Massive Star Collision Spotted by Hubble

[carstensdj]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/08/120821-star-clusters-hubble-space-science-galaxies/

The Hubble Space Telescope has glimpsed the first moments of a head-on collision between two massive star clusters, astronomers say.

The impending cosmic crash is occurring within a 25-million-year-old giant star factory known as the Tarantula Nebula, or 30 Doradus, which is located 170,000 light-years away from Earth.

The Tarantula Nebula is buried inside the Large Magellanic Cloud—a small companion galaxy of the Milky Way.

"We think the merger is undergoing and our simulations indicate that it will take about three million years to be completed," said Elena Sabbi, lead scientist at the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, Maryland.

The larger cluster, containing 52,000 stars, has dramatically twisted and stretched out the previously unknown smaller cluster containing ten thousand stars to such an extent that it had been unrecognizable until now, Sabbi said.

"Hubble allowed us to observe for the first time the fainter and most numerous stars, revealing the presence of the second cluster," she said.

Sabbi and her team accidentally came across the merging objects while looking for runaway stars—massive suns thrown out of their nursery cluster at speeds of up to 62,000 miles (100,000 kilometers) per hour. The Tarantula Nebula is already known to contain such runaways.

The scientists suggest that the merging clusters' gravitational dance may have launched these high-velocity stars to begin with.

(See "Galaxy Cluster Stuns Scientists—Supermassive and Spewing Out Stars.")


Star Clusters Rethought

Understanding the origin of these runaway stars will help form more accurate computer models of the birth and evolution of star clusters across the cosmos, Sabbi added. (See more star pictures.)

"According to some current models, the giant clouds [of gas and dust] from which star clusters are created fall apart in smaller pieces, and these small parts can later merge into a heavy cluster," she said.

"This is what we think we are observing for the first time in the most active region of star formation in the local universe."

This newfound cluster collision may also lead to a rethinking of the true nature of star clusters, which are found in all the universe's galaxies, noted University of Arizona astronomer Dennis Zaritsky, who is not associated with the study.

"Stellar clusters have been thought of as a single-age, homogeneous population of stars with older clusters gravitationally self-bound, but now, if clusters can be, in some cases, combinations of clusters, then we can no longer expect them to have a single-age or chemical abundance," Zaritsky said.

"Bottom line is that this new evidence for an ongoing merger will affect how we interpret all future cluster observations."

 

[Synaesthesia]

Nice picture for 170 000 light years away (!)

 

[RiaX]

Nice picture for 170 000 light years away (!)

The actual picture doesnt look like that btw. That is artwork to give you an idea of what it will look like if you where there. Its a composite from radio, xray and normal telescopes. Then an artist fills in the colour according to the analysis of the light and data which tells them the constituents. Most data is black and white, just btw.

Still fantasic picture.

 

[carstensdj]

The actual picture doesnt look like that btw. That is artwork to give you an idea of what it will look like if you where there. Its a composite from radio, xray and normal telescopes. Then an artist fills in the colour according to the analysis of the light and data which tells them the constituents. Most data is black and white, just btw.

Still fantasic picture.

Wow! I never knew that! Are most of the Space pics handled like that?

 

[isie]

Wow! I never knew that! Are most of the Space pics handled like that?

prety much all photographs and videos of outer space are handled like that (even some in our solar system) - plus they add their own artistic licence to these images -doesnt make it less spectecular in my eyes

P.s love trying to explain that to people when they send me that "eye of God' miracle email

 

[azbob]

The actual picture doesnt look like that btw. That is artwork to give you an idea of what it will look like if you where there. Its a composite from radio, xray and normal telescopes. Then an artist fills in the colour according to the analysis of the light and data which tells them the constituents. Most data is black and white, just btw.

Still fantasic picture.

Ay this guy and his BS. The hubble is only an optical (or as you cutely call it, "normal") telescope, it captures no radio or x-ray data. The only slight truth in your post is regarding the colours which are added later during image processing.

 

[bekdik]

Ay this guy and his BS. The hubble is only an optical (or as you cutely call it, "normal") telescope, it captures no radio or x-ray data. The only slight truth in your post is regarding the colours which are added later during image processing.

Is it possible that non optical data is sourced from other devices?

 

[azbob]

Is it possible that non optical data is sourced from other devices?

Ofcourse, but then they should not claim it is a "Hubble Image"

 

[abandonallhope]

How long ago did this happen ? 170 000 years ?

