As much as I'd give anything to be in deep space exploring the galaxy, the universe is a creepy looking place. You know the feeling when you're noclipping in a game? I imagine it would be weird like that.
Most people today are interesting in 'exploring' exceptionally populated areas of the planet that they've heard to be great places of interest. While these places are fascinating, it is hardly 'exploring'.
I hope that within my lifetime we will be able to convert enough of these people to want to explore places like the moon and Mars. Before long, we'll have people demanding we explore Alpha Centauri and going out with a battering-ram to see if we can find life in the universe rather than playing with a ham-radio to see if the neighbours are in.
If there was a realistic chance I'd get to do some of the exploring myself, I know I would, short of my life (and by that I mean dying for it, not making it my life's work which would be cool. Whether I'd risk my life for it, I'm not sure).
That's the most detailed? Google Sky has about 2x the magnification of a random, boring spot I picked, and much higher on interesting locations. Maybe there's some small spot which goes to 8x, but otherwise I think they've been beat.
(comparison: both scale roughly 2x on each level. linked: 9 levels. Google: 10 levels before informing of no more data, many boring locations go higher. Apparently, I found one of the least interesting sections to try first.)
I think that the title is a bit misleading. Indeed, this image is the most detailed infrared image of the galaxy[1]. Also, it is the most detailed image of the galaxy centre, since Spitzer can see through the huge amounts of dust that obscure the centre of of the galaxy in the optical wavelengths.
Caveat to my first point: with the advent of Herschel (which also performs in the near and far infrared wavelengths), more detailed pictures of the Milky Way emerged[2], although they have yet to image (or maybe just release) a full mosaic.
How are these images created? We can't have space probes that have covered a significant distance from earth yet (or can we??), so I suppose essentially they must all be "as seen from earth"?
Can someone clarify if the colours visible in the image are an artifact of instrument used for capturing the image? Or are they natural colours of stars?
Judging from the name of the image, it was taken by Spitzer, which is an Infrared telescope [1]. The colors you see in this image do not represent visible light.
As I responded to a similar question, I believe that these images are created through a composite of Spitzer images taken at different wavelengths, where the colours have been added artificially. There's more information here: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080605.html
It would be great to have the same image but with labels for all the stars. It looks certainly great, but I would really like to click on certain points and get more information. Like what's the difference between a red, blue and green star here.
Just remember, every point of light is a star. And then remember, there are as many galaxies in the universe as points of light in that picture.
Now go watch Pale Blue Dot on youtube.