E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
NASA / JPL-Caltech / UCLA
NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer captured this picture of the Rho Ophiuchi star-forming cloud.
The latest picture from NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer serves up a grab bag of colorful goodies, including a ruby-red reflection nebula, a twinkling of hot pink baby stars and some real old-timers in deep blue.
All those objects are visible in this view of Rho Ophiuchi (also known as Rho Oph or "Row Off"), a star-forming cloud complex that straddles the constellations Scorpio and Ophiuchus 407 light-years from Earth. It's a popular target for astronomers; in fact, another NASA infrared observatory, the Spitzer Space Telescope, focused on the same region three years ago.
The different colors represent different wavelengths in the infrared part of the spectrum. The shades of blue and blue-green stand for light emitted directly from stars (3.4 and 4.6 microns), while green and red are used for wavelengths that are mostly emitted by heated dust (12 and 22 microns).
With that in mind, this is what we're looking at:
- Reflection nebula: The ruby-red splotch at lower right is a star known as Sigma Scorpii, whose light is being reflected by the surrounding dust.
- Emission nebula: The bright area in the center of the picture is an emission nebula, which gloes due to heating from nearby stars.
- Young stellar objects: The bright pink sparks just left of center are actually baby stars. Many of them are still enveloped in a "baby blanket" of dust. They can't be seen in visible light, but the dusty blanket heats up enough to render them detectable in the infrared.
- Star clusters: This picture includes two notable globular clusters of blue stars. One of them, M80, is on the far right image, toward the top. The other, NGC 6144, is toward the center, close to the bottom edge. In today's image advisory, the WISE team says these clusters are much more distant than the cloud, and contain some of the Milky Way's oldest stars.
- Way-out galaxy: The WISE team also says the photo includes a "galaxy far far away," known as PGC 090239. It's the reddish dot at the 3 o'clock position relative to bright emission nebula at the center, about two-thirds of the way from the center to the picture's right edge.
- Optical effects: What's a space picture without some sort of weird optical effect? Two relatively bright lines emerge from the picture's edge at bottom left. These are diffraction spikes caused by the bright star Antares, which is just out of the field of view.
There's more to come from WISE in the weeks and months ahead, even though the spacecraft went into hibernation in February. The $320 million mission's first public data release is scheduled to take place around the middle of this month. Some have speculated that WISE's data could provide evidence for the existence of a large object on the outskirts of the solar system dubbed "Tyche." But NASA says the data from the first release probably won't be enough to confirm (or rule out) Tyche's existence. In any case, WISE's team members are on the watch for what's likely to be asteroid discoveries galore.
Speaking of asteroids, NASA's Dawn mission is closing in on the asteroid Vesta for an encounter in August. NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory is already planning for the "Vesta Fiesta," and delving into the question of whether it should be considered an asteroid or a protoplanet. (Why can't it be both? Vesta's big sister, Ceres, is a dwarf planet as well as an asteroid in my book. And when I say "my book," I mean that literally.)
NASA / JPL-Caltech / UCLA / PSI
This stereo view, released March 10, represents scientists' best guess for the shape of the protoplanet Vesta.
To whet the appetite for the Vesta Fiesta, NASA recently released a fresh video clip about the mission, plus this tasty 3-D picture of the protoplanet. Put on your red-blue glasses to see the stereoscopic effect. Don't have glasses? I'm sending more than two dozen sets of specs to folks who registered their request on the Cosmic Log Facebook page. (If you missed out this time, check back at the end of the month for the next giveaway.)
If you're looking for an even bigger smorgasbord, take a look at the cosmic buffet we've spread out in our latest installment of Month in Space Pictures. Click on these links for bigger versions of the pictures and further background:
- Window on the cosmos: Looking in on the space station.
- Before and after the tsunami: More views from DigitalGlobe.
- Cloud from the sun: Learn more about Alan Friedman's pictures.
- Super-moon attacks: NASA focuses on unusually big full moon.
- Cosmic pinwheel: Stunning galaxy sheds light on dark energy.
- Endeavour at the ready: Roberto Gonzalez's shuttle picture.
- Somalia seen from space: Space station's eerie view of desert.
- Weird trails on Mars: As seen by Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.
- Alaska's bright lights: NASA physicist witnesses aurora.
- Viva la space station! Cuba spotted from orbit.
- Look! Up in the sky! Space station and Discovery over Central Park.
- That's no sunspot ... That's the station and shuttle in front of the sun.
- Winter in China: Cool picture from the space station.
- Mercury rising: Lots more pictures are coming from Messenger.
- Back on Earth: Dmitry Kostyukov's picture of Soyuz landing.
- Spider in space: Hubble Space Telescope focuses on Tarantula Nebula.
- Tribute to Gabby: Astronaut keeps his wounded sister-in-law in mind.
- Dancing with the stars: High-schoolers win with galaxy pairing.
