This page, and the starscapes in the three clickable ones below.
Is it because it’s a different time of night? One’s vertical, one’s an arch… I wish I had a 3-D image of the Milky Way with a “you are here” arrow, with which I could orient myself.
All of em? 
It’s the same section of Milkyway in each photo. The arch looks that way because it is a wide angle shot and/or a stitched panorama.
Well, there’s SAO 31219 and SAO 222287 and SAO 219513. Oh, and SAO 222076. Wait, is that SAO 106477?
Here’s a start… http://mexicanskies.com/constellations/sagittarius.htm
ETA: Jamicat too.
This is gonna take longer than you think.
The bright patch on the right of the arc is towards the centre of the Milky Way, in the constellation Sagittarius.
You don’t notice any high-energy lithium radicals, do you?
Was the Milky Way always that easy to see before industrialization? On a clear night in, say, the 8th sentury A.D. … could you pretty much walk outside and see stuff that vivid?
I have been out fishing at 4 a.m. 50+ miles from civilization and seen a lot of stars … but never the actual Milky Way.
No, those pictures are taken with long exposures.
All I know is I can see Uranus quite clearly tonight.
One thing I miss about the little town I used to live in up in the mountains of far northern Thailand are the stars at night. Even from inside the town limits, it was an amazing display. every night. (Except when cloudy during the rainy season.) I can’t recall seeing the actual Milky Way though.
That picture is way more than the eye could ever manage. Down here in the southern hemisphere the Milky Way is very visible, and you get a brilliant show. Go out into the outback and you can get a view of the stars as good as anyone ever got in history. It is pretty good, but not like those photos. For a start your eye sees no colour, except in a few bright stars. The bands of dark clouds visible across the photos are not discernible, and the overall milkyness is much more diffuse. On the other hand, there is nothing like going and seeing for real. For one it is big. Really big. And the black bits are seriously dark. The sense of enormity has to be experienced. A clear night and a pair of binoculars can be a most satisfactory experience.
I’m missing something here.
No. My parents place is at a very dark site, with almost no light pollution. The Milky Way is spectacular from there, but certainly not bright. I can see it easily from there when I turn up at night, despite driving past cars with their lights on.
That’s surprising, it’s not that hard to see. Have you tried turning off all lights for at least 15 minutes?
Easy to see - yes. That vivd - no.
From here, bolding mine: Milky Way - Wikipedia
‘‘The Milky Way has a relatively low surface brightness. Its visibility can be greatly reduced by background light such as light pollution or stray light from the moon. It is readily visible when the limiting magnitude is +5.1 or better, while showing a great deal of detail at +6.1. This makes the Milky Way difficult to see from any brightly-lit urban or suburban location but very prominent when viewed from a rural area when the moon is below the horizon.’’
The only time I’ve seen the actual Milky Way was from the top of Haleakala on Maui, after sunset. I had been up there photographing the sunset, and it didn’t occur to me that if I stuck around for a while I’d see the Milky Way. So everyone was looking at all the stars, and I remember thinking “damn, too bad there’s that band of clouds crossing the sky.”
And then there were the people photographing the stars with flash. I asked a woman why she was using flash, and she responded “I want to make the stars look brighter.”
Is it true that the Milky Way is really made of chocolate and nougat?
No, but the word “galaxy” is derived from the Greek word for milk. You can hear the etymology in related words like “lactose”.
It’s a quote from the novel Protector by Larry Niven:
It has possibly the most accurate description of a space battle fought with ships limited by C.