Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Star of Space and Film

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the look-at-the-pretty-picture dept.

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."

37 of 179 comments (clear)

  1. And did the images show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Superman escaping from the planet?

  2. Bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I make pictures like that with photoshop all the time.

  3. Question for you astronomers out there.... by StressGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Question for you astronomers out there.... by koniosis · · Score: 2, Funny

      The image is 12 Light-years wide, so displaying it on your monitor, it is going to look pretty sharp!

      --
      I spent ages trying to think of sig, but never did :(
    2. Re:Question for you astronomers out there.... by Have+Blue · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's not really *that* detailed- each pixel is at the very least a few hundred thousand kilometers across. And it's so sharp because the light is traveling through space, so there's nothing to blur the image or attenuate its intensity (besides the inverse-square law).

    3. Re:Question for you astronomers out there.... by dr_canak · · Score: 4, Informative

      As a very *amateur* backyard astronomer,

      I think there is nothing wrong with the question. You actually get this kind of reaction almost all the time when people peer through a telescope for the first time expecting to see the types of images that appear on telescope boxes, in books, and in the media. Fabulous images of space that look nothing like that to the naked eye. People then get very skeptical (out of dissapointment) that space isn't like they thought it was gonna be. Obviously, looking through a telescope in your backyard shows nothing like what we see in pictures like the one referenced in this article.

      With that said, the technology available in light gathering (in terms of sensitivity, especially in space where there is a lot less matter to block light) and the ability to apply filters to so many different wavelengths can really enhance interstellar phenomena. And actually, even the technology available to the amateur is nothing short of amazing. Just take a look the back of Sky and Telescope or Astronomy magazine to see amateur astrophotography.

      I guess the important thing to keep in mind is that these pictures are enhanced. It doesn't mean the phenomena doesn't exist. Light is shooting out from the star, and it is passing clouds of interstellar medium that reflect that light, at all different wavelengths. People then just spend a ton of time, money, and computing power to enhance those images so that people can appreciate what goes on in our own backyard.

      In the end, i guess you do have to trust that the base data itself is not "manufactured" by the government, but the data is certainly enhanced once its collected.

      jeff

    4. Re:Question for you astronomers out there.... by mazarin5 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Light doesn't necessarily degrade as a factor of time itself. Most signal degradation on Earth is caused by atmosphere, dust, etc. Another big factor is the source power and the time given to receive the signal.

      For instance our Sun outputs 3.8e26 watts per second. This object is much more luminous. In space, there is no atmosphere. However, there is dust, but it tends to stick together in clouds, and not scatter itself all around. In fact, the picture you're looking at is a great part dust (see all the dark marbling?) What media there is between stars is not very dense (on the order of one atom per cm^3!) and does not cause a lot of interference. As far as gravitational lensing, that is only a factor when there is a large object between the source and the destination, and this is a pretty straight shot.

      The image does degrade by a factor of 1/r^2, however this can be accounted for by using a very long exposure time (weeks if necessary) that is why the other stars look so bright.

      HTH

      --
      Fnord.
    5. Re:Question for you astronomers out there.... by twiddlingbits · · Score: 5, Insightful

      These images are made from spectral data not visible light(other than the fact the spectral data for the exposure MAY lie in the visible spectrum). The hubble is a digital camera but not like the type you have at home. The WFC3 (wide field planetary camera version 3) or the COS (Cosmic Origins Spectrograph) take the images. Exposure times can be many minutes,and the instruments are very sensitive and highly calibrated. In fact they are calibrated to a known light source and a known dark source before each exposure. There are also filters that can be applied before the light reaches the camera so that only wavelengths in a given spectral range hit the detectors. Then the images are sent to the ground as binary data as groups of spectral frequency bins which are then post-processed (a the Space Science Institute) to give the (false) color images. The colors are pretty close to correct but are not perfect. So, yea they ARE manufactured in some sense by the Gov't ;) Hubble is nowhere near state of the art (some software in it is 25-30 yrs old) but it works and has exceeded the wildest expectations of it's builders. Kind of a Brooklyn Bridge in space, the first one built but still works great and setting a high standard.

    6. Re:Question for you astronomers out there.... by Cecil · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If in doubt, polish your own mirror, build your own telescope, and point it at some film.

      Seriously though, I'm not sure what you mean by "saturated out from other sources"... there really isn't much light pollution in space. It's very dark out there. As for gravity affecting light -- well, sure, it does. But all the photons we're seeing from Monoceros are travelling nearly parallel to each other, and are very close to one another. They will all be affected by any gravitational lensing the same way. This will not affect the sharpness of the image at all, in fact most photographers would love to get their hands on a lens so perfect.

