Starship Asterisk*

by **captainwiggins** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:03 pm

Very lovely picture, however, one shouldn't dismiss that this is a time exposure. In reality if a space ship were approaching the nebula it would pretty much look just like that: a nebula - fuzzy, white, obscure.

by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 6:12 am

alter-ego wrote:
geckzilla wrote:Looking at it again I think I still drew Chris's interpretation of it wrong because I thought the slightly disconnected blob was supposed to be the left wing.
Think of that disconnected blob as a fish in the eagle's talons.

Yeah, those are the talons. Visually, you dont see enough detail to make out something in them, though. You just see a blob of body with the head to the right (in the north up orientation of my image), a blob of wing above, and a hint of talons below. More than that starts requiring some serious imagination.

by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:59 am

Nitpicker wrote:But is there room for interpretations to evolve over time, similar to the way that the meaning of words and use of grammar evolves over time in a language? If more people start to see a different version of an eagle in this nebula, it is probably because they are now more commonly looking at it in a different way.

Of course. As I said, I'm not saying anybody is wrong. I was just pointing out to Geckzilla that the eagle she was seeing in the image wasn't the eagle you see through a telescope, and therefore wasn't the eagle that gave the nebula its name.

Through a telescope it really does resemble an eagle. With deep images, though, there's so much detail that a hundred people might suggest a hundred possible names. We've certainly seen such discussions in this forum. In this case, just the suggestion that there's an eagle has led to several completely different visualizations- something that probably wouldn't happen if we were at the eyepiece.

by **alter-ego** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:59 am

geckzilla wrote:Looking at it again I think I still drew Chris's interpretation of it wrong because I thought the slightly disconnected blob was supposed to be the left wing.

Think of that disconnected blob as a fish in the eagle's talons.

by **Beyond** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:19 am

And here i was thinking you were good at drawing free-hand. Oh well.

by **geckzilla** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:15 am

I only got the cheap version. You should see the 3d make-an-eagle button.

by **Nitpicker** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:08 am

What Photoshop command are you using on the blue channel to outline the eagle(s) so vividly? Why don't all astro-image-makers do that?

by **geckzilla** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:01 am

Looking at it again I think I still drew Chris's interpretation of it wrong because I thought the slightly disconnected blob was supposed to be the left wing.

: Whatever Nitpicker says, this is still fun.

by **Nitpicker** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 4:46 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
Nitpicker wrote:I am generally hopeless at spotting shapes in clouds (in the sky or deep space).

I had never been able to discern an eagle in this nebula until now. I do now see (vaguely) the smaller eagle in the pillars.

But this talk of which is the "real" eagle is not dissimilar to arguments over the "correct" way to join the dots to form asterisms within the official constellation boundaries. It is surprisingly common to see significantly different interpretations of asterisms, even just within western sky folklore.
Yes, but many of the bright named nebulas have been seen unambiguously for many decades. It's not so much a question of right or real, just recognizing where these names came from, and realizing that visually, the number of ways they're seen is much smaller. What people see may differ (e.g. a swan or an omega in M17), but how those things are seen doesn't typically change. Until we consider deep images, that is.

But is there room for interpretations to evolve over time, similar to the way that the meaning of words and use of grammar evolves over time in a language? If more people start to see a different version of an eagle in this nebula, it is probably because they are now more commonly looking at it in a different way.

by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 4:09 am

Nitpicker wrote:I am generally hopeless at spotting shapes in clouds (in the sky or deep space).

I had never been able to discern an eagle in this nebula until now. I do now see (vaguely) the smaller eagle in the pillars.

But this talk of which is the "real" eagle is not dissimilar to arguments over the "correct" way to join the dots to form asterisms within the official constellation boundaries. It is surprisingly common to see significantly different interpretations of asterisms, even just within western sky folklore.

Yes, but many of the bright named nebulas have been seen unambiguously for many decades. It's not so much a question of right or real, just recognizing where these names came from, and realizing that visually, the number of ways they're seen is much smaller. What people see may differ (e.g. a swan or an omega in M17), but how those things are seen doesn't typically change. Until we consider deep images, that is.

by **Nitpicker** » Mon Feb 17, 2014 3:38 am

I am generally hopeless at spotting shapes in clouds (in the sky or deep space).

I had never been able to discern an eagle in this nebula until now. I do now see (vaguely) the smaller eagle in the pillars.

