I know that the pictures we currently have were taken by different earthbound observatories.
2007-05-31 06:49:59 · 8 answers · asked by waldemaryam 3 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
Far galaxies don't move with respect to the sky, so they can be captured with very long time exposures. Solar system objects move, both against the sky and in rotation, so long time exposures are not possible.
2007-05-31 09:48:36 · answer #1 · answered by Keith P 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The galaxies far away are surprisingly large. When you see a beautiful picture of, say, the Whirlpool Galaxy, you may think you're looking at something too far away and small to be seen by the naked eye, but in fact it is simply too FAINT to be seen. If it was bright enough you would be able to see it easily, as it is actually about a third the size of the full Moon!
But even at that size, the stars within that galaxy can't be resolved individually. A planetoid like 2003UB313 is much closer, obviously, but is tiny to start with. It's like the difference between being able to identify a ferry on the horizon using binoculars, but not being able to see an ant crawling up the wall on the other side of the road using those same binoculars.
2007-05-31 15:56:45 · answer #2 · answered by Jason T 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The pictures taken from earthbound observatories don't come out as well as those taken from the Hubble because of our atmosphere. There is actually a lot of distortion created by the atmosphere, which is actually why we launched the Hubble in the first place. They can take pictures in space without the distortion that our atmosphere creates, which is why they're so much clearer.
2007-05-31 13:58:04 · answer #3 · answered by abfabmom1 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because the galaxy is thousands of light years across, the asteroid is only a hundred miles. something the size of ub313 at the distance of the galaxy wouldn't be seen even by hubble, for that matter neither would the earth, jupiter or even the sun.
asteroids are small and very dark, most have surfaces the color of charcoal, so they are very hard to see.
galaxies are made up of large bright stars, and many smaller dim stars, all of which are much larger and brighter than an asteroid.
2007-05-31 15:09:09 · answer #4 · answered by Tim C 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
2003UB313(Eris), is not an asteroid, it is a dwarf planet, because it is round because of it's own gravity and has it's own moon(dysonomia), and is actually quite reflective, with a grey-white surface.The reason we can only see a blob, is because even though it is relatively close compared to galaxies, it is not even 2,000 miles across, whereas galaxies span light years. If Eris was as far away as a distant galaxy, none of our technology would come even close to seeing it. Actually, we can hardly see the surface or shape of stars 5 times the size of the sun in galaxies very far away.
But I wish we could see Eris better, it's cool.
2007-05-31 15:56:40 · answer #5 · answered by North_Star 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a question of angular size, not distance. Galaxies far away are large in angular size, but 2003 UB313, now officially known as Eris, is very small.
2007-05-31 13:59:28 · answer #6 · answered by GeoffG 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Galaxies produce their own light, not to mention that they are 'huge'. 2003UB313 would only have the light which is reflected.
A similar question is why can you see cities from satellite pictures but not a rock?
2007-05-31 13:54:38 · answer #7 · answered by words_smith_4u 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
UB313 is just a few pixels of data
2007-05-31 13:53:41 · answer #8 · answered by Gene 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