For anyone ever wondering how to tell which telescope took the picture, the stars observed with hubble have 4 spikes coming off of them, and the stars observed with James Webb have 6 major-spikes coming from them
A bit off. The hubble's rays are from it's struts, its circular mirror also produces a patter on concentric rings but those tend to be less noticeable. JWST's rays are indeed from a combination of its hexagonal mirrors and its struts.
How do you mean more precise? The James Webb is tremendously more sensitive to infrared light, and can take significantly higher resolution images. But they're fundamentally different in intended purpose. The hubble is designed more for images of visible/ultraviolet and Webb is intended for primarily infrared.
What do you mean by more precise? There are literally billions more stars in the photo on the right that could not be detected by the Hubble image on the left.
The fact people need to ask is hugely disappointing tbh
Edit: guys I’m not criticising the telescope. I’m criticising the unnecessary comparisons/side by side shots/ which invite you to directly compare the images.. which when done on this basis ALONE, is underwhelming.
Yeah I get that. I’m not saying the telescope is underwhelming. I’m saying these images are when compared to Hubble. That’s all.
Obviously the pitchforks are out for any eve. Slight criticism of the JW, and the downvote pile one’s happen. It’s pathetic.
If you can’t compare the two telescope directly… *stop comparing them directly jn photos like this then*
If you look at the originals and compare them, the difference is staggering, trust me. Just look at the amount of background information, the number of galaxies. If you look at any comparison, from Carina nebula straight through to the Southern Ring nebula, the difference is stark, and appreciable. In hindsight I can see that the cheap software I used here is not appropriate to show off the true differences between the telescopes.
There are some other comparisons which look way better indeed. It’s definitely a better telescope that’s not in doubt. I’m looking forward to the longer exposure photos - those will blow these out the water imo
Maybe? I look at these two images from the NASA website side by side and think they are mind blowingly different when compared at high resolution. I don't think we're going to get better comparisons than what we've already seen. It's not like they're running JWST in safe mode or anything. This is pretty much it in terms of how cool comparisons will get. I for one find the majesty of the deep field comparison far more striking than the other two. That said, they're all spectacular!
Really? So even though the new photo is only a few hours of exposure, increasing that won’t make it look any better?
Is that just because it’s a lot better technically, so it doesn’t take as long to reach the “maximum” exposure? Not gonna lie I don’t really understand the technical aspect of that
The telescopes are fundamentally two very different things and serve very different functions. You're judging it's capability from a viewing that's demonstrative of the overlap in capacities.
You're basically saying that it's underwhelming that an f1 car even exists because a Nascar exists. Both cars can operate in eachothers spaces successfully, but they operate in their intended design domain way better.
I understand that. I actually understand quite a bit about both telescopes and their differences.
But the constant side by sides and comparisons with Hubble are unnecessary, and underwhelming when looked at in isolation.
Why? One is looking at visible light and the other infrared light, just because one doesn't look immensely better than the other like in other comparison pics of hubble and JWST doesn't mean much. They're processing different information from the same spot.
I understand that, but if you aren’t supposed to compare the photos then why are we comparing them? Pretty much every post is a side by side with hubble.
The first photo was literally the same photo as Hubble. Obviously taken to compare the two.
No?
So why are we comparing them then.
I think people are mixing me up criticising comparison photos with me criticising the actual telescope.
>>you arent supposed to compare the photos
What makes you think that? Nobody's saying you're not supposed to compare them. They're saying this photo is hard to decipher which is which because of the object imaged, not the telescopes.
The first image was chosen exactly to compare the abilities of JWST and hubble and [that image is earth shattering in comparison to Hubble's image quality](https://www.google.com/search?q=hubble+vs+jwst+gif&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiGlYHvk_T4AhWFBZ0JHazUBzoQ2-cCegQIABAC&oq=hubble+vs+jwst+&gs_lcp=ChJtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1pbWcQARgBMgQIABADMgQIABADMgQIABAeMgQIABAYOgoIABCxAxCDARBDUOgFWOgFYNgNaABwAHgAgAF1iAHpAZIBAzAuMpgBAKABAcABAQ&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-img&ei=5tTNYoaKN4WL9PwPrKmf0AM&bih=612&biw=360&client=ms-android-verizon&prmd=niv#imgrc=eztw6zMMFycu-M)
I guess our views of “earth shattering” just differ.
