i just found some kind of space anomaly in ksp?

[jevry]

if anyone could tell me what that milky way looking thing in the back is and what purpose it serves i would apprectiate it. thanks.

Edited December 26, 2016 by jevry
spelling error

[Cerberus738]

It's just part of the skybox. You can't go there.

[Superfluous J]

The purpose it serves is to look pretty.

[LordFerret]

On 12/26/2016 at 5:18 PM, jevry said:

that milky way looking thing

That's exactly what it's supposed to be, a distant galaxy.

[jevry]

ah k thx. it just is so eye catching and distracting though. and irl we cant see any galaxies in the distance with our blind eye wich is what confuses me

[Tex_NL]

11 minutes ago, jevry said:

ah k thx. it just is so eye catching and distracting though. and irl we cant see any galaxies in the distance with our blind eye wich is what confuses me

A 'blind eye' won't see anything. A naked eye can under favourable conditions see the Andromeda galaxy. Its angular diameter is roughly six time that of the Moon and amongst the brightest of the Messier objects.

Edited December 28, 2016 by Tex_NL

[adsii1970]

2 hours ago, LordFerret said:

That's exactly what it's supposed to be, a distant galaxy.

A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away....

6 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:

A 'blind eye' won't see anything. A naked eye can under favourable conditions see the Andromeda galaxy. Its angular diameter is roughly six time that of the Moon and amongst the brightest of the Messier objects.

Yes... this! There's a difference between a blind eye and naked eye. A blind eye doesn't see a thing...

[Superfluous J]

53 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

Yes... this! There's a difference between a blind eye and naked eye. A blind eye doesn't see a thing...

I try to turn a naked eye to these kind of things.

[MaxxQ]

15 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

I try to turn a naked eye to these kind of things.

What you did there... I see it.

[LordFerret]

1 hour ago, Tex_NL said:

A naked eye can under favourable conditions see the Andromeda galaxy. Its angular diameter is roughly six time that of the Moon and amongst the brightest of the Messier objects.

Yes, this. We've had this discussion here in the forums in the past; I can pick out M31 almost any night there aren't clouds (and it's overhead) here on the east coast of the US.  I suggest even a low power pair of binoculars to be of use here. For naked eye viewing, the trick is to not try looking right at it.

For those of you living in the southern hemisphere, you can catch glimpses of the Magellanic Clouds.

[Tex_NL]

Funny how unrelated things can converge. I just received a link through a tweet by Phil Plait: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/01/moon_and_andromeda_relative_size_in_the_sky.html
Read the article. It's about this picture:

[LordFerret]

6 hours ago, Tex_NL said:

... about this picture: ...

A good way to demonstrate this would have been to use Celestia. 'Landing' on Earth, and then looking up at the moon when Andromeda is in the sky ... turning up galaxy brightness so to see it.

Some day, one of these days, Dr. Schrempp will release Celestia.sci, hopefully before I'm dead.

[samstarman5]

8 hours ago, Tex_NL said:

Funny how unrelated things can converge. I just received a link through a tweet by Phil Plait: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/01/moon_and_andromeda_relative_size_in_the_sky.html
Read the article. It's about this picture:

Still pales in comparison to how much sky the Orion Molecular Cloud Complex covers, which is everything within the body of the constellation of Orion and then some.

Spoiler

This pretty much sums it up excluding most of the major stars of the constellation, as seen in infrared wavelengths.  If all of it were lit up in visible light, we would not want for light most months of the year.

Addendum: I just remembered reading about Rigel, the star on the lower right, wherein it is actually slated to pass near the complex to light it up much as it is doing with the reflection nebula IC 2118 you can see looking like a ghostly white gecko to the right of Rigel.

Edited January 2, 2017 by samstarman5

[Canopus]

I am a little bit surprised that this thing doesn't have a Name yet, since it is quite a prominent Feature in the Sky.

[LordFerret]

37 minutes ago, Canopus said:

I am a little bit surprised that this thing doesn't have a Name yet, since it is quite a prominent Feature in the Sky.

If anything, I would think Kandromeda to be fitting? Especially being visible with the naked Kerbal eye.

Then again, looking at those BIG eyes on Kerbals, they could likely see far more stars and galaxies than humans.

[samstarman5]

9 hours ago, LordFerret said:

If anything, I would think Kandromeda to be fitting? Especially being visible with the naked Kerbal eye.

Then again, looking at those BIG eyes on Kerbals, they could likely see far more stars and galaxies than humans.

Not everything kerbal has to have a K.

[LordFerret]

5 hours ago, samstarman5 said:

Not everything kerbal has to have a K.

Huh? Sacrilege!!! Heretic!!!

[Palaceviking]

Kandromedanebula.

K - atomic mass 4533367.

[Superfluous J]

On 1/2/2017 at 5:43 PM, Canopus said:

I am a little bit surprised that this thing doesn't have a Name yet, since it is quite a prominent Feature in the Sky.

Considering the landmasses and seas on Kerbin don't even have official names yet, naming nebulae seems par for the course.

[Canopus]

12 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

Considering the landmasses and seas on Kerbin don't even have official names yet, naming nebulae seems par for the course.

since you spend so much time in space in KSP i think you see this Galaxy far more often than any mountain or river on Kerbin. But maybe that is just me.