Slashdot Mirror
Hubble Captures the Violent Birth of a Star
The Bad Astronomer writes "In what is one of the most staggeringly beautiful Hubble pictures ever taken, a newly-born massive star is blasting four separate jets of material into its surrounding cocoon, carving out cavities in the material over two light years long. But only three of the jets appear to have matter still inside them, and the central star is off-center. This may be a gorgeous picture, but the science behind it is equally as compelling."
Were the Vogons notified of this latest development? Were all the forms properly filled in, signed, stamped and approved?
How many government forms does it take for a new star to be allowed to be born? There are all sorts of special interests that may not like this new star from appearing, it's new energy competition, there could be new life forms created, that would compete with the existing interests and it's obviously bad.
You can't handle the truth.
farrting?
The Bad Astronomer writes
Bad is quite the understatement here, considering that this story is over 2000 years old.
This may be a naive question (and will almost certainly be derided as such). I remember from Astronomy 101, many years ago, the prevailing idea about stellar formation. But I don't remember anyone ever explaining studies that verify the hypothesis is valid. What I'm saying is that it's pretty obvious this is a star surrounded by a cloud of material (gas or dust, I can't remember), but how do we know the star is forming rather than, say, dying? Or are we just supposed to take it on faith because we read it in a book?
A related question-- this is an awesomely cool picture, but does it or does it not tell us much about how stars form?
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
That's the first image that immediately came to mind when I saw this picture. Not the awesomeness of the universe, but someone's bum. Tragic.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that the colorful photos that you see from the Hubble are only pretty because it's been 'shopped like nobody's business. Sure what you're seeing is really out there, but it doesn't actually look like that... and if you were to be at a point in space such that your normal field of vision only envelops roughly the same area as what the photo contains, you would surely see similarities... probably enough to even make a strong connection between them... but not the vibrant colors that space photos so often contain. It is like the difference between a decorated christmas tree, and a decorated christmas tree with many hundreds of lights.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Nah, NASA wouldn't do anything that sleazy.....
http://io9.com/5659951/nasa-caught-photoshopping-an-image-of-saturns-moons-what-were-they-trying-to-hide
http://news.discovery.com/space/nasa-conspiracy-image-processing.html
This is why you can find good deals on great astronomy equipment - also some cheap astronomy equipment, too...
People see these "color enhanced" or "artist's impression" pictures and go buy a telescope, eye-pieces, etc. Then go out on a clear night and besides Juper and Saturn, which are pretty cool to look at, are unimpressed with all the little brown-smudgies in the sky, which are most of what Hubble & Co. make such beautiful images out of.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
looks like it
What's with the shitty lens flare?
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Oh, fuck off, you goddamned political hack. We were having a fun time making nerdy jokes about something as both grandiose and beautiful as the forming of a fucking star , and you have to bring your bullshit politics into it.
Seriously, do people like you ever relax? Ever joke around without dragging The Other Team into it? Do you realize you're the problem with the world, America in particular?
No, I don't really want to argue this with you. Nobody does. Nobody cares about you. So just sit your ass down, shut the fuck up, and enjoy the star being formed already.
The four flare lines out of each bright spot in the image are very distracting. Can't they be properly removed in postprocessing to give a truer image?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
You forgot the moon. :)
I did exactly that. I love what I can see, but now I just want a bigger scope. [Insert beavis & butthead chuckle here]
But I don't quite see where the center or new star is. There is a bright star showing from a bit below the center but I think that is just a star behind it. Is there something I am missing that is obviously the "center"?
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
I love how one can pick out an image that isn't there, but an Angel is what I saw... just not a happy one....
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
You forgot the moon. :)
I did exactly that. I love what I can see, but now I just want a bigger scope. [Insert beavis & butthead chuckle here]
It's called "Aperature Fever"
Behaviour typified by acquiring the largest telescope you can manage to fit in your car. Extreme affliction may lead to buying a bigger vehicle (and/or modification of existing vehicle) to accomodate very large scople, primary mirrors, counter weights, etc.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Especially the 3D video:
ahref=http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2011/38/video/rel=url2html-24467http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2011/38/video/>
This is not the sig you're looking for.
The universe is his toilet.
I don't do well with Freudian ink blots.
Ah, I'd heard "Aperture Envy". I think someone else even mentioned a similarly perverse-sounding version of what boat owners get... two-foot-itis.
I was hoping to go from a 130mm reflector to a 12" dob. I just can't find primaries in my price range and I don't want to get something that's only a little better. Some day...
the problem is that it presents an image that doesn't reflect what people expect when they see a photo - which is a duplicate of what they would see if they could see it with their own eyes.
Yes, I hate it when I am flying through the galactic core, and I notice a super nova that I have a poster of, and I am like, OMFG, they totally shopped that photo.
