On 17 Dec 2004 16:39:20 GMT, CeeBee wrote:

Odysseus wrote in alt.astronomy:


But even so, the difference in perspective would be illuminating, so
to speak. From here in the plane we see the Galaxy as a fairly
uniform band, and its central regions are mostly obscured. For me at
least, being able to see the hub and some of the spiral structure,
even if only faintly, would be very satisfying.

With a telescope, certainly, but not with the naked eye.

The OP's idea assumes that the brightness of the Milky Way would increase
with distance, as you would it see even more clearly than from a shorter
distance. But the luminosity stays the same, and at say twice the distance
the brightness is already four times smaller.

A good example is M31. It's very large, under dark skies visible with the
naked eye, yet you're not able to see any details or structure with the
naked eye.

If i'm not mistaken, M31 is 3 degrees wide: 6 times the diameter of the full
Moon!

In his 1951 book "Foundation", Isaac Asimov place the planet "Terminus" on the
far edge of the Galaxy. He write: "The Galaxy was shining very high in the sky,
stretching its huge oval from horizon-to-horizon. Compared to it, the few stars
that remained in these confines of the universe looked like small candles."
(translated from the french version)

That should be a magnificient sight!!

M33 is another example. Bigger diameter than the full moon, yet
extremely difficult to spot.

I think we're spoiled with those impressive atronomical pictures, and
sometimes assume that galaxies are intense sources of bright light. The
reality of our own vision of the milky way with our naked eyes, stunning
nevertheless, shows almost the opposite.