'Unprecedented' Detail: Vera Rubin Space Telescope Releases First Images from Its 3,200-Megapixel Camera (yahoo.com)
- Reference: 0178147177
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/25/06/23/0717244/unprecedented-detail-vera-rubin-space-telescope-releases-first-images-from-its-3200-megapixel-camera
- Source link: https://www.yahoo.com/news/first-deep-space-images-vera-040000298.html
> The observatory has a few key components: A giant telescope, called the Simonyi Survey Telescope, is connected to the world's largest and highest resolution digital camera. Rubin's 27-foot primary mirror, paired with a mind-boggling 3,200-megapixel camera, will repeatedly take 30-second exposure images of vast swaths of the sky with unrivaled speed and detail. Each image will cover an area of sky as big as [2]40 full moons . Every three nights for the next 10 years, Rubin will produce a new, ultra-high-definition map of the entire visible southern sky. With this much coverage, scientists hope to create an updated and detailed "movie" they can use to view how the cosmos changes over time....
>
> For the next decade, Rubin will capture millions of astronomical objects each day — or more than 100 every second. Ultimately, it's [3]expected to discover about 17 billion stars and 20 billion galaxies that we've never seen before... When the observatory begins science operations in earnest later in 2025, its instruments will yield a deluge of astronomical data that will be too overwhelming to process manually. (Each night, the observatory will generate around [4]20 terabytes of data .) Astronomers expect high-quality observations taken with the telescope will help map out the structure of the universe, find comets and potentially hazardous asteroids in our solar system, and detect exploding stars and black holes in distant galaxies.
>
> The observatory will also examine the optical counterparts of gravitational wave events — ripples in the fabric of space caused by some of the most energetic processes in the cosmos. By studying these events, astronomers hope to uncover the secrets of the invisible forces that shape the universe like dark matter and dark energy.
"Already, in just over 10 hours of test observations, the observatory has discovered 2,104 never-before-seen-asteroids," [5]reports NPR , "including seven near-Earth asteroids, none of which pose any danger..." The basic idea is that the data "should let astronomers catch transient phenomena that they otherwise wouldn't know to look for, such as exploding stars, asteroids, interstellar objects whizzing in from other solar systems, and maybe even the movement of a giant planet that some believe is lurking out in our own solar system, beyond Pluto."
The telescope is a joint project between the U.S. Energy Department and its National Science Foundation — and it will stream a special live broadcast of its first images today at 11 a.m. EDT (1500 GMT) [6]on their official YouTube channel (also [7]simulacast at Space.com ).
[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/first-deep-space-images-vera-040000298.html
[2] https://noirlab.edu/public/images/ann20013e/
[3] https://www.nsf.gov/science-matters/nsf-doe-rubin-observatory-will-capture-unseen-cosmos-dark
[4] https://rubinobservatory.org/explore/how-rubin-works/technology/data
[5] https://www.npr.org/2025/06/23/nx-s1-5355034/vera-c-rubin-observatory-first-images
[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv22_Amsreo
[7] https://www.space.com/astronomy/scientists-to-unveil-1st-images-from-the-vera-c-rubin-observatory-on-june-23-watch-the-big-moment-live
WD/Seagate (Score:1)
Must be thinking every house needs one of these! I bet the site has WD and or Seagate on speed dial.
Wut (Score:1)
It takes 30-second exposures at unrivaled speed.
Asteroids (Score:2)
"including seven near-Earth asteroids, none of which pose any danger..."
If they've only just spotted them, how do they know they don't pose any danger? Have they worked out the orbits already?
Re: (Score:3)
We have computers, we feed the data of several observations into them and we get either (1) whew, you safe, buy that luxury condo, or (2) you dead, say your prayers. The fancy computers have a red and a green light on top to indicate your fate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In order to determine that the dots were asteroids, they probably needed detect that they moved via multiple observations.
And once you have multiple observations, you can start calculating the path.
Re: (Score:2)
It's easier than that. Only the ones that just get larger are dangerous.
Northern Sky, too, please... (Score:2)
...before something big and knobbly falls on the northern hemisphere, without us seeing it in advance....
[Yes, I know we won't be able to do anything useful in such an event ... but I really would like time to kiss my ass goodbye...]
Mixed analogies (40 golf balls on the Moon) (Score:1)
We read "40 moons". Presumably "the Moon as seen from Earth" or with more precision: about 7 degrees angular diameter or 6 degrees squared (I guess).