I am pretty sure nobody is going to be looking at this object with 'their own eyes' for a very long time, if ever.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
I have a telescope that, outside the moon, I can't really see much due light pollution, but can't stop to get amazed every time I see moon craters. Maybe the pictures are doctored but even so, I love to see beatiful pictures like these published. If I were american, I would feel enormously proud for stuff like this instead of the last bombing campaign of USAF or CIA.
My hat off to the Hubble team.
Best Regards
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
Prettiest background jpeg ever.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
um... so grind your own mirror? Plans for homebuilt machines, blank glasses, and 1200 grit diamond polishing paste are relatively easy to come by. All you need is a garage you can fairly effectively seal and six months to do the actual grinding.
Been there, built my own 16" Herschel camera.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Right. You're not the problem with the world; you're just A problem with the world. You are the obsessive one, the extremist one, the one that has lost self-awareness and perspective.
But there's lots of problems worse than you.
If this star is being born 2000 years ago, could it be Christ?
"My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4 You know the way to the place where I am going.”
Now obviously this happened 2000 years ago, but does anyone know how long it will last/has been going on for?
In more general terms, I'd like to know whether they scan new parts of the sky periodically for changes, or whether they just concentrate on different parts of the sky and see what they see. For instance, if you could go back 2000 years (taking Hubble with you), would the image look similar? How static are these images?
My first guess would be millions of years, so when astronomers look in the sky and find something cool, it's not by fluke of timing, more by fluke of angle and elevation.
We do what we must because we can,
For the good of all of us,
Except the ones who are dead.
So who is to say that these stars are not alive in the real sense, and that like a buttefly, at this great size, ends up being a cocoon like beast that emerges a different entity in the end....I am sure when another alien life form looks at us as bags of almost pure water, they might wonder how we are alive as they could not accept us to be alive upon their definition, but likewise, we look at these stars and planets in orbit and think they are just things, yet they could actually be primitively intelligent living beings...of which we have no real way of knowing, unless getting up close and personal to see maybe a (heart) center was actually making that earth/star live/stay alive.....
At a quick glance, I mean if you think about it Angels.. in the sky.. of course the fact that any older civilization would have the technology to view something like this and associate it to Angels, Gods or whatever celestial bodies are popular at time seem extremely far fetched but that was my first thought when looking at it.
It looks like boobs to me.
I think the only logical conclusion is that you ALL need to take chill pills and go look at the pretty space pictures.
That appears to be the 2 meatballs and appendages of his noodly goodness...
Oh, fuck off, you goddamned political hack. We were having a fun time making nerdy jokes about something as both grandiose and beautiful as the forming of a fucking star , and you have to bring your bullshit politics into it.
Seriously, do people like you ever relax? Ever joke around without dragging The Other Team into it? Do you realize you're the problem with the world, America in particular?
No, I don't really want to argue this with you. Nobody does. Nobody cares about you. So just sit your ass down, shut the fuck up, and enjoy the star being formed already.
roman_mir and ronpaulisanidiot are both political hacks. Fuck them, and double-fuck you for not noticing and piling onto just one of them.
roman_mir's post was not a nerdy joke about a star. It was an obvious attempt to advance a political opinion. ronpaulisanidiot, being on the other side of the issue, took the bait. We don't need either of them. Andy you even less.
I think the only logical conclusion is that you ALL need to take chill pills and go look at the pretty space pictures.
I think a more logical conclusion is that there are a lot of libertarians with mod points reading this thread. Look at who's getting modded "insightful" while others get modded "flamebait". Not that I'm keen on either of them.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Nah, NASA wouldn't do anything that sleazy.....
Of course they would. They translate the x-ray or non-visible spectrum into a visible color scale, and play with it until it looks nice, then use photoshop and artistic license to come up with something to sell to the public.
They even admit it. The description on the video download page says:
This movie presents a visualization of the star-forming region known as S106. This unique three-dimensional view illustrates and emphasizes that many of the objects contained within astronomical images are not at the same distance, but, in fact, spread across light-years of space. The Hubble image is augmented with additional field-of-view from the Subaru Infrared Telescope. The stars and the lobes of glowing gas from the Hubble/Subaru two-dimensional image have been separated and sculpted using both scientific knowledge and artistic license to create the depth in the movie. Of note, the relative distances between stars and the nebula have been greatly compressed. The format of this movie is a standard "2D" presentation and does not require a 3D screen or 3D glasses.
ronpaulisanidiot
No, michellebachmannisanidiot, ricksantorumisanidiot, rickperryisanidiot, hermancainisanidiot, mittromneyisanidiot, newtgingrichisaretardedinfantileidiot and barackobamaisawallstreetcockmongler. Ron Paul seems OK.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Please reference:
Vogon
Also
Lastly
Yikes. Yeah I've watched a few videos on making my own. Even considered a few of those cool contraptions to make it easier. I just know myself... I think I'm better off saving my pennies and buying one from someone that knows what they're doing.