Stellar Water Fountain

ktulu1115 writes "Space.com writes: An aging star that spits water into space could provide astronomers the clues they need to explain the formation of planetary nebulae, the cloudy remnants of a star's death."

Re:more taxpayer money down the toilet

[ip_vjl]

But aren't there more pressing issues that we should be devoting our resources to?

[snip]

I like science as much as the next guy, provided that it is science that benefits humanity. This masturbatory gee-whiz hobbyist garbage is a shameful waste of precious resources.

Waste of resources? Exactly how much of the public money (of yours) has gone into this project? Seeing as it comes from a research team in Japan, you'd seem to only have a right to complain if you actually pay taxes in Japan.

Isn't the whole point of research - to find knowledge whether or not you have an immediate practical need? Granted, this probably won't directly lead to a cancer cure, but learning about stellar development and lifecycle seems to be relevant since all life on earth depends on our own neighboring star. (not that we'd be able to do anything about it, if we found something wrong, anyway) :)

Re:more taxpayer money down the toilet

[FreakCERS]

I beg to differ...
technology is here to benefit mankind, research to gain knowledge that may, or may not, lead to advances in technology....
many of the discoveries concerning the real essentials of science are made accidentally, or even in some genius' spare time, just playing around...

Re:more taxpayer money down the toilet

[djohnsto]

Aside from not (to my knowledge) being a publicly funded project (at least by the U.S.), I don't agree with the point you're trying to make.

In the grand scheme of things, how much do "space fountains" really matter?

...

I don't want to have to explain to my grandkids that the reason I'm dying of brain disease in the year 2075 is because we were too busy looking for space waterslides to find a cure.

While it may be more important to you to find a way to live longer instead of researching the nature of the universe, I really doubt it would benefit humanity as much. Given current population density growth, it would be much better for everyone if the average life expectancy started going down, not up. The way things are going, it won't be long until there are more people too senile to go to the bathroom by themselves than there will be active, useful members of society. They only reason they won't be allowed to die is because thier kids can't stand the thought of them not being around for the grandkids to see on Christmas. Call me a cruel heartless bastard, but I think scientific research into the mysteries of the universe is monumentally more important to humanity than the difference between our grandparents living to be 70 or our grandparents living to be 100.

Re:a good point, actually

[mcfiddish]

At the age of 50, the elderly should be forced into retirement for 10 years, at which point they can be painlessly put to rest.

Aren't you the same guy who was afraid of dying of brain disease in the year 2075?

Pure science is good--some reasons

[texchanchan]

Re,
... dying of brain disease in the year 2075 ... because we were too busy looking for space waterslides...

You want the money spent on medical science so you (and everybody else) can live longer. That's fine, except: Why? There is no point in mere continued metabolism without enjoyment or purpose, and a lot of people, including me, believe that learning is an excellent and enjoyable activity and a worthy goal. My life would be poorer without astronomical research and all I do is read about it on space.com. When I had cancer last year, yes, it would have been nice if they could have said "Here, take this, you're cured," but would I swap the Hubble telescope for it? No way. What is life without things like this [stsci.edu] in it?

You also want the money spent on reforming bad situations in the world, such as poverty and cruelty. Again, a very fine thing. But it is not possible, even if desirable, to focus entirely on reform and repair. There are two reasons:

- It won't work. People with a scientific bent WILL research, artists will create, comedians will perform, etc., even in the most puritanical society and even at the highest cost to themselves.

- It makes for a self-destructive society. Not the individuals, the culture itself. For instance, the French Revolution. "The revolution has no need of scientists," someone said when they cut off Lavoisier's head. Unbalanced (in the literal sense, not meaning deranged) societies don't last, can't last, and don't leave the world perceptibly better after they go.

Short-sighted, once again...

[jellisky]

While I must admit that this discovery is not all that spectacular, I would like to address your point of view. First of all, what exactly is "science that benefits humanity"? How do you define something as nebulous as that? In my opinion, all science benefits humanity, though not all of it directly. Even this research benefits humanity by giving us insight into how traces of water that float through galaxies might have been formed. The thing about pure science is all about ideas and unlocking truths. For example, you could look at a huge amount of the pure mathematics out there and deem it totally useless... much of it seems to be so contained within the mathematics field that it could seem totally useless to the normal layperson. But then, a smart scientist sees a connection to this higher level mathematics and his or her problem, and makes the full connection. This scientist now has ALL the available tools that the generations of mathematicians have put into this previously "useless" field. Now, thanks to all those previous mathematicians and people who put everything together, the weather forecaster now has the tools to better improve their forecasts, giving you the time that you might not have had before to run to your basement before that tornado touches down a few hundred yards from your house, demolishing it. The point is that one cannot know how "useful" or beneficial pure scientific research really can be. Did you know that one of the most interesting results in early hurricane forecasting (Eliassen, 1951) was motivated not by hurricane applications, but by planetary-scale flow ideas? True, it is nice to focus on research that will directly influence humanity... but one quickly finds that by working on generalizations of their specific problems, they can contribute so much more to humanity since their work will end up being used not only in their own work, but in the works of others. It's this basic research, this pure science, that gives tools to so many people. Now, let's also not forget that, in science, one observation may lead to a hundred questions, and each question, once answered, can lead to a hundred more. And soon, you realize that different people are all asking the same questions, but from totally different sources... then you start putting resources and manpower together... So, while this observation may not seem too useful right off hand, allow yourself to ask the questions that might follow... like, "Where did this water come from? Did it come from the fusion within the star? And if so, how did it truly form?" Now, let's assume that the answer is that it did come from fusion within the star. Then, the people working on building fusion reactors ask, "Well, are we going to produce water in our reactors? And if so, what do we have to worry about with this incredibly important molecule floating around now?" This leads to design innovations that might not have been thought up before, which then leads to safer and more efficient fusion reactors. This is all entirely possible... and was first spurred on by this, as you call it, "masturbatory gee-whiz hobbyist garbage". Granted, yes, it would be nice to throw more money at those direct-application problems. But, we've spent billions of dollars already on heart disease alone, for example, and are we really anywhere closer to "curing" it? No, since we found out rather quickly that it's an environmental problem (i.e., diet, exercise, genetics) that each individual has to worry about for themselves, for the most part. Meanwhile, we throw a few tens of millions at some other sciences and get some amazing things in return, i.e. superconduction (which has yet to come fully to fruition). So, chill, man. Pure sciences are needed as much as their immediately beneficial counterparts. -Jellisky