      --
      Random and weird software I've written.
    7. Re:Question for you astronomers out there.... by wass · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The hubble is a digital camera but not like the type you have at home. The WFC3 (wide field planetary camera version 3) or the COS (Cosmic Origins Spectrograph) take the images.

      WFC3 and COS are still on the ground, hopefully to make it to Hubble on either a manned or robotic mission. Here's a list of past, present, and future Hubble instruments, along with links to their homepages with all the technical information you could want.

      Hubble is nowhere near state of the art (some software in it is 25-30 yrs old) but it works and has exceeded the wildest expectations of it's builders. Kind of a Brooklyn Bridge in space, the first one built but still works great and setting a high standard.

      The software doesn't matter, it's the front-end detectors that limit the accuracy on the acquired data. Once it's properly digitized, the software will only limit the speed it can be transmitted back to Earth. But even that speed is dwarfed by the long integration times Hubble acquires for very faint objects.

      The accessibity of Hubble is what contributed to it's success. Sensor technology is a continuing evolving field, and the ability to periodically put better, more sensitive detectors onto Hubble has contributed to it remaining one of the most competitive telescopes available. When James Webb telescope is launched, it won't be upgradeable, which means it won't be able to take advantage of the great advances in sensor technology we'll probably have in the next 20 years.

      --

      make world, not war

  4. Astronomy picture of the day by Cyrgo · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    1. Re:Astronomy picture of the day by LurkerXXX · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Ok, I'm astro dumb, so please explain this to me. They say that we saw the star explode 3 years ago, our time. The picture of the lite-up cloud of gas is, according to the caption to the photo on that page you linked to:

      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.
  5. Budgets by peterprior · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Budgets by saider · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hubble has done exceptionally well. But it is an old horse, and instead of an expensive manned mission to fix it and keep it going for a few more years, I'd rather see the money put into a new telescope that incorporates all the lessons learned from Hubble. Namely, modules that can be replaced without a manned mission. I think we'd get a better value if we did something like that.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    2. Re:Budgets by disserto · · Score: 2, Informative

      While I agree with you that space exploration should get more funding, the $100billion+ that he wants for war doesn't go to car bombs. It goes to prevent them.

      If you want fewer pictures of grisly car bombs, something has to be done about the car bombers. And it's not us.

      But this is a completely different topic. Where's the pretty space pictures?!

    3. Re:Budgets by quarkscat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, HST (Hubble Space Telescope) HAS done
      remarkably well, especially considering it's
      bumpy start.

      Unfortunately, NASA's beauracraticly faultly
      reasoning for abandoning HST is that the Webb
      telescope will replace it -- which it cannot
      do. HST has broad spectral sensitivity, from
      IR to UV, with excellent results. The Webb
      telescope is strictly IR.

      Your notion that the money saved on scrapping
      the HST (,with the repairs and upgrades that
      a manned mission would perform) could be plowed
      into a new replacement space telescope. There
      are several flaws in your thinking.

      Another mission to HST is required whether to
      maintain it or to bring it down in a controlled
      crash -- HST does not have the retro rockets
      installed to enable de-orbiting. A manned or
      robotic mission would be required for this
      purpose. If you are going to perform a manned
      mission, why not go ahead and do the servicing
      mission as well? When, in 7 or 8 years after
      this servicing mission, the HST does fail, the
      now-installed retro rockets can safely de-orbit
      it.

      The lead time for the design and construction of
      a true replacement for the HST is likely to be
      5 to 8 years. The engineering costs can be
      guaranteed to exceed the $1 Billion USD required
      for the HST servicing mission. Neither the
      current political regime, nor NASA has the will
      to commit that much time and money on any "pure
      science" project. At a time when the USA has
      pissed away $200 Billion USD on a voluntary war,
      another (projected) $100 Billion USD on a non-
      functional ABM system, and getting ready to
      commit $2 Trillion USD to revamping SS, the
      Federal government "cannot" find $1 Billion USD
      for an HST rescue/servicing mission. Dubya and
      his Congressional cronies are not the "sharpest
      knives in the drawer", and obviously have some
      agendas that DO NOT INCLUDE SCIENCE. Science
      is actually antithetical to their neo-con
      right-wing militant Christian belief system,
      just as the "big bang" theory is antithetical
      to their "mythology" about creationism.

