system have nice shading effect to make it look spherical?

I accept that this photo has been certified legit, but that shading screams fake to me because the sun should only look like a flat disc. So the question I'm asking astronomers is to explain why the sun appears spherical instead of like a big flat bright disc?

Re:Fly (4, Informative)

jgrahn (181062) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984547)

more to the point: why does the brightest object in the solar system have nice shading effect to make it look spherical?

I accept that this photo has been certified legit, but that shading screams fake to me because the sun should only look like a flat disc. So the question I'm asking astronomers is to explain why the sun appears spherical instead of like a big flat bright disc?

I don't know *why*, but that is indeed what the sun looks like if you watch it heavily filtered in a telescope, or use a telescope to project it on a surface.

Re:Fly (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984617)

Maybe an effect of polarisation?

Re:Fly (3, Insightful)

427_ci_505 (1009677) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984635)

IANAA, but the sun appears spherical instead of like a big flat bright disc because it is indeed a spherical object - not a big flat bright disc.

Re:Fly (4, Informative)

Maddog Batty (112434) | more than 5 years ago | (#27985411)

Sensible question but a non obvious answer.

We see spherical objects as spherical because of the shadows and light reflected from it causing different intensities of light reaching our eyes from it.

The sun is different, it has no shadows or light landing on it. It is the light source. If you assume that the sun is a black body of a constant temperature across its surface, the light reaching us from anywhere on its surface is constant which would make it appear to be a completely flat disc. This effect is due to two cos(theta) terms cancelling each other out if you want to do the maths and would be true no matter what the shape that the sun (or any perfect black body) actually was. If for example, the sun was a cube, we would just see the silhouette of the cube as a flat surface and none of the sides.

Now, in reality, the sun isn't a perfect black body of constant temperature and is both less dense and cooler at the edges than at the centre. This makes the edges darker and makes it look more like a spherical object. The post below on limb darkening gives the details.

Re:Fly (4, Informative)

Cyclopedian (163375) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984841)

It's a phenomenon known as Limb Darkening [wikipedia.org] , due to the characteristics of the Sun's photosphere.

Re:Fly (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27985073)

you wanna tell us why it *should* look like a flat disk you ignorant fucktard? Like someone said, it looks spherical because it *is* spherical.

Re:Fly (2, Interesting)

edittard (805475) | more than 5 years ago | (#27985553)

more to the point: why does the brightest object in the solar system have nice shading effect to make it look spherical?

It doesn't. Look at the image showing the whole sun - it's dark on all sides.

Re:Fly (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27984689)

is that me or is that a housefly on an orange.

I think it is a housefly. You on an orange would not be a very pretty sight...

fail (-1, Troll)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#27983837)

Uhh, yeah, I don't remember the sun looking so much like it was created in photoshop.

Re:fail (3, Funny)

xSauronx (608805) | more than 5 years ago | (#27983849)

thats because god used coreldraw

Re:fail (4, Funny)

timster (32400) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984325)

I think you need to spend more time staring at the Sun. Big yellow orb? Check.

Re:fail (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27984781)

Going through your comment history, you really are that dumb, aren't you? Keep on shining, you "special" star.

Transit (5, Interesting)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#27983869)

Here's [wikipedia.org] a much more impressive transit.

Re:Transit (4, Funny)

barzok (26681) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984115)

That's no moon....

Re:Transit (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27985765)

I find you lack of original conversation disturbing!

Re:Transit (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984257)

It locks up my FireFox for some reason.

Re:Transit (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984369)

Me too, made it crash. That's the annoying thing about OGG being the defacto audio/video format, while it's a great compression, the integration utterly sucks.

Re:Transit (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984551)

Yeah if you're in windows. Just kidding mplayer plugin is weird too

Re:Transit (1)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984965)

They should offer an MPEG version as an alternative choice. Variety helps.

Re:Transit (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984789)

Didn't crash here (Firefox 3.0.10), but the video just got stuck at buffering oscillating between 0 and 1%.

Re:Transit (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#27985051)

Also on 3.0.10, but for me it pulled up the download dialogue.

Re:Transit (1)

stjobe (78285) | more than 5 years ago | (#27985225)

Worked fine here, and a really impressive video it is (it's the moon passing in front of the sun).

For the crashers - you might want to check your Java version.

Re:Transit (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#27985717)

Or get a Firefox 3.5 beta.

Re:Transit (1)

Viperlin (747468) | more than 5 years ago | (#27985947)

yes, but what of? this is about the shuttle and hubble, not the moon. damn moon-worshipers!

small (4, Interesting)

swell (195815) | more than 5 years ago | (#27983875)

My first thought was that the picture is a reminder of our insignificance relative to the greater universe (and even the quantum universe).

