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."
Superman escaping from the planet?
I make pictures like that with photoshop all the time.
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
Here is NASA's Astronomy picture of the day site Astronomy picture of the day with the same picture and a brief explanation (with hyperlinks).
Enjoy
Does anyone know where I can get a high resolution image of this for making a poster to put on the wall?
There are no furry monkeys in space, you are just imagining this, do not adjust your set. Please remain seated in your present location, the Bavarian furry monkey Illuminati enforcement patrol are on their way.
I find it sad that while allocating over $100 billion on war, Bush denies $1 billion for hubble.
Images like this are a lot more beautiful than the carnage of another car bomb.
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!
From Astonomy Picture of the Day:
"Explanation: Expanding light echoes continue to illuminate the dusty environs of V838 Monocerotis, mysterious variable star near the edge of our Galaxy. This stunning image, produced from Hubble data recorded in October of 2004, adds to a unique series of space-based, high-resolution views. After detecting a sudden outburst from the star in 2002, astronomers have followed the flash expanding at the speed of light through pre-existing dust clouds surrounding the reddened variable star. While the expanding light echoes are dramatic, astronomers have struggled to understand where V838 Mon itself fits into the stellar life cycle. Studies indicate the V838 Mon is a young binary system with a massive star responsible for the outburst. The Hubble image spans about 14 light-years at the estimated 20,000 light-year distance to V838 Mon."
I spent ages trying to think of sig, but never did
If you go to the HST web site, you can see an entire series of images of V838 Mon over the past three years.
v e/ releases/2005/02/image/a
y /i mg_display.php?pic=light_echo_graphic_030326_02,0. jpg
o _0 30326.html
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archi
Although the series _appears_ to show a shell of gas expanding outwards from the star, it does not. Instead, what we see is the expanding echo of light reflecting off gas and dust in the interstellar medium, between V838 Mon and the Earth. It might help to look at a nice diagram of the "light echo" effect provided by space.com:
http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedispla
The European Space Agency also has a good description of the event:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/light_ech
The fact that no material is actually shooting outwards into space as fast as the pictures appear to indicate -- that we are simply seeing a reflection of light as it moves through the gas cloud, like the beam of a flashlight swept through the air in a dusty room -- explains how the shell can _appear_ to expand outwards faster than light.
Michael Richmond "This is the heart that broke my finger."
mwrsps@rit.edu http://stupendous.rit.edu
Is there some ethnic minority exploding stars that will be offended??
What's interesting, at least when you first think about it, is how the sphere of influence spans 14 light-years less than 3 years after we detected its "flash".
Of course, it's not really going faster-than-light, it's just a matter of perespective. The event happened 20,000 years ago, and the portion of the 14 ly radius sphere that's approximately 11 ly closer to us than the star should now be visible. That is, it took ~20,000 years for the flash to reach us, and ~(20,000+14-11) = ~(20,000+3) years for that portion of the echo to reach us.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
but note to you amateur photoshop n00bs (including myself): Just because you see it in these great pics, Lens flare is *never* cool. Put that filter away!
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Unless Hubble detects something that really worries politicians (i.a. a meteorit coming really soon, big enough to make trouble and that could be avoidable) it will be around last in their agendas
Don't give up hope. There's always the chance of WMD in space somewhere.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Wow. It looks just like the opening title sequence of circa 1980s Doctor Who.
My guess is that in a couple of decades those stars will slowly begin to form the image of Tom Baker.
If you go to the HST web site, you can see an entire series of images of V838 Mon over the past three years.
:)
/ releases/2005/02/image/a
Here's the link without the type-o
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive
hack a day
Ahh.. that image is just about what I was looking for in my other post - also on the timelapse.
:/
Unfortunate that they didn't appear to take any further images inbetween. It's quite a jump from december 2002 to Feb 2004
A very interesting thing about this stellar outburst is the possibility to get a 3D image of the cloud surrounding the star. Images of this event taken months apart (like this sequence) show the flash of light as it expands, illuminating regions of space that form spherical shells around the star. This gives a unique insight into the actual threedimensional structure of the cloud, a bit like a CAT scan builds a 3D view from a sequence of planar 2D images. Pity we don't have (for all I know) one picture per day: it would have made a stunning movie! No to mention the scientific value...
Nuffsaid
________
Don't know about his cat, but Schroedinger is definitely dead.
> $105 billion.
And since there are, like, a billion people in the USA, freedom costs exactly $1.05. QED
It is worth noting that this image is something like 14 light years across (if I recall correctly from the NASA site) and has been crunched down to fit on a computer screen. Maybe there is huge amounts of signal degradation but it's not showing up with the image reduced so much.
