Hubble Releases First Post-Upgrade Images 129
Hynee writes "As tweeted, NASA has released 10 new images, all from the new WFC3 instrument and others, including the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph. Images include NGC 6302, Carina Nebula, Stephan's Quintet, Markarian 817, Abell 370, and a few others. Great looking stuff, the WFC3 has twice the resolution of the WF/PC2, on the CCD at least, if memory serves correctly. Eta Carina is a fascinating object, and there are at least two releases in this 'Early Release Observations' set."
Here is a video about the new images at Hubblesite.org, and a full HubbleSite.org release page with 56 images.
Colors in photographs (Score:5, Interesting)
What about these brilliant colors we always see in the photographs? Are they touched up (I've read and NASA insists, "no, they're not")? Are they extrapolations based on the inferred composition of the gases in a nebula, for example? Or is it honest to goodness, if we were parked in a space ship a few million miles away, exactly what our eyes would register?
Re:Colors in photographs (Score:5, Informative)
I bet we've got a really smart person out there that knows the answer for this, for sure. I asked my professor and they really danced around and didn't give a straight answer (it was a community college). What about these brilliant colors we always see in the photographs? Are they touched up (I've read and NASA insists, "no, they're not")? Are they extrapolations based on the inferred composition of the gases in a nebula, for example? Or is it honest to goodness, if we were parked in a space ship a few million miles away, exactly what our eyes would register?
Your answer is on the FAQ in one of the linked sites here [hubblesite.org]:
There are no "natural color" cameras aboard the Hubble and never have been. The optical cameras on board have all been digital CCD cameras, which take images as grayscale pixels.
Sometimes the color is as natural as possible. However, the color given to the images is not just "artistic embellishment." The images are, indeed, downloaded as black and white, and color is added for a number of different reasons -- for example, to show the dispersion detail of chemical elements and highlight features so subdued that the human eye cannot see them.
For more information, read The Meaning of Color [hubblesite.org] on HubbleSite, which explains in detail how color is added to images.
Re: (Score:2)
very interesting... Great question by the poster, and a great answer by you... YOU GET A COOKIE!
I'm gonna go read about this now...
Re:Colors in photographs (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, I block all cookies.
Re: (Score:2)
How about some pie?
Re: (Score:1)
I'd offer him some cake, but the cake is a lie.
Re: (Score:2)
It makes sense, the cameras in the Hubble Telescope capture more then just the colour spectrum, they also capture Infrared and Gamma rays, which are invisible to our eyes so the colours help express exactly whats going on in that cluster of stars.
What I don't get is why we don't have more than one Camera up there, one with Natural Colour, and one with the greyscale wider range cameras.
Re:Colors in photographs (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Colors in photographs (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed, and for those folks wondering how the digital camera works that they have at home, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:1)
And do you know how much Nikon wants if you don't want the Bayer filter on your D80?
Last time I asked I was referred to their scientific department... (IOW too damn expensive).
Related: does anyone know if this filter is removable (and by extension who offers that service?)
-nB
Bayer filters (Score:2)
Related: does anyone know if this filter is removable (and by extension who offers that service?)
There should be, there are services that convert digital cameras [photo.net] to infrared [photocrati.com]
Falcon
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's different. An infrared camera has the ir filter removed and an additional filter added to block non-ir light (see the video here http://www.lifepixel.com/ [lifepixel.com]). The old filter blocked ir light across the entire sensor. It's essentially like any other filter you would put on your lens. A Bayer filter is completely different. It filters each individual cell of the sensor with one of three colors. Each cell knows which color was used to filter it. It would have to be implemented on the sensor itself.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Bayer filters are patterned during the lithographic process. The monochrome version is a completely different part, one made in much smaller volume. Generally the only users of good quality monochrome CCD/CMOS sensors are scientific or machine vision users, much lower volume markets.
Since you want a monochrome detector, you probably know about the problems with interpolating colors with a Bayer filter camera. The Foveon chip http://www.foveon.com/ was an attempt to get around this by having the R, G, B,
Re:Colors in photographs (Score:4, Informative)
As already mentioned, the Bayer filter is part of the CMOS sensor itself. It's not a separate part that's tacked on near the end of the manufacturing process.
