417-Megapixel Andromeda Galaxy Panorama Took over a Decade to Make

Mandatory recommendation of the Gigapixels of Andromeda [4K] [1] video/version. Especially with this particular song(!), as the 8K version [2] has a different one which doesn't really give the chills... Although, 60fps makes the image much better. Maybe combine the song from [1] with the video from [2]...

The source picture is the 1.5 gigapixels version (69.536 x 22.230 pixels).

Fun fact: watching the video on certain TV's makes them flicker wildly. Probably because they struggle with many dots in motion. On a monitor it works flawlessly.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udAL48P5NJU

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9bNqBeAtC8

AT 10 trillion kms = 1 light year, 10 quadrillion km = 1000 light years, 10 quintillion kms = 1 million light years. Since Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 million light years away, you are looking at an object 25 quintillion kms away. If that doesnt ring a bill, that is 25000 quadrillion kms away, 25 million trillion kms away! , 25 billion billion kms away!!! Simply put if you travelled 1 billion kms that would be 0.000000004% of the way to reach Andromeda galaxy. Imagine that!

Funny how come the original post by NASA was seen be fewer people here on HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42731686

I guess it has to do with the time and day of posting something, on how much it will be upvoted and hopefully rise out of the new posts pit :-)

I've never seen Andromeda, even when I was in a deep dark sky area and could remember where to look. This [1] NASA picture of the day shows, enhanced to be visible, just how big it actually is in the night sky.

[1] https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap201125.html

> Since Andromeda is so large and relatively close, although still 2.5 million light-years away

Considering those photons are 2.5 millions old, I'd say it took significantly more than a decade

(I'll see myself out)

At first I thought that was camera noise when I zoomed in, and was wondering why it's so noisy... then realised that's all the stars. Insane.

The article mentions that the galaxy is a big target for Hubble to image but doesn’t specify exactly how large: Andromeda stretches 3° across our sky compared to our Moon’s apparent diameter of 0.5°. It would be quite a sight to behold if it were bright enough to see by naked eye.

Zoomable: https://esahubble.org/images/heic1502a/zoomable/

Why is it incomplete? I can't find an explanation on this or the NASA site linked from there; its an awfully big chunk missing nearly to the center

Anybody else fantasize about what life could be like there? Do you think some civilization there has taken a similar photo of our own galaxy?

417 megapixels image is really nice but it also something people on earth can at least approach. I did a 28 megapixel Andromeda galaxy shot myself without even resorting to mosaics:

https://www.astrobin.com/hqrhe0/

With a few changes I could have easily got somewhere around 100 megapixels if I did a 2x2 mosaic without my reducer on the scope.

There are better cameras and scopes (planewave scopes for example) that getting to 400 megapixel is totally achievable for a high end mature astrophotographer.

I think it would help, if they selected a region where to 100 to 1000AU the density was similar to ours, and showed the night sky from a position orbiting a star of comparable size, and then somewhere of significantly higher density.

I always assume that the levels of radiation closer to the galactic core are worse but so would insolation in the wider sense: the star field would be dense enough to illuminate more than the milky way does, for us surely?

I wonder if software can be put to it in order to plot every single star.

I wonder if there were a way to eventually get a stereo image — depth data for each point of light so that we can map Andromeda in three dimensions.

And in related news the ESA's Gaia spatial mapping L2 Satellite is just about to run out of Gas [1] after some amazing work much of which can be seen in VR for the real 3D treatment [2]

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/esa-spa...

https://zah.uni-heidelberg.de/gaia/outreach/gaiasky

I love seeing photos like this, and assumed that you would need the Hubble to capture pictures of space this good. But I have been following Andrew McCarthy [1] on twitter and am amazed at how good of pictures you can get with a backyard telescope.

[1] https://x.com/ajamesmccarthy/status/1876658931717832938

I invite you to look at it from from the radical mystic standpoint.

Imagine you're in the ancient times looking at your cell phone and seeing this distant galaxy in so much detail. Don't think about the technical details and the long time period facts and all that. Just do it as though you're looking through a special magical lens that allows you to see it, because you are!

Obviously very cool, but I'm also curious what it can be used for, if any resident astrophysicists are reading this and can chime in...

When I see these pictures, as impressive as they are, I wonder what kind of scientific facts can the astronomers extract from them.

With my layman's eyes, it is very clear that there is a dense galactic center and dust clouds between the galaxy and us. However, What else can an expert eye tell from the picture?

Would love a version with the largest rectangle possible without the black/missing bits

It'd be interesting to see an overlay showing images by their age.

Usually that galaxy is moving over 4,000 miles per hour. With this photo evidence, we can now issue them a speeding ticket, we've got 'em dead to rights

Serious question: Is this what Hubble originally captured? Or unlike bodies in our solar system, maybe with a galaxy compositing isn't necessary?

too bad it's not optimized to view without loading the entire thing to memory...

where is FLIF when it's needed the most