NASA Releases First 3D Images of the Sun 80
mvar writes "On Feb. 6th, NASA's twin STEREO probes moved into position on opposite sides of the sun, and they are now beaming back uninterrupted images of the entire star—front and back. 'For the first time ever, we can watch solar activity in its full 3-dimensional glory,' says Angelos Vourlidas, a member of the STEREO science team at the Naval Research Lab in Washington, DC. NASA released a 'first light' 3D movie on, naturally, Super Bowl Sunday."
Re: (Score:3)
Flat sun (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Circle goes up, circle goes down. Never a miscommunication.
I was always taught not to look at the sun... (Score:2)
even through glasses, but are we allowed to look at the sun through 3D glasses?
Re: (Score:1)
...but momma, that's where the fun is.
Re:I was always taught not to look at the sun... (Score:5, Funny)
My eyes! The 3D glasses, they do nothing!
Re: (Score:1)
That post makes your name ironic. Not an onlooker anymore are you?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
If you use good cyan and yellow glasses, you'll burn be left with just red and blue receptors left in your retinas. This will allow you to look at red-blue 3D images without the glasses!
Not first in 3D, by a long shot (Score:5, Informative)
STEREO, as the name suggests, has been broadcasting 3D images of the sun since it launched many, many years ago. the satellites had slightly (and increasingly) different viewpoints, which could then be combined to give a binocular view of the sun. The long-term mission was to put the satellites at opposite sides of the sun for continuous coverage of the surface, a position in which they cannot generate 3D images of it because their perspectives are completely exclusive. That is what has been achieved.
Re: (Score:2)
(I should say anything above the limb of the sun to one satellite is above the limb to the other satellite as well, and can be viewed stereoscopically. They're only mutually exclusive for the sun itself.)
Re: (Score:2)
But what they now achieved is very much 3D - we can have a decent, current 3D model of whole Sun (well, polar regions most likely suffer major loss of detail, as well as lowest latitudes which aren't at any given point in "head on" view)
Re: (Score:2)
But what we have now is very much a 3D model of current state of the whole Sun (well, polar regions probably suffer major loss of detail, as well as more equatorial regions which are at a given moment viewed from very acute angles)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
But we're talking about intrastellar distances here so... oh wait.... ;)
Re: (Score:1)
It's pretty obvious from released material that there should be at least 3 satellites orbiting...
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty obvious from released material that there should be at least 3 satellites orbiting...
The 3rd "satellite" is Earth.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, it's not as well positioned as the other two. They should do something about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Emphasis mine. Previous 3-D images did not contain the full surface of the Sun as the two probes would have to be on opposite sides of the Sun to achieve such. They are now and thus there is no missing portion of the surface of the Sun. The page name also says it all:
I would also point out that the second link ma
Re: (Score:2)
So has the sun, as it turns out. Also, for a bit longer I think.
Re: (Score:2)
...which means that we now have a 3D model of the sun at any point in time for as long as these probes have been opposite each other. You can now in theory load this model into Blender or Celestia and view the sun from any angle, not just from two fixed viewpoints. Hell, you could build one out of papier mache if you wanted.
This is true 3D, as opposed to stereoscopic (think 3D films) which was all we had when the probes were close together, and so far as I know the first time this has been done.
Not so Magic Eye (Score:1)
I keep trying to cross my eyes, but I still don't see it.
The sun is scary. (Score:1)
Especially since, in 4 billion years, it will turn the planet into a crisp ember. Of course humans will probably have moved-on by then, but in 50 billion years ALL the stars will have burnt-out to dying red embers.
Then what do we do? "This..... all of this was for nothing." - sinclair, B5
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
50 billion years ALL the stars will have burnt-out to dying red embers.
Then what do we do?
I guess that is best a problem that we leave to future generations to solve. I ain't certainly going to be around to worry about it. Kinda sorta like that nuclear waste that the US is doing with the nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. If the folks haven't learned in 50 billion years from how to deal with this stuff . . . well then, fuck 'em. Lazy bastards. Maybe the great-great-recursion-needed grandson of Steven Hawking will figure a way to light up a new sun.
That sure makes a great famil
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe it could be put more simply like this: How can the net amount of entropy of the universe be massively decreased?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Especially since, in 4 billion years, it will turn the planet into a crisp ember. Of course humans will probably have moved-on by then, but in 50 billion years ALL the stars will have burnt-out to dying red embers.