Re:Bullshit.

[twiztidlojik]

Water is only blue because it reflects light from a clear sky. If you look at water on a cloudy day, it's grey, and if there's something odd going on (like the sky is green) then the water will be green.

This water is probably reflecting red light.

Re:Bullshit.

[CanSpice]

This water isn't reflecting red light (well, it probably is, but that's not what the astronomers were looking at in this study). The image you see in the story is an artist's rendition. All observations of this dying star were made with the VLBA, which does observations in radio wavelengths.

Again, not red, radio.

And I hope you're aware that the previous poster was making a joke. It's funny, see?

Re:Bullshit.

[imkonen]

Where to begin?

1. The picture is an artist's rendition (look at the caption under the picture to the right of the article). The article doesn't say how the nebula was observed, but it's entirely possible it was not using visible light at all but IR, UV, XRAY, whatever (I'm no astronomy expert, but I know they don't always limit themselves to the visible spectrum). The water could have been identified from any number of known absorption lines.

2. The water in question here is probably not liquid water. The article constantly refers to the star spewing "water molecules". Although the incredibly hot water coming from a star probably cools enough to liquify, it's still probably not dense enough to form liquid. If you were out there in a spaceship looking at this star, my guess is you wouldn't be able to see these plumes. Sensitive astronomical equipment, however can see things you can't. Again, this is an artist's rendition.

3. Liquid water is actually blue, and not just from the sky. It absorbs red light a little more than it absorbs blue light. A glass of water absorbs too little for you to see, so the water looks clear. 60 ft of water absorbs enough red light that everything you see looks blue or green. A quick google search turned up this link. http://www.sbu.ac.uk/water/vibrat.html [sbu.ac.uk] The discussion is pretty technical, but about halfway down the page is a nice graph showing water absorbtion vs. wavelength, with the visible spectrum colored in for reference.

4. That said, your point about the sky and reflection is not completely wrong. When you look down at a body of water (as opposed to swimming around under water), most of the light you see is reflected off its surface, and the water will appear similar in color to the sky, regardless of what colors it absorbs. And so, yes, if that were liquid water coming out of the nebula, and that were a real picture, "red" water could still be very easily explained if the nearest source of light were red (like the nebula as it's drawn in the picture).

Radio wavelengths

[dpp]

The article doesn't say how the nebula was observed, but it's entirely possible it was not using visible light at all but IR, UV, XRAY, whatever (I'm no astronomy expert, but I know they don't always limit themselves to the visible spectrum).

You're right. It actually mentions that the work was done with the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA [nrao.edu]) which is a radio telescope.

Nothing new.

[Arthur Dent]

just aging stars drooling. Big deal.

Nothing to see here, move along now.

Super Soaker 10000

[TwP]

Using patented "fusion" technology, the new Super Soaker 10000 will never leave you without ammo on those hot summer days.

Great Journalism

[Kerne]

If it's water, that means the stuff shooting out of that star is between 0 and 100 degrees celcius. Last time I checked, ambient space was well below 0 and most stars are more than a little above 100.

"Water jets" are what I got in my jacuzzi...now if they had said water vapor...

Re:Great Journalism

[Mt._Honkey]

Why does it have to be liquid water? Last I checked, any H2O was considered water, liquid or not.

Re:Great Journalism

[CanSpice]

I hope you're trying to be funny.*

Any H2O molecule is a water molecule, regardless of its state. When I was doing analysis of data looking at a young stellar object, there were definite water absorbtion bands in the spectrum. The temperature of this object was something like 80K, which is well below the freezing point of water, and yet, when it came time to write up the paper, I referred to it as water.

Everybody in the astronomical world does the same. They might call it "water ice"**, but it's always water.

* If you're not, then I weep for the educational system. If you are, then I weep for whoever modded your comment up as "insightful".

** And "ice" doesn't necessarily refer to water ice either. Another example of ice found out there would be methane ice.

Good grief!

[msouth]

This is voyeurism at its worst? Can't an old star take a leace in peace without a bunch of sicko astranomers trying to get a picture?