this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2024
315 points (97.0% liked)

interestingasfuck

8290 readers
13 users here now

For exceptionally interesting content

Rules:

  1. Posts must be interesting
  2. Posts must be based in reality
  3. No hateful content
  4. No harmful content
  5. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HootinNHollerin@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

Very blurry for a powerful telescope. Wonder if it’s because moon is moving fast relative to close telescope so the effective shutter speed needs to be relatively high?

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 30 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Have we ruled out that the moon might just look like that? Like all fuzzy? How 'bout it, NASA?

[–] nightwatch_admin@feddit.nl 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Titanically baked, blaze new world

[–] lefty7283@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago (1 children)

JWST primarily looks at very large objects that are far away. Titan (and really everything in the solar system) is relatively close to us, but are tiny in comparison to galaxies/nebulae, so their actual size as they appear in the sky is a lot smaller.

[–] johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Also of note, most objects in the outer solar system are very dim.

[–] Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

Can't really claim we're all that bright in the inner solar system either.

[–] BigDaddySlim@lemmy.world 18 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Must've left his glasses back on Earth

[–] clif@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

Subtle dig at Hubble, I like it

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago

I would assume it's because the object is too close. Like trying to do macro photography without a macro lense.

[–] wabafee@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It's just mipmaps, high res texture is still loading.