>>3731107>If my camera doesn't have a long exposure option, is it really as simple as shooting a shit ton of the same raw images then stacking them?
No, i don't think so. You can't make up for lack of exposure with more photos, because - particularly in astro - some pixels will just not get enough light, not even enough to just budge, activate, so in result you won't have this sick milky way you want.>Assuming there's very little light pollution, could my photo REALLY turn out like this?
Yeah, astro results are actually very impressive even with basic stuff. It's partially thanks to cartoonishly overdone postprocessing, and your basic hardware results won't be exactly as good as one you've sent unless you have some neat bright lens for astro purposes, but it's a very fun thing to do and you should definitely try it out. Just make sure to have this basic >20s long exposure at your disposal.