@Tombuutkamp2000 - Astronomers have been taking beautiful photos of galaxies with large ground-based telescopes for over a hundred years. Do a Google search on some of these large observatories, and you'll find gorgeous galaxy pictures in their public galleries: Keck Observatory, Gemini Telescope, European Southern Observatory, Subaru Telescope -- these are just a few. Although much closer than any galaxy, Pluto is a very small object and hard to see much detail.
@Tombuutkamp2000 It's like trying to see a fly in detail from one metre and a cow from 20 metres. The cow is further away, but because it's so much bigger detail is easier to see.
@flurble33 - I can't count the number of times I've tried to use similar analogies to people on this very same subject. It's difficult for most people to comprehend just how huge -- and far away -- galaxies are. On that same note, I roll my eyes at people who think Hubble's photos of galaxies are faked -- by that false logic, anyone who's ever taken photographs of celestial objects over the last 125 years has also faked their photos.
@TheGunmanship - One of the possible mission extensions of Voyager 1 (not 2) was a trip directly to Pluto after Saturn, but that trajectory to Pluto would have meant giving up a close flyby of Titan, which was (rightly) viewed as more scientifically important. In retrospect, it's just as well that we waited -- New Horizons' imagers will provide much sharper pictures of the Pluto/Charon system than Voyager 1's camera would have.
I enjoy every new image. When I was a kid all we had were artists renditions of the far planets and fuzzy black and whites of the near ones. Would be cool to live a few hundred years more to see the next steps.
just my opinion but I think its weird how they calculate the size of a planet and I find it very strange that scientist can construct a theory of a planet , without ever being to the planet, who knows whats really on it. or what it really looks like im sure theirs a lot more outside of our galaxy they cant explain but we'll never know
@yossie1995 - considering that on average, Pluto is about 40 AU from Earth I'd say it is. Until the mid 90s, we didn't even have powerful enough telescopes to see surface features on Pluto. So until New Horizons flies past Pluto and its satellites in five years, this is as good as it's going to get. =)
@djxatlanta i know but i said it for one reason cause hubble makes those incredible pictures of galaxys bilions of light years away but when you compare it to this it's just total crap
@yossie1995 - a galaxy is MUCH MUCH larger than anything in our solar system. From Earth, a galaxy might be a degree or two across in the sky... the full moon is about half a degree across... while Pluto is only a few arc seconds across (60 seconds in an arc minute... 60 arc minutes in 1 degree). The only way to see more details on Pluto's surface is to build larger telescopes or send a spacecraft out there (which is what we've done).
@djxatlanta again i know pluto is realy small but still some of those galaxys are bilions of light years away and comparing that to this still makes it shitty i mean it's not that i expected a picture of it surface so ditailed as a picture of the surface of mars but i did expexted to see a bitr more that a blury dot in the sky
@yossie1995 - Well, we can't make Pluto any closer or larger... from the best telescopes on Earth or in orbit, Pluto is only a few pixels across... while the closest galaxies are several hundred to a few thousand pixels across. With our current technology, this is VERY good.
@djxatlanta i know but still you would think it would be better and i know it's verry good for such a blurry dot but when i said that i didn't tought of it for me it's waiting till 2015 it's kinda anoing that it takes so long but i can hardly start screaming at new horizons it wouldn't go any faster in fact it wouldn't even hear me cause there is no matirial for sound to travel trough
Yes.... but, from my point of view, they had no clear picture of it rotating... so they had to rotate it and paste the pitures together..... at least that's what I think..... :)
@blackneos940 - multiple photos were taken over time as Pluto rotated. The images were processed and mapped onto a sphere. This is as detailed as we'll see Pluto until the New Horizons spacecraft flies past in 2015.
@chickenbros1413 - the word planet is such an old and outdated term -- personally I wish it would go away. It is such an arbitrary term that doesn't describe the rich variety of objects in our solar system. Pluto is just one of thousands of bodies orbiting the sun beyond Neptune in a region called the Kuiper Belt, and it's not the largest. Had astronomers realized that in 1930 when it was discovered, it would never have been called a traditional "planet" in the first place. =)
@djxatlanta What does it matter. A couple of humans with telescopes decide they aren't planets? I think that's nothing more than an opinion. I think pluto is a planet. And i couldn't care less about what the rest thinks.
@Glennfalconi - It was voted on by a large international committee that is in charge of such things. And the decision is not without precedent. In the 19th century, the first dozen or so asteroids that were discovered were considered planets until astronomers realized the sheer number of them. And when Pluto was discovered, astronomers thought it was closer in size to Mars (true planet size)... now we know its real size -- quite tiny -- and only one of the larger number of Kuiper Belt Objects.
