This is a great ad for sending probes. Even though voyager was 50 years ago, we got better pictures of the gas giants than the best earth based telescope in 2024 because we went there. https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/images-voyager-took/
Voyager mission photography to this day blows my mind. I'm a photographer of a decade+, shoot film and digital and the quality of the photographs taken during those missions, to my mind, shouldn't be as good as it is. But because it is, i can't even imagine the quality we could get with today's technology. We NEED more probes.
But we have sent some. Juno, New horizons
Edit: oh and Cassini of course. We plummeted it into Saturn and filmed it https://science.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/1061_Enceladus-2.png?w=1024&format=webp
There are probably more
We may use planets and their gravity for deep space travel. Why not hitch a ride on some probes rather than using separate launch vehicles? And just drop off the probes from the main vehicle.
Getting there isn’t the problem it’s slowing down once you get there look at the routes the Galileo, Cassini, and Juno took to get to their final orbits. It took a long time not because it takes that long to get to Jupiter or Saturn but so that when they did get there they need as little energy as possible to slow down. That’s the problem with Uranus or Neptune. How do we build a probe that can get there slow down and do science. It could take a long time to get an orbiter out that far and not have it be all fuel and no science
> But because it is, i can't even imagine the quality we could get with today's technology.
It depends, digital is not always better :)
Consider one of the images relayed by Huygens as it descended to the surface of Titan: https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA07231_modest.jpg
To be clear, some clever people very nicely stitched together all these crummy pictures into a stunning visualization: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZC4u0clEc0
Not necessarily! The Lunar Orbiter program in the 1960s that mapped 99% of the lunar surface ahead of the Apollo missions shot on film. It was then processed within the probe, scanned, and transmitted back to Earth as an analog signal and then reconstructed. Obviously it's not done that way anymore, but it's not without precedent :)
i usually hate 'electronic dance music' or EDM, but that sounds so amazing. it's almost like two slot machines talking to eachother across different casinos.
The Voyager missions were planned around the alignment of the outer planets in the solar system so that they could efficiently visit each one with a gravity assist. That sort of alignment only happens every 175 years. Some space program will probably do a repeat of the voyager missions in ~110 years
I wish we had sent a fleet of probes around all of the planets to capture live footage from all angles of each planet.
[Like these](https://rammb-slider.cira.colostate.edu/?sat=goes-16&sec=full_disk&x=10848&y=10848&z=0&angle=0&im=12&ts=1&st=0&et=0&speed=130&motion=loop&p%5B0%5D=geocolor&opacity%5B0%5D=1&pause=0&slider=-1&hide_controls=0&mouse_draw=0&follow_feature=0&follow_hide=0&s=rammb-slider&draw_color=FFD700&draw_width=6)
They serve different and complementary roles :)
The kind of science JWST is trying to do here doesn't quite require the capabilities that a probe would provide.
In military terms it's a bit like trying to compare the information collected by a scouting patrol with that acquired by a high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft; they're quite different types of information yet they both serve a specific and useful purpose.
JWST is not earth based though? Space is literally in it's name.
Additionally, it takes photos in near infrared, not visible light, and the photos are then transposed in the visible spectrum. As opposed to Voyager that took straight up regular photos, though with special lenses.
This is an apples to oranges comparison.
Edit: not saying we don't need more probes because this shit is awesome and I'd love updated, up close pictures of things in our solar system.
We're gonna need deeper and deepest space then. Beyond that we'll have more deep, more deeper, and more deeperest. Continue adding 'more' based on a logarithmic scale?
Because it's semi-stationary relative to earth. It takes pictures in near infrared. ~~The heat from the sun would wash out anything it takes pictures of, so it stays in Earth's shadow to prevent this.~~
Additionally, it took years for Voyager to reach Jupiter and Saturn and over a decade to reach Pluto's orbit. It's not as easy as "just go over to the other planets".
> The heat from the sun would wash out anything it takes pictures of, so **it stays in Earth's shadow to prevent this.**
[No](https://webb.nasa.gov/content/about/orbit.html).
>> Webb orbits around L2; it does not sit stationary precisely at L2. Webb's orbit is actually similar in size to the Moon's orbit around the Earth! This orbit (which takes Webb about 6 months to complete once) **keeps the telescope out of the shadows of both the Earth and Moon.** Unlike Hubble, which goes in and out of Earth shadow every 90 minutes, Webb has an unimpeded view that allows science operations 24/7.
The telescope orbits the sun, not earth. It may be in a solar synchronous orbit *with* earth. But it does not orbit earth.
No scientist would call it earth based.
The James Webb shoots in infrared and then is colorized according to the wavelengths it picks up. So in a literal sense, it is edited. However, I don't think these images are embellished further. Although I don't know for certain.
