Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

A Star of Space and Film 179

Posted by CmdrTaco 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Star of Space and Film More

A Star of Space and Film

Comments Filter:

  • And did the images show (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 04, 2005 @08:49AM (#11571289)
    Superman escaping from the planet?

  • Bah (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I make pictures like that with photoshop all the time.
  • 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?


    • I would suggest amazed - it's the most appropriate reaction to pretty things you don't understand at all.

      But thanks for at least implying that cosmologists are part of a global conspirahoax, there's something kind of sexy about that. Finally something they can talk about at parties.

      • Finally something they can talk about at parties.

        Maybe, finally, you will get a girls number

        "Since the dawn of time man has dreamt of destroying the sun" ~Monty Burns.

      • Nobody is suggesting a conspiricy theory. I'm merely stating that I don't understand how such an image is still readable and recognizable under such conditions.

        I'm not an astronomer, but that doesn't mean I'm not curious. So, given that Slashdot is "chock-full" of technical experts from a variety of fields, it seemed like a good group to throw this question out to.

        I'm a little surprised that you seem to take this question as a personal affront. Then again, I'm not a writer either.

      • Re:Question for you astronomers out there.... (Score:5, Informative)

        by dr_canak ( 593415 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @09:35AM (#11571654)
        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
        • Now you've got me wondering if some university somewhere has some GPL software that'll do this type of image processing. I've got a couple of little ones and this might be a neat thing to introduce them to.

          I mean, I don't actually have thousands of dollars to spend just to see if it's something my kids might like, but it certainly worth looking into.

          Thanks for the info, and my for actually taking the question seriously. Believe me, I don't even own a tin-foil hat...I just wanted to better understand wha
          • This will get you started.

            http://www.ozskywatch.com/software/image_process in g_and_data_analysis/

            http://linux.tucows.com/preview/9002.html

            http://www.linuxlinks.com/Software/Scientific/As tr onomy/index.shtml

            There is a lot out there, so it's more a matter of sifting through and finding something that you're comfortable with.

            take care,
            jeff

        • Re:Question for you astronomers out there.... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by twiddlingbits ( 707452 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @10:52AM (#11572566)
          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.
          • 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 [stsci.edu] 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 y

            • That's right WFC3 was to go on SM4 which didn't go due to Columbia. My mistake. But there is a COS like instrument there already. If ya really want to know the truth HST is limited more by it's gyro life than anything ;) The software DOES matter. Tell that to my friends and former team-mates at NASA IV&V who found a number of errors, several of them mission critical. The software collects the data from the detectors, packages it up and transmits it. It also controls which filters get used, the shutter
              • The software DOES matter. Tell that to my friends and former team-mates at NASA IV&V who found a number of errors, several of them mission critical.

                Of course the software matters, what doesn't matter is that the software is 20 years old (as long as it processes/transmits data fast enough, which it does). Bugs are bugs, but age in itself doesn't make software bad. In fact, one could claim that older software has had more exposure time, allowing the identification and debugging of more mission-critica

                • Bugs are bugs, but age in itself doesn't make software bad. In fact, one could claim that older software has had more exposure time, allowing the identification and debugging of more mission-critical bugs. Agreed. But the new instruments were going to have new software, and some of the other systems were going to be upgraded. Probably a moot point now.
          • A lot of people in this thread I started were of the paradigm that you just point a fancy camera out in space and take the picture. So, when I questioned how that could work, a lot seemed to assume that I was suggesting a consipiricy. This left me a bit puzzled.

            Your explanation pretty much covers it though. I. E. - it's really not just a matter of taking a picture with a giant floating camera. It has to be reconstructed from what the machine can gather and some of it is apparantly not even in the visib
    • Sharpness is also a quality of scale: this is fucking huge, so /relatively/ it is sharp enough to compare with like a few microseconds old coming from your four-year-old niece riding her bike for the first time.

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

    • Re:Question for you astronomers out there.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Have Blue ( 616 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @09:23AM (#11571537) Homepage
      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).
    • It is worth noting that this image is something like 14 light years across (if I recall correctly from the NASA site) and has been crunched down to fit on a computer screen. Maybe there is huge amounts of signal degradation but it's not showing up with the image reduced so much.

      Still, colors, shapes, etc. I mean, don't we have radio-telescopes for reconstructing images that are vast distances away? What is the threshold?

      I really be curious to know.

    • 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 dar

    • 20,000 light years is nothing, as far as gravitational distortion is concerned. You really only see that effect on galaxies 100 billion times more massive and 10,000 times farther away.
    • 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 wi

  • Astronomy picture of the day (Score:5, Informative)

    by Cyrgo ( 784568 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @08:57AM (#11571322)
    Here is NASA's Astronomy picture of the day site Astronomy picture of the day [nasa.gov] with the same picture and a brief explanation (with hyperlinks).
    Enjoy
    • 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 pa

      • 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. :)

        • As I said in my post, I realize it happened ~20,000 years ago.