But what daring goes into these missions! Tiny we may be but we have great ambition.

Re:small (2)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#27983931)

My first thought was "oh geez! with all the camera technologies we have these days, that's the best we could get??" I want voyeuristic photos of naked female astronauts with 0-g boobs. Give us some serious zoom!

Re:small (3, Funny)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984169)

You know how boobs sag?

Imagine that sagging upward.

Or outward.

Re:small (1)

Onyma (1018104) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984335)

All boobs are perky in 0g.

Re:small (3, Funny)

Maelwryth (982896) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984917)

"All boobs are perky in 0g."
Yes. But, some are longer than others. :)

Re:small (4, Interesting)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 5 years ago | (#27985013)

a reminder of our insignificance relative to the greater universe

You may have seen this already, but it is still an amazing video emphasizing this point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=855LIxE0qP0 [youtube.com]

Crappy quality (-1, Flamebait)

ikirudennis (1138621) | more than 5 years ago | (#27983915)

While I realize the difficulty of actually taking this picture, am I the only one who thinks this picture is actually really terrible quality? Or am I just used to much better quality from NASA photos?

Re:Crappy quality (5, Informative)

LordKaT (619540) | more than 5 years ago | (#27983961)

This was done with a refracting telescope and a digital camera, and it happened in 0.8 seconds.

What, exactly, were you expecting?

Re:Crappy quality (5, Informative)

RpiMatty (834853) | more than 5 years ago | (#27983969)

Its not a NASA photo.

http://www.astrophoto.fr/ [astrophoto.fr]

Thierry Legault is a guy with a telescope and camera.

Your not supposed to look directly at the sun and this guy points a telescope at it. I think its pretty good. Who knew what the sun would look like with a shutter speed of 1/8000 sec.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/05/15/check-this-out-amazing-photo-of-the-sun/ [discovermagazine.com]

Re:Crappy quality (0, Redundant)

ikirudennis (1138621) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984133)

Yes, I've read all this, but my question is: Is this such a fantastic and amazing picture or am I just too accustomed to the high quality of NASA photos?

Re:Crappy quality (1)

Nyeerrmm (940927) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984267)

I don't think I've seen a transit like this that is of much higher quality, unless its taken from another spacecraft, and then you're not likely to get the same effect. The ISS ones I think are a little more impressive because its bigger and there are a lot more details to make out.

Really this is about the best you can do for something like this. This looks to be right at the seeing limit (maybe doing it from a higher altitude could help), and theres plenty of light, so a bigger telescope isn't going to give you anything.

What are you looking for to make it more impressive?

Re:Crappy quality (4, Interesting)

NormalVisual (565491) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984287)

This photo is actually of comparable quality to what you'd get from NASA, given the same conditions under which it was taken under.

Bear in mind that the photo is being taken through many, many miles of air, during the daytime, and the daytime heat causes all kinds of instabilities in the air that will show up as waviness in the image (the same phenomenon causes stars to twinkle at night). Finding steady air at night is hard enough, but getting images this clear during the day is remarkable, even taking the quick shutter speed into account.

Also bear in mind that the Sun is only about 30 arcminutes across as seen from the Earth, meaning that the Shuttle silhouette itself is at most just a very few arcseconds in size. To put it in perspective, it's on the order of getting a clear photo of the text "In God We Trust" on a dime from the other end of a (US) football field while the dime is moving at 4 feet or so per second.

Re:Crappy quality (4, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#27985079)

Bear in mind that the photo is being taken...during the daytime...

Definitely should have taken the picture at night.

Re:Crappy quality (5, Informative)

S-100 (1295224) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984299)

The photo is noteworthy for a number of reasons. Among them:

1) This was done by a guy with a portable telescope and camera that he carts around in the back of his car, not a mountaintop observatory or mega-million satellite.

2) You had to be in exactly the right place at the right time. That is, in a line a few km long for the less-than-one-second that the transit took place.

3) You have to know how to photograph the Sun without frying your equipment or going blind. You need enough magnification to resolve the spacecraft but not so much to miss the target.

4) For a non-professional, this photo took an impressive amount of equipment, configured properly and operated perfectly.

And it's no fake. There's another photo showing the Shuttle and the ISS transiting the Sun and the two are very similar. In that photo, the ISS is the more prominent object.