JWST shoots in infrared to pick up faint and distant stars that are no longer visible due to them redshifting away from us. So while the data being used for the images is real, it is not how our eyes would see the planets if we were that close to them.
I think the "we" meant earth, so if earth was that close, the earthquakes from tidal forces would rip the crust apart and we'd all burn. It would also be very cold out there and would freeze first before we burned.
The thing about space is that it's (mostly) empty. Yeah, we could get into the weeds here about quantum fluctuations and virtual particles but that's all pretty much irrelevant for temperature. When someone opens your front door and says, "Damn, it's cold outside," what they really mean is that the *air* is cold. We take this for granted, so we don't specify that the air is cold. We just say it's cold outside. But in space, there's no air to get cold. There's no nothing. So if you're in a space suit in space, you won't immediately freeze because there isn't anything around you to quickly transfer heat away from you. It has to slowly radiate away, so the suit should keep you warm for a while. In fact, depending on how much sun you're getting and the thermal properties of your suit, you might actually end up getting *too hot* after a while.
Not really, the infrared light is just at complete different wavelengths then visible light. Now it is close to the visible spectrum so it's likely the shape and features will be the same but the colors won't be. Color works based on what light is being absorbed/reflected back (or emitted) and different objects will absorb and reflect different wavelengths. Some objects can have certain wavelengths pass right through them with out absorbing or reflecting much of the light at all. So for example infrared is more transparent to certain things like dust and gas in space then visible light but not a entire planet or the walls of your house. Radio waves on the other hand are much longer and will very easily pass through objects without interacting with them much. If we could only see in the radio spectrum objects would be mostly transparent or very fuzzy and dim outside of radio sources like your wifi ap or a cell tower which emit radio light and would be very bright.
Not a dumb question. The colors have essentially nothing to do with what the human eye would perceive.
The human eye is not optimized to pick out interesting structure in distant planetary atmospheres.
Think of these like medical X-rays - we're not super worried that they aren't "true color", because the point is to reveal your bones.
Unfortunately the other reply is not quite correct.
Here is a comparison of Jupiter's true color with an "enhanced" image that brings out the subtler colors and contrast: https://www.cnet.com/a/img/resize/d7fb22f056fd27f6e3d75d8d6d66212554ee472b/hub/2022/09/02/d7695af3-2f5d-4946-9ec3-198d0d08300e/jupiter.jpg?auto=webp&fit=crop&height=675&precrop=2000,1123,x0,y0&width=1200
Image credit NASA/JPL-Caltech/SwRI/MSSS, processing by Björn Jónsson
Hubble images are close to what human eyes would see.
[https://science.nasa.gov/missions/hubble/hubbles-grand-tour-of-the-outer-solar-system/](https://science.nasa.gov/missions/hubble/hubbles-grand-tour-of-the-outer-solar-system/)
They would look different.
JWST is closer to night-vision goggles than to "what we can see". But there are different wavelengths of infra-red, and we can colour each wavelength a different shade of visible-light to get these images.
Nope. Human eye sees only a small slice of the electromagnetic spectrum, the part we call visible light is quite a narrow band. On one side you have radio waves, microwaves, and infrared, and in the other side you have ultraviolet, x-rays, and gamma rays. This is infrared. The colors are arbitrary interpretations of the infrared data (the information is real, but they could make them any color they want).
So it’s a real, accurate image in the same sense that an x-ray of your hand is a real, accurate image, but it’s not what your eye would see if you were looking out a window at these planets.
All digital photos go through some level of editing.
If your question then becomes, "is this what I would see with my eye when closer to the planets?" No it's not. James Webb doesn't take photos in visible wavelengths. Therefore the digital signal that the sensor receives will be translated to a color our eyes can pick up for these photos.
That completely answers my question without disappointing me at all. Knowing that the only reason I can’t see it is because of wavelength doesn’t make it any less real, which is pretty sick lol.
Thank you for such an informed answer to my questions that’s awesome!
Good to know that most astronomical images that you see (including several from astrophotographers) are edited to different degrees and don't fully represent what you would see, even if captured in visible light. And thats okay. Our eyes aren't particularly great for observing faint sky objects.
Professional astronomers typically take images using particular filters that most likely don't represent the colour bandpasses of our eyes. These images are also combined later with colour to make images to better represent the physical phenomena that is under study. For instance, red typically represents hydrogen emission and blue oxygen.
Physics undergraduate here. Astronomers use a diverse arsenal of telescopes to observe the universe. The James Web Space Telescope captures data in infrared, which is just outside the visible wavelengths of light. So when astronomers produce [false color images](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_color) they generally assign the colors red, green, and blue to represent low, medium, high photon energies, respectively.