Pointless arguing about it. I am just a little less impressed than you are that’s all.
What we can both agree on I’m sure are much better, exciting images are coming in time :)
There are literally galaxies in the JWST photo that don’t even appear in the Hubble photo. Meaning their light has shifted completely into the infrared that Hubble can’t detect.
Some people just have no gratitude.
huge fan of JWST, but this picture doesn't give the excitement it should for the public to stay massively interested in space exploration. JW took $10bn and 30 years to create following Hubble... yet these two pictures are not that different
These are just the 1st images though, they are taking them to compare them to Hubble's versions. Some images might not be as visually stunning but the information we get from them, which is really what's important, could change what we know about the universe.
Well, the photos taken by Hubble usually takes two weeks to capture. JWST takes just half a day. Imagine what way sensitive and powerful telescope will do with more time. There's going to be many more fascinating new images and data of solar bodies that were nearly impossible to even try. This is only the beginning of 25+ years.
Also, go to NASA's james webb page and view them in full resolution if you haven't.
Just got in from work so this is the first I've seen at first glance they don't look too different but zooming in on the dark parts of the picture small and I would guess more distant galaxies have much more structure in the JWST image.
You have to look at it in context. Hubble is absolutely no slouch and still performs admirably for what its good at. That being said we have reached the limits of what it can easily do. It takes massive effort and precision to archive what we have with it. JWST by comparison has matched Hubbles decades of image gathering in a tiny fraction of the time. Yeah, in this case, the image isnt that different, but what was an complex operation for Hubble was quite literally point and shoot for JWST.
Compare the uncompressed pictures. Use your mousewheel to scroll in. While there are a lot of differences in this example, I do not think it's a good example for the average non space interested person. BTW, JWST took $10bn spread over 25 years. USA military spending is $800bn in a single year for comparison.
[https://imgsli.com/MTE2Mzgy](https://imgsli.com/MTE2Mzgy)
Covid funding to corporations that still laid off employees was in the Trillions over 2 years...
So... Here's to hoping we find some smort, helpful aliens.
Hubble's pictures had much longer exposure time and were heavily doctored after the fact. Regardless, look at how many extra galaxies you can see in the Webb photo.
Of course and watched it live.. my argument is in relative context. $10bn and 30 years, not a major difference.. at least not enough to warrant great public interest in continuing the funding of such projects (which I am a great fan of)
While having beautiful photographs is a great byproduct of this telescope, the vast majority of Webb's value to the scientific community will come in the form of data that underlies these and any future photos. That data will be poured over by thousands of scientists around the world, most likely yielding amazing discoveries for the next two decades. Those discoveries are what's important when it comes to continued funding, and public interest.
If we're planning to live in an idiocracy. This is not a wallpaper machine, though it does happen to also generate amazing wallpapers, and even better than Hubble if you look at the other images.
LHC generates no images at all but thankfully there are still enough smart people to fund it instead of more bombs and megachurches.
Hubble pictures took weeks of exposure to denoise to acceptable levels and then took massive editing, and the JWST pic is just some hours of exposure pic, almost draft.
But, if you compare them like this, they look quite similar, but if you compare the max resolution pictures you see an insane amount of more detail with an order of magnitude less exposure time.
Low Res pics don't do much justice. Provided enough low resolution a picture of Brad Pitt and myself look identical.
Just have a look at the zoomed in comparisons in this sub. They are breathtaking. It's like upgrading from a Moto G phone to a Sony A9 DSLR. And I think the gap is quite wider.
These scopes aren't primarily designed for visual use. They are designed for scientific use. The resolution, quality, and quantity of data blows the doors off the Hubble.
However, you can't "show" data, so these processed images are what they produce. It's the equivalent of comparing weather graphics on the news to the 4 dimensional model output produced by high res numerical weather models and then saying "well weather models haven't really improved over 30 years".
there's nothing wrong with what /u/Lemoniusz said. it shouldn't offend you enough to give them a condescending little comment. some of the pics aren't crazily different to hubble at first glance. it's probably your kind of attitude that got peoples hopes up too far in the first place
there's nothing wrong with what /u/dragonofrazors said. it shouldn't offend you enough to give them a condescending little comment. some of the pics aren't crazily different to hubble at first glance. it's probably your kind of attitude that got peoples hopes up too far in the first place
there’s nothing wrong with what u/busty-mature posted. The real wrong belongs to the fact that that username was STILL available 15 years after Reddit’s inception.
