Slashdot Mirror
A Star of Space and Film
Rollie Hawk writes "Three years ago, light from V838 Monocerotis (a star about 20,000 light years from us) reached the Earth that showed the star exploding. The more politically correct term for what happened is "stellar outburst." In the time since, images from a pulse of light released during the outburst have been arriving here on Earth. In October of 2004, Hubble captured a beautiful image of the scene with the pulse lighting up interstellar gasses that encapsulated the area around this red giant (a star 600,000 times brighter than our Sun). The release of this photo just days ago seems rather timely, as it appears that some of Hubble's funding may be cut in the near future. There is also talk of eliminating the program entirely."
The image shown is pretty sharp and detailed considering the light from that image has been traveling for 20,000 years. If we know that light can be saturated out from other sources and that even gravity has some small effect, it's hard to imagine no signal degradation after such a vast transmission distance.
So, my questions is, should I be amazed or skeptical that we are able to get such a good image under these conditions?
A goal is a dream with a deadline
Does anyone know where I can get a high resolution image of this for making a poster to put on the wall?
As I was reading the articles (Hey!, I'm new to Slashdot!!) it occured to me. We always say that the sun will end in billions of years, probably much more years that the human race will be able to exist. But the question I asked myself is, what would be the consequences of the outburst of a "nearby" star. I mean, would the shockwave be big enough to reach earth? Will the gases and radiations be able to reach earth??
I think it's most impressive when seen in a time-lapse. Not sure if there's any site that has all the images or a month-by-month or something, but I had this image :2 003/20030326-HST-Light-echo-from-star-V838-Mon.jpg
http://www.gothard.hu/astronomy/astronews/images/
: bookmarked for a long time now - just killed it this morning(!)
You have to see it to really appreciate both the beauty and the sheer vastness and speed.
If anybody has better images, or more images of different points in time, please do reply!
if i recall bush didn't deny money to hubble, congress did.
The Hubble image spans about 14 light-years at the estimated 20,000 light-year distance to V838 Mon.
Almost the entire image is filled with the bright cloud. If the star exploded three years ago (our time, I know, 20,000 really), shouldn't the light from it only have made it out to parts of the cloud 3 light-years distance in each direction, or a ~6 light-year diameter? I would think we would only see a 6 light-year diameter area of lite-up cloud, rather than the ~12-13 light-year diameter one in the image according to the caption.I was reading an informative article about the mistakes of Hubble yesterday.
It's time for Hubble-2 [google cache cause site down]
He seems agrees with the parent post but with a much longer explanation. The public has an emotional attachment to Hubble, but it costs too much, stares at the earth 50% of the time, has some communication problems, can only use one of it's instruments at a time and requires multiple billion dollar shuttle rescue/maintenance missions.
He even speculates that space telescopes could have been built for the price of Hubble.
As a Canadian I love looking at the pretty pictures you guys paid for. But the machine looks too much like a Stanley cup for my comfort.
I always assumed the lens flare itself is due at least partially to long exposure times to get decent brightness on the dimmer features (in this case the reflections from the gas cloud). As for the shape of the flare, I've not a clue. My knowledge of optics ends at second semester college physics.
Honor Among Slackers. A veri
This maybe the incorrect place to ask this question, but I have noticed others here who are into graphic imaging or photography and they might be able to explain this.
On the image, the bright stars have a 4 pointed flare. Where these flares put in the image to make it look like a star? Or is this because of the long exposures?
Below is a relevant story I submitted a few days ago, which was unfortunately rejected. I might try submitting it (or a related story) again soon, and would appreciate any tips on how I could improve the chances of the submission being accepted (besides, you know, tossing in random comments about Linux/SCO/Doom3):
An international team led by Johns Hopkins University astronomers have proposed an alternative to sending a robotic or manned repair mission to the ailing Hubble Space Telescope. Their proposal is to build a new Hubble Origins Probe, reusing the Hubble design but using lighter and more cost-effective technologies. The probe would include instruments currently waiting to be installed on Hubble, as well as a Japanese-built imager which 'will allow scientists to map the heavens more than 20 times faster than even a refurbished Hubble Space Telescope could.' It would take an estimated 65 months and $1 billion to build, approximately the same cost as a robotic service mission.
On that note, here's another rejected space-related submission which I probably won't be trying to submit again. Someone else is more than welcome to try submitting it, though.
As reported in Space Race News, this Sunday Volvo will be airing a Super Bowl ad comparing one of their new cars to a rocket blasting off into space. The release says, 'At the commercial's end, the astronaut removes his helmet, is none other than Virgin Group chairman Sir Richard Branson, as the ship will be branded Virgin Galactic, with actual takeoffs scheduled for 2007.' Volvo will tout Boldlygo.com in the ad, a web site which will allow visitors to sign up for a chance to be the first passenger on Burt Rutan's SpaceShipTwo.