Slashdot Mirror


Revolutionary New View of Baby Planets Forming Around a Star

astroengine writes Welcome to HL Tauri — a star system that is just being born and the target of one of the most mind-blowing astronomical observations ever made. Observed by the powerful Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) in Chile, this is the most detailed view of the proto-planetary disk surrounding a young star 450 light-years away. And those concentric rings cutting through the glowing gas and dust? Those, my friends, are tracks etched out by planets being spawned inside the disk. In short, this is the mother of all embryonic star system ultrasounds. But this dazzling new observation is so much more — it's a portal into our solar system's past, showing us what our system of planets around a young sun may have looked like over 4 billion years ago. And this is awesome, because it proves that our theoretical understanding about the evolution of planetary systems is correct. However, there are some surprises. "When we first saw this image we were astounded at the spectacular level of detail," said Catherine Vlahakis, ALMA Deputy Program Scientist. "HL Tauri is no more than a million years old, yet already its disc appears to be full of forming planets. This one image alone will revolutionize theories of planet formation."

19 of 91 comments (clear)

  1. I'm gona ask the hard questions here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've always wondered who does the "Artist's impression of" things for NASA and various other agencies. Do they just employ some CG artists full time and they're basically on-call to whip something up so they can actually publish one of these articles? How accurate are they or are just going for visual impact instead of real fidelity?

    1. Re:I'm gona ask the hard questions here... by NotSanguine · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've always wondered who does the "Artist's impression of" things for NASA and various other agencies. Do they just employ some CG artists full time and they're basically on-call to whip something up so they can actually publish one of these articles? How accurate are they or are just going for visual impact instead of real fidelity?

      That's a great question. And might even be useful if it applied in this case.

      The Atacam Large Milimeter/submilimeter Array (ALMA) is the source for the photos of the HL Tauri system, some 450 light years away.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    2. Re:I'm gona ask the hard questions here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      At the bottom of the article is "Artist's impression of the HL Tauri protoplanetary disk." This is in addition to the image from the actual ALMA observatory.

    3. Re:I'm gona ask the hard questions here... by NixieBunny · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I met one of the guys who did this work at JPL, Jim Blinn, 30 years ago. He was quite a knowledgeable astronomy guy in addition to being a first-rate computer animator.

      --
      The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
    4. Re:I'm gona ask the hard questions here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Calling Blinn a first rate computer animator is a bit of an understatement,
      The dude invented half of the algorithms CG uses today.

    5. Re:I'm gona ask the hard questions here... by NotSanguine · · Score: 2

      At the bottom of the article is "Artist's impression of the HL Tauri protoplanetary disk." This is in addition to the image from the actual ALMA observatory.

      As soon as I saw the article was from discovery.com, I gleaned enough information from the article to find the actual source and went there. I never saw the referenced "artist's impression." My apologies.

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    6. Re:I'm gona ask the hard questions here... by Thanshin · · Score: 2

      I suppose it's this "L.Calçada" guy on the bottom of the image.

      It's probably this Luis Calçada: http://luiscalcada.scienceoffi...

  2. Why Link To Crap Sites? by NotSanguine · · Score: 5, Informative

    When you can go to the source?

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
  3. Ring Spacing Reason? by BoRegardless · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What is most interesting is the nearly equal radial spacing of the half dozen most distinct rings.

    That begs the question, why?

  4. This image cost a billion dollars by NixieBunny · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This image is the result of a 25 year project to build a big interferometric array of millimeter-wave radio telescopes in Chile. The ALMA array is a mind-bogglingly complex system of 60+ telescopes, a correlator to combine all the signals, some bleeding-edge technology to maintain phase coherence of gigahertz signals traveling over many kilometers of optical fibers, and a bunch of other feats of engineering. I am awed by the results, and amazed that it was possible to get the whole thing to work.

    I'm privileged to get to work on a prototype antenna for this project, which was just installed on Kitt Peak and commissioned today.

    --
    The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
    1. Re:This image cost a billion dollars by mmell · · Score: 4, Interesting
      HL Tauri is roughly 450ly from Sol - not clear across the galaxy, but not exactly right next door either. I wonder if this array could image extrasolar planetary bodies? It's one thing to image an accretion disk (which is more than a few AU's in size), but the image I saw makes me think this thing might just be able to resolve planets.

      Either way, this array was definitely money well spent.