There is, however, a separate filter in front of the sensor on pretty much every DSLR. This is a IR cut-off filter. Naked CMOS sensors are very sensitive into the IR spectrum. This high-pass IR filter prevents deep red and IR from overwhelming the resulting image, producing a balanced red against the green and blue end of the visible spectrum.
There are several cases where one would want to modify their DSLR and have this filter removed. The primary users of this method are astrophotographers who wish to use a much cheaper DSLR on their telescopes vs. a very expensive [sbig.com] purpose-made camera. There are a few small companies such as Hutech [hutech.com] which can perform this service under warranty.
Why?
Nebulas and stars in particular emit light (human-visible and not) in a variety of specific wavelengths. These particular wavelengths are produced by ionized elements in the star or nebula complex. In your run-of-the-mill nebula, copious amounts of Hydrogen-alpha and doubly-ionized Oxygen tend to produce much of the light. H-alpha's emission line is deep in to the red spectrum, which the IR cut filter on DSLRs dutifully blocks from reaching the sensor. Removing this filter lets the DSLR capture additional light and detail from the nebula... stuff you wouldn't get with a stock DSLR.
If you take a stock DSLR and try to image (for example) the Horsehead Nebula [wikipedia.org], you're not going to get far because the thing emits almost entirely in the H-alpha band. Put on a camera that doesn't cut the deep red, and you'll get a result that's closer to what you'd expect.
There is a trade-off to doing this mod, of course... in that you're effectively turning your DSLR into a IR camera, and if you want it to be close to normal again, you'll need to put a IR filter on your lens.
Re: (Score:1)
On a related side note, the CCD on Hubble is the equivalent to a ONE megapixel camera. I'm not knocking Hubble (as some do with comparisons to the digicam in their pocket) - quite the opposite: I'm constantly amazed how much the space industry in general manages to get such good science out of technology that is quite often considered "obsolete" by the time it launches.
Believe me, I'm a grad student, and I know the power of getting the most out of obsolete equipment!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First, thanks for the link to the faq [hubblesite.org].
Now onto the quote you provide,"There are no "natural color" cameras aboard the Hubble and never have been. The optical cameras on board have all been digital CCD cameras, which take images as grayscale pixels." My question is why is NASA using a sensor with greyscale pixels? Both CCD and CMOS sensors use color filter arrays [wikipedia.org] to capture color information. There was also the technology Silicon Film [steves-digicams.com] created. Using CMOS tech they created a sensor that could capture the
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Because, when using a color filter array, you throw away 2/3 of your light. Plus it's inflexible.
So use Silicon Film's tech which could have created 3 colors at each pixel using almost all of the light. This is because, as marine scientists, some film photographers, and scuba divers know, different colour frequencies penetrate to different depths. So the sensor developed by Silicon Film captured the 3 primary colours, at least I think the primary colours, at different depths. Through processing the colou
Re:Colors in photographs (Score:4, Informative)
The filters you are talking about are affixed to the CCD/CMOS. The filters on Hubble are interchangeable (more similar to lens filters on SLR and similar cameras). The cameras on Hubble have dozens of filters to choose from.
The other benefit is that on a standard 3 color CCD, you end up combining four pixels to create one full color pixel. With Hubble, you get to use all four pixels independently because they all share the same filter.
Re: (Score:2)
If you haven't already see retiredtwice reply, above yours. As I replied to him, or her, I hadn't thought of light frequencies not visible to humans.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is if you put filters as part of the light sensitive array, that would be all they can be used for. The Hubble probably has Red Green and Blue filters as part of its kit as well as a bunch of others that look at specific spectral lines for study. If you combine RGB filtered pictures in the right proportions, you get what we consider to be "natural" color. But it also has narrow band filters for other capabilities like Hydrogen Alpha (in the red band) and Sulfur along with many others. T
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the explanation. Of the explanations I've been given yours is the best. I hadn't even thought of the light frequencies not visible to humans.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you know something I don't that makes the Silicon Film tech unusable, but I don't see why NASA couldn't use color filters.
