Hubble Space Telescope Photographs Mysterious Star Cluster with Same-Generation Stars (space.com) 10
Hubble Space Telescope Photographs Mysterious Star Cluster with Same-Generation Stars
"A celestial workhorse and its dedicated team of astronomers are at it again," reports Space.com, "by delivering a hypnotic new image of a globular cluster and its infinite depth of stars."
But while a new image from the Hubble Space Telescope is stunning, there's much more to this section of the heavens than the eye can see. The cluster, called Ruprecht 106, is also home to a great mystery of Sherlockian proportions — and the game's afoot to unlock clues to the cluster's enigmatic makeup, according to a statement from the European Space Agency, a partner on the observatory.
Scientists agree that even though the core stars in a globular cluster were all born at roughly the same time and location, there are stars within these cosmic nurseries that exhibit unique chemical compositions that can differ widely. Astronomers believe that this variation represents later stars formed from gas polluted by processed material of the larger first-generation stars. However, rare globular clusters like Ruprecht 106 are devoid of these varieties of stars and instead are cataloged as single-population clusters, where no second- or third-generation stars ever formed.
Astronomers hope that studying this captivating globular cluster in more detail can explain why it sports only one generation of stars.
Scientists agree that even though the core stars in a globular cluster were all born at roughly the same time and location, there are stars within these cosmic nurseries that exhibit unique chemical compositions that can differ widely. Astronomers believe that this variation represents later stars formed from gas polluted by processed material of the larger first-generation stars. However, rare globular clusters like Ruprecht 106 are devoid of these varieties of stars and instead are cataloged as single-population clusters, where no second- or third-generation stars ever formed.
Astronomers hope that studying this captivating globular cluster in more detail can explain why it sports only one generation of stars.
There's always a first. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:There's always a first. (Score:4, Informative)
It's not exactly an automated procedure - there are legitimate arguments to have about which age-luminosity relationship to use, and there is subjectivity in picking a turn-off point (I expect to see an "AI does globular cluster age" paper any day now) - but astronomers don't guess the age of globular clusters. They have good reasons for the estimates they make - and error bars on that age estimate.
Incidentally, the bottom limit for such age estimates is in the tens of millions of years - the most massive stars - if there were examples in a small cluster, which is a factor in the error bars - burn into red giants in very short periods, when their light colour and luminosity moves off the "main sequence" line. That's on the time scale that stars actually take to form by collapse of molecular clouds.
Nice idea - doesn't work.
Hubble vs. JWST (Score:4, Insightful)
Hubble is an incredible asset, studies like these one were only possible because the the Faint Object Camera from 1993 was upgraded to the Advanced Camera for Surveys in 2002 for a "mere" 86 million dollars (a space mission), something not possible with JWST unless we spend another 10 billion. In 10 years scientist will wish they could fix or upgrade something in JWST but will not have this possibility. The recent damage to a mirror due to a micrometeoroid https://science.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org] is a first example.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that it would be nice to be able to extend JWST's life and capabilities with service missions. However: how would one actually do that? JWST cannot operate in the vicinity of Earth (too warm, too much infra
Re: (Score:2)
(I take issue with your numbers: the ACS itself may have been $86M, but the shuttle mission to install it was more on the order of $1-2B.)
You are right, thanks. Also total costs (from Wikipedia) for Hubble were: $4.7b at launch and $11.3b (cumulative).
It would great to leverage more the Lagrange points. Hopefully in 2037 we'll have the launch of LISA (1 AU interferometer).
Re: (Score:2)
... which was considered in the mission planning stage, and accepted as an operational risk.
Ultimately, I'd expect the terminal stages of JWST's lifetime to include one or more of the mirror segments being moved to a position where deflected light from impact damage (not necessarily a crater - a back-side impact raising a large dent/ hump on the reflective surface might be worse than a
News for nerds... thanks Editors. (Score:4, Insightful)
On a different note, I appreciate posts that are genuinely "news for nerds" (the technical nerds usually loves space stuff). There is no angle in politics or free speech to attract cheap polemics and increase the comments counter, so stories like this one look at first a bummer for the site managers, but it's the occasional science stories that keeps me (and possibly other technical people) coming here in the first place. Otherwise it's US vs. EU vs. China by people who don't work in economy or diplomacy, or cryptocurrency bashing that won't change anybody's opinion. All of that is entertaining to watch but many other places already offer me the opportunity to exhibit my incompetence in politics. I come here to show how little I know of space and physics and stuff.
Lo,l Ruprect 106 (Score:2)
The reason it hasn't formed any later generation stars is that it is congenitally developmentally delayed. We don't give that cluster dangerous second and third generation objects, and it wouldn't use them correctly anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
From a specific angle (Score:2)
From a specific angle the cluster forms a message that reads
"We apologize for the inconvenience"