Hubble's Festive View of a Grand Star-Forming Region
December 20, 2009 3:01 PM Subscribe
A new photograph from the Hubble shows the largest stellar nursery in our galactic region. Click on the picture for a larger image.
Holy smokes. That's amazing.
How is it that sci fi TV and movie special effects people knew that the universe was going to be so amazing 5, 10, or 20 years ago? Somehow all of their incredible images seem to match perfectly the computer-enhanced, non-true-color pictures coming back from Hubble 1.0 and 2.0. Hooray for human imagination ... and hooray for human scientific innovation validating that imagination decades later.
posted by scblackman at 3:10 PM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
How is it that sci fi TV and movie special effects people knew that the universe was going to be so amazing 5, 10, or 20 years ago? Somehow all of their incredible images seem to match perfectly the computer-enhanced, non-true-color pictures coming back from Hubble 1.0 and 2.0. Hooray for human imagination ... and hooray for human scientific innovation validating that imagination decades later.
posted by scblackman at 3:10 PM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
Move over, dogs playing poker - I found a new desktop wallpaper.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 3:14 PM on December 20, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 3:14 PM on December 20, 2009 [4 favorites]
"How is it that sci fi TV and movie special effects people knew that the universe was going to be so amazing 5, 10, or 20 years ago? Somehow all of their incredible images seem to match perfectly the computer-enhanced, non-true-color pictures coming back from Hubble 1.0 and 2.0."
Well, Hubble will have been up there for 20 years next year, so the 5 and 10 year thing isn't so amazing. And ground based observing can produce surprisingly good results - these were taken by an amateur for example.
posted by edd at 3:18 PM on December 20, 2009 [3 favorites]
Well, Hubble will have been up there for 20 years next year, so the 5 and 10 year thing isn't so amazing. And ground based observing can produce surprisingly good results - these were taken by an amateur for example.
posted by edd at 3:18 PM on December 20, 2009 [3 favorites]
My God, it's full of stars.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 3:30 PM on December 20, 2009 [6 favorites]
posted by monju_bosatsu at 3:30 PM on December 20, 2009 [6 favorites]
Not to derail, but here's some more incredible desktop-worthy space images for people to enjoy, updated everyday. (Here's an index, in case you had something specific in mind.)
posted by autoclavicle at 3:31 PM on December 20, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by autoclavicle at 3:31 PM on December 20, 2009 [5 favorites]
Holy ... wow. Dogs playing poker will never grace my desktop again. Might as well have this entire index on daily rotation.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 3:33 PM on December 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 3:33 PM on December 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
... the largest stellar nursery ...
Awwww ... wook at da cute widdoh staws ...
posted by ZenMasterThis at 3:36 PM on December 20, 2009
Awwww ... wook at da cute widdoh staws ...
posted by ZenMasterThis at 3:36 PM on December 20, 2009
Hello, baby stars! I love you.
posted by inconsequentialist at 3:38 PM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by inconsequentialist at 3:38 PM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]
So gorgeous, thanks!
posted by localhuman at 3:56 PM on December 20, 2009
posted by localhuman at 3:56 PM on December 20, 2009
With a bigger telescope you would see Michael Jackson dancing in the middle of it all.
posted by Anything at 4:20 PM on December 20, 2009
posted by Anything at 4:20 PM on December 20, 2009
Squeeeee baby stars! *attempts to snorgle them, is vaporized*
posted by msbutah at 4:22 PM on December 20, 2009
posted by msbutah at 4:22 PM on December 20, 2009
I can't wait to see the images produced by the new telescope that will replace Hubble in the near future.
posted by bwg at 4:39 PM on December 20, 2009
posted by bwg at 4:39 PM on December 20, 2009
Yeah, I second Marisa - hello, new desktop. On Windows 7, they even shine through the taskbar at the bottom. Cool.
posted by Michael Roberts at 5:29 PM on December 20, 2009
posted by Michael Roberts at 5:29 PM on December 20, 2009
Awesome, except... what's with all the lens flare? Since when does JJ Abrams have access to the Hubble?
posted by elizardbits at 5:39 PM on December 20, 2009
posted by elizardbits at 5:39 PM on December 20, 2009
How is it that sci fi TV and movie special effects people knew that the universe was going to be so amazing 5, 10, or 20 years ago?
I understand what you're saying, but you're numbers are way off. I can't vouch for earlier television and cinema, but Star Trek is almost 45 years old, and it featured astronomical objects similar to what Hubble might find. But the HST wasn't the first to take photos of cosmological phenomenon, and Henry Draper took the first photos of a nebula in 1880.
posted by furtive at 5:42 PM on December 20, 2009
I understand what you're saying, but you're numbers are way off. I can't vouch for earlier television and cinema, but Star Trek is almost 45 years old, and it featured astronomical objects similar to what Hubble might find. But the HST wasn't the first to take photos of cosmological phenomenon, and Henry Draper took the first photos of a nebula in 1880.
posted by furtive at 5:42 PM on December 20, 2009
elizardbits: that's what happens when you have diffraction-limited optics and bright point sources. The spikes are the result of light diffracting off the rods that hold up the secondary mirror. (You can see the rods here, the very thin black rods on the left, not the big brown trusses.) Unfortunately there's very little that can be done to prevent these.
posted by kiltedtaco at 5:58 PM on December 20, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by kiltedtaco at 5:58 PM on December 20, 2009 [3 favorites]
::hums the Star Trek: The Next Generation title theme, sheds a solitary tear::
posted by Faint of Butt at 6:18 PM on December 20, 2009
posted by Faint of Butt at 6:18 PM on December 20, 2009
I'm so sick of these goddamn nebulae birthing all these stars that you just know it's not going to able to take care of. So now my taxes go up because this nebula couldn't keep it's nebulous legs closed. Bet it doesn't even know who the father is.
posted by Ritchie at 7:10 PM on December 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Ritchie at 7:10 PM on December 20, 2009 [2 favorites]
kiltedtaco: Unfortunately there's very little that can be done to prevent these.