          I'm still not following. Where does the number ll come in?? I thought the star exploded at ~year 18,000 BC, and we are now seeing the light from year (18,000 BC + 3). It doesn't matter if we are seeing light from an area of the cloud closer to us, or perpendicular to us relative to the star. The farthest the light should be able to travel before bouncing toward us in time for us to see it now is 3 years, so that would make a 6 ly maximum dia

          • I chose 11 to counter-act the 3 (Score:5, Informative)

            by benhocking ( 724439 ) <benjaminhocking&yahoo,com> on Friday February 04, 2005 @10:21AM (#11572159) Homepage Journal

            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.

          • Where does the number ll come in??

            Please don't use the letter l in place of the number 1. It REALLY screws with my head.

            Regarding the rest of your question, the simple (to say) answer is that time is fluid, and does not flow at the same rate in all places relative to all observers, especially over cosmic-scale distances. Yours is a good question, and if you really want to understand the current beliefs on the mechanics of time under general relativity, you should check out About Time by Paul Davies [amazon.com] for

  • High resolution image anyone? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Does anyone know where I can get a high resolution image of this for making a poster to put on the wall?

  • Budgets (Score:3, Insightful)

    by peterprior ( 319967 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @08:58AM (#11571329)
    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.

    • Re:Budgets (Score:5, Insightful)

      by saider ( 177166 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @09:05AM (#11571375)
      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.

      • Hubble mistakes (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Stunning Tard ( 653417 )
        I was reading an informative article about the mistakes of Hubble yesterday.

        It's time for Hubble-2 [64.233.167.104] [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 c
      • Yes, he hear this argument every single time this subject comes up.

        But please keep in mind that the money is not being directed to more up-to-date space telescope or other space and science-related projects. The money is just being cut, not re-located. That's what people complain about.

      • Re:Budgets (Score:4, Insightful)

        by quarkscat ( 697644 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @10:22AM (#11572171)
        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.
      • There are a bunch of people at John Hopkins University who think the same thing [spaceref.com]. They have proposed a new, Hubble-like telescope called the Hubble Origins Probe. In fact, it would make use of several instruments originally destined for the Hubble. Sounds like a great way to save on costs and yet keep the Hubble legacy alive.

    • Re:Budgets (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I find it sad that while allocating over $100 billion on war, Bush denies $1 billion for hubble.

      Not to mention that he could have bought healthcare for all of the uninsured in the US.

      It's curious that the terrorists have not gone after the President on 9/11 or since.

    • Re:Budgets (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      if i recall bush didn't deny money to hubble, congress did.
    • I'm definitely not a Bush fanboy but it's the House Science Committee [nytimes.com] that is really deciding on the fate of Hubble. If we want to direct our frustrations with the decision somewhere, do it towards them.
    • It must be a busy job being president, especially since you have to take over congress's job.

    • Re:Budgets (Score:2, Informative)

      by disserto ( 817046 )
      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?!
    • I disagree on the Iraq war.

      While I still firmly believe that Bush is a white-collar criminal, war profiteer, fascist thug, liar, drunk, hypocrite, deserter, and derelict in his duty to protect the Constitution, and incompetent as Commander in Chief with regard both to the planning and execution of the Iraqi war effort, and the failure of capturing Osama bin Laden. . .

      But those people are FREE.
      Don't get me wrong. I'm not a starry-eyed neocon. I have no illusions that there won't be more fighting, a civil
      • They are going to be fscking free with a formerly Iran based Ayatollah as leader.

        You USians sometimes are overwhelming with the size of your naivity.

  • Exploding stars (Score:5, Interesting)

    by KiroDude ( 853510 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @09:00AM (#11571340)
    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??
    • 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??

      Well, if it is near enough, we would probably see a lot of radiation. So keep your sunblock ready if it should happen in the next million years. I am doubtful about the gases, though...

      Personally, I'm more worried about traffic accidents, though...

    • Will the gases and radiations be able to reach earth??

      Let me guess; you saw "Supernova"? Nope, radiation's power decreases by 1/(distance^3) which means it becomes next to nothing is a very short distance on cosmic scales.

    • Re:Exploding stars (Score:5, Informative)

      by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @09:28AM (#11571573) Journal
      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
      • The biggest danger to life on earth, currently, is life on earth.

        However - if the earth were to geologicall "die" (as Mars has done), our Magnetic Field would weaken, and the solar wind would erode our atmosphere over hundreds or thousands of years. Earth would probably look a lot like Mars eventually.

        Earth is taking longer to cool than did Mars, because it's bigger.

    • Re:Exploding stars (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mazarin5 ( 309432 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @09:40AM (#11571702) Journal
      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.

      • 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.

        For the record though, the sun is not massive enough to go supernova on its own.

        The sun will indeed swell up and pass through a red giant phase, eventually shucking off its outer layers. The result will be a planetary nebula and a hot remnant that will eventually degenerate (pun intended) into a white dwarf.