As has been explained, they could, but they have more important things to do, and the images would not be as useful for science, which was, and remains, the purpose of Hubble. They could have added RGB filters in front of the greyscale sensor (which is basically what you're proposing here), but that would cost launch weight, which means losing other filters, so they went for the more useful ones. The sensors you have linked to are basically a bunch of filters, some built in to the sensor.
Many of these nebul
Re: (Score:2)
As I've said in replies to other's reply I hadn't about frequencies that are not visible by humans.
Falcon
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Like retiredtwice's reply above yours you bring up frequencies not visible by humans and I hadn't thought of that.
Falcon
I wanna look through the Hubble! (Score:2)
Sure the Hubble, being an instrument first and foremost, uses filters and digital photography to analyze structures in space, and see things humans can't see.
But fundamentally the Hubble is still a near-visible light telescope of the reflector type, fundamentally not much different [wikipedia.org] than many common hobbyist scopes [wikipedia.org]. Just bigger, much more precisely made, and in outer fucking space. Oh and with a ton of instruments, filters, etc attached.
What I want is to get those out of the way, attach an eyepiece, and pu
Re: (Score:2)
It's not space, but you could probably, not without some difficulties, organize trips to this place [universetoday.com] instead as an alternative.
Re:Colors in photographs (Score:5, Informative)
False colour in this case is about visualizing non-visible frequencies of light.
Re:Colors in photographs (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll qualify this. Most nebula's would be rather dim to the human eye if viewed unaided even if up close. Our eyes are not sensitive enough to detect colors at low light levels, and thus most nebula's, or at least most parts of nebula's would look gray to us. However, if the light was concentrated via a telescope or special lens system, then we could see the colors. Whether these colors match what science-oriented filters of Hubble uses is another matter.
Humans have a crappy color detection arrangment anyhow. Red and green are too close together spectrum-wise, and we cannot see into the near infrared and ultraviolet ranges. Most non-mammalian vertebrates have a better spacing of colors, including having 4 color cones instead of 3. Mammals got a raw deal, probably because existing mammals all evolved from small nocturnal creatures who relied on sound and smell more. In fact, most mammals only have 2 color cones. Primates later evolved a 3rd, probably to identify ripe fruit.
Re: (Score:2)
They've got two eyes mounted on stalks, each one capable of moving independently, possessing IR and UV hyperspectral vision, trinocular depth perception and the ability to differentiate between varying planes of polarisation.
Pretty impressive. They're more famous for their attack method though; extremely powerful punches using armoured claws. They've been known to break out of aquariums by shattering the glass, and in the wild they can kil
Re: (Score:2)
He is adding an apostrophe to any word which ends in a vowel before appending the 's' to make it plural. He doesn't insert the apostrophe into plural words that end in consonants in their singular form.
It's weird and wrong, but I've seen that pattern before.
Re: (Score:1)
My spell-checker doesn't like "nebulas" for some reason and I picked its suggested replacement without much thought. I apologize. Sloth on my part.
Re: (Score:1)
You mean I'm not technically incorrect? Woohoo! The down side of "nebulae" is that many people may not know it's plural, or even recognize it. Thanks for the clarification and word trivia tidbit.
Re: (Score:1)
You making fun of my purple-and-green website again?
Re:Colors in photographs (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You take one or more wavelengths and on some mixture of arbitrary and aesthetic grounds, assign them to visible colors.
Or rather, assign them to visible wavelengths. The colors aren't in the light; the brain is doing the somewhat arbitrary assignment of colors to wavelengths. And the color intensities assigned don't match wavelength intensities, with green being stronger than the corresponding band, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Since I'm here, it's probably worth mentioning that even if you have a visible-light instrument, false color might still be used. There is no particular assurance that a primate visual system, evolved to solve hunter-gathering problems on the savannas of 100,000 years ago, will pick out relevant detail in "true" color; while false color might make it leap out, if the appropriate false colors are used.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That depends on the image, the camera, and the technology.
