4/22/2004: New Hubble image: Ring galaxy

[Undertoad]

Sometimes we see these Hubble images without realizing that these are probably the space images that are going to last and last. These are the ones that'll be posted in schools, that children growing up today will think of as "pictures from space", just as my own generation had its moon images and planet images and eventually Apollo images and such.

Some of the Hubble images are more picturesque than others and you would have to think these are the ones that will be thought of that way, and this new one is very picturesque. The official description tells us that it's 150,000 light years in diameter, the result of galaxies colliding.

More in the full story, which also tells us that "Anyone who lives on planets embedded in the ring would be treated to a view of a brilliant band of blue stars arching across the heavens. The view would be relatively short-lived because theoretical studies indicate that the blue ring will not continue to expand forever. After about 300 million years, it will reach a maximum radius, and then begin to disintegrate."

[Troubleshooter]

Um, wow...

[MachineyBear]

I have to say, This Hubble guy is definately one of my favorite painters.

[Elspode]

A giant ripple in the cosmic pond, I'm guessing...well, sort of.

The shock from the interaction between the two galaxies causes gravitational collapse along the shock boundary, raising matter density high enough that star formation can occur. The ring of hot blue stars are the young artifacts of that, and they won't last long because they *are* hot blue stars, and they burn out quickly.

I didn't read the explanation. Am I right?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by Elspode
The ring of hot blue stars are the young artifacts of that, and they won't last long because they *are* hot blue stars, and they burn out quickly.

Sigh, the story of my life.

[onetrack]

I am the original cynic .. how do we know there's not a Christmas card stuck to the lens of the telescope? ..

After all .. this was the 'scope that somebody screwed up on, in the lens grinding dept, wasn't it? .. and it had to be fitted with glasses?

[warch]

We gotta go back to Hubble. Theres too much more to see.

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by onetrack
I am the original cynic .. how do we know there's not a Christmas card stuck to the lens of the telescope? ..

Hahahaha! Thanks for the giggle!!

[dar512]

Originally posted by Undertoad
"Anyone who lives on planets embedded in the ring would be treated to a view of a brilliant band of blue stars arching across the heavens. The view would be relatively short-lived because theoretical studies indicate that the blue ring will not continue to expand forever. After about 300 million years, it will reach a maximum radius, and then begin to disintegrate."

I burn my candle at both ends,
It will not last the night.
But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends,
It gives a lovely light.

— Edna St. Vincent Millay

[Tomas Rueda]

it is almost tragical that Nasa chose to close the Hubble program to create another program that would put humans in the moon(again) and to Mars. -Here, let me take away your 20/20 vision and let's go to the groceries; you drive of couse.

G, Bush gave the push to the program.

[linknoid]

Well, if we ever get a moon base, it might eventually allow construction of observatories the size we have on Earth, but without the atmosphere. Sure, it will probably be a long time before that happens, but the big deal about Hubble isn't the size/quality, it's the fact that there's no atmosphere in the way. So if we start getting 20 or 30 foot mirrors on the moon, that will blow away anything we have now.

[Tomas Rueda]

But I don't think that a telescope on the moon will manage anything. the moon revolves in itself at the same time as it takes to give one rotation around the earth (thus the same side is always shown)

Images from Hubble like the one above require hours, sometimes days to receive enough light form the distant (and dim) sources. Like a still time photo, it has to stay looking at the same spot for the required time. A telescope on the moon would not solve that.
(ex. you are driving at 35mph and a friend has a camera. you were told to take a photo of a diamond earing that a lady is wearing that is in the middle of the park, without pulling over or slowing down the car. it simply can't be done.

the same with telescopes. the car above is the moon, the camera the telescope.

However if you could pull over you can take the picture. such as the Hubble is doing right now.

[Slartibartfast]

Earthbound telescopes would be able to take better pictures than Hubble if it wasn't for the atmosphere. Their tracking ability is very very very accurate, and they have optics much bigger than Hubble.

The Hubble is not pulled over, it is playing space pinball like everything else up there (and down here). It does not have the whole sky available to it at all times. It still orbits the earth, so parts of the sky will 'rise' and 'set' as Hubble changes location. Hubble can't see the whole sky simultaneously, its field of view changes over time, it is not fixed. For most targets, the astronomers wait for the object to come into view, then they take the exposure within the time available. During the time of the exposure, the target is moving in the sky, so Hubble has to track it using gyros, flywheels, and gizmos much like a planetbound telescope has to track its target as the earth rotates. For some super long exposures like the Hubble Ultra Deep Field with all the cool galaxies, they can take hundreds of exposures over many days and later composite them, but Hubble can't take one super long shot, the target is just not always in view.

[Elspode]

Adaptive optics are starting to allow Earthbound 'scopes to produce images rivalling Hubble, especially in certain wavelengths.

[wolf]

I had a patient tonight tell me that such things as taking magnificent photographs from a moon-based telescope was already possible as there is a secret base on the dark side of the moon.