Why is it that NASA can take photos like this, but when they

>>17267469
IF you want a conspiracy theory come to /x/

if you want scientific theory go to the science board.

>>17267479
That's funny - OP isn't asking for a "theory" - OP wanted the truth, and now I'm curious, too...

I don't think you can comprehend how big galaxies are compared

>>17267552
Not only big, but incredibly bright since they produce their own light. Mars and the moon do not.

>>17267469
NASA doesn't really take photos like the one you have pictured. The Hubble Space Telescope is not used for taking pictures of objects as close as the moon and Mars, Earth stationed telescopes are not as powerful as the Hubble, so the image they take can some times be blurry.

Also, the Hubble takes pictures in black and white. All photos of space that you see are heavily edited.

http://www.space.com/8059-truth-photos-hubble-space-telescope-sees.html

>>17267469
>>17267489
It's actually because of 2 things:
1 being that compared to stars, and especially compared to galaxies, planets in the sky are SUPER fast.
You can't really just zoom in on the sky and take a good picture.
The light that gets here from those stars and galaxies is pretty faint, and we have to let it expose for a long time, which is why using the same kinds of techniques (which we used for the early pluto pictures, since we didn't have really any other options), and
2, because our atmosphere is really distorting to smaller bodies in our solar system.
You can take a telescope and look at the moon, or saturn, or jupiter. That's all well and good, but things that have a much smaller footprint on the sky get more distorted, like mars, venus, and pluto.
So, to get good images of mars, we had to put things in space, and we had to get the data back to earth.
But we do have fairly high quality images of mars, and incredibly high quality images of the moon from near-earth locations, so I don't really see why you used those as an example.
But that's the reason we get blurry images of planets.

>>17267647
I'm just trolling. I'm satisfied with the pictures that NASA takes of planets & moons, but they could work on the 'acting not suspicious' angle...

>>17267677
I don't feel as if they act suspicious.
They barely get to do anything nowadays anyway, so it's not like they'd get much out of hiding shit, they still need money.

>>17267489
>someone didn't take any science classes in high school

gravity is a fact right?

File: moretus_20120908.jpg (1MB, 1568x1192px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1568x1192px

>>17267469
>blurry

>>17267469
That is a very very very very, fuzzy image. Those galaxy's contain billions of stars and countless billions of planets. Can you make out any of them? No. Those billions of massive and small stars are just a blotch of colour.

>>17267793
Don't even bother. OP has zero understanding of how cameras/light work, and instead of endeavouring to understand it, he posts this thread, making it all out to be some sort of conspiracy.
OP is the worst type of person.

File: 2048x1536-fit_pluton-photographiee-new-horizons-14-juillet-2015.jpg (88KB, 1296x830px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1296x830px

>>17267469
>blurry

>>17267850
The worst kind of person is still the kind with a natural tendency to call people the worst kind of person.

The high definition pictures of nearby planets/moons are taken and converted on massive supercomputers. The good pictures are millions of pixels big. Therefore when they compress them so the general public can view, it doesn't always come out good.

As opposed to the pictures of galaxies further out, those are still blurry, but they don't care because all you'll see anyway are just many dots of light.

That being said, if you search you can find some pretty good resolution pictures post compression.