Join the Cosmic Log community by clicking the "like" button on our Facebook page or by following msnbc.com science editor Alan Boyle as b0yle on Twitter. To learn more about my book on Pluto and the search for planets, check out the website for "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
Those are really neat pictures, wish I could make pictures in 3D.
"glows" Really enjoyed the article, though!
Enjoyed the article & pics. If you have any 3d glasses left I'm requesting. thanks
Thanks, very appreciative you included the quick color table..that helps big time...I went straight to the old picture, spent five minutes flicking back and forth looking for stars that changed position in three years!!...so cool!!..can't wait to get back to the shop and run the two images through salsa j...vesta fiesta??..okay..sounds like fun...I agree it should be both, maybe attaching planet to it's tittle will grant it rights..mining rights, for future space farerers...chomping down an asteroid may be no big deal to the then powers that be but mining planets will mean lotsa forms in triplicate...as we start to think about the next generation of probes, I hope we really take the dual purpose concept to heart, it would be cool if dawn actaully set down, grabbed a sample then lept off to head for ceres..I think the japanese had an honorable concept, but now the holy grail of probes should be along the line of the star wars imperial probe droids, after all even curiosity is gonna get a blaster laser...or at least we hope...
What an awesome Universe. Somewhere out there there is another civilization looking for signs of life just like we are.
Here is a thought that might help to understand:
If an infinite god created all and is everywhere and is everything in the Universe but in order to create, one must first be created as nothing can create itself, that an infinite god would had to been created by another infinite god in order to create everything in the Universe. Everytime that this question is asked it leads to another layer or dimension of infinity. Not because we can prove that an infinite god created all but because of the notion of what an infinite god has been defined as .
So who created god?
So religion can say that it can prove that the Universe is without end by the above.
Science as well can prove that the Universe is infinite through the use of atoms. Atom's had to have come from somewhere. So through various energetic interaction's of an equal and opposite nature atoms created more atoms. But where did these atoms that created other atoms come from? Still more equal and opposite energetic reactions. These equal and opposite energetic reactions become smaller and smaller until we come to the singularity but some type of interaction had to create the singularity thus taking us deeper into the infinite Universe.
How was the Universe created?
Why bring a religious discussion about God into this? Dont feed bait to those that would love to turn this into a religious discussion when it is about science. Also the Universe is not infinite, it is finite, The Universe is expanding, outside of the bubble of expanding space time nothing exists so the universe cannot be infinite.
How was the universe created? Ya got me....
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but science can NOT prove that the universe is infinite. I don't know of a way anyone could prove that with any certainty. Also, if there was a big bang that means there was a beginning which should denote there will be an ending (likely to be the "Big Rip")... But again, at this point I don't know of any way anyone could prove any of that.
And for me it's very difficult to imagine a universe that is expanding into a void or a "nothingness". The universe may be expanding but there is only the Universe. I don't believe there is anything beyond the universe (there is no empty void of nothingness beyond the Universe, there is only the universe).
Your post looks gooder to me, Mob.
OSSUM, Thancks Michael, eye all ways tri two git thingz rite. Deed eye till ewe dat eye one uh shpellink be two day? (for worst sshpeller. I'm gooder at that too) :-P
"Gooder" is gooderer than "good", but not as gooder as "goodest".
Science can almost never prove anything...
Proof is what people want, but any really interesting question always has a degree of uncertainty. Is it always this way? Does something like this never exist? Maybe you just haven't found the exception. If you do find the exception to the rule, maybe your instruments were wrong. Maybe your measurement was off. Maybe your interpretation was unjustified...
So if you never see the edge of the universe, that doesn't "prove" it isn't there, and if you see a point beyond which there is nothing, that only "proves" that you can't see anything. There could be more beyond your ability to see.
Gooder points JE-SW OK. I can certainly agree with that.
Just a cautionary note to budding astronomers. Don't spend a lot of money on a telescope with the thought that you will see through the eyepiece a colorful nebula like that shown above. The color is only obtained through imaging and a long exposure to record the colors that are hidden to the naked eye.
Yeah, I was initially disappointed in the views I could get (or perhaps I should say not get) of various nebulae, but on the other hand, dialing in on the moons of Jupiter and the rings of Saturn was worth every penny of the $150.00 I paid.
I say buy the best telescope you can. You may not see these colorful kinds of images but if you want to be an astronomer that may not matter to you. Like MikeyMike said, the views you DO get with (any) telescope are worth every penny. And who knows, maybe you'll do well as an astronomer and get to use one of the fancy shmancy observatory telescopes that can make images like these. All I know is that my 4" telescope is good for looking at the moon and other things in the neighborhood. But I really, really want to invest in a better telescope. So, if you do happen to have money to blow on a new telescope do a little researching first and talk to people who own telescopes and find out what you don't know about the telescope you think you want and the objects you want to see.