If the image isn't true-color, your eyes will see something different. False-color images have non-visible frequencies mapped onto the visible spectrum, and might not be showing anything in the visible spectrum at all. True-color will be pretty close, but read on.
Then there's the camera. Cameras don't reproduce the visible spectrum exactly. Some are more sensitive in the near-infrared, some can show you near-UV. In both cases, the image will tend to
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Colors in photographs (Score:4, Interesting)
I've watched the ring nebula through a 11 inch only to see it in black and white, yet fixed a camera to the very same telescope and gotten color pictures. There simply isn't enough light for my eyes to detect the color. Perhaps with an even larger telescope I could have.
So no, the spectacular nebula might not even be visible to the human eye in your parked space ship, but you certainly could take a long exposure with a very sensitive camera and get awesome colors.
The Orion nebula is large/close enough to be seen without any telescope, but too faint to see without.
Re:Colors in photographs (Score:5, Informative)
Also, your "few million miles" just might be a little off and in some cases a few million light years or more would be more realistic.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't begin to tell you how awesome that would look. It would be terrible for astronomy, of course -- blocking the view -- but still.
Re: (Score:2)
So you define "real colour" by the technical properties of current camera technology instead of by the properties of the eye?
Technical properties of current camera technology are mostly defined by the technical properties of current eye technology. Once we are able to improve on current eye technology, changing cameras to match that is trivial.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is some images are close to true, while others are totally different from what our eyes would see. Every Hubble photograph we see is actually a composite of 3 gray-scale images with different filters attached. In general, they color the image with the highest wavelength filter red, the lowest blue, and the middle green.
This page (http://www.hubblesite.org/gallery/behind_the_pictures/meaning_of_color/eso.php) gives a pretty good illustration. You can click on several images and see a map from wher
Re: (Score:2)
I asked my professor and they really danced around and didn't give a straight answer (it was a community college).
Oh, the merits of living in a society where the word 'professor' is used for a person who holds a chair at a proper university, and indicates a senior content expert. A title awarded on the basis of academic excellence---I've known two people who were paid at the level of professors but did not receive their chair until the university decided to honour them in that way.
Doesn't stop them dancing around and giving bendy answers, of course, but it helps identify some content experts. Like 'engineer' or 'do
Re: (Score:2)
Touching up isn't the same as a false-color image. They're not photographs, so they're not really the colors you'd see.
But then, all film and digital cameras put a lot of engineering into producing images so that they look as if you were seeing the object. It's not a natural thing for light-measurement tools to do. As this is a scientific instrument, placing those kind of filters on the cameras up in space would be foolish; it's only a potential source of error.
Colorized, but not embellished (Score:2)
The other responders explained where the colors come from, but they skipped over the other half of your question...
The images are what you would see if your eyes were sensitive to the same wavelengths as Hubble and your brain mapped those sensations to the same mental colors. They are not embellished for an extra splash of pink here, a different shade of blue there, or clearing out some poorly placed stars for better contrast. They are simply the measured wavelengths mapped to computer-renderable colors.
Would like to see the improvement (Score:5, Interesting)
If anyone finds a link to side-by-side images from the old and new cameras, please post it!
Re:Would like to see the improvement (Score:5, Informative)
If anyone finds a link to side-by-side images from the old and new cameras, please post it!
I'll give it a shot. (note: on some of these I'm using MAST's archive since the main NASA site seems to be down [stsci.edu] and I am not linking you to full resolution photos as well as seeming to be at different ranges)
Old (2007) Image of NGC 6302 [nasa.gov] compare with new image of NGC 6302 [stsci.edu]
Old (2004 not HST, ground observatory can't find HST image) Image of NGC 6217 [stsci.edu] compare with new image of NGC 6217 [stsci.edu]
Old (2007) Image of Carina Nebula [nasa.gov] compare with new image of Carina Nebula [stsci.edu]
Old (1998 land observatory) [nasa.gov] Images (2000 HST) [nasa.gov] of Stephen's Quintet compare with new image of Stephen's Quintet [stsci.edu]
Old (2008) Omega Centauri [yimg.com] compare with new Omega Centauri [stsci.edu]
Old (2005) Supernova Remnant LMC N132D [nasa.gov] compare with new Supernova Remnant LMC N132D [hubblesite.org]
Hopefully that gives you an idea, most of those old images are Hubble but I threw in some ground based observatory ones so that you can get an idea of what Hubble's been doing for us for 15 years.
