Pretty pictures and conceptual art are a core part of NASA's outreach.

I used to work at NASA. Got to talk to and work with the illustrators and outreach people who were responsible for the public face of NASA.

Much of what they did was work with artists on those aspirational images, like Moon bases, or people living in a space hotel. These artists talked directly to the scientists working on new technologies and concepts, and implemented key elements of those designs into their art.

So yeah... it's a painting of a Moon base. But that glove the astronaut is wearing? The wheels on that vehicle in the background? The shape of the roof and walls, and where the door is located on the habitat? Yeah... all that is real. It is stuff being worked on today, for use 25 years in the future.

The Hubble images? They come in 4 layers. None of them "color".

Artists then work with the scientists to determine the primary composition of, say, a blob on the Horsehead Nebula, and determine it's primarily ionized hydrogen from the infrared signature. Then they look at what color hydrogen might appear to the human eye, and draw in that color for that part of the blob on the nebula.

Does it actually look like that? Well, no.

But does it inspire a feeling? Does it convey some information? Does it engage the general public with the science, NASA, and the pursuit of high-concept science and missions and aspirational goals? Absolutely.

Today's APOD is an excellent example of everything all three of us has said about astro imagery and the general public, in fact. Synchronicity, man.