    2. Re:This image cost a billion dollars by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And yet, if you think on it from a "space colonization strategy game" perspective, we're investing just 1:100000 of our gross world product on the new technology that might let us find the location of our first extra solar colony.

      Or, in other words, I defend it's arguably one of the very few things on which it's worth spending money (from an inhumanly objective point of view).

    3. Re:This image cost a billion dollars by butalearner · · Score: 4, Informative
      From the link someone else posted:

      Although the star is much smaller than the Sun, the disc around HL Tauri stretches out to almost three times as far from the star as Neptune is from the Sun.

      That's the caption on an approximate side-by-side comparison image. Neptune is 30.1 AU, so, 80 AU or so? In the image, the disk looks closer to two times the size, but I'm going with the words.

  5. Blinn interview by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I bet I'm not the only one who'd be chuffed if Jim Blinn did a Slashdot interview.

  6. Re:Is this the new science-speak? by mmell · · Score: 2

    ...to my eyes the pictures are not informative.

    I guess it's a good thing you're not an astronomer or a cosmologist. One of the things that we've already learned from such images is that our current model of how solar systems form needs tweaking (according to our models, this star isn't old enough to have protoplanets or vote, although it can serve in the military).

  7. Re:Is this the new science-speak? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...mind blowing, powerful, my friends, mother-of-all, dazzling, awesome, astounded, revolutionize...
    Or is it more like something in your spam folder?

    Scientists used this one weird trick to find exoplanets... And you won't BELIEVE what happened next!

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  8. Revolutionary, or confirmatory? by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 2

    "...proves that our theoretical understanding about the evolution of planetary systems is correct."

    "...will revolutionize theories of planet formation."

    Well, which is it? Is it proving that we're right, or proving that we've been wrong?

    I expect the answer is that it confirms general aspects of the theory, but challenges specific details. As written, though, the summary seems to contradict the quote.

  9. Re:What's with the spokes? by Ashenkase · · Score: 2

    Interplay with some of the close moons of Saturn: Daphnis

  10. colonies are viable, just not cost effective by Immerman · · Score: 2

    You're right that we're not going to be making interstellar colonies anytime soon - the only realistic option with known physics is a generation ship, and we're nowhere near experienced enough with self-contained ecosystems to build something with a decent chance of surviving the centuries or millenia an interstellar voyage would take.

    Keeping people alive on the moon though? That we've got pretty well licked, so long as occasional supply runs are included in your plans. Biosphere 2 had issues, but still lasted two years as a sealed environment. Radiation shielding would complicate things, but bury it underground with natural-spectrum artificial lights and there's no reason we couldn't do at least as well on the moon, if we decided to do such a thing for some reason. Plenty of solar power available on the Peaks of Eternal Light, or we could take a compact nuclear reactor.

    Where the moon would present difficulties is in growing to self-sufficiency. Not a lot of readily accessible resources there, without having ever had a water cycle there may not even be ore veins and the like. We'd pretty much need full industrial capacity to mine moon dust for raw materials before the colony could even begin to be self-sufficient - and we don't really have the technology to do that yet, to say nothing of the expense of shipping it all to the moon. Maybe an outpost could produce rocket fuel cheaply enough to drive up demand so that the profit margins would be sufficient to pay for supplies from Earth, but that's a pretty high-risk and long-term business plan. Still, it might work, and with another decade or three of unremarkable rocketry advances the shipping costs should be down to the point where you might be able to build a viable business model around it.

    And then on the other side of the spectrum there's Mars - shipping costs are higher, and there's not really any promising business models I'm aware of that would make it appealing, but thanks to the plentiful CO2 and water on the doorstep a colony could conceivably supply most of the resources for growth and self-sufficiency themselves. After all CO2+water+trace elements = oxygen + food + biomass. And it's not terribly difficult to convert cellulose-rich biomass to nanocellulose - an aluminum-strong, gas-impermeable plastic that could be used for making the majority of large-scale (aka expensive to ship from Earth) equipment. And thanks to Mars' wet history we can be almost certain that there are Earthlike veins of ore in the crust, once things grow to the point that mining becomes viable.

    TLDR: Earth-dependent space colonies are technically viable with today's technology - it's just the business case that doesn't (yet) make sense. Look at the ISS for evidence - its environment is far more hostile than anything on the moon or Mars, yet it has been operating continuously for over 14 years.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.