Re: (Score:1)
Most of us will never travel to those stars.. (Score:5, Funny)
The BBC has a news article up on this story [bbc.co.uk] with a weird quote:
Most of us won't?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In order for his statement to be false, 50%+1 of humans currently alive (...) Take a class in formal logic sometime and spend some time translating natural language into symbolic logic. It's eye opening.
Since we're already involved in logical asshattery, "currently alive" was entirely your own interpretation. "Most humans" may just as easily refer to all humans past, present and future which would be a pretty good conjecture.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, he knows something we don't.
Re: (Score:2)
"Most of us humans will never travel to some of the exotic places physically that we see in these images," reflected Nasa's chief scientist, Ed Weiler
Most of us won't?
Perhaps they would if they rode in a Firefly.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they would if they rode in a Firefly.
Actually, the Firefly class is an in-system transport and doesn't have FTL capability. IIRC the various places the crew lands in the TV series are mostly moons around gas giants. (Happy to be corrected).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Comparison with "Old" Images? (Score:2, Interesting)
Zope (Score:2)
Should have used d
Imagine... (Score:2, Funny)
"First Post Upgrade Images" (Score:5, Funny)
I suddenly feel... (Score:3, Funny)
I suddenly feel very, very small...
I'd like to say images like this put things in perspective for me, but in fact they do the exact opposite.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Do people still argue Hubble is a waste? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with you, but keep in mind that it hasn't been cheap. A lot of liberterian types probably don't like the Hubble's cost.
The Hubble has cost at least 5-7 billion dollars now (http://www.spacetelescope.org/about/faq.html). It has directly led to 4,000+ papers (source: Wikipedia), and a lot of new discoveries. It is hard to quantify the value of the Hubble, but one way of putting it is the mean cost per academic paper is about 1.5 million dollars. Of course this is a terrible way of putting it, because
Re: (Score:2)
I've always wondered why we've spent so much money servicing the darn thing.
Granted, the ability to capture & repair a satellite in orbit is outright remarkable, although the economics of the space shuttle appear to make this an extremely unattractive proposition. Why aren't there several "Hubbles" orbiting above us? Like you've said... the science returns on the investment have been remarkable (arguably the best for any project NASA's ever done)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because we have to learn 'space mechanics' somewhere. Consider this - if we are to move the manned space program along to do any one of a number of impressive sounding things (Moon / Mars / Asteroids) we have to have an ability to do 'routine' repairs. Not everything is going to go according to plan.
As we've found from the Hubble missions and the ISS servicing missions, this is pretty hard and requires enormous planning and tr
Re: (Score:2)
I think the real reason we spend so much on servicing the Hubble is that we just don't have a cheaper operational spacecraft. I think the Shuttle is overkill for this type of mission. It's like taking a tractor-trailer to do your weekly grocery shopping. Something closer in design to the Apollo command module could get an expert to the Hubble to do maintenance much cheaper.
I don't believe we can make spaceflight cheaper and more reliable by relying on the shuttle. We need to take the lessons we have lea
Re: (Score:2)
---
Re: (Score:1)
Which one would you fund if you were NASA, a programme which has no involvement in your money-grabbing manned space programme or something that makes the monkeys feel worthy?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A lot of libertarian types' arguments aren't worth listening to. They are mostly half-educated hacks whose entire philosophy is based on one value, "freedom", don't realize that most people have many competing values, and can't appreciate nuance just like most extremists.