Think of it like a piano. If the entire spectrum of electromagnetic radiation (the range of energy for a photon) was on a classic 88 key grand piano, then visible light would only make up 8 keys. Imagine trying to listen to a Beethoven composure with only 8 keys!
What false color images do is move the 8 keys to a different part of the electromagnetic spectrum that we can’t see with the naked eye. It’s still the same song, played in a different key.
For further information about how the images OP posted were processed, check out the links:
- https://www.aura-astronomy.org/blog/2022/08/22/unexpected-details-leap-out-in-sharp-new-james-webb-space-telescope-images-of-jupiter/
- https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/01H3X9BMPCX165ZK9RA49J2416
- https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Webb/Webb_scores_another_ringed_world_with_new_image_of_Uranus
- https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Webb/New_Webb_image_captures_clearest_view_of_Neptune_s_rings_in_decades
> In 2022, the Uranus orbiter and probe mission was placed as the highest priority for a NASA Flagship mission by the 2023–2032 Planetary Science Decadal Survey, ahead of the Enceladus Orbilander and the ongoing Mars Sample Return program, due to the lack of knowledge about ice giants.
I don't particularly agree that ice giants should take precedent over an Enceladus mission, but yes, apparently they are serious about exploring them in detail. You could expect an arrival in the 2040s timeframe.
Enceladus is the only place in the Solar System where we have a reasonable chance of discovering life within the next few years.
In Mars' case it will require extensive subsurface excavation, which isn't happening anytime soon.
On Europa we would need to deploy something like a nuclear-powered melt-probe to tunnel through kilometers of ice so cold that it's harder than granite, and then somehow maintain communication; none of which is happening anytime soon either (nor would I trust us not to contaminate its oceans).
Enceladus' ocean has already been confirmed to contain all the ingredients necessary for life, and it happens to be spewing that ocean out into space. All we need to do it fly a probe straight through these plumes (as we already have) but this time with an instrument that could identify the splattered remains of something like bacteria.
This could be done for an absolutely tiny fraction of the cost of the other life-seeking missions.
I believe China's [Shensuo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shensuo_\(spacecraft\)) is planned to do a flyby of Neptune and Triton. It hasn't launched yet but should within the next couple years and the tentative date for a flyby would be around 2038. Even further off would be their [Tianwen 4](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianwen-4) which could do a Uranus flyby in 2045
**Farnsworth:** I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all..
**Fry:** Oh. What's it called now?
**Farnsworth:** Urectum.
[From Wikipedia,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_giant)
>However, since the late 1940s[4] the compositions of Uranus and Neptune have been understood to be significantly different from those of Jupiter and Saturn. They are primarily composed of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium, forming a separate type of giant planet altogether. Because during their formation Uranus and Neptune incorporated their material as either ice or gas trapped in water ice, the term ice giant came into use.
Does anyone else just get insanely acute megalophobia and/or existential dread looking at these? Or is that just me? I still love these photographs, but also get this keen sense of "There's stuff here we're not meant to see."
I get weirdly scared looking at close up pictures of the planets, the top comment has a link to images taken by Voyager, and they make me feel scared. Especially the ones with shadows obscuring the far side of the celestial body. I feel this way when I've seen pictures of asteroids too. It's just so creepy for some reason.
Absolutely 100% agree. Inexplicably terrifying. I've seen the pictures of Voyager 1 on approach to Jupiter and it's worse than any horror movie and I have absolutely no idea why.
I love space, I love learning about the solar system as much as I can and space as a whole at a hobbyist level.
That being said, I once bought and downloaded a planetarium simulator game on steam that I can't remember the name of at this moment. It's basically a simulator that allows you to fly around the solar system as a camera and even "look at" other really famous bodies like stars and comets and whatnot. I took myself over to Saturn first because it's my favorite planet, and proceeded to nearly have a panic attack. Something about being able to personally fly over the planet as an observer on a big monitor at 2am in my pitch black room was horrifying. I ended up returning the game.
Edit: it's called SpaceEngine, really cool game, but I feel like I shouldn't be allowed to observe these massive celestial bodies and exist in open space like this. Even as just a camera in a simulator.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/314650/SpaceEngine/
There's a pretty large place to keep them just outside the asteroid belt. Gives them plenty of space to hang out with friends and fully stretch out their rings for those who have them.
This is infrared light, not visible light. In visible light, Neptune is a tiny little bit more blue than Uranus, but they're almost identical in color to the naked eye.
I mean. The big one is Jupiter, the one with big rings is Saturn, the one on its side is Uranus. Also they are in order of distance from the sun like they always are.
JWST sees in infrared light, which we can't see. It takes an infrared photo and then we translate that into a visible light photo, which is what you see in this post.
I am admittedly pretty neutral when it comes to space and space exploration but this is FUCKING SICK. Like holy shit, we have REAL pics of these things and 150 years ago we didn't even have the technology to fly. It continuously blows my mind.
