Kim

Carolyn Porco of Cassini Imaging is a member.

Kim Poor

To Mr. Siegburg and Experience the Planets: Our solar system has more than eight planets. Please do it justice and add Pluto, Ceres, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris.

Seconded by me.

(Plutonium being from Pluto)

… I’ve noticed that the 2^3 planet party plies an even bargain, while the party of 3^2 is decidedly odd. …

Huh? I don’t get what you are trying to say there at all. Can you please elaborate?

the official party line.

I’ve noticed that the 2^3 planet party plies an even bargain, while the party of 3^2 is decidedly odd.

That’s my official line, anyway.

Your comment:

“(blank stare)”

Thanks for the info!

“I’m sorry,”

No need to apologise.

“what”,

The quote you refer to generally means, it was interesting to read about a rational scientist being interested in, or to post about an unempiricial subject such as art.

Claire

(blank stare)

I’m sorry, what?

1. Saturn’s rings as used at the top here. Really you just can’t go past Saturn for spectacle and outright wondrous beauty.

2. Mercury and the Sun. Bright. Very.
… And impressive.

3. Neptune’s skies from the inside; ethereal, quiet, yet gale force storm a-blowin’.. Something about that … just … wow.

And finally thankyou to the artists. Really thankyou.

I don’t mean to sound ungrateful in what I said in # 37 & I do just find what they have got on there so far to be marvellous and thought-provoking so thumbs up.

I just wish there was more there already.

So far anyhow.

Just the one image for Mercury – and you can hardly see the planet so its more about the Sun instead. Just a single for Venus too. Earth gets only one too – and showing light pollution, albeit beuatiful light pollution, at that. Europa under the ice ocean for Jupiter as Jove’s only portrait – nice but hardly representative of the actual gas giant. Only a couple of Saturn for pity’s sake, one of Ouranos, two of Neptune, none of anything else.

You’ve wet my appetite here – but left me hungry for a lot more and going away thinking “Holy Flying Sphagheeti Monster! I hope you update this soon & have a lot more than you’ve got so far.”

How long has it taken already did you say for you to get so may “Coming soon” blank boxes?

Don’t get me wrong -I like the idea & love the artworks but I want more .. & when do I want it:

NOW!

(Impatient blighter ain’t I? )

Here’s those same top 10 apparent mag stars listed in their Absolute Mag (how bright they really are) order :

1. Rigel (-7.1)
2. Canopus (- 5.6)
3. Betelguex (– 5.1 average, variable)
4. Achernar (- 1.6)
5. Arcturus (- 0.2)
6. Capella (- 0.7)
7. Vega (+ 0.5)
8. Sirius (+ 1.4)
9. Procyon (+ 2.6)
10. Alpha Centauri (+ 4.3)

Note with magnitude that the lower the number the brighter the star; with the very lowest and thus brightest numbers being negative.

This means that if you placed all these stars at a distance of roughly 33 light years (the Absolute mag standard distance) Rigel at MINUS seven would outshine everything in the sky except (usually) our Moon. (-12 at full Moon btw & vs Venus which is -4.5 at brightest) Rigel at that distance would give off as much light as the lunar crescent but in a blindlingly, bright point source – and it would still twinkle. OTOH, Alpha Centauri would drop from being the third brightest star to being barely visible – a faint speck easily washed out by light pollution.

Now, I expect that many of you reading here already know all this & I hope I’m not boring y’all but for those who don’t I thought this brief explanation and set of examples may be useful & interesting. I hope so anyhow! (Besides I like showing off! )

—-

PS. If anyone spots any errors here then please let me know. Also be aware that some sources do vary in their Mag figures based on differing distance estimates.

“Achenar” should be spelt Achernar. Achernar’s Bayer designation is Alpha Eridani and this is apparently the flattest known star. Its a B3 type blue dwarf star located approx . 140 light years away – and despite that distance is the ninth brightest star in our night skies. It is also the hottest and thus bluest star in the top ten brightest stars ranked in apparent magnitude.* For more info. on it see :

http://www.astro.illinois.edu/~jkaler/sow/achernar.html

&

“theice dwraf Haumea” = the ice dwarf Haumea. Natch.
—-

* In case your’e curious & don’t already know :

1. Sirius, 2. Canopus, 3. Alpha Centauri, 4. Arcturus, 5. Vega, 6. Capella, 7. Rigel, 8. Procyon, 9. Achernar & 10. Betelgeux.

Apparent magnitude (mag) means (for those who don’t already know) the brightness as we see it from Earth as opposed to how bright stars *really* are which is called Absolute magnitude. (Mag with a capital ‘M’.) For instance, Sirius is actually relatively faint in Mag but is nearby.

I Love it!

Thanks BA. I love space art generally but this is just superluminous – ie. beyond mere brilliance!

@ 2. Brock Says:

… I wonder if they’ll add Pluto, or Sedna, or Ceres. Do dwarf planets not count?

Don’t get me started … !

I’ll just say they sure do to me & that, like many other astronomers, I still count Pluto & the other ice dwarf worlds as a planets and think the IAU definition got things very badly wrong. A mistake I hope and think they’ll correct one day – hopefully sooner rather than later.

To me if an object in space is :

a) Round or spheroidal anyway* through its own gravity.
(Objects too small for this = asteroids & comets.)

b) Not shining intrinsically from its own nuclear fusion.
(Objects too large for this that *do* shine by nuclear fusion = stars & brown dwarfs)

&

c) Not directly orbiting another planet. (ie. not a moon.)

Then it should be called a planet.

Anyway, I too hope they add Pluto and its moons, Eris, Sedna,Ceres and Haumea to their artworks.

—

* Fast spinning objects that would be round if they weren’t rapidly rotating eg. the stars Achenar, Regulus & Altair or, on a smaller scale, theice dwarf Haumea, still count as planets. Well not the B-A stars obviously!

“Who says empiricists can’t enjoy beauty in any form?”

Absolutely true that they can for sure. I was thinking along the lines of – how difficult it is for certain areas from both sides to accept the other, to genuinley combine, which could be very rare, or if they already do, it might not be that apparent, they may not appear to.

Claire

Just for the record, I very much like both art and science.

Claire

Thanks for the feedback. The site will continue to evolve as thoughts such as these pour in. I’m an interaction designer by trade so I’m completely on-board at finding the balance between experience and usability. There are solutions out there that I have only yet to discover, thoughts such as these as a boon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemical_symbol

And if you didn’t figure out that it’s the menu, then you don’t mouse-over nearly enough! A little curious wandering can go a long way