For amateur-sized scopes, you can use curved spiders, use a window to hold the secondary mirror (as in a Schmidt-Cassegrain design, but without making it a lens), or use an off-axis secondary. However, for research scopes, most of these designs don't scale up well, and I don't think the diffraction spikes hurt much anyways, so they don't do them. Besides, a lot of people actually like the aesthetics.
posted by Mitrovarr at 7:51 PM on December 20, 2009
For amateur-sized scopes, you can use curved spiders, use a window to hold the secondary mirror (as in a Schmidt-Cassegrain design, but without making it a lens), or use an off-axis secondary. However, for research scopes, most of these designs don't scale up well, and I don't think the diffraction spikes hurt much anyways, so they don't do them. Besides, a lot of people actually like the aesthetics.
posted by Mitrovarr at 7:51 PM on December 20, 2009
However, for research scopes, most of these designs don't scale up well, and I don't think the diffraction spikes hurt much anyways, so they don't do them. Besides, a lot of people actually like the aesthetics.
If the diffraction spikes affected the data, you can bet they'd find a way to get rid of them. A simple way in optical wavelengths is to mount the secondary on a clear plate, but HST operates considerably wider than optical -- NICMOS is a pure IR instrument, COS is pure ultraviolet, and bout ACS and WFC3 operate from the near IR to the near UV.
The best thing to pass such a wide range of light is "nothing" -- or, in this case "vacuum", so rather than a plate, arms hold the secondary in place. Yes, they're 100% opaque where they're at, but they're 100% transparent where they are, over the entire sensing range of the instruments.
And that's what counts. If the spikes cover something you care about, you just rotate the scope and the spikes will move.
posted by eriko at 8:54 PM on December 20, 2009
If the diffraction spikes affected the data, you can bet they'd find a way to get rid of them. A simple way in optical wavelengths is to mount the secondary on a clear plate, but HST operates considerably wider than optical -- NICMOS is a pure IR instrument, COS is pure ultraviolet, and bout ACS and WFC3 operate from the near IR to the near UV.
The best thing to pass such a wide range of light is "nothing" -- or, in this case "vacuum", so rather than a plate, arms hold the secondary in place. Yes, they're 100% opaque where they're at, but they're 100% transparent where they are, over the entire sensing range of the instruments.
And that's what counts. If the spikes cover something you care about, you just rotate the scope and the spikes will move.
posted by eriko at 8:54 PM on December 20, 2009
How is it that sci fi TV and movie special effects people knew that the universe was going to be so amazing 5, 10, or 20 years ago?
What are you talking about? The universe hasn't changed in that time. And the Hubble gets pictures in higher resolution, but there are other nebulas that are much closer. This particular one was in a whole other galaxy.
posted by delmoi at 9:14 PM on December 20, 2009
What are you talking about? The universe hasn't changed in that time. And the Hubble gets pictures in higher resolution, but there are other nebulas that are much closer. This particular one was in a whole other galaxy.
posted by delmoi at 9:14 PM on December 20, 2009
Beautiful... but deadly.
Yeah, I got nothing. Pretty picture, though.
posted by Target Practice at 10:18 PM on December 20, 2009
Yeah, I got nothing. Pretty picture, though.
posted by Target Practice at 10:18 PM on December 20, 2009
Several of them are over 100 times more massive than our Sun. These hefty stars are destined to pop off, like a string of firecrackers, as supernovas in a few million years
Made me wonder what the largest star was. According to Wikipedia it's VY Canis Majoris which is 2600 times wider then the sun. Not more massive wider. That means it has about 17 billion times more volume. But apparently it's only about 25 times more massive. It's not all that dense.
posted by delmoi at 12:23 AM on December 21, 2009
Made me wonder what the largest star was. According to Wikipedia it's VY Canis Majoris which is 2600 times wider then the sun. Not more massive wider. That means it has about 17 billion times more volume. But apparently it's only about 25 times more massive. It's not all that dense.
posted by delmoi at 12:23 AM on December 21, 2009
Oh apparently the most massive star known is WR 102ka "also known as the Peony Nebula Star or Peony star".
posted by delmoi at 12:30 AM on December 21, 2009
posted by delmoi at 12:30 AM on December 21, 2009
A youtube video showing planets and stars to scale. Zooming like this really shows the relative sizes.
posted by jjj606 at 3:33 AM on December 21, 2009
posted by jjj606 at 3:33 AM on December 21, 2009
« Older Gory & Defeated? Never! | Alabamas Homeboys Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I was thinking this comparison made it seem insignificant, then I realized it IS insignificant in galactic terms. Neat stuff.
posted by brundlefly at 3:08 PM on December 20, 2009 [1 favorite]