Mystery blur out object in space...

>>8963654
They just didn't take a picture there, because the telescope taking pictures broke down, the moon was in the way, or they ran out of money.

>>8963665
>Telescope broke down

Right. Whatever you're smoking, I want some

File: Arcturus.png (48KB, 677x395px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 677x395px

because actual stars look like this

Seriously, we are talking about fucking NASA here. Do you really think they would something so freakong obvious if they wanted to hide something from us with the means they have ?
Pictures from the sky are actually mosaics that are assembled on computer afterwards, so it's not that uncommon that the pictures we can find on the web aren't rectangular shaped.
Though I admit this is weird that there's a hole right in the middle of the pic, but it's not that hard to find possible explanations.

>>8963708
This is what you see in a telescope when you don't know how to focus on an objet because there's a mirror right in the center of the main tube.

File: dP0BDZG.png (936KB, 610x647px) Image search: [Google]

936KB, 610x647px

>>8963708
Points of light that are out of focus will take the same shape as the aperture.

File: cross.jpg (489KB, 1040x1040px) Image search: [Google]

489KB, 1040x1040px

>>8963708

>>8963705
No, seriously
https://www.eso.org/~ohainaut/ccd/CCD_artifacts.html
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/kepler/nasa-ends-attempts-to-fully-recover-kepler-spacecraft-potential-new-missions-considered/

>>8963708
>because actual stars look like this
Only if you're completely oblivious in the use of a telescope. Not only is that out of focus, it needs to be collimated. In fact, I'll bet this is an image from a tutorial on collimating a newtonian.

Why are you on /sci/?