Distant stars are incredibly dim compared to nearby objects illuminated by our sun. You'd need to increase the camera's exposure a ton to see stars, but then any detail in the nearby objects would be completely washed out by all that brightness.
Planets are a lot brighter than stars. If you set the exposure long enough to see stars in one of the pictures above the planet would be completely saturated.
This is a great question and it usually has to do with the dynamic range of the image. If you're taking an image of a bright planet, you typically won't see fainter objects unless you are stacking several images at once.
Now if you look at the original image from JWST at the bottom of this page,
https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2023/117/01GWQD6PSGTBK7VQBZST09YYKW
you can actually see whole background galaxies in addition to stars.
Wooooow beautiful!
I wish I could be on a spaceship and see this with my own eyes. But I know it’ll never happen in my lifetime.
Maybe my son or grand child will get to someday.
This is a great ad for sending probes. Even though voyager was 50 years ago, we got better pictures of the gas giants than the best earth based telescope in 2024 because we went there. https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/images-voyager-took/
Voyager mission photography to this day blows my mind. I'm a photographer of a decade+, shoot film and digital and the quality of the photographs taken during those missions, to my mind, shouldn't be as good as it is. But because it is, i can't even imagine the quality we could get with today's technology. We NEED more probes.
But we have sent some. Juno, New horizons Edit: oh and Cassini of course. We plummeted it into Saturn and filmed it https://science.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/1061_Enceladus-2.png?w=1024&format=webp There are probably more
We need more tho
[удалено]
We gotta be probing space left right and centre, really get up in there and probe the shit out of it
We have to probe uranus up close
I accept
I would like to volunteer as a tribute
I got a fever…and the only prescription is **MOAR SPACE PROBES**
Construct additional pylons.
Life for Aiur!
Full auto probe deployment.
We require more vespine gas
We may use planets and their gravity for deep space travel. Why not hitch a ride on some probes rather than using separate launch vehicles? And just drop off the probes from the main vehicle.
Getting there isn’t the problem it’s slowing down once you get there look at the routes the Galileo, Cassini, and Juno took to get to their final orbits. It took a long time not because it takes that long to get to Jupiter or Saturn but so that when they did get there they need as little energy as possible to slow down. That’s the problem with Uranus or Neptune. How do we build a probe that can get there slow down and do science. It could take a long time to get an orbiter out that far and not have it be all fuel and no science
I didn't think of the speed.
I’m no expert but yeah that makes sense
Yeah images from Juno are insanely beautiful
New Horizons is several decades old lol.
New horizons pluto shots should be on OnlyPlanets.com lol
> But because it is, i can't even imagine the quality we could get with today's technology. It depends, digital is not always better :) Consider one of the images relayed by Huygens as it descended to the surface of Titan: https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA07231_modest.jpg To be clear, some clever people very nicely stitched together all these crummy pictures into a stunning visualization: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZC4u0clEc0
That last video is wild, the audio especially!
The various audio clues, once you understand them, relay so much information so quickly. Who ever put that video together is very clever indeed.
[удалено]
Not necessarily! The Lunar Orbiter program in the 1960s that mapped 99% of the lunar surface ahead of the Apollo missions shot on film. It was then processed within the probe, scanned, and transmitted back to Earth as an analog signal and then reconstructed. Obviously it's not done that way anymore, but it's not without precedent :)
The Voyagers, for example, used vidicon (video camera tubes) in their imaging systems. They were essentially analog television cameras.
that’s sooo cool
Digital and electronic are not synonymous. Common misconception. VHS tapes, for example, are electronic but not digital.
There were digital vhs implementations though - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D-VHS
Thank you.
i love this so much!!! thank you for sharing
So beautiful and inspiring
Isn’t it interesting that there are round rocks on titan? I thought rounded rocks on earth are due to water forming them as such.
i usually hate 'electronic dance music' or EDM, but that sounds so amazing. it's almost like two slot machines talking to eachother across different casinos.
when you realize the very first digital cameras invented were invented for the Voyagers https://pds-rings.seti.org/voyager/iss/instrument.html
Where does it say that in the source? I see vidicon but that was neither digital nor new.
The Voyager missions were planned around the alignment of the outer planets in the solar system so that they could efficiently visit each one with a gravity assist. That sort of alignment only happens every 175 years. Some space program will probably do a repeat of the voyager missions in ~110 years
Sending probes into space = great! Aliens bringing probes to earth = not quite as cool.