I wonder if the baby stars mentioned have reached the hydrogen ignition phase. Also, I sure don't see M80 in that picture. Here is what M80 looks like
dwighthuth
Ever heard of infinitesimals? What is the largest number there is, what is the smallest number? There is no largest number because no matter how large a number you can imagine you can always add to it and make it larger. The same is true for the smallest number, it can always be subdivided and made smaller. This basic theory exist in our universe in our working knowledge of a world of three dimensions. If this applies to other dimensions or universes is another question.
Current theoretical physics has already postulated the existence of more that four dimensions and instead of one universe there maybe a multiverse, (or meta-universe, metaverse) consisting of numerous universes. If people out there can somehow contemplate the world not as we imagine it is but much more immense and beyond our present day imagination, Such questions as who created God or how did the universe began or will it end become even more trivial. We don't even know even know where 99.5% of the universe is (Dark matter and Dark energy).
The one thing I have learned in science is that for every question we answer, the answer leads to ten more questions. A basic and very famous law in Physics is "Information gained is information lost",The Uncertainty Principle. Therefore we can never have complete knowledge of the world.
Imagine a gallon of water representing all the knowledge of the world, a 8 ounce glass representing the laws of our universe, what would happen if you tried to pour all the water the into the glass?
If is seems intimidating it should be. Some scientists believe humans are doomed to endlessly postulate the in-postulatable. Suppose we did have star ships, how long do you think it would take to explore just our galaxy with over 100 billion estimated stars.
What did come first the chicken or the egg? Neither came first, the chicken was inside the egg, therefore they arrive together. Think about it!
kevin
No thanks.
The egg.
Dinosaur eggs came well before chicken eggs (or chickens for that matter).
I've thought about it quite a lot kevin, and I find your willingness to accept these unproven "theoretical postulates" such as multi-verses and dark matter to be rather surprising, bordering on credulous.
MikeyMike
Who says I accept them. Theories are just that theories, they are unproven. What they do is serve as reference points. If you want to go to point B, you need to know where you are; point A. As for the credibility of theories you only have to think of one thing: the nuclear bomb. The scientists who developed it only had theories to go on.
They even established a betting pool to see if the thing (or gadget as it was called) would work and if it did work would it set fire to the Earths Atmosphere and burn the planet to a crisp. So don't be so quick to put down theories, they have changed the world in every major science and even in medicine.
I have many theories but do you think I accept them as facts. In the comments above, one person wrote the universe is finite, most physicists do not accept this view, another person wanted to know who created God and the creation of the universe. He also stated that atoms are created from atoms and where did the original atoms come from.
What do we know; matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The quantity of matter and energy in the universe is fixed. Atoms are very complex and consist of families of subatomic particles. The more we smash atoms together at speeds approaching the speed of light, new particles of which atoms consist of are being discovered and these particles have reproducible physical properties.
The study of Physical sciences has evolved from the belief that there are only four elements, earth, fire water, and air. Then came the introduction of mechanical physics (Newton) and the discovery that the basic elements consisted of many other elements and they interacted with one another; relativitity, (Einstein), Quantum Physics, (Hawkins), String theory, etc., and the many people working night and day in the modern fields.
Who knows what is next. Einstein spent most of his working life trying to prove a universal theory of everything. Many other's are trying today. You know what I do believe; we are moving in an infinite loop.
Why did I say the chicken and the egg arrive together? Because chickens develop in eggs, without an egg there can be no chicken, without a chicken to produce an egg there can be no egg, therefore they had to arrive together, the question is not when, the real question is how.
I think when is just as important. If they did arrive together then the environment must have played a significant role in their spontaneous "arrival" and thus the time is pretty dang ol' important.
When you make the statement:
It sounds to me like you pretty much accept this a fact. It's far from it. The theoretically proposed concepts of dark matter and dark energy are just that, theoretical concepts which have been invented on paper to possibly explain certain observations of the movements of far off galaxies. Are these the only explanations for the anomalous movements? No. Our calibrations of distance and brightness and calculated mass could be off. There could be more dust and free floating hydrogen in intergalactic space than has been accounted for. We don't even have a complete understanding of how gravity actually works and why. Is it mediated by some sort of as yet undiscovered gravity particle such as the proposed and as yet unverified Higgs-boson? Are there gravity waves, as Einstein's theory predicts there should be? If so we haven't found 'em yet. Does gravity work differently at low densities and long distances (look up MOND - Modified Newtonian Dynamics).
There are many, many other possibilities before we go and accept the idea that there might actually be some sort of invisible and as yet undetectable form of "dark" matter that supposedly makes up most of the universe but for some reason we can't see it, feel it's presence locally, detect it's heat, or prove it's presence in any way other than, "Well, if there were dark matter, it might be what's causing those galaxies to move that way."
Yeah. And it might be the luminiferous ether or the phlogiston. I think not.
Chickens evolved from a common ancestor that incorporated the the production of eggs. Think dinosaurs.
All eggs are cells. Think of prokaryotic cells which predated the dinosaurs by billions of years and were the first cells and the most successful form of life dominating the earth for over two billion years.