Supernova 1987A revisited by Hubble

astroron (Ron) · #1 06-09-2010, 08:47 AM

A new image of S/N1987A by the Hubble Space Telescope shows a circle of matter looking like a string of Pearls

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11184194

CraigS · #2 06-09-2010, 09:46 AM

This must be one of your favourites, Ron (you posted on this one before ..many years ago, now ... and so have I).

Apart from the change in perspective in the photo, (not sure how they did that), the other new info they've found (from the article), reads:

"The new observations allow us to accurately measure the velocity and composition of the ejected 'star guts', which tell us about the deposition of energy and heavy elements into the host galaxy," said Kevin France from the University of Colorado, Boulder, US.

"The new observations not only tell us what elements are being recycled into the Large Magellanic Cloud, but how it changes its environment on human time scales."

Could be interesting reading, if I can find their paper ..

Cheers & Thanks.

mjc (Mark) · #3 06-09-2010, 09:47 AM

Yes I saw that but was a little disapointed in that I expected to see a time lapse sequence to see the shell expand. I did see one time lapse but it didn't meet expectations.

The "string of pearls" also caught my eye and I'm not sure why that should be.

It is good stuff none-the-less.

Mark C.

astroron (Ron) · #4 06-09-2010, 10:20 AM

This must be one of your favourites, Ron (

Yes Craig

Apart from Halley's Comet, this was the first Astronomical Phenomenon I had witnessed when I first took up Astronomy

I am hoping to see it through a big Amateur scope one day

It has apparently been seen in a 30" scope

My view was seen through a 60mm Refractor

Wouldn't it be great to see a Supernover in our own Galaxy

CraigS · #5 06-09-2010, 10:40 AM

Ron:
From what I've read, stars in Eta Carinae seem the most likely candidates in our lifetime .. but, ya never know I guess.

I think they call Eta SNs "imposter Supernovas", don't they ?

Cheer

PS: Wiki says that 1987A was observable with the naked eye in 1987 (?) Is that how you first saw it ?

renormalised (Carl) · #6 06-09-2010, 10:47 AM

Yes...the eruptions are big enough to be one (or nearly so), but the stars keep on shining merrily away after the fact.

When it goes, it'll be a whopper

astroron (Ron) · #7 06-09-2010, 10:47 AM

I think they call Eta SNs "imposter Supernovas", don't they ?

Never heard that one?

renormalised (Carl) · #8 06-09-2010, 10:49 AM

That's what they call an eruption of an LBV...there's been a couple like that happen. Then not long after.....bang.....for real. Then you get a hypernova and a blast of gamma rays.

astroron (Ron) · #9 06-09-2010, 10:51 AM

I suppose the reason it stayes together after it's big explosions is that it is just that, A very big star, and the explosions are just burps

CraigS · #10 06-09-2010, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astroron

I suppose the reason it stayes together after it's big explosions is that it is just that, A very big star, and the explosions are just burps

There's a missing neutron in 1987A, I believe ?

renormalised (Carl) · #11 06-09-2010, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astroron

I suppose the reason it stayes together after it's big explosions is that it is just that, A very big star, and the explosions are just burps

That's one way of putting it....a big burp

Eta C lost 2-3 solar masses in its burp

renormalised (Carl) · #12 06-09-2010, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigS

There's a missing neutron in 1987A, I believe ?

AFAIK they haven't found it, but that isn't unusual. Depends on where the bipolar beams from the pulsar are pointing. It might still be too hot to be shining in the visible for now, so we may see it later on. But even if it isn't there...two reasons...1. the star obliterated itself entirely, or, 2. it was an asymmetric explosion and the neutron star has been kicked out of the way.

astroron (Ron) · #13 06-09-2010, 11:02 AM

S/N 1987A was the first naked eye Supernova to be seen for nearly 400 years when seen in 1987, the last one being Kepler's Star in 1604.
The one before that was Tycho's Star in 1572.
We really are due for one in our Galaxy soon.
Cheers

renormalised (Carl) · #14 06-09-2010, 11:04 AM

Well, there's a few candidates around

astroron (Ron) · #15 06-09-2010, 11:05 AM

Eta C lost 2-3 solar masses in its burphttp://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/....es/happy19.gif

Not much for a Star of around 100 solar mass

CraigS · #16 06-09-2010, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renormalised

AFAIK they haven't found it, but that isn't unusual. Depends on where the bipolar beams from the pulsar are pointing. It might still be too hot to be shining in the visible for now, so we may see it later on. But even if it isn't there...two reasons...1. the star obliterated itself entirely, or, 2. it was an asymmetric explosion and the neutron star has been kicked out of the way.

Oh boy ... here we go again .. there's a possibility of a quark star having formed ... leading to strange quark nugget theory, etc.
I'll bet the EU boys know more than everyone else about it, too. I think I read that they reckon it's a giant electric fan in the sky with neon lighting ..

renormalised (Carl) · #17 06-09-2010, 11:36 AM

Of course they do....they're omniscient, didn't you know

I heard they said it was an "Eat at Joe's" sign

They serve quark nuggets there

renormalised (Carl) · #18 06-09-2010, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astroron

Eta C lost 2-3 solar masses in its burphttp://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/....es/happy19.gif

Not much for a Star of around 100 solar mass

Nope, not much at all....but early on it had an even larger eruption. There's approximately 12-14 solar masses of crud floating around the star that was blown off previously.