Then we learn "that you could spot a golf ball from 24 km". Which is very interesting. But can we return to our "Moon as seen from the Earth" reference? Could we see a golf ball on one of these "40 moons"? No. Could we see a person? Probably not. Could we see a golf course on the Moon?
Apparently math and numbers scare some people. Most prefer "teach me like I'm
Re: (Score:1)
A standard golf ball is 42.67 mm. Average distance from the Earth to the Moon is 384 400 km.
If we can see a 42.67 mm ball at 24 km, then can we see a 4.267 m ball at 2400 km and a 683 m ball on the Moon?
Re: (Score:2)
> A standard golf ball is 42.67 mm. Average distance from the Earth to the Moon is 384 400 km.
> If we can see a 42.67 mm ball at 24 km, then can we see a 4.267 m ball at 2400 km and a 683 m ball on the Moon?
A standard 18-hole golf course has a size of about 150 acres, or assuming it's circular, a diameter of about 2800 feet or a bit more than 800 m. So yes, you could just make out a golf course on the moon.
Re: (Score:2)
> A standard golf ball is 42.67 mm. Average distance from the Earth to the Moon is 384 400 km.
> If we can see a 42.67 mm ball at 24 km, then can we see a 4.267 m ball at 2400 km and a 683 m ball on the Moon?
A standard 18-hole golf course has an area of about 150 acres. Assuming it's circular, that would give a diameter of about 2800 ft, or well over 800 m. So yes, you could just make out a golf course on the moon.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry for the near-duplicate post. I was having trouble with my system and browser, and didn't know that the first post went through.
This begs for a poll... (Score:2)
How long before the telescope is renamed "Melania" by Executive Order?
Most of the images (Score:2)
Sadly most of the images are the same pics of what they ordered at restaurants, girls with their tongues out and making the "V" with their fingers, people standing in front of tourist sites, etc.
Miss the Old National Geographic : ( (Score:2)
National Geographic was my favorite magazine--but now it's a climate-denier and religious propaganda rag.
FFS "Space telescope" ? Erm, no. (Score:2)
'Perched in Chile's Andes mountains, "A revolutionary new space telescope'
Does the author of this story about a telescope really not know what a space telescope is ?
They - like the "Editors" here - must be so proud of their work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_telescope
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, mine is aimed at my neighbors' window.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this not an american thing, like 'horseback riding', when 'horse riding' is perfectly suffice ?
Re: FFS "Space telescope" ? Erm, no. (Score:1)
Or "one half". I mean a half is a half why add "one" before it?
Re: (Score:2)
> horseback riding
If the saddle isn't secured, some people end up riding underneath the horse.
Re:FFS "Space telescope" ? Erm, no. (Score:4, Funny)
There's also a radio telescope, but I still couldn't figure out why you would want to build such a large device just to watch a radio.
FFS, Redundant Redundancy? Uh, yeah. (Score:2)
> They - like the "Editors" here - must be so proud of their work. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Perhaps those defining “space telescopes” should be more proud of their Department of Redundancy Department, since their definition amounts to a telescope in space designed to observe space. Gee, thanks for the the clarification. Here I thought that telescope on the moon was gonna look for illegal immigrants. * eye roll *
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_telescope
Re: (Score:2)
It is a meaningful distiction.
It doesn't apply to terrestrial telescopes, of which there are many.
It doesn't apply to spy satellites, geomapping equipment, and the like, which also have telescopes but are designed to observe the Earth.
So we have a distinct group of items with materially significant differences in properties from the rest. And the definition does need to be available online with citations because even NatGeo will either prefer layman's terms or screw it up.
Re: (Score:2)
> It is a meaningful distiction.
> It doesn't apply to terrestrial telescopes, of which there are many.
When you start measuring your mirrors in meters, that damn thing ain’t designed to look at anything other than space. Meaningful? No, not really. It’s redundant, and quite obvious when talking about one of the planets largest. That thing ain’t pointed at the ground.
> It doesn't apply to spy satellites, geomapping equipment, and the like, which also have telescopes but are designed to observe the Earth.
> So we have a distinct group of items with materially significant differences in properties from the rest. And the definition does need to be available online with citations because even NatGeo will either prefer layman's terms or screw it up.
Perhaps NatGeo also implies a certain level of intelligence when speaking about our worlds largest telescopes. Again, exactly none of them are pointed down at Earth. Do we think without clarification people are going to c