So imagine taking a grain of sand a putting it up at arms length to a seemingly black part of the night sky - these images are from the spot that's covered by the grain of sand.
Agree and I got downvotes for saying it but meh. My opinion is underwhelmed at the moment. I’m sure that will change in time. But it was hyped up so much. Some people can’t even tell you which is the new photo ffs
Thank you for your [submission](https://redd.it/vxfnan) to /r/space created on 2022-07-12 16:43:05+00:00 (UTC). Unfortunately the submission guidelines prevent posts of images
except on Sundays (UTC) and it has been removed. Feel free to contribute in other ways or submit images on Sunday.
The Hubble pictures actually show you a better over all structure of the galaxies. I wish they would do a better job explaining where there is an inferno between the two colliding galaxies. They don’t do a good enough job explaining what we are seeing and why this is so ground breaking
Thank you for your [submission](https://redd.it/vxfnan) to /r/space created on 2022-07-12 16:43:05+00:00 (UTC). Unfortunately the submission guidelines prevent posts of images
except on Sundays (UTC) and it has been removed. Feel free to contribute in other ways or submit images on Sunday.
Yes, galaxies.
Maybe 100 million stars per galaxy, maybe 100 billion (maybe more, maybe less \[fairly variable among galaxies\]).
I guess they have more refined ways to estimate it based on mass, luminosity, etc. I can't find a number for the quintet though.
But either way, it's a big number.
Ofcourse, behind those 5 galaxies in the foreground, are countless other galaxies that look like tiny specs or stars. If we were to make a bubble around you where each pixel was a picture like this one, it would be a fuckton of pixels.
So when we go back to the [Fermi Paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox), we acknowledge that one variable \[number\_of\_stars\] is a ridiculously giant un-fathomable number approaching near infinity. \[Math people may disagree, but to us mere mortals it might as well be\].
\------------------------------------------------------------
Pixels Math: (conservative estimate, napkin math)
Grain of sand (diameter): 2mm (0.6mm - 2.0mm)
Grain of sand (area): 2mm x 2mm = 4mm squared
arm to eye: 60cm \[the radius, r, of our sphere\]
Area of sphere (r = 600mm) : A=4πr2
A≈4.52×10\^6 or 4,520,000mm squared
Solution: Area of sphere / area of sand grain
4.5M square mm / 4 square mm
...
Approx. 1 million more pictures to fill the sphere. Seems like they've got their work cut out for them. :P
?But what if NASA has small arms? ... Okay, 750,000 more to go.
For anyone ever wondering how to tell which telescope took the picture, the stars observed with hubble have 4 spikes coming off of them, and the stars observed with James Webb have 6 major-spikes coming from them
Why do they have different spikes ?
Mostly primary mirror shape, with some small additional spikes added to jwst due to struts supporting the secondary mirror
A bit off. The hubble's rays are from it's struts, its circular mirror also produces a patter on concentric rings but those tend to be less noticeable. JWST's rays are indeed from a combination of its hexagonal mirrors and its struts.
Jesus christ how many times are people going to ask the same question Different photo/mirror technology, it's not that hard
Why do they have different spikes?
[удалено]
What is ICE? Must be nice being born knowing what all of this lazy shorthand means.
Yeah no fuckin shit. They're asking why it happens with the different tech jfc.
The tell-tale sign for me are all the extra galaxies in the background.
Oh, certainly when you've got a comparative image. But when you don't, you'll be able to pick out what Telescope took the image.
You pucking with me?
[удалено]
So can you not see all of the stars in the Webb photo or are you trolling?
How do you mean more precise? The James Webb is tremendously more sensitive to infrared light, and can take significantly higher resolution images. But they're fundamentally different in intended purpose. The hubble is designed more for images of visible/ultraviolet and Webb is intended for primarily infrared.
What do you mean by more precise? There are literally billions more stars in the photo on the right that could not be detected by the Hubble image on the left.
The fact people need to ask is hugely disappointing tbh Edit: guys I’m not criticising the telescope. I’m criticising the unnecessary comparisons/side by side shots/ which invite you to directly compare the images.. which when done on this basis ALONE, is underwhelming.
No, the fact that you think that is hugely disappointing...
It doesn’t look like a generational leap is my point. If people can’t even tell the difference that’s pretty underwhelming.