        White dwarfs with close companions can eat mass from thei
    • Yes. Though the star would have to be VERY close for the effect to be meaningful. The Sun throws highly charged particles at us constantly, our magnetic field ensures that most of them don't scorch our planet's surface.
    • If you like Sci-Fi, you might want to read Aftermath by Charles Sheffield. It's about the effects of a near-Earth supernova. No idea how accurate it is, but hey, it's just a book.

  • Time-lapse image of the burst from 2002 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Animaether ( 411575 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @09:01AM (#11571345) Journal
    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 [gothard.hu]
    : 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!

    • Apparently faster-than-light (Score:4, Informative)

      by benhocking ( 724439 ) <benjaminhocking&yahoo,com> on Friday February 04, 2005 @09:10AM (#11571419) Homepage Journal

      What's interesting, at least when you first think about it, is how the sphere of influence spans 14 light-years [nasa.gov] 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.

  • From Astonomy Picture of the Day [nasa.gov]:

    "Explanation: Expanding light echoes continue to illuminate the dusty environs of V838 Monocerotis, mysterious variable star near the edge of our Galaxy. This stunning image, produced from Hubble data recorded in October of 2004, adds to a unique series of space-based, high-resolution views. After detecting a sudden outburst from the star in 2002, astronomers have followed the flash expanding at the speed of light through pre-existing dust clouds surrounding the reddened

  • Look at the entire series of HST images over time (Score:5, Informative)

    by StupendousMan ( 69768 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @09:04AM (#11571361) Homepage
    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.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @09:09AM (#11571402)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Beautiful! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Rinikusu ( 28164 )
    but note to you amateur photoshop n00bs (including myself): Just because you see it in these great pics, Lens flare is *never* cool. Put that filter away!

  • Doctor Who (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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.

  • Star Tomography (Score:5, Informative)

    by Nuffsaid ( 855987 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @09:20AM (#11571488)
    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 [nasa.gov]) 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...
  • Can we like fire some of these reporters or maybe like you know make them clean up after astronomers have their pizza party so that they can learn to appreciate the work people and what it does for us in the long run?

    They fawn over 100's of billions spent on military equipment but they call Hubble an aging camera?

  • The Big Question... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by brewer13210 ( 821462 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @09:51AM (#11571797) Homepage
    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
    • 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?

      Those costs don't go away or get substantially cheaper. NASA doesn't typically run on a build-one, test, build-many-cheaper philosophy. The next generation telescope will have a myriad of technology that's all brand new. To be a little cynical, always using new technology demands more input money, which helps NASA survive (
      • You also have to remember that whether or not we build a NEW telescope, we're still have to spend at least a billion to de-orbit Hubble in one way or another. So you'd be looking at $1 billion for "Hubble-disposal" and another $2 billion to launch a replacement-- that's a lot more expensive than the (estimated) cost of just repairing Hubble and swapping out some better equipment in it.
  • ... its batteries will run out in two or three years' time if they are not replaced.

    http://www.ipodsdirtysecret.com/ ... or was that http://www.hubblesdirtysecret.com/ ???

  • Stellar Outburst (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The more politically correct term for what happened is "stellar outburst."

    Are we still talking about the supernova, or Barbara Boxer?
  • Now that I have your attention...

    That crack is only half-kidding - a large part of the problem is that the public doesn't get riled up about this stuff because they think the really good stuff is on videos or games anyway. Too many people would rather watch the latest movie than the latest expedition to inner or outer space (how much money did Cameron make on Titanic? How much is he making on Aliens of the Deep 3D IMAX? How many hits on Star Wars sites, how many the Hubble sites?) More people would ra
  • 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?

    • Re:Image Flare? Is this real? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Betelgeuse ( 35904 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @02:01PM (#11574798) Homepage
      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.

    • On the image, the bright stars have a 4 pointed flare.

      Those aren't flares, they're diffraction spikes. You get them in all astronomical images of bright sources.

      Even though Hubble does indeed have a lens, this is only to correct the optics; most of the focusing is done by its mirror, and I don't think there is any flaring to speak of.

    • Those are diffraction spikes produced by the four struts which hold the secondary mirror in the center of the aperture. The images have been processed to minimize the diffraction spikes.

  • Hubble is done. There is a rumour that next year's NASA budget contains no Hubble servicing money. The $2 billion it costs would have to come out of other NASA programs. Not likely.

  • Hubble Origins Probe: replace instead of repair? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FleaPlus ( 6935 ) on Friday February 04, 2005 @02:44PM (#11575306) Journal
    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 [spaceref.com] to sending a robotic or manned repair mission to the ailing Hubble Space Telescope [wikipedia.org]. Their proposal is to build a new Hubble Origins Probe [jhu.edu], 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 [xprizenews.org], 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 [virgingalactic.com], with actual takeoffs scheduled for 2007.' Volvo will tout Boldlygo.com [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 [wikipedia.org].
  • If you rotate the image, it looks a lot like the Firefox logo [spreadfirefox.com].

Slashdot Top Deals

"Your stupidity, Allen, is simply not up to par." -- Dave Mack (mack@inco.UUCP) "Yours is." -- Allen Gwinn (allen@sulaco.sigma.com), in alt.flame

Close