ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Our galaxy's best and brightest

Posted: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 5:57 PM by Alan Boyle


NASA / JPL-Caltech
The Peony nebula star was found in the crowded, dusty center of our Milky Way
galaxy, seen here in a false-color infrared view from NASA's Spitzer Space
Telescope. Click here for higher-resolution imagery from the Spitzer team.

Scientists using NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope have uncovered a star that could be a contender for our galaxy's brightest light - and they say there might be even brighter bulbs out there, shrouded in cosmic dust.

The Peony nebula star, heralded today in an image advisory from the Spitzer team, doesn't look all that bright to the naked eye. Sirius is still the undisputed local champion, based on what we can see in the night sky. But a big factor behind Sirius' apparent brightness is its relative proximity to Earth - a mere 8.7 light-years, or roughly 50 trillion miles.

If you were to put all the stars observed in the heavens on an equal footing distance-wise, the gold medal for brightness would go to Eta Carinae, which is more than 7,500 light-years away but is thought to shine 4.7 million times brighter than our sun.

Now consider the star recently spotted by Spitzer: It's a whopping 26,093 light-years away, in the Milky Way's crowded center. The Peony nebula star (so named because it's wrapped in a flowery-looking nebula) is so shrouded in dust that you might not be able to tell just how bright it shines even if you were up closer.


L. Oskinova / Potsdam U. / NASA / JPL-Caltech
The Peony Nebula star, highlighted by a white
circle in the inset photograph from NASA's
Spitzer Space Telescope, is considered the
second-brightest star in our galaxy. Click on
the image for a larger version.

Spitzer's infrared camera was able to pierce the clouds of dust and get a better fix on the star's luminosity. Infrared readings from the European Southern Observatory in Chile were also factored into researchers' calculations.

"Infrared astronomy opens extraordinary views into the environment of the central region of our galaxy," Potsdam University astronomer Lidia Oskinova explained in today's advisory. Oskinova is the principal investigator behind the research as well as the second author of a paper about the star, due for publication in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics.

Oskinova and her colleagues estimate that the Peony nebula star shines 3.2 million times as brightly as the sun. That would merit a silver medal, based on current standings. And because there is some uncertainty built into the luminosity estimates for the Peony as well as for Eta Carinae, it's conceivable that the two stars are roughly equal in brightness.

Astronomers estimate that the star started out with a mass 150 to 200 times that of our sun. That would be around the theoretical limit for the mass of stars. If you go much heavier, the star would break up into a multiple-star system during formation, astronomers say.

The Peony nebula star is classified as a Wolf-Rayet star, with a diameter roughly 100 times that of our sun. If it were placed where our sun is, its outer layers would extend to about the orbit of Mercury, the Spitzer team said. Such stars shed an enormous amount of material over a relatively short lifetime of a few million years. Winds of stellar radiation drive this material outward at speeds of up to 1 million mph.


ESO
The blue variable star Eta Carinae is shrouded in
dust and gas in a view from the European Southern
Observatory's Very Large Telescope. Eta Carinae is
considered the Milky Way's most luminous star. Click
on the image for a larger version.

Like Eta Carinae, the Peony nebula star appears to be on the very brink of going supernova. That's the way it is with superstars: The brightest lights often burn out the fastest.

"When this star blows up, it will evaporate any planets orbiting stars in the vicinity," Oskinova said. "Farther out from the star, the explosion could actually trigger the birth of new stars."

And that's another thing about being the best and the brightest: There's always someone waiting in the wings who may be even better and brighter. "There are probably other stars just as bright, if not brighter, in our galaxy that remain hidden from view," Oskinova said.

Other authors of the study include Andreas Barniske and Wolf-Rainer Hamann, both of Potsdam University in Germany. For more cosmic views, check out our Space Gallery.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

That's really neat! I have always been a little confused with all this computer generated color, which has always made me wonder if there is any color in space. Is there really color in space? Is every thing just black and light? I know that from the shuttle or space station our wonderful planet is a treasure chest of blues, what about everything else?

I run a blog ( http://www.bloopfish.com ) and alot of young children including my own are always asking too. So maybe if you don't answer my question here, maybe in the future you can write about it.

Thank you!
holy crap! check out the high-res image, to think that those billions of stars are only in our own galaxy, and to think that there are billions of countless galaxies, ... holy crap!
Dear Heidi: There really is color in space, or at least things in space are colored, including the glowing gas you would see in nebulae. However, particularly with telescopes that "see" in wavelengths other than visible light, the colors are actually based on the intensity as seen by different filters that don't reflect what the eye would see.

Here's what the Spitzer team has to say about the color coding in the Peony images:

"This is a three-color composite showing infrared observations from two Spitzer instruments. Blue represents 3.6-micron light and green shows light of 8 microns, both captured by Spitzer's infrared array camera. Red is 24-micron light detected by Spitzer's multiband imaging photometer."