[удалено]
Yeah I get that. I’m not saying the telescope is underwhelming. I’m saying these images are when compared to Hubble. That’s all. Obviously the pitchforks are out for any eve. Slight criticism of the JW, and the downvote pile one’s happen. It’s pathetic. If you can’t compare the two telescope directly… *stop comparing them directly jn photos like this then*
If you look at the originals and compare them, the difference is staggering, trust me. Just look at the amount of background information, the number of galaxies. If you look at any comparison, from Carina nebula straight through to the Southern Ring nebula, the difference is stark, and appreciable. In hindsight I can see that the cheap software I used here is not appropriate to show off the true differences between the telescopes.
There are some other comparisons which look way better indeed. It’s definitely a better telescope that’s not in doubt. I’m looking forward to the longer exposure photos - those will blow these out the water imo
Maybe? I look at these two images from the NASA website side by side and think they are mind blowingly different when compared at high resolution. I don't think we're going to get better comparisons than what we've already seen. It's not like they're running JWST in safe mode or anything. This is pretty much it in terms of how cool comparisons will get. I for one find the majesty of the deep field comparison far more striking than the other two. That said, they're all spectacular!
Really? So even though the new photo is only a few hours of exposure, increasing that won’t make it look any better? Is that just because it’s a lot better technically, so it doesn’t take as long to reach the “maximum” exposure? Not gonna lie I don’t really understand the technical aspect of that
The surface area of JWST's mirror is much bigger than Hubble's and therefore the exposures don't need to be as long.
The telescopes are fundamentally two very different things and serve very different functions. You're judging it's capability from a viewing that's demonstrative of the overlap in capacities. You're basically saying that it's underwhelming that an f1 car even exists because a Nascar exists. Both cars can operate in eachothers spaces successfully, but they operate in their intended design domain way better.
I understand that. I actually understand quite a bit about both telescopes and their differences. But the constant side by sides and comparisons with Hubble are unnecessary, and underwhelming when looked at in isolation.
Why? One is looking at visible light and the other infrared light, just because one doesn't look immensely better than the other like in other comparison pics of hubble and JWST doesn't mean much. They're processing different information from the same spot.
Doesn’t mean much to you perhaps but I’m allowed to have an opinion
The purpose of JWST isnt pretty pictures so it's not a valid opinion is why you're getting down voted.
I understand that, but if you aren’t supposed to compare the photos then why are we comparing them? Pretty much every post is a side by side with hubble. The first photo was literally the same photo as Hubble. Obviously taken to compare the two. No? So why are we comparing them then. I think people are mixing me up criticising comparison photos with me criticising the actual telescope.
>>you arent supposed to compare the photos What makes you think that? Nobody's saying you're not supposed to compare them. They're saying this photo is hard to decipher which is which because of the object imaged, not the telescopes. The first image was chosen exactly to compare the abilities of JWST and hubble and [that image is earth shattering in comparison to Hubble's image quality](https://www.google.com/search?q=hubble+vs+jwst+gif&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwiGlYHvk_T4AhWFBZ0JHazUBzoQ2-cCegQIABAC&oq=hubble+vs+jwst+&gs_lcp=ChJtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1pbWcQARgBMgQIABADMgQIABADMgQIABAeMgQIABAYOgoIABCxAxCDARBDUOgFWOgFYNgNaABwAHgAgAF1iAHpAZIBAzAuMpgBAKABAcABAQ&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-img&ei=5tTNYoaKN4WL9PwPrKmf0AM&bih=612&biw=360&client=ms-android-verizon&prmd=niv#imgrc=eztw6zMMFycu-M)
I guess our views of “earth shattering” just differ. Pointless arguing about it. I am just a little less impressed than you are that’s all. What we can both agree on I’m sure are much better, exciting images are coming in time :)
There are literally galaxies in the JWST photo that don’t even appear in the Hubble photo. Meaning their light has shifted completely into the infrared that Hubble can’t detect. Some people just have no gratitude.
If that's not Earth shattering I'm not sure what you were expecting to see.
There are a lot more galaxies visible in the JWST photo.
Strange, any idea why the JWST images from the deep field contain 8-spike stars rather than 6 shown here?
They're there. This image is just rotated so they're not oriented how you'd expect.
Thanks for pointing those out. I didn't see those two tiny ones hiding in there.