Still, colors, shapes, etc. I mean, don't we have radio-telescopes for reconstructing images that are vast distances away? What is the threshold?
I really be curious to know.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
Along with the rest of you that chose to take my question seriously.
...a lot of communication is lost when it's crunched down to the written word (inflection, expression, etc.) so ya never know how it's going to be interpreted.
To those of you who thought I was yanking their chains, sorry if I mis-communicated.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
> Politically correct term? For an exploding star? Stars have feelings?
No, but the geeks that lose sleep over the precise way to describe the events do.
A stellar explosion is a nova, and this doesn't appear to have been a nova event, but something somewhat less cataclysmic.
"freedom costs exactly $1.05. QED" - Putting a price on freedom implies that it can be bought and sold. Your line of argument leads me to the conclusion we are no more "free" than OBL.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Can we like fire some of these reporters or maybe like you know make them clean up after astronomers have their pizza party so that they can learn to appreciate the work people and what it does for us in the long run?
They fawn over 100's of billions spent on military equipment but they call Hubble an aging camera?
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
It's called the inverse square law because radiation's power decreases by 1/(distance^2). Unless the source is a dipole, in which case it is 1/(distance^3), but these are not dipoles. :)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
The event happened 20,000 years ago, and the portion of the 14 ly radius sphere that's approximately 11 ly closer to us than the star should now be visible. That is, it took ~20,000 years for the flash to reach us, and ~(20,000+14-11) = ~(20,000+3) years for that portion of the echo to reach us.
I hope that I didn't over- or under-simplify this. :)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
Hmm I thought it kinda looked like Jabba the Hutt with his mouth open (ho ho ho.... )
In all of the discussions over the cost of a manned vs. robotic mission to upgrade Hubble, one question I haven't heard anyone ask is what would it cost to replace it with a new telescope?
I've seen articles with cost estimates ranging from $1 - $2 Billion for a service mission. Given what we've learned with Hubble about the true costs of operating a space based telescope, couldn't we build a new telescope for relatively less than we originally spent on Hubble?
Given the choice of fixing Hubble for say $1-$2 Billion, or replacing it with a telescope with more capability and servicability for say $2-$3 Billion, I'd go for the replacement.
Todd
Now you've got me wondering if some university somewhere has some GPL software that'll do this type of image processing. I've got a couple of little ones and this might be a neat thing to introduce them to.
I mean, I don't actually have thousands of dollars to spend just to see if it's something my kids might like, but it certainly worth looking into.
Thanks for the info, and my for actually taking the question seriously. Believe me, I don't even own a tin-foil hat...I just wanted to better understand what I was seeing.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
20,000 light years is nothing, as far as gravitational distortion is concerned. You really only see that effect on galaxies 100 billion times more massive and 10,000 times farther away.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
And the 3 came from 2005-2002 (after re-reading the site, I should have chosen 2 (and hence 12 instead of 11) since the picture comes from 2004, but that doesn't change the explanation).
Imagine this: I'm blind and deaf, so the only way I can get communication from you is when you throw me a braille ball. Now, I know that all braille balls travel at 1 m/s, and I (somehow) know that you're 20,000 meters away (you're a really strong thrower), so when I catch your ball I know that you threw it 20,000 seconds ago. Now, there's a wall 14 meters from you that you simultaneously throw a second ball towards, and amazingly it reaches me after only 20,002 seconds! Well, since I know that it took 14 seconds for that ball to reach the wall, I subtract 14 from 20,002 to get 19,988. I now conclude that the wall is only 19,988 meters from me (i.e., it's 12 meters closer to me than you are), without needing to conclude that the ball has broken its "law" of traveling at 1 m/s.
I hope that helps.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
... its batteries will run out in two or three years' time if they are not replaced.
... or was that http://www.hubblesdirtysecret.com/ ???
http://www.ipodsdirtysecret.com/
Slashdot? Oh, I just read it for the articles.
The more politically correct term for what happened is "stellar outburst."
Are we still talking about the supernova, or Barbara Boxer?
(a) That's not a link
(b) It has the same typo as the original post (a space in front of 'releases')
Here is a link
Science fiction for grown-ups...
I have always wondered why Hubble images of stars have such extreme lens flare. Isn't there some way to correct for this? Also, what determines the orientation of the lens flare (e.g. the angle at which the four longest points are emanating from each star)? Any telescope optics experts care to enlighten us about this?
Now that I have your attention...