 

[Geriatrix]

How long ago did this happen ? 170 000 years ?

Well, technically it's still happening.

 

[Unhappy438]

Ay this guy and his BS. The hubble is only an optical (or as you cutely call it, "normal") telescope, it captures no radio or x-ray data. The only slight truth in your post is regarding the colours which are added later during image processing.

This ^^ . The hubble records images with light using a detector and its produced in black and white. Colour is then added, it must be noted if we were to visit these areas we wouldnt necessarily see the objects displaying the same colours. The colours are merely added to enhance the relevant objects on display.

 

[RiaX]

Ay this guy and his BS. The hubble is only an optical (or as you cutely call it, "normal") telescope, it captures no radio or x-ray data. The only slight truth in your post is regarding the colours which are added later during image processing.

Not BS perhaps read up on how they make those pictures? and I didnt say anything about the hubble >.<

You cant see through clouds of dust with an optical telescope

 

[azbob]

Not BS perhaps read up on how they make those pictures? and I didnt say anything about the hubble >.<

You cant see through clouds of dust with an optical telescope

Listen here, buddy. I'm getting tired of your long wided posts everywhere with your so-called pharmaceutical knowledge. This thread is about the Hubble and it's images and you say "I didnt say anything about the hubble" WTF?!

And yes, the Hubble can see through dust, it has what is called a Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer (NICMOS) which allows it to "see" through clouds of gas and dust that block visible light.

Please stop filling this forum with your unsubstantiated claims.

 

[RiaX]

Image posted is a composite developed by NASA FACT. Hubble has multiple dectors and as you stated the hubble is not a single telescope its a technically a combined array with multiple detectors that share an optical lense. So labelling it as a optical telescope is incorrect. So thanks for proving yourself wrong ... fool

[video=youtube;p5c1XoL1KFs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5c1XoL1KFs[/video]

sped up in 2 minutes on how these pictures are made

 

[azbob]

That video proved absolutely nothing of what you said. WTF?! Those are all OPTICAL images from the Hubble to which colour is added as I've said. You still have no idea what you're on about. Your video did nothing but prove me right.

 

[azbob]

Image posted is a composite developed by NASA FACT. Hubble has multiple dectors and as you stated the hubble is not a single telescope its a technically a combined array with multiple detectors that share an optical lense. So labelling it as a optical telescope is incorrect. So thanks for proving yourself wrong ... fool

sped up in 2 minutes on how these pictures are made

NASA named the world's first space-based optical telescope after American astronomer Edwin P. Hubble (1889—1953)

Yes, NASA are wrong about their own telescope. Once again, Please stop contaminating this forum with your misinformation, and thanks for proving yourself wrong, "fool"

 

[RiaX]

sigh. Let me make it simple then.

Hubble is a Ritchey–Chretien type telescope in space. It takes pictures in black and white. It uses a curved mirror to reflect light to boost its capabilities. Its also has an infrared detector and other detectors which function as "telescopes". Astronomy is far beyond physically looking into the device. With infrared and ultraviolet spectrum the actual telescope is the detector. Hubble can to all of this. It also analyses the spectrum of light it recieves and hence tells NASA this object has these elements. So its incorrect to label it as an optical telescope only. Optical means it uses a lense, but hubble does way more than just using a lense and it also works outside the visable spectrum of light.

From that raw data the black and white pictures are then coloured by a graphics artist resulting in the picture put up by the OP.

 

[azbob]

Edit : not worth it He'll just keep backtracking.

 

[empirex]

Awesome article carsten, thanks.

 

[Unhappy438]

sigh. Let me make it simple then.

Hubble is a Ritchey–Chretien type telescope in space. It takes pictures in black and white. It uses a curved mirror to reflect light to boost its capabilities. Its also has an infrared detector and other detectors which function as "telescopes". Astronomy is far beyond physically looking into the device. With infrared and ultraviolet spectrum the actual telescope is the detector. Hubble can to all of this. It also analyses the spectrum of light it recieves and hence tells NASA this object has these elements. So its incorrect to label it as an optical telescope only. Optical means it uses a lense, but hubble does way more than just using a lense and it also works outside the visable spectrum of light.

From that raw data the black and white pictures are then coloured by a graphics artist resulting in the picture put up by the OP.

No no no , dont change your tune. This is what you initially stated :

That is artwork to give you an idea of what it will look like if you where there. Its a composite from radio, xray and normal telescopes.

Are you willing to accept that you were wrong about this , don't make me act like you and invoke qualifications on this one.