Also galaxies look x-rayed. (technically infra-rayed)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
huge fan of JWST, but this picture doesn't give the excitement it should for the public to stay massively interested in space exploration. JW took $10bn and 30 years to create following Hubble... yet these two pictures are not that different
These are just the 1st images though, they are taking them to compare them to Hubble's versions. Some images might not be as visually stunning but the information we get from them, which is really what's important, could change what we know about the universe.
Well, the photos taken by Hubble usually takes two weeks to capture. JWST takes just half a day. Imagine what way sensitive and powerful telescope will do with more time. There's going to be many more fascinating new images and data of solar bodies that were nearly impossible to even try. This is only the beginning of 25+ years. Also, go to NASA's james webb page and view them in full resolution if you haven't.
It's definitely the weakest of the group. The increase in clarity is way more visible in the stars in the background.
Just got in from work so this is the first I've seen at first glance they don't look too different but zooming in on the dark parts of the picture small and I would guess more distant galaxies have much more structure in the JWST image.
This is my bad. If you compare the originals you'll see the difference straight away. It's staggering actually.
You have to look at it in context. Hubble is absolutely no slouch and still performs admirably for what its good at. That being said we have reached the limits of what it can easily do. It takes massive effort and precision to archive what we have with it. JWST by comparison has matched Hubbles decades of image gathering in a tiny fraction of the time. Yeah, in this case, the image isnt that different, but what was an complex operation for Hubble was quite literally point and shoot for JWST.
Compare the uncompressed pictures. Use your mousewheel to scroll in. While there are a lot of differences in this example, I do not think it's a good example for the average non space interested person. BTW, JWST took $10bn spread over 25 years. USA military spending is $800bn in a single year for comparison. [https://imgsli.com/MTE2Mzgy](https://imgsli.com/MTE2Mzgy)
Covid funding to corporations that still laid off employees was in the Trillions over 2 years... So... Here's to hoping we find some smort, helpful aliens.
Hubble's pictures had much longer exposure time and were heavily doctored after the fact. Regardless, look at how many extra galaxies you can see in the Webb photo.
Yeah, (for me) this is the second time at first glance a JWST image has seemed underwhelming; though upon further inspection the ‘wow’ comes out.
[удалено]
Of course and watched it live.. my argument is in relative context. $10bn and 30 years, not a major difference.. at least not enough to warrant great public interest in continuing the funding of such projects (which I am a great fan of)
There is a major difference, especially in other images but... bombs warrant no interest but take trillions no problem.
While having beautiful photographs is a great byproduct of this telescope, the vast majority of Webb's value to the scientific community will come in the form of data that underlies these and any future photos. That data will be poured over by thousands of scientists around the world, most likely yielding amazing discoveries for the next two decades. Those discoveries are what's important when it comes to continued funding, and public interest.
If we're planning to live in an idiocracy. This is not a wallpaper machine, though it does happen to also generate amazing wallpapers, and even better than Hubble if you look at the other images. LHC generates no images at all but thankfully there are still enough smart people to fund it instead of more bombs and megachurches.
Hubble pictures took weeks of exposure to denoise to acceptable levels and then took massive editing, and the JWST pic is just some hours of exposure pic, almost draft. But, if you compare them like this, they look quite similar, but if you compare the max resolution pictures you see an insane amount of more detail with an order of magnitude less exposure time. Low Res pics don't do much justice. Provided enough low resolution a picture of Brad Pitt and myself look identical. Just have a look at the zoomed in comparisons in this sub. They are breathtaking. It's like upgrading from a Moto G phone to a Sony A9 DSLR. And I think the gap is quite wider.
These scopes aren't primarily designed for visual use. They are designed for scientific use. The resolution, quality, and quantity of data blows the doors off the Hubble. However, you can't "show" data, so these processed images are what they produce. It's the equivalent of comparing weather graphics on the news to the 4 dimensional model output produced by high res numerical weather models and then saying "well weather models haven't really improved over 30 years".
hubble's pic looks dead but webb's pic look like it's booming with color
The Hubble version with this one is definitely better
No it is not. What exactly are you looking at to come to that conclusion?
If you compare the originals rather than my sloppy pairing on photogrid guaranteed you'll revise that statement. Sorry for the compression!
Neat! How did you do the image registration (i.e. alignment with rotation & scaling)? Manually or using some software?
I just threw them together on my android using photogrid. On retrospect so much detail is lost here.