Then what do we do? "This..... all of this was for nothing." - sinclair, B5
Way to add to my 30-year old crisis...
Re: (Score:1)
>>>30-year old crisis...
Yeah. It's all pretty much pointless. Might as well say "frak it all" and go screw as many women as you can..... kinda like Assange does. ;-)
Does not compute (Score:1, Offtopic)
Why is it natural for NASA to release a 3D image of the Sun on Super Bowl Sunday?
In related news, the Super Bowl hit a record high of eight accused sexual predators on the field at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it natural for NASA to release a 3D image of the Sun on Super Bowl Sunday?
In related news, the Super Bowl hit a record high of eight accused sexual predators on the field at the same time.
Uh, because it's SuperBowl SUNday... duh..
You missed the whole rest of it... (Score:2)
(eyeroll)
Yeah, thanks, I got that bit.
But why SUPER BOWL Sunday in particular. You savvy?
Re: (Score:2)
In related news, the Super Bowl hit a record high of eight accused sexual predators on the field at the same time.
At least that explains why neither team brought cheerleaders...
Other than Rothlisberger, who were the other sexual predators?
It wasn't planned ... (Score:2)
The press release was originally scheduled for Wednesday, so they'd have time to get the data down from the spacecraft, and generate the maps necessary for making the movies as if the camera were flying around the sun. Note at the bottom of the story:
Unfortunately, someone leaked to the press last week that the spacecraft would get 360 degree coverage, and so they moved up the press co
DO look at 3D images of Sun... (Score:2)
2012 prevented! (Score:3)
At long last Planet X can be revealed!
If we can see all the way around the sun, Planet X can never hide behind it again, or sneak out from behind it when we're asleep and crash into the Earth. Thanks NASA!
Re:Feasibility of satellites in North / South plac (Score:4, Informative)
How hard would it to get satellites seated above and below an object?
Very. You'd have to fight gravity with propulsion or they would fall into the object. A satellite has to orbit or it will fall into the planet.
You could get fancy and try to exploit another object's gravity and then occupy the Lagrangian points, but I can't think of a real-world example of where this would work at the poles.
If you used an extremely elliptical orbit, you could at least have a line-of-sight to a pole for a long period of time. Use two satellites and you could cover a pole full-time using an elliptical orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NASA finds: (Score:2)
Pictures of the sun? (Score:3)
Whose bright idea was this?
When can I see it on... (Score:1)
Another one hops on the bandwagon (Score:2)
So all this time... (Score:2)
The sun was a sphere, not a cylinder? Damn.
Re: (Score:1)
Funny, I thought the sun was a giant ball of burning gas.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you'll find it's a miasma of incandescent plasma.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'll find it's a miasma of incandescent plasma.
And here I always thought it was just a mass of incandescent gas [youtube.com]. :)
Re: (Score:2)
No, no, definitely a miasma of incandescent plasma....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLkGSV9WDMA [youtube.com] :)
Re: (Score:1)
Great (Score:1)
Now we can start looking for good landing sites.
I'm sure that some internet company will have sold off all the good bits long before the first possible mission can get there, like they are doing with the stars, and all the good bits will have been recorded in a book to be stored in the Library of Congress (and no where else).
Re: (Score:2)
Now we can start looking for good landing sites.
Make sure you go at night!
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could just wait 6 months.
No need for that. The Sun rotates on its axis just like the Earth does. The Sun's equator takes 24.5 days to rotate. At 26degrees North Latitude, where most of the sunspot activity takes place, the Sun rotates every 25.4 days. The difference is due to the Sun not being a solid body.
Shadows on the Sun (Score:1)
According to the artist's rendition, we can expect the sun to be partially in shadow... ;-P
Re: (Score:1)
Obviously because the cameras on the satellites have flashes.
Great, better pics of the Aliens! (Score:2)
This was desperately needed because these pictures are crap.
Frankly, they look about as detailed as this: http://www.spaceshooter.com/games/screenshot.php?pid=34&shot=5 [spaceshooter.com]
No mean feat (Score:2)
Yes, but when... (Score:1)
Yes, but when will they release pictures of the sun in Imax?