So, yes, there are colors in space ... more colors than we can see. In order for scientists to see and understand the structure of celestial objects, they translate the colors that can't be seen by the human eye into colors that we can see. That's why Spitzer often delivers "false color" images.
Truly angeliferous! "To infinity and beyond!"
How can anybody think for one moment that God does not exist.
Heidi, there is lots of color in space! You can easily see it for yourself in the night sky.  Take a look at Sirius -- it shines a brilliant blue-white with flickers of red. Compare with Vega which is blue, then look at Betelgeuse and Antares, which are clearly red.
Hi Heidi,
The concept of "color" and what humans and other animals see is facinating.

Humans see some colors better than other colors; from deep violet to deep red we see some better than other.

Studies find that animals see yet other colors better (or worse) than humans.

Bees for example see colors deep into the ultra-violet (better to see those nectar producing flowers during the day) and rabbits deeper than humans into the infra-red.(Better to see at night and in the dusk.)

Some humans are "color blind" and cannot see greens at all but only see brown instead. Some animals as well. (Dogs and cats see in grey-scales.)

I work in an industry that is all about producing light efficiently for use by humans. (The solid-state lighting industry.) The understanding of the nature of light keeps a whole bunch of people VERY busily employed!

A very thought provoking question.  Take care & keep the curiosity alive and well!  Above all have fun with it all.  Sincerely,
I am wondering about the other stars shown in the inset, the larger light yellow ones with a smaller, brighter yellow at about a 5 o'clock position just offset from the larger one.  I counted 8 of these.  Do you have an explaination for those??  Just wondering.  
  Also, this is a GORGEOUS pic of the Peony Nebula, utterly fantastic.
This sentence, in particular, caught my eye: "When this star blows up, it will evaporate any planets orbiting stars in the vicinity." I was thinking it might prove interesting (if the technology exists) to look at stars within supernova remnants to see if any planets can be located. If none exist close in, then at what distance do they reappear? We already know extrasolar planets exist. Now let's see what can happen to them under less than ideal circumstances!
When one says of far away stars "shrouded in dust and gas", are these particles of dusts and gases the same size as what we know here on earth? Or are they as big as asteroids, meteors, moons or even planets?
Alan Boyle..do you mean that assigned colours are just a guess or do you mean if our eyes were capable of seeing all wavelengths (ie. you could selectively tune in), is that what we would see?

It's always a wonderous thing to see into the galaxy like this.
There sure is a lot of color. It is awesome. It will blow your mind.

http://hubblesite.org
Wow, thats amazing. Just to think how many stars are out there. I can't even begin to imagine anything of that size. Alan, that is really interesting about the colors in space. I never knew there were more colors in space than what the human eye can see.
Heidi,
There is color in space, as long as you define it within the eye's capabilities.  What you see above is false color, meaning wavelengths that we can't see are represented by wavelengths we can (called color).  We generally don't refer to electromagnetic radiation that is outside our red to blue range as color.  Wikipedia has a very good description (just read the lighter stuff, skip the heavy technical stuff):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931_color_space

As for true color images of space objects, there is color.  When we look through a small telescope we see black and white because our eyes do not have the sensitivity to pick up the colors (especially the reds).  Digital and film cameras don't have that problem because they take long exposures by keeping the shutter open and 'burning in' the image.  That was my first disappointment when I bought a small telescope "why can't I see the colors as they are in the picture in the magazine".  In much larger scopes (>12"), you start to get hints of green, blues and reds, but only from the brightest of objects.  If you looked out the window of a spaceship sitting just outside of one of these nebulas, I suspect you would see color, but not as bright as those captures by cameras.

Hope this helps.
Bob
Ah, what colors.  Now if only I had a starship to see it in-person.  How far away are these images?
"There are more stars in the known universe than all the grains of sand on all the beaches of all our world."

Carl Sagen
Thomas Ashby,
The false color is as much like assigning a sound tone as a color.  Obviously, sound wouldn't work for the whole picture, but on a pixel by pixel basis it's the same thing.  The colors used in false color are totally unrelated to the colors we see, they can be picked at random.  It's kind of like colorizing a b/w picture without standardizing the colors.  (i.e., purple skin, green hair, yellow sky)  The closest we could come to making false color mean anything would be to compress the em spectrum into the visible band.  Gamma rays would be violet, radio waves would be red, the full range of light visible to us would be a shade of green.  It might be interesting because we'd be able to "see" the entire em spectrum but it would be hard to interperet and might not be nearly as beautiful as some of the pictures they put out by choosing complimentary colors that have adequate contrast.
Second thought,
You could do that compression thing on just a band of wavelengths.  So you could represent the band of frequencies soon to not be used for TV through Roy G. Biv or just what we see as shades of yellow expanded so they cover the whole visual range.  In most of the false color images, though, they're compiling disparate frequencies, so you couldn't maintain that kind of seamlesness.
Man, that photo is super stunning. Its irregular shapes and images make it  difficult to  really comprehend was really going on. But its  super vast  size and depth  make for a mind-boggling assessment.

I kept asking myself,  what else is out there that we have not yet seen ?

The photo is really  astonishing


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1200078

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google