Comments on: Hubble snaps a dead star on the rise http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/31/hubble-snaps-a-dead-star-on-the-rise/ I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog. Sun, 05 Jul 2009 03:35:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: Itty Bitty SuperNovae « AstroGeek http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/31/hubble-snaps-a-dead-star-on-the-rise/#comment-80833 Itty Bitty SuperNovae « AstroGeek Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:39:55 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/31/hubble-snaps-a-dead-star-on-the-rise/#comment-80833 [...] on Bad Astronomy, Phil Plait has a post up talking about SN 2006bc.    This wasn’t a particularly spectacular supernova, like SN [...] […] on Bad Astronomy, Phil Plait has a post up talking about SN 2006bc.    This wasn’t a particularly spectacular supernova, like SN […]

]]> By: Patrik http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/31/hubble-snaps-a-dead-star-on-the-rise/#comment-80832 Patrik Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:23:05 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/31/hubble-snaps-a-dead-star-on-the-rise/#comment-80832 The PGC2005 catalogue has PGC 281862 at about the right place and with similar (at a glance) properties. The PGC2005 catalogue has PGC 281862 at about the right place and with similar (at a glance) properties.

]]> By: Barton Paul Levenson http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/31/hubble-snaps-a-dead-star-on-the-rise/#comment-80831 Barton Paul Levenson Tue, 01 Apr 2008 13:26:31 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/31/hubble-snaps-a-dead-star-on-the-rise/#comment-80831 I know that there can be a tremendous amount of blowoff in a red giant's solar wind, amounting to an appreciable fraction of its mass over time, but it's hard to believe a star can go from 20 solar masses to 7 just by blowoff. What are other people saying about the model in this paper, or is it too recent? I know that there can be a tremendous amount of blowoff in a red giant’s solar wind, amounting to an appreciable fraction of its mass over time, but it’s hard to believe a star can go from 20 solar masses to 7 just by blowoff. What are other people saying about the model in this paper, or is it too recent?

]]> By: ddemartin http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/31/hubble-snaps-a-dead-star-on-the-rise/#comment-80830 ddemartin Tue, 01 Apr 2008 11:29:11 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/31/hubble-snaps-a-dead-star-on-the-rise/#comment-80830 I think there's a little of confusion. Even if the Smartt's work is to study the precursor of supernovae, this Hubble image pictures the supernova in its late stage. Indeed, the supernova was discovered in March 2006, while the Hubble image was shotted in October 2006. So, the image shows the SN when it was actually decreasing in brightness. Davide I think there’s a little of confusion.
Even if the Smartt’s work is to study the precursor of supernovae, this Hubble image pictures the supernova in its late stage. Indeed, the supernova was discovered in March 2006, while the Hubble image was shotted in October 2006.
So, the image shows the SN when it was actually decreasing in brightness.
Davide

]]> By: Astrogeek http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/31/hubble-snaps-a-dead-star-on-the-rise/#comment-80829 Astrogeek Tue, 01 Apr 2008 07:48:18 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/31/hubble-snaps-a-dead-star-on-the-rise/#comment-80829 This was a type II (core collapse) supernova. Is this particular supernova one of the 'lightweight' ( < 9Msol ) ones they found, or is that just one of the overall conclusions of the study? This was a type II (core collapse) supernova. Is this particular supernova one of the ‘lightweight’ ( < 9Msol ) ones they found, or is that just one of the overall conclusions of the study?

]]> By: slang http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/31/hubble-snaps-a-dead-star-on-the-rise/#comment-80815 slang Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:10:04 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/31/hubble-snaps-a-dead-star-on-the-rise/#comment-80815 From the linked ESA article: <blockquote>One atypical feature of this Hubble image is the view of supernova SN 2006bc taken when its brightness was on the <b>decrease</b>. </blockquote> (emphasis mine). BA, you wrote that it caught the supernova increasing in brightness, which would indeed be pretty awesome. Which is it? Increasing or decaying brightness? From the linked ESA article:

One atypical feature of this Hubble image is the view of supernova SN 2006bc taken when its brightness was on the decrease.

(emphasis mine). BA, you wrote that it caught the supernova increasing in brightness, which would indeed be pretty awesome. Which is it? Increasing or decaying brightness?

]]> By: QuasarTimes http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/31/hubble-snaps-a-dead-star-on-the-rise/#comment-80828 QuasarTimes Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:03:58 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/31/hubble-snaps-a-dead-star-on-the-rise/#comment-80828 A star becomes a supernova when it ceases nuclear fusion in its core. This can be referred to as a "dead" star. A star becomes a supernova when it ceases nuclear fusion in its core. This can be referred to as a “dead” star.

]]>