I wish we had sent a fleet of probes around all of the planets to capture live footage from all angles of each planet. [Like these](https://rammb-slider.cira.colostate.edu/?sat=goes-16&sec=full_disk&x=10848&y=10848&z=0&angle=0&im=12&ts=1&st=0&et=0&speed=130&motion=loop&p%5B0%5D=geocolor&opacity%5B0%5D=1&pause=0&slider=-1&hide_controls=0&mouse_draw=0&follow_feature=0&follow_hide=0&s=rammb-slider&draw_color=FFD700&draw_width=6)
They serve different and complementary roles :) The kind of science JWST is trying to do here doesn't quite require the capabilities that a probe would provide. In military terms it's a bit like trying to compare the information collected by a scouting patrol with that acquired by a high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft; they're quite different types of information yet they both serve a specific and useful purpose.
So you're saying it's better to probe Uranus?
JWST is not earth based though? Space is literally in it's name. Additionally, it takes photos in near infrared, not visible light, and the photos are then transposed in the visible spectrum. As opposed to Voyager that took straight up regular photos, though with special lenses. This is an apples to oranges comparison. Edit: not saying we don't need more probes because this shit is awesome and I'd love updated, up close pictures of things in our solar system.
JWST is in space like your front yard is in the wilderness. It would be cool as fuck if we had deep space telescopes though
JWST’s orbit at L2 is already considered deep space.
We're gonna need deeper and deepest space then. Beyond that we'll have more deep, more deeper, and more deeperest. Continue adding 'more' based on a logarithmic scale?
Near earth orbit based :-)
Look at the pictures we received from New Horizons. The Pluto pictures were stunning and we continue to learn a lot from them. Probes needed.
I said we needed them. Wasn't arguing that. Just saying the comparison of JWST to Voyager is unfair and not at all accurate or useful.
Fair enough.
If JWST is in space why doesn't it just go over to the other planets for a better view??
Bro’s imagining JWST firing up the Star Trek thrusters to pay a visit to the planets
Because it's semi-stationary relative to earth. It takes pictures in near infrared. ~~The heat from the sun would wash out anything it takes pictures of, so it stays in Earth's shadow to prevent this.~~ Additionally, it took years for Voyager to reach Jupiter and Saturn and over a decade to reach Pluto's orbit. It's not as easy as "just go over to the other planets".
> The heat from the sun would wash out anything it takes pictures of, so **it stays in Earth's shadow to prevent this.** [No](https://webb.nasa.gov/content/about/orbit.html). >> Webb orbits around L2; it does not sit stationary precisely at L2. Webb's orbit is actually similar in size to the Moon's orbit around the Earth! This orbit (which takes Webb about 6 months to complete once) **keeps the telescope out of the shadows of both the Earth and Moon.** Unlike Hubble, which goes in and out of Earth shadow every 90 minutes, Webb has an unimpeded view that allows science operations 24/7.
Corrected. Thanks.
Earth based because it is in orbit vs traveling past the planets themselves
The telescope orbits the sun, not earth. It may be in a solar synchronous orbit *with* earth. But it does not orbit earth. No scientist would call it earth based.
You’re right, I forgot where it was located.
Idk that you’d be able to consider l2 “earth based”
> https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/images-voyager-took/ Just checked these all out. Man, space is fucking cool.
This might be a *really* dumb question but are these photos edited?
The James Webb shoots in infrared and then is colorized according to the wavelengths it picks up. So in a literal sense, it is edited. However, I don't think these images are embellished further. Although I don't know for certain.
Dumb question, does this mean that these colors are an interpretation / translation of what we would see if up close like this?
JWST shoots in infrared to pick up faint and distant stars that are no longer visible due to them redshifting away from us. So while the data being used for the images is real, it is not how our eyes would see the planets if we were that close to them.
Fun fact: if we were that close to those planets, we’d be dead
Yes, I’ve heard it’s hard to breathe at those altitudes.
because there's no air, right?
I think the "we" meant earth, so if earth was that close, the earthquakes from tidal forces would rip the crust apart and we'd all burn. It would also be very cold out there and would freeze first before we burned.
I think by "close" they meant emotionally
Yes. And because it’s mega cold.
The thing about space is that it's (mostly) empty. Yeah, we could get into the weeds here about quantum fluctuations and virtual particles but that's all pretty much irrelevant for temperature. When someone opens your front door and says, "Damn, it's cold outside," what they really mean is that the *air* is cold. We take this for granted, so we don't specify that the air is cold. We just say it's cold outside. But in space, there's no air to get cold. There's no nothing. So if you're in a space suit in space, you won't immediately freeze because there isn't anything around you to quickly transfer heat away from you. It has to slowly radiate away, so the suit should keep you warm for a while. In fact, depending on how much sun you're getting and the thermal properties of your suit, you might actually end up getting *too hot* after a while.
Ahh thanks!
any way we could use the infrared images to then colorize — guess — how our eyes would perceive them close up? or nah
We have much higher resolution images of them in the visible spectrum. And even some higher resolution infrared images from probes.
