Well, that’s precisely why we loft a telescope above the Earth’s atmosphere - so that we can actually SEE what backyard telescopes give us such a “false impression” of. See?

Remember when it looked darkest, on March 12, 2004: [from an AP report]

“O’Keefe agreed to talk to officials at the academy, but later told reporters that safety rules approved by both Congress and NASA after the space shuttle Columbia accident make it virtually impossible to mount a space shuttle mission to repair the orbiting telescope. “We’re not likely to be able to do that,” O’Keefe said after his testimony before the Senate appropriations subcommittee on VA-HUD-Independent Agencies, the panel that provides oversight for NASA. ”

To which Mikulski submitted this response (reported in the same AP article):

“Canceling the final servicing mission for Hubble is major surgery. Any prudent person would get a second opinion,” Mikulski said.
(Mikulski represents Maryland, home of the Goddard Space Flight Center and the Space Telescope Science Institute, which control the orbiting space telescope).”

And this frome that same AP article: “Mikulski and Bond asked for the National Academy of Sciences review of the NASA decision and O’Keefe agreed, but insisted that the study be expanded to include all Hubble options.”

Without their help, armed as they were with petitions listing many thousands of signatures from Hubble enthusiasts, who recognize how intrinsically valuable that instrument is, our current happy circumstance on the advent of the “Impossible Mission” would never have taken place.

HOORAY for those of us who never doubt that a thing that is worth doing despite risk SHOULD be attempted, simply because it CAN be done!

One of the best ambassadors for astronomy outreach ever - IMHO !!! (but I’m open to debates ) Although the pictures can give a false impression of what can actually be ’seen’ through a backyard telescope.