Re:Crappy quality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27983979)

It's not a NASA photo. A guy went out with a relatively nice (Canon II 5d) camera and a 5-inch refracting telescope and took this at exactly the right moment. Pretty amazing when you think about it.

Re:Crappy quality (4, Funny)

darkpixel2k (623900) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984403)

While I realize the difficulty of actually taking this picture, am I the only one who thinks this picture is actually really terrible quality? Or am I just used to much better quality from NASA photos?

They're up there to *fix* the hubble. They haven't actually fixed it yet...

Re:Crappy quality (1)

xigxag (167441) | more than 5 years ago | (#27985959)

Doesn't matter how much fixin' they do, the Hubble would suck at getting this shot. ;)

Re:Crappy quality (5, Funny)

timeOday (582209) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984839)

am I the only one who thinks this picture is actually really terrible quality?

Sure kid, I got one for ya [theknack.net] .

fake? (-1, Flamebait)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#27983927)

looks like something someone did in paintbrush. has anyone actually verified this as legit, it wouldn't be the first time the intrawebs fell for a hoax.

Re:fake? (4, Interesting)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 5 years ago | (#27983983)

west of vero beach is the stomping grounds of nasa engineers. I was in melbourne (like a 20 minute drive from vero beach) this past weekend and spoke with a few engineers who worked for nasa through contracts. That entire area is known as the "space coast". This was probably taken by an ex-nasa engineer or photographer. About month ago when I was up there was a rocket launch and there were probably 5-10 nasa guys in the street watching it. That area is absolutley saturated with guys who have an interest in nasa's activities and the professional know-how to do such things. While it could still be a hoax, there is nothing physically impossible and the location of origin of the photo only lends credibility.

Re:fake? (1)

ThrowAwaySociety (1351793) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984035)

west of vero beach is the stomping grounds of nasa engineers. I was in melbourne (like a 20 minute drive from vero beach) this past weekend and spoke with a few engineers who worked for nasa through contracts. That entire area is known as the "space coast". This was probably taken by an ex-nasa engineer or photographer. About month ago when I was up there was a rocket launch and there were probably 5-10 nasa guys in the street watching it. That area is absolutley saturated with guys who have an interest in nasa's activities and the professional know-how to do such things. While it could still be a hoax, there is nothing physically impossible and the location of origin of the photo only lends credibility.

Well, there you have it then. NASA at work. That's the agency that faked the moon landings, you know.

(Yes, I am kidding.)

wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27985383)

photographer [sbig.com]

Re:fake? (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984109)

Of course it's a fake. The sky in the background is black, so obviously it's night, but for the sun to be out the sky would have to be blue. Duh!

(kidding of course. It's a fantastic picture and reminds me of how small we really are compared to the rest of the universe. Kind of like stepping into the Total Perspective Vortex except it doesn't fry your brain.)

Re:fake? (1)

darkpixel2k (623900) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984409)

(Kind of like stepping into the Total Perspective Vortex except it doesn't fry your brain.)

No, it just burns your retinas.

Re:fake? (1)

NormalVisual (565491) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984211)

It's a real photo, and it's not terribly difficult to take such photos if you have a good camera, a good telescope (Takahashi is among the best), and most importantly a good equatorial mount for the scope. For solar photos like this, add a good broadband solar filter into the mix.

Lock the scope onto the Sun, set the camera to capture frames as fast as possible, and then throw out everything that comes out crappy. There were two really good frames of the Atlantis shown, but there are no telling how many awful-looking ones were discarded. People do this kind of stuff all the time, but it just doesn't get publicized.

Re:fake? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984673)

You would also need to have up to date trajectory data on the shuttle and the ability to turn it into a findable 3D location. Consider the size of the orbiter in that image. If it deviates by 10 or 20 of its own diameters in any direction there will be no shot.

He has to find a spot on a line between the sun and the shuttle. If he goes up a mountain he has to go sideways to be back in the "beam" so to speak. If he sets up near a road he has to avoid being run over. If he sets up in a field he has to avoid being attacked by farm animals, etc.

Re:fake? (1)

Nyeerrmm (940927) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984799)

You don't really need full ephemeris data, you'd just need to know when the transit happened. I'll grant you determining when the transit happens is a more difficult problem, although you can pull the data off of the JPL HORIZONS http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons [nasa.gov] data.

Get two text files with a list of RA/DEC for the sun and Hubble for the next week, and set up a script to read through them and find the closest approach. If its less than the radius of the sun you have a winner. Given that this guy does this a lot (he's credited for earlier ISS images) he probably has a script set up to download and check the ephemeris for any satellites or other objects of interest a week or two in advance..