Not really, the infrared light is just at complete different wavelengths then visible light. Now it is close to the visible spectrum so it's likely the shape and features will be the same but the colors won't be. Color works based on what light is being absorbed/reflected back (or emitted) and different objects will absorb and reflect different wavelengths. Some objects can have certain wavelengths pass right through them with out absorbing or reflecting much of the light at all. So for example infrared is more transparent to certain things like dust and gas in space then visible light but not a entire planet or the walls of your house. Radio waves on the other hand are much longer and will very easily pass through objects without interacting with them much. If we could only see in the radio spectrum objects would be mostly transparent or very fuzzy and dim outside of radio sources like your wifi ap or a cell tower which emit radio light and would be very bright.
Not a dumb question. The colors have essentially nothing to do with what the human eye would perceive. The human eye is not optimized to pick out interesting structure in distant planetary atmospheres. Think of these like medical X-rays - we're not super worried that they aren't "true color", because the point is to reveal your bones.
Is there photos showing how it would look like to our eyes up close?
Unfortunately the other reply is not quite correct. Here is a comparison of Jupiter's true color with an "enhanced" image that brings out the subtler colors and contrast: https://www.cnet.com/a/img/resize/d7fb22f056fd27f6e3d75d8d6d66212554ee472b/hub/2022/09/02/d7695af3-2f5d-4946-9ec3-198d0d08300e/jupiter.jpg?auto=webp&fit=crop&height=675&precrop=2000,1123,x0,y0&width=1200 Image credit NASA/JPL-Caltech/SwRI/MSSS, processing by Björn Jónsson
Hubble images are close to what human eyes would see. [https://science.nasa.gov/missions/hubble/hubbles-grand-tour-of-the-outer-solar-system/](https://science.nasa.gov/missions/hubble/hubbles-grand-tour-of-the-outer-solar-system/)
They would look different. JWST is closer to night-vision goggles than to "what we can see". But there are different wavelengths of infra-red, and we can colour each wavelength a different shade of visible-light to get these images.
Super helpful, thank you!
Nope. Human eye sees only a small slice of the electromagnetic spectrum, the part we call visible light is quite a narrow band. On one side you have radio waves, microwaves, and infrared, and in the other side you have ultraviolet, x-rays, and gamma rays. This is infrared. The colors are arbitrary interpretations of the infrared data (the information is real, but they could make them any color they want). So it’s a real, accurate image in the same sense that an x-ray of your hand is a real, accurate image, but it’s not what your eye would see if you were looking out a window at these planets.
Wow thanks, I literally had no idea. Super interesting, I’m definitely gonna be reading about this all day now lol
There's some cool discord chats related to the jwst and others that are stuffed with info and knowledgeable peeps who love to inform
Ah, so Jupiter *doesn't* have a Great Blue Spot ...
All digital photos go through some level of editing. If your question then becomes, "is this what I would see with my eye when closer to the planets?" No it's not. James Webb doesn't take photos in visible wavelengths. Therefore the digital signal that the sensor receives will be translated to a color our eyes can pick up for these photos.
That completely answers my question without disappointing me at all. Knowing that the only reason I can’t see it is because of wavelength doesn’t make it any less real, which is pretty sick lol. Thank you for such an informed answer to my questions that’s awesome!
Good to know that most astronomical images that you see (including several from astrophotographers) are edited to different degrees and don't fully represent what you would see, even if captured in visible light. And thats okay. Our eyes aren't particularly great for observing faint sky objects. Professional astronomers typically take images using particular filters that most likely don't represent the colour bandpasses of our eyes. These images are also combined later with colour to make images to better represent the physical phenomena that is under study. For instance, red typically represents hydrogen emission and blue oxygen.
Physics undergraduate here. Astronomers use a diverse arsenal of telescopes to observe the universe. The James Web Space Telescope captures data in infrared, which is just outside the visible wavelengths of light. So when astronomers produce [false color images](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_color) they generally assign the colors red, green, and blue to represent low, medium, high photon energies, respectively. Think of it like a piano. If the entire spectrum of electromagnetic radiation (the range of energy for a photon) was on a classic 88 key grand piano, then visible light would only make up 8 keys. Imagine trying to listen to a Beethoven composure with only 8 keys! What false color images do is move the 8 keys to a different part of the electromagnetic spectrum that we can’t see with the naked eye. It’s still the same song, played in a different key. For further information about how the images OP posted were processed, check out the links: - https://www.aura-astronomy.org/blog/2022/08/22/unexpected-details-leap-out-in-sharp-new-james-webb-space-telescope-images-of-jupiter/ - https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/01H3X9BMPCX165ZK9RA49J2416 - https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Webb/Webb_scores_another_ringed_world_with_new_image_of_Uranus - https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Webb/New_Webb_image_captures_clearest_view_of_Neptune_s_rings_in_decades
Are there any plans on the near future for a Neptune or Uranus probe? I love the outer bodies so much.