That crack is only half-kidding - a large part of the problem is that the public doesn't get riled up about this stuff because they think the really good stuff is on videos or games anyway. Too many people would rather watch the latest movie than the latest expedition to inner or outer space (how much money did Cameron make on Titanic? How much is he making on Aliens of the Deep 3D IMAX? How many hits on Star Wars sites, how many the Hubble sites?) More people would rather be entertained than educated.
It's like the HDTV demo discs you see in video stores - people gasping at HD video of a flower, when they could walk out the door and see the real thing, no digitizing or interpolation or artifact.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Not to defend the war in the least... but it's hard to compare the two.
Hubble has never helped anyone, sure it's given us some pretty pictures and a deeper understanding of the universe. But has it lead to new cures for diseases? New ways to predict the whether? Anything useful?
To many the war has very direct benefits (though debatable) of setting a country free from a brutal dictator.
People should really stop trying to compare the two.
Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
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?
Does anyone else see a Whale chasing it's tail?
Given what we've learned with Hubble about the true costs of operating a space based telescope, couldn't we build a new telescope for relatively less than we originally spent on Hubble?
.edu, etc.) so that our tax dollars are not just going into that thing in the sky.
Those costs don't go away or get substantially cheaper. NASA doesn't typically run on a build-one, test, build-many-cheaper philosophy. The next generation telescope will have a myriad of technology that's all brand new. To be a little cynical, always using new technology demands more input money, which helps NASA survive (so to speak). Tempering that cynacism is that the successes from that technology development are utilized by society (.com,
But always keep in mind that although the science output from NASA is considerable and most visible, the technical development and engineering is a serious driver that is first in line for the money. The scientists' challenge has typically been to steer this beast (OK, maybe more like hopefully tempt) with a creative blend of technology innovation and science direction.
The problem now is that some cowboy has roped the beast and plans to ride it for his own personal glory. Unfortunately he also feeds the beast, so there may be little tempting the outside community can do for the next four years...
One must compare the war and science. It is not possible not to. Both use very real money, and though not 1:1, if the money goes to one cause, it cannot be spent on the other. Some would like to spend the money one way, some another, and it's the governments job to placate as many as possible. If more choose one or the other, that will get more funding.
Because everything in this society can be broken down to a common denominator (guess... money), everything can be rewritten in terms of it, space, wars, time, life, and everything else.
That's how capitalistic societies work. And if you live in any of the countries where you are likely to be reading slashdot, you live in a capitalistic society...
Yes you can compare what they cost, but what I ment is you can't compare what they produce.
The war produced freedom while Hubble produced science. Since the war cost like 500 times what Hubble would cost then how would compare the two? The freedom brought to Iraq is worth less then 500 times the science Hubble produced? To some it's worth more then that, to some much much less (especially once you factor in the lives lost).
But even expending it farther. Maybe we could use that billion to save 1,000 lives somewhere. Is the science worth those 1,000 lives? These are very hard decisions to make and to compare them by saying oh well we spent 500 billion on the war surely we could afford 1 billion for Hubble is an over simplification of the situation.
Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
Hubble is done. There is a rumour that next year's NASA budget contains no Hubble servicing money. The $2 billion it costs would have to come out of other NASA programs. Not likely.
an ill wind that blows no good
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.
They are going to be fscking free with a formerly Iran based Ayatollah as leader.
You USians sometimes are overwhelming with the size of your naivity.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
He stole that from me.
Before any liberals are tempted to mod up one of my comments, a word of warning: I'm actually making fun of you.
A lot of people in this thread I started were of the paradigm that you just point a fancy camera out in space and take the picture. So, when I questioned how that could work, a lot seemed to assume that I was suggesting a consipiricy. This left me a bit puzzled.
Your explanation pretty much covers it though. I. E. - it's really not just a matter of taking a picture with a giant floating camera. It has to be reconstructed from what the machine can gather and some of it is apparantly not even in the visible light spectrum.
So, in short, my questioning whether a photograph can be taken form 20K light years away wasn't all that un-reasonable and no "tin-foil" hat was required.
Thank you for clarifying this for me. I knew there had to be something to it.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
My two cents: Well said. The comparison is quite unproductive.
/. in my opinion...)
And to make it three, it's just one more attempt by somebody to turn every single debate here into a political cheap-shot.
(as is all too typical at
4 out of 3 people have trouble with fractions
If you rotate the image, it looks a lot like the Firefox logo.
The shareholder is always right.
Falkor!!! It is actually really uncanny....
What this photo needs is two strategically placed hands, one of which is wearing a gold ring.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
The image is of a region of space about 14 light years across, and the highest res version of the photo I've seen so far is about 800 pixels wide. That makes each pixel ~ 10 billion km wide.
"I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show