  6. Exploding stars by KiroDude · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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??

    1. Re:Exploding stars by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Informative
      http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answer s/980521a.html

      The Question
      (Submitted May 21, 1998)

      Is there a possibility that a nearby star could go supernova and destroy the earth? Or have other bad effects on us?

      The Answer
      To destroy the Earth itself, the Sun will have to go supernova (which it never will).

      If you are talking about the life on Earth, then there is a detailed calculation of the risks due to a nearby supernova on the web:

      http://stupendous.rit.edu/richmond/answers/snris ks .txt

      The author concludes that a supernova has to be within 10 parsecs (30 light years) or so to be dangerous to life on Earth. This is because the atmosphere shields us from most dangerous radiations. Astronauts in orbit may be in danger if a supernova is within 1000 parsecs or so.

      No stars currently within 20 parsecs will go supernova within the next few million years.

      There are some indirect effects, though, which are harder to evaluate: the possible effects on the Earth ozone layer is listed in the article above. Additionally, according to one calculation, the neutrino flux from a nearby supernova might heat up the Sun.

      Best wishes,

      Koji Mukai & Eric Christian
      for Ask a High-Energy Astronomer
      --
      -Styopa
    2. Re:Exploding stars by mazarin5 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it's 1/r^2, and even with that degeneracy factor, a supernova would be powerful enough to vaporize objects as far as the Oort cloud.

      --
      Fnord.
    3. Re:Exploding stars by mazarin5 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Wow. You had some real dicks replying to you.

      Anyways, before our Sun could go supernova, it would have to swell to red giant so large that it would engulf the Earth, so it's a moot point.

      In that regard though, the explosion would be more than enough to destroy Pluto without slowing down. The Sun makes up 99.9% of the mass in our solar system, and so the planets wouldn't really have much of a defense.

      --
      Fnord.
  7. Time-lapse image of the burst from 2002 by Animaether · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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 :
    http://www.gothard.hu/astronomy/astronews/images/2 003/20030326-HST-Light-echo-from-star-V838-Mon.jpg
    : 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!

  8. Re:High resolution image anyone? by Cyrgo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Try NASA's Astronomy picture of the day site and then click on the image to download a high res pic.
    Enjoy!

  9. Look at the entire series of HST images over time by StupendousMan · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you go to the HST web site, you can see an entire series of images of V838 Mon over the past three years.

    http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archiv e/ releases/2005/02/image/a

    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/imagedisplay /i mg_display.php?pic=light_echo_graphic_030326_02,0. jpg

    The European Space Agency also has a good description of the event:

    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/light_echo _0 30326.html

    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
  10. Polictically Correct?? by REBloomfield · · Score: 5, Funny
    The more politically correct term for what happened is "stellar outburst.

    Is there some ethnic minority exploding stars that will be offended??

  11. Apparently faster-than-light by benhocking · · Score: 3, Informative

    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?
  12. Doctor Who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  13. Re:Look at the entire series of HST images over ti by SpongeBobLinuxPants · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you go to the HST web site, you can see an entire series of images of V838 Mon over the past three years.

    Here's the link without the type-o :)

    http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/ releases/2005/02/image/a

    --
    hack a day
  14. Star Tomography by Nuffsaid · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  15. It's a matter of perspective by benhocking · · Score: 2, Informative

    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?
  16. Hubble mistakes by Stunning+Tard · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  17. The Big Question... by brewer13210 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  18. I chose 11 to counter-act the 3 by benhocking · · Score: 4, Informative

    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?
  19. Re:Why such extreme lens flare in Hubble images? by UWC · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  20. Image Flare? Is this real? by nullix · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Image Flare? Is this real? by Betelgeuse · · Score: 3, Informative

      These are the so-called "diffraction spikes." They come from the light of bright stars diffracting around the telescope's spider. The spider is the system of supports that holds the secondary mirror in place.

      Sometimes you do see bleeding from saturated stars, but diffraction around the spider is usually the explanation.

      --
      I couldn't tell if you were experimenting with poor-man's cryogenics or looking for the orange sherbet.
  21. Re:Why such extreme lens flare in Hubble images? by mfago · · Score: 3, Informative

    IIRC, the "flare" is diffraction from the secondary mirror supports, with the "shape" determined by the shape of the support (I think a cross in this case). A very long exposure makes it more obvious.

    It's been a long time since optics, and not long enough since coffee.

  22. Hubble Origins Probe: replace instead of repair? by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.