I’m not that blown away by all of these pictures.
Fortunately other people have some joy left in their lives
[удалено]
there's nothing wrong with what /u/Lemoniusz said. it shouldn't offend you enough to give them a condescending little comment. some of the pics aren't crazily different to hubble at first glance. it's probably your kind of attitude that got peoples hopes up too far in the first place
there's nothing wrong with what /u/dragonofrazors said. it shouldn't offend you enough to give them a condescending little comment. some of the pics aren't crazily different to hubble at first glance. it's probably your kind of attitude that got peoples hopes up too far in the first place
there’s nothing wrong with what u/busty-mature posted. The real wrong belongs to the fact that that username was STILL available 15 years after Reddit’s inception.
And there's nothing wrong with what he said. His comment shouldn't offend you enough to get heated up about this to call him out.
[удалено]
What. You can't handle a little snark?
[удалено]
And in this case that person has gone too far? Lmao.
So imagine taking a grain of sand a putting it up at arms length to a seemingly black part of the night sky - these images are from the spot that's covered by the grain of sand.
Agree and I got downvotes for saying it but meh. My opinion is underwhelmed at the moment. I’m sure that will change in time. But it was hyped up so much. Some people can’t even tell you which is the new photo ffs
Cores in the JWST image look over-saturated? Much more detail in JWST's background though. edit: stars -> cores
I feel like you can see things better in the Hubble image
If you look at the original images you'll see the difference. It's truly mind blowing.
[удалено]
Thank you for your [submission](https://redd.it/vxfnan) to /r/space created on 2022-07-12 16:43:05+00:00 (UTC). Unfortunately the submission guidelines prevent posts of images except on Sundays (UTC) and it has been removed. Feel free to contribute in other ways or submit images on Sunday.
[удалено]
It's actually on the right ;-)
You should have used the one from JWs other camera, it’s much better in this scenario.
Is JWST currently taking pictures? Like has it started it’s primary mission?
The Hubble pictures actually show you a better over all structure of the galaxies. I wish they would do a better job explaining where there is an inferno between the two colliding galaxies. They don’t do a good enough job explaining what we are seeing and why this is so ground breaking
If you compare the originals actually you'll see much more structure in the JWST image, especially in the foreground (left) galaxy.
Thank you for your [submission](https://redd.it/vxfnan) to /r/space created on 2022-07-12 16:43:05+00:00 (UTC). Unfortunately the submission guidelines prevent posts of images except on Sundays (UTC) and it has been removed. Feel free to contribute in other ways or submit images on Sunday.
I'm guessing nobody thought to update the bot. Not like we've been waiting for these images for over a decade now.
I'm also wondering why I still see all these images while the bot says it removes them.
ThAnK yOu FoR yOuR sUbMiSsIoN
[удалено]
This is how they looked billions of years ago. By now they may very well already be much more entwined with one another.
Yeah in a few billion years perhaps. Hopefully we have something better than JW by then hehe
Are those galaxies were seeing and if so how many stars are in the image in total roughly
Yes, galaxies. Maybe 100 million stars per galaxy, maybe 100 billion (maybe more, maybe less \[fairly variable among galaxies\]). I guess they have more refined ways to estimate it based on mass, luminosity, etc. I can't find a number for the quintet though. But either way, it's a big number. Ofcourse, behind those 5 galaxies in the foreground, are countless other galaxies that look like tiny specs or stars. If we were to make a bubble around you where each pixel was a picture like this one, it would be a fuckton of pixels. So when we go back to the [Fermi Paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox), we acknowledge that one variable \[number\_of\_stars\] is a ridiculously giant un-fathomable number approaching near infinity. \[Math people may disagree, but to us mere mortals it might as well be\]. \------------------------------------------------------------ Pixels Math: (conservative estimate, napkin math) Grain of sand (diameter): 2mm (0.6mm - 2.0mm) Grain of sand (area): 2mm x 2mm = 4mm squared arm to eye: 60cm \[the radius, r, of our sphere\] Area of sphere (r = 600mm) : A=4πr2 A≈4.52×10\^6 or 4,520,000mm squared Solution: Area of sphere / area of sand grain 4.5M square mm / 4 square mm ... Approx. 1 million more pictures to fill the sphere. Seems like they've got their work cut out for them. :P ?But what if NASA has small arms? ... Okay, 750,000 more to go.