At least thats what I'd do... in fact maybe I should buy a solar filter and do just that...

Re:fake? (2, Informative)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984269)

has anyone actually verified this as legit

NASA [nasa.gov]

Re:fake? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984647)

looks like something someone did in paintbrush. has anyone actually verified this as legit, it wouldn't be the first time the intrawebs fell for a hoax.

The people who run APOD are better judges of validity than you or I when it comes to astronomy.

Hubble pointed in the wrong direction (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27984005)

That Bastard Hubble. I got spotted taking a slash (UK Slang for piss) in my back garden.

The police arrived saying they have me on CCTV and I got fined £80 for a public order offence.

Penn State doesn't think it's too impressive... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27984025)

36.6 out of 100 on the Acquine scale.

http://i39.tinypic.com/zv21si.png

Shocking fact (5, Interesting)

GregoryD (646395) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984177)

I find the most eye opening fact is that the sun is 93,000,000 miles behind the shuttle. It is an awesome display of the scale of the sun.

Re:Shocking fact (1)

Onyma (1018104) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984379)

Very much agreed. That is what is completely amazing to me... when you consciously put the view into perspective the scale becomes awe inspiring.

I never cease to be humbled whenever I catch a glimpse of how insignificant we really are. In turn I am also equally inspired by the idea that one of the smaller things in the universe, namely 'us', is also capable of beginning to comprehend it.

Re:Shocking fact (3, Funny)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984437)

Yes, who would have thought that the Sun, the star around which would rotate, would be SOOOOO much bigger than a space vehicle and a space telescope. Next thing you know we'll have pictures showing how tiny people and cars look seen from space compared to the hugeness of Earth.

Re:Shocking fact (2, Informative)

mr exploiter (1452969) | more than 5 years ago | (#27985157)

I find the most eye opening fact is that the sun is 93,000,000 miles behind the shuttle. It is an awesome display of the scale of the sun.

Actually we know all the distances so we can calculate how much bigger should the sun look than the shuttle in this picture.

Distance from Sun =1.496 x 10^11 m
distance form hubble=5.59*10^5
size of the sun=4.37*10^9
size of shuttle=5.6*10
Simple math says that the sun should look 291 times bigger, but this assumes that the sun was right on top when the picture was taken and that the shuttle was in horizontal position.

I didn't think... (5, Funny)

HeLLFiRe1151 (743468) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984209)

you could get a picture of passing gas.

Indeed. (1)

Fantastic Lad (198284) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984519)

I thought Solar Wind was invisible.

-FL

Poor photography (1)

Tomfrh (719891) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984277)

I mean come on, he didn't even use a flash...

Re:Poor photography (1)

bughunter (10093) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984459)

Aye - talk about backlit. This has gotta be the worst example ever.

tried to seer dit (1)

WoodenTable (1434059) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984419)

i treid goinf outside and seeing ti. watcjed fpr a wile, couldn't see it. the someone saus it happened back on wedndsday. ugh, missed tht totally ,shoudl hafve RTDA. still hjaving some troubnle with my visonin and typing . a;so havng trouble remembering which kyes are which. lckily iu know whow to post ro slashdot blind.

Re:tried to seer dit (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984545)

and they zipped across the sun in only 0.8 seconds."

Hoax (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27984463)

Everyone knows the sun-landings were faked.

detail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27984477)

How is it the sun's all evenly yellow, and has pixelation because of being a very short exposure and mega zoomed in- and yet the space shuttle has clearly defined features? I'd have to call a fake if NASA didn't vouch.

I wondered (3, Funny)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984493)

That explains it. I wondered what that fleeting shadow was.

yuo fa1l It.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27984523)

Satan's Dick And Perspective, theA Variations on thVe

Mehh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27984581)

In Soviet Russia, the hubble photograph you. Get it?

Scale (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27984721)

I love that our sense of scale is still messed up from the photo. The sun looks so damn huge in that picture that it looks like the astronauts would just see this wall of sun if they looked out the window when it would really be no larger then we see it about the size of a large coin.

I could see more clearly (3, Funny)

ignavus (213578) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984751)

I could see more clearly what was going on if they just cleaned off those two little black specks in the picture.

It's amazing... (4, Insightful)

viyh (620825) | more than 5 years ago | (#27984843)

...how beautiful the simplest things can be.

mod) 3own (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27985295)

Is 3usy infighting

Fail. (5, Funny)

cheesecake23 (1110663) | more than 5 years ago | (#27985493)

Every half-competent photographer knows you should use a flash when taking a picture of a backlit subject.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...