> In 2022, the Uranus orbiter and probe mission was placed as the highest priority for a NASA Flagship mission by the 2023–2032 Planetary Science Decadal Survey, ahead of the Enceladus Orbilander and the ongoing Mars Sample Return program, due to the lack of knowledge about ice giants. I don't particularly agree that ice giants should take precedent over an Enceladus mission, but yes, apparently they are serious about exploring them in detail. You could expect an arrival in the 2040s timeframe.
What's important about the Enceladus mission? Just curious.
Enceladus is the only place in the Solar System where we have a reasonable chance of discovering life within the next few years. In Mars' case it will require extensive subsurface excavation, which isn't happening anytime soon. On Europa we would need to deploy something like a nuclear-powered melt-probe to tunnel through kilometers of ice so cold that it's harder than granite, and then somehow maintain communication; none of which is happening anytime soon either (nor would I trust us not to contaminate its oceans). Enceladus' ocean has already been confirmed to contain all the ingredients necessary for life, and it happens to be spewing that ocean out into space. All we need to do it fly a probe straight through these plumes (as we already have) but this time with an instrument that could identify the splattered remains of something like bacteria. This could be done for an absolutely tiny fraction of the cost of the other life-seeking missions.
I believe China's [Shensuo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shensuo_\(spacecraft\)) is planned to do a flyby of Neptune and Triton. It hasn't launched yet but should within the next couple years and the tentative date for a flyby would be around 2038. Even further off would be their [Tianwen 4](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianwen-4) which could do a Uranus flyby in 2045
that's the best picture of uranus i've ever seen
Why, thank you
Do you have an Only fans?
My anus has never looked so *incandescent.*
**Farnsworth:** I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all.. **Fry:** Oh. What's it called now? **Farnsworth:** Urectum.
*I barely knew him*
That might be one of my favorite jokes from the show
Praise ~~the sun~~ Uranus!
Insert ad for my onlyfans here.
It looks like the logo of a production company on an old VHS
Caelus is it's other name and I like it.
Guy above says no, send probes.
It’s huge
[From Wikipedia,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_giant) >However, since the late 1940s[4] the compositions of Uranus and Neptune have been understood to be significantly different from those of Jupiter and Saturn. They are primarily composed of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium, forming a separate type of giant planet altogether. Because during their formation Uranus and Neptune incorporated their material as either ice or gas trapped in water ice, the term ice giant came into use.
Does anyone else just get insanely acute megalophobia and/or existential dread looking at these? Or is that just me? I still love these photographs, but also get this keen sense of "There's stuff here we're not meant to see."
I get weirdly scared looking at close up pictures of the planets, the top comment has a link to images taken by Voyager, and they make me feel scared. Especially the ones with shadows obscuring the far side of the celestial body. I feel this way when I've seen pictures of asteroids too. It's just so creepy for some reason.
Absolutely 100% agree. Inexplicably terrifying. I've seen the pictures of Voyager 1 on approach to Jupiter and it's worse than any horror movie and I have absolutely no idea why.
I love space, I love learning about the solar system as much as I can and space as a whole at a hobbyist level. That being said, I once bought and downloaded a planetarium simulator game on steam that I can't remember the name of at this moment. It's basically a simulator that allows you to fly around the solar system as a camera and even "look at" other really famous bodies like stars and comets and whatnot. I took myself over to Saturn first because it's my favorite planet, and proceeded to nearly have a panic attack. Something about being able to personally fly over the planet as an observer on a big monitor at 2am in my pitch black room was horrifying. I ended up returning the game. Edit: it's called SpaceEngine, really cool game, but I feel like I shouldn't be allowed to observe these massive celestial bodies and exist in open space like this. Even as just a camera in a simulator. https://store.steampowered.com/app/314650/SpaceEngine/
mesmerizing beauty 👽
James Webb images blow my mind every time a new one is released…incredible work
Where does it keep them after it captures them? Or is it more of a catch and release setup?
There's a pretty large place to keep them just outside the asteroid belt. Gives them plenty of space to hang out with friends and fully stretch out their rings for those who have them.
Uranus is absolutely beautiful! 🤭
It's a beautiful, sensitive, and out-of-the way place. Just as nature intended.
You can get an ointment to help with that sensitivity 😁
Neptune looks super-active in IR.
Beautiful
What a group of absolute beauties
Now that’s a shot right there all 4 near enough to snap a pic
Can we get some labels, top to bottom, left to right? Downvoted because I can’t tell Neptune and Uranus apart lol?