@djxatlanta How would it be like to stand on there? The surface would look very round i assume. If im right it would take a plane only two hours to circle it right? I bet holland can wrap around the whole planet lol:P But hey. ''Dwarf planet''? Fair enough. So it is considerd as a planet. Just as a ''more smaller'' planet. If a boxer is light. He IS a boxer. But called a 'lightweight' boxer. So pluto is a planet. But a tiny one. But hey they know it more than me im just throwing out my opinion.
@Glennfalconi - The word "planet" is completely arbitrary because in nature, there are few cutoff lines. There is a continuum from microscopic dust grains to pebble-sized objects to comets to asteroids to rocky worlds to ice giants to gas giants to brown dwarfs to red dwarfs to stars.... people get hung up on the word "planet" because there's an emotional connection. Personally, I prefer the term "world" -- or perhaps we need to invent new terms altogether.
Comment removed
alphacentiari 7 months ago
Comment removed
alphacentiari 7 months ago
Comment removed
alphacentiari 7 months ago
i cant wait until pluto express gets there to take some pics in 2015
falloutcameron 8 months ago
Hey, I did read somewhere that there is an giant theloscope.
They can make pictures of other galaxies.
But, why they are not making pictures of Pluto?
I really want to know what Pluto's Surface does look like.
I hope they read this (They won't...)
Tombuutkamp2000 10 months ago 8
@Tombuutkamp2000 - Astronomers have been taking beautiful photos of galaxies with large ground-based telescopes for over a hundred years. Do a Google search on some of these large observatories, and you'll find gorgeous galaxy pictures in their public galleries: Keck Observatory, Gemini Telescope, European Southern Observatory, Subaru Telescope -- these are just a few. Although much closer than any galaxy, Pluto is a very small object and hard to see much detail.
djxatlanta 10 months ago
@Tombuutkamp2000 It's like trying to see a fly in detail from one metre and a cow from 20 metres. The cow is further away, but because it's so much bigger detail is easier to see.
flurble33 9 months ago
@flurble33 - I can't count the number of times I've tried to use similar analogies to people on this very same subject. It's difficult for most people to comprehend just how huge -- and far away -- galaxies are. On that same note, I roll my eyes at people who think Hubble's photos of galaxies are faked -- by that false logic, anyone who's ever taken photographs of celestial objects over the last 125 years has also faked their photos.
djxatlanta 9 months ago
only if Voyager 2 got a pic of pluto
TheGunmanship 1 year ago
@TheGunmanship - One of the possible mission extensions of Voyager 1 (not 2) was a trip directly to Pluto after Saturn, but that trajectory to Pluto would have meant giving up a close flyby of Titan, which was (rightly) viewed as more scientifically important. In retrospect, it's just as well that we waited -- New Horizons' imagers will provide much sharper pictures of the Pluto/Charon system than Voyager 1's camera would have.
djxatlanta 1 year ago
I enjoy every new image. When I was a kid all we had were artists renditions of the far planets and fuzzy black and whites of the near ones. Would be cool to live a few hundred years more to see the next steps.
lunhil12 1 year ago
@lunhil12 - only four more years until we get our first sharp close-ups of Pluto and Charon. =)
djxatlanta 1 year ago 4
@djxatlanta
: )
askjiir 9 months ago
@djxatlanta ??? If hubble can see other GALAXIES then why can't it see pluto?
GlennFalconiVEVO 9 months ago
just my opinion but I think its weird how they calculate the size of a planet and I find it very strange that scientist can construct a theory of a planet , without ever being to the planet, who knows whats really on it. or what it really looks like im sure theirs a lot more outside of our galaxy they cant explain but we'll never know
boutdoe82 1 year ago
shoot it with the death star
toadsEATbugs 1 year ago
Fantastic!
22Burnette 1 year ago
doesn't look very cold to me.
