More to the North Star Than Meets the Eye 179
__roo writes "By stretching the capabilities of NASA's Hubble Space Telescope to the limit, astronomers have photographed the close companion of Polaris for the first time. This sequence of images shows that the North Star, Polaris is really a triple star system. 'The star we observed is so close to Polaris that we needed every available bit of Hubble's resolution to see it'" said astronomer Nancy Evans of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, Massachusetts."
Re:Just Beyond The Capabilities of My 125 ETX (Score:4, Informative)
The Hubble already has a repalcement in the works. It is called The James Webb Space Telescope and is scheduled to go up in 2013. More about the JWST [nasa.gov]
Not really "close" to the main star as we know it. (Score:5, Informative)
2 000 000 000 miles = 21.5155818 Astronomical Units
which puts it just inside the closest approach of Saturn, but well outside Jupiter's orbit.
Re:More. (Score:3, Informative)
So quite useful in astronomy.
Re:More. (Score:2, Informative)
Second star inside Neptune's orbit (Score:5, Informative)
I did a little googling, and found that Neptune's orbit is just over 2 billion miles from the Sun. So for reference, Hubble has directly imaged two distant objects that could fit inside our own solar system.
I think they could have gotten more "Oomph!" from their press release if they'd mentioned this fact. Also, they may have wanted to measure the distance in a standard publicity unit, such as roundtrip NY-LA distances ("A little over 350,000 round-trips from New York to Los Angeles").
Some perspective... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:some questions (Score:5, Informative)
I suppose it is possible that Ab is behind A and thus appears further away, but I'm sure they've done their maths and checked it over a lot before releasing the PR.
Re:some questions (Score:4, Informative)
A and B are indeed very far from each other. I don't know how long the period is, but it is probably on the order of hundreds or thousands of years. The center of mass of that orbit may be well outside of Polaris A.
A and Ab are in a very close orbit, with a period of around 30 years. The center of mass of that orbit may be well inside of Polaris A.
You can say Polaris B sucks, but that won't affect it, or the triple star system at all. Polaris B is easily visible in small amateur telescopes. It makes Polaris a very pretty star to look at.
Re:Just Beyond The Capabilities of My 125 ETX (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I doubt this a a triple star system (Score:5, Informative)
So, the system approximates a stable two body system.
Another similar case is 4 stars, where there are two close pairs in orbit around each other. This idea can be extrapolated to any number of stars as long as each pair is not significantly perturbed by its non-pair neighbors.
Re:Just Beyond The Capabilities of My 125 ETX (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just Beyond The Capabilities of My 125 ETX (Score:3, Informative)
The surveillance ones, on the other hand, are another story.
Re:Not really "close" to the main star as we know (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry.
But seriously, Polaris A [domeofthesky.com] is a supergiant, about 2400 times as bright as the sun, and Polaris Ab is a main sequence star. 22 AUs is really close for a couple of stars that size!
Welcome to Slashdot disinformation (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Interesting... (Score:1, Informative)
Why this is significant (Score:4, Informative)
Cepheid variable stars are one of the most basic "standard candles" on which our measurement of interstellar distances depends. Polaris is one of the closest Cepheids.
Cepheid periods depend on luminosity, but the period-luminosity relation is still semi-empirical. Knowing the mass of Polaris (which you can get from measuring the orbital elements of the companion star) pins down one of the important variables in the theoretical model of Cepheids, and so helps firm up one of the basic measuring instruments we use to determine the scale of the universe.
In the past, there have been significant changes in our beliefs about the scale of the universe due to problems with interpretation of variable star data--the discovery that some presumed Cepheids were actually RR Lyrae variables changed things by about a factor of two, IIRC.
Things are a lot better than that now, but it is still good to see that people are working to ensure our view of the universe is as consistent and accurate as possible.
Re:some questions (Score:3, Informative)
One guy has reported an easy split at 27x and 96x in an 80mm scope.
With 70mm aperture, I think the key will be high magnification. I would try at least 100x.
If this is a finder scope or binocular with limited power (ie., fixed at 10x or 8x), I doubt you will be able to split it.
Re:Looks like the Bard screwed that up... (Score:3, Informative)
An astronomical detail Shakespeare got wrong. Thanks to the precession of the equinoxes (known in Roman times), there was no Northern Star in Julius Caesar's time. From the latitude of Rome the elevation of Polaris varied over a 2:1 range in 44 BC. There were no brighter stars closer to the pole in that epoch, either.
One of Isaac Asimov's essays discussed this.
...laura