Re:1800s Astronomical Drawings vs. NASA Images (2016)
by darkerside on Wednesday August 18, 2021 @08:09AM
(#28220065)
Why is Orion unimpressive? Because the author didn't include visible representations of wavelengths that are outside of the range of human detectability?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:1800s Astronomical Drawings vs. NASA Images (2016)
by transportguy on Wednesday August 18, 2021 @10:05AM
(#28221061)
the drawing of orion is unimpressive, as it is easily visible and drawable to a similar quality with any telescope or even binoculars if you have clear skies. Spotting any sort of features on mars requires huge magnification incredible steadiness and an ability to track the object. Drawing the details for Mars required magnitudes more ability and far better technology.
Re:1800s Astronomical Drawings vs. NASA Images (2016)
by perl4ever on Wednesday August 18, 2021 @06:31PM
(#28227976)
For reference, Orion is about 3,600 arcseconds wide [http://spider.seds.org/ngc/revngcic.cgi?NGC1976], whereas Mars is from 4 to 25 [https://web.archive.org/web/20100612092806/http://nssdc.gsfc...] depending on its distance.