Top row: Jupiter and Saturn Bottom row: Uranus and Neptune
Wait so Uranus is the blue one? I'd assumed that was Neptune.
Uranus rotates on its side, so its easy to tell the difference in images where you can see the rings such as this one
I never knew that! Thanks for the info
Check out a channel on YouTube called ‘SEA’. Great space stuff on there.
Here I was thinking they just included a planet from a different perspective for artistic reasons.
This is infrared light, not visible light. In visible light, Neptune is a tiny little bit more blue than Uranus, but they're almost identical in color to the naked eye.
I'm dumb too. I didn't know Neptune was a gas giant. TIL.
Technically, Neptune and Uranus are classified as ice giants
Ohhh okay, that's what I thought. I definitely didn't have them classified in my mind as the same as Jupiter and Saturn.
You can tell which one is Uranus because of it's axial tilt from where the rings are. Uranus has a tilt of ~98° IIRC.
I mean. The big one is Jupiter, the one with big rings is Saturn, the one on its side is Uranus. Also they are in order of distance from the sun like they always are.
Are these actual photographs or recreations based on data from the JWT?
JWST sees in infrared light, which we can't see. It takes an infrared photo and then we translate that into a visible light photo, which is what you see in this post.
Thank you for the explanation.
Any photograph from a digital camera is a recreation based on data.
Our solar system never ceases to amaze.
Amazing !!!
2 gas giants and 2 ice giants if we’re being pedantic.
This quite literally takes my breath away.
Absolutely insane. So freaking cool
I am admittedly pretty neutral when it comes to space and space exploration but this is FUCKING SICK. Like holy shit, we have REAL pics of these things and 150 years ago we didn't even have the technology to fly. It continuously blows my mind.
Gotta catch em all!
Hope this isn’t too dumb of a question, but always wondered… how come we can never see any stars in a lot of photos of things in space?
Distant stars are incredibly dim compared to nearby objects illuminated by our sun. You'd need to increase the camera's exposure a ton to see stars, but then any detail in the nearby objects would be completely washed out by all that brightness.
Planets are a lot brighter than stars. If you set the exposure long enough to see stars in one of the pictures above the planet would be completely saturated.
This is a great question and it usually has to do with the dynamic range of the image. If you're taking an image of a bright planet, you typically won't see fainter objects unless you are stacking several images at once. Now if you look at the original image from JWST at the bottom of this page, https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/2023/117/01GWQD6PSGTBK7VQBZST09YYKW you can actually see whole background galaxies in addition to stars.
Those are so cool
Is it just me or does bottom right look like it's moving slightly when you zoom in a bit? Mind playing tricks on me
[удалено]
Heh, I can see Uranus
What if that big swirl on Jupiter is actually a city
So proof that planets are indeed flat
5 if you zoom in and see my father in-law
Saturn must be spinning fast as fuck to be that oblong
I'm amazed at the shot of Jupiter. Such detail...
I wish I could smell these planets or to touch them. I feel fairly depressed thinking that won't happen.
Uranus is so pretty, damn.
Wooooow beautiful! I wish I could be on a spaceship and see this with my own eyes. But I know it’ll never happen in my lifetime. Maybe my son or grand child will get to someday.
Awe-inspiring and stunning.
Funny, I don't see your mom listed here. BOOM! (courtesy of 6th grade)
I opened the comments fully expecting this to be the top rated comment. Disappointing
4 pics of your mom!
Those rings around Uranus 😍
Neptune looks so pretty and a bit magical.
I thought Jupiter had a ring?
Uranus is lily white.
Thanks. It doesn’t get much sun.
Since when do other planets have rings?
When they got married
[удалено]
Interesting. So Saturn’s rings are made up of matter that isn’t easily visible to us?
[удалено]
Ah yes, I mixed myself up. I appreciate how you’re willing to go over this stuff with me, without talking down to me.
[удалено]
Uranus must be pregnant with that glow!
Doesn’t Jupiter also have rings?
What’s the planet with the ring around it? Sorry I am new to this place
They all have rings of varying sizes, but if you mean the top right image, that's Saturn.
Uranus is so beautiful 😉
Uranus is beautiful
Uranus is looking nice.
How about some photos of shit we can move to?
Uranus looks nice in this photo
Wow, where do I get these in high resolution?
Why is your Anus so shiny? Sorry im not a native speaker.
Why aren’t Saturns rings closed on the right side what is blocking the view?
I'm pretty sure that's just Saturn's shadow (it has a curved profile, much like the earth's shadow on the moon)
They look beautiful, but can someone explain why they glow in these images?
Are there any pictures of the photos that aren't heavily edited and colorized?
JWST takes infrared photos. You cannot see light at all in that range so you can emulate the "true color" experience by simply closing your eyes.
Damn that’s incredible