SpacebuiId 1 year ago
nice quality (not)
yossie1995 1 year ago
@yossie1995 - considering that on average, Pluto is about 40 AU from Earth I'd say it is. Until the mid 90s, we didn't even have powerful enough telescopes to see surface features on Pluto. So until New Horizons flies past Pluto and its satellites in five years, this is as good as it's going to get. =)
djxatlanta 1 year ago
@djxatlanta i know but i said it for one reason cause hubble makes those incredible pictures of galaxys bilions of light years away but when you compare it to this it's just total crap
yossie1995 1 year ago
@yossie1995 - a galaxy is MUCH MUCH larger than anything in our solar system. From Earth, a galaxy might be a degree or two across in the sky... the full moon is about half a degree across... while Pluto is only a few arc seconds across (60 seconds in an arc minute... 60 arc minutes in 1 degree). The only way to see more details on Pluto's surface is to build larger telescopes or send a spacecraft out there (which is what we've done).
djxatlanta 1 year ago
@djxatlanta again i know pluto is realy small but still some of those galaxys are bilions of light years away and comparing that to this still makes it shitty i mean it's not that i expected a picture of it surface so ditailed as a picture of the surface of mars but i did expexted to see a bitr more that a blury dot in the sky
yossie1995 1 year ago
@yossie1995 - Well, we can't make Pluto any closer or larger... from the best telescopes on Earth or in orbit, Pluto is only a few pixels across... while the closest galaxies are several hundred to a few thousand pixels across. With our current technology, this is VERY good.
djxatlanta 1 year ago
@djxatlanta i know but still you would think it would be better and i know it's verry good for such a blurry dot but when i said that i didn't tought of it for me it's waiting till 2015 it's kinda anoing that it takes so long but i can hardly start screaming at new horizons it wouldn't go any faster in fact it wouldn't even hear me cause there is no matirial for sound to travel trough
yossie1995 1 year ago
Oh.... That's such a while from now...
blackneos940 1 year ago
Yes.... but, from my point of view, they had no clear picture of it rotating... so they had to rotate it and paste the pitures together..... at least that's what I think..... :)
blackneos940 1 year ago
@blackneos940 - multiple photos were taken over time as Pluto rotated. The images were processed and mapped onto a sphere. This is as detailed as we'll see Pluto until the New Horizons spacecraft flies past in 2015.
djxatlanta 1 year ago
@djxatlanta I can't wait. It's almost there!
Glennfalconi 1 year ago
This is just amazing...
blackneos940 1 year ago
@blackneos940 REAL OR JUST AN ANIMATION?
sam4malaysia 1 year ago
@sam4malaysia - it depends on what you define "real" as. This is an animation of Pluto comprised of actual photographs of Pluto's surface. =)
djxatlanta 1 year ago
Pluto is still a planet.
It looks small from the telescope.
chickenbros1413 1 year ago
@chickenbros1413 - the word planet is such an old and outdated term -- personally I wish it would go away. It is such an arbitrary term that doesn't describe the rich variety of objects in our solar system. Pluto is just one of thousands of bodies orbiting the sun beyond Neptune in a region called the Kuiper Belt, and it's not the largest. Had astronomers realized that in 1930 when it was discovered, it would never have been called a traditional "planet" in the first place. =)
djxatlanta 1 year ago
@djxatlanta What does it matter. A couple of humans with telescopes decide they aren't planets? I think that's nothing more than an opinion. I think pluto is a planet. And i couldn't care less about what the rest thinks.
Glennfalconi 1 year ago
@Glennfalconi - It was voted on by a large international committee that is in charge of such things. And the decision is not without precedent. In the 19th century, the first dozen or so asteroids that were discovered were considered planets until astronomers realized the sheer number of them. And when Pluto was discovered, astronomers thought it was closer in size to Mars (true planet size)... now we know its real size -- quite tiny -- and only one of the larger number of Kuiper Belt Objects.
djxatlanta 1 year ago
@djxatlanta How would it be like to stand on there? The surface would look very round i assume. If im right it would take a plane only two hours to circle it right? I bet holland can wrap around the whole planet lol:P But hey. ''Dwarf planet''? Fair enough. So it is considerd as a planet. Just as a ''more smaller'' planet. If a boxer is light. He IS a boxer. But called a 'lightweight' boxer. So pluto is a planet. But a tiny one. But hey they know it more than me im just throwing out my opinion.
Glennfalconi 1 year ago
@Glennfalconi - The word "planet" is completely arbitrary because in nature, there are few cutoff lines. There is a continuum from microscopic dust grains to pebble-sized objects to comets to asteroids to rocky worlds to ice giants to gas giants to brown dwarfs to red dwarfs to stars.... people get hung up on the word "planet" because there's an emotional connection. Personally, I prefer the term "world" -- or perhaps we need to invent new terms altogether.
djxatlanta 1 year ago
@djxatlanta corection a red dwarf is a star
yossie1995 1 year ago
@yossie1995 - I never said it wasn't... there is a whole continuous spectrum of of objects ranging in size from dust grains up to stars.
djxatlanta 1 year ago
Michael,thanks for posting this video!
Albertan1956 2 years ago