Hubble's discoveries have had a major impact on the way I view the universe. Its old images are still my screen-saver, I can't wait to update them. If any NASA/astronomer types are reading this, I want to give you
Re: (Score:1)
God giving us a hint? (Score:5, Funny)
Indeed! It contains one of my favorite nebula's:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap030630.html [nasa.gov]
(Older Hubble file photo)
Re: (Score:2)
---
Astronomy Feed [feeddistiller.com] @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]
fsck twitter (Score:2, Informative)
I don't give a flying fsck that NASA tweeted! Just give me the goddam info!
C'mon geeks - do you want to share ranks with Chris Coumo [twitter.com] of Good Morning America [go.com]?
I am the anti-twitter.
Anyone else... (Score:2)
Anyone else want to see video of it working? As in what the lens sees as it is being repositioned? I am sure 99% of it is fuz, but after playing with my telescope this weekend I think it would be fun to see what it sees, fuzz and all.
Comparison Photos (Score:1, Informative)
Here ya go
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/09/09/just-how-good-is-the-new-hubble-lets-compare/
Re: (Score:2)
at least the video is still up. I was hoping to nab a few more nice space wallpapers for my rotation though.
Was that video a MBP-fest or what? guess they have a preference ;)
MAST Mirror Site (Score:5, Informative)
thanks guys, posting this and now the hubble site is slashdotted!!! so now nobody gets to see the images until some other story (Britney Spears enrolls into MIT?) vectors the crowd away so us commoners can see hubble pictures.
I'm seeing the official NASA images just fine but MAST (Multimission Archive at STScI) put up an early mirror here [stsci.edu] if you need the full size images. These are only the press release images, I'm going to keep watching MAST for the full set but you have ftp info for these now here:
Archive.org runs a really neat NASA images site [nasaimages.org] that allows you to pick your favorites and make presentations or new montages with them. I'm not seeing the new images up on that yet but they will probably have them up soon.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
most browser understand the ftp protocol just fine [stsci.edu]
Re:This is REALLY a US site for US persons (Score:5, Insightful)
What you are doing is supposed to be science not PR.
You think hubblesite.org is about science instead of PR, huh? NASA depends on good PR in order to survive.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the saddest part of all.
NASA depends on good PR in order to survive. (Score:2)
That's the saddest part of all.
NASA wouldn't need good PR if it had a mission like the Apollo mission to land man on the moon, something a lot of people were able to get behind. Perhaps NASA has become oh ump, an everyday thing. No, I think people are more excited about commercial space flight.
As for myself I'd love to go up, and if offered a free seat would, but I am unwilling to spend millions of dollars to go when there are many other things that are more important to me that I think should be done.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA wouldn't need good PR if it had a mission like the Apollo mission to land man on the moon, something a lot of people were able to get behind.
Apollo was not quite as popular as you think. There is no question that it captured people's imagination. For Apollo 11, that is. The rest of the Apollo missions got very little attention. When the last couple of missions were cancelled, there was no public outcry. Within Congress, the amount of money being spent by NASA made it a huge target. Everyone thought there was a better way to spend that money and they were fighting to get that spent in their states/districts. The NASA budgets in the Apollo
Really, spaceflight should be a ho-hum event. (Score:2)
hat is the goal and that is what was promised but never achieved with the shuttle.
The ho-hum, like regularly scheduled shuttle trip, should be done by businesses though not government. That's why I said NASA should have a mission like the Apollo mission to land man on the moon. Of course that's been done now, so private entities should be who sponsors new moon landings. Now that the ball is rolling government should shrink NASA, continue to operate Hubble and other sats perhaps with the NOAA working with
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Shock and amaze the AMERICAN page for Hubble uses units most familiar to American readers.
If you would prefer you could read its companion page the EUROPEAN page for hubble:
http://www.spacetelescope.org/ [spacetelescope.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:bof (Score:4, Funny)
So, this is the upgraded First Post the headline was talking about?
I don't see the improvement.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't feed the trolls, but I'm the author of this worst submission ever.
First link is to text-only release from NASA, link at end goes to NASA Hubble page, http://www.nasa.gov/hubble [nasa.gov]
Last link is to HubbleSite, All 52 release images [hubblesite.org]. Site still has server issues it seems, but nasa.gov link works smoothly.