But this talk of which is the "real" eagle is not dissimilar to arguments over the "correct" way to join the dots to form asterisms within the official constellation boundaries. It is surprisingly common to see significantly different interpretations of asterisms, even just within western sky folklore.

by **geckzilla** » Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:40 pm

Yeah, I see that what clearly looks like a hooked beak to me now wouldn't have been obvious when the nebula earned its namesake and therefore the low contrast wouldn't likely contribute to any envisioned eagle shapes.

by **Chris Peterson** » Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:26 pm

geckzilla wrote:Oooh, so that's how you are seeing the eagle. Here's what I see now. The top is how I originally interpreted the "eagle" of the eagle nebula. Below is how I understand you see it.

Of course, people are free to see it anyway they want. But there's actually a "real" way, which is how I drew it (and as you drew it below). I've seen that drawn in many old amateur astronomy references. The reason is simply that through a telescope, the pillars region is the only thing that has significant contrast. It's really the only obvious visual structure in M16, which otherwise just looks like a vague glow.

With modern imaging, of course, there's so much detail available that our native pareidolia takes over. But it's sometimes worthwhile to keep in mind the historical basis of some astronomical names.

by **geckzilla** » Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:18 pm

Like this, Anthony?

: The whole darn nebula is an eagle.; eagle3.jpg (21.04 KiB) Viewed 9916 times

by **Anthony Barreiro** » Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:11 pm

Sorry I'm not able to draw, but the whole darn nebula is is the eagle. The eagle's head is in the upper right, with the beak on the lower right side of the head. The wings are the large bright areas that extend from upper left to lower right.

Shall we also share our interpretations of Rorschach inkblots?

by **geckzilla** » Sun Feb 16, 2014 9:38 pm

FloridaMike wrote:I just pulled up the comments on the APOD Facebook page for the first time today. I had to immediately come here to say thank you to everyone who contributes.

Wow! Amazing! The Universe?!

Chris Peterson wrote:And here's the eagle that is very visible through that telescope:
[pictures]

Oooh, so that's how you are seeing the eagle. Here's what I see now. The top is how I originally interpreted the "eagle" of the eagle nebula. Below is how I understand you see it.

: Two ways to spot the eagle.

by **Anthony Barreiro** » Sun Feb 16, 2014 9:31 pm

Perhaps we should ask this woman what she sees when she looks at M16.

by **FloridaMike** » Sun Feb 16, 2014 9:02 pm

I just pulled up the comments on the APOD Facebook page for the first time today. I had to immediately come here to say thank you to everyone who contributes.

by **TheStarDog** » Sun Feb 16, 2014 7:13 pm

Just a point of interest, the left pillar inside the Eagle Nebula, I believe, also looks like an eagle sitting atop a perch with its head turned toward us. Has anyone ever mentioned this?

by **Chris Peterson** » Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:57 pm

geckzilla wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:
geckzilla wrote:It's very easy to see the eagle's wings and its hooked beak in this image. For a long time I had no idea why the Eagle Nebula was called that because I was only familiar with Hubble's Pillars of Creation.
But what you're seeing isn't really the Eagle nebula, which is local to the Pillars and has no beak, just a body, wings, and talons.
Hmm, I'm afraid I don't follow you on this.

Here is how M16 looks through a telescope (which is the view by which its name "eagle" came about):

And here's the eagle that is very visible through that telescope:

by **eltodesukane** » Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:02 pm

Rotating wheel space station
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_w ... ce_station

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
http://2001.wikia.com/wiki/Space_Station_V

by **rstevenson** » Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:01 pm

jsanchezjr wrote:... But one way to create artificial gravity is using centrifugal force. ... I don't think that others movies show that concept to create gravity, at least I have not seen any

2001: A Space Odyssey, the 1968 movie by Stanley Kubrick, clearly shows a spinning space station with people walking along the curving "floor" of the outer rim, as well as other applications of the same technology. There have been others, but that's probably the most famous.

Rob

by **jsanchezjr** » Sun Feb 16, 2014 5:41 pm

6,500 light years away... Well, this is not to much away like others celestial objects. The todays famous supernova in the cigar galaxy is 12 millions light years away. And others galaxys is even more away. That distance blow the mind of any person.

Btw, a few days ago I saw the movie 'Ender's Game' and for the first time, at least for me, in science fiction movies I could notice well applied the true concept of artificial gravity. Is well know that in space the gravity is a problem for stay upright on a space ship because, well, there is no gravity. But one way to create artificial gravity is using centrifugal force. Put yourself in a place that is spinning at a necessary speed and the centrifugal force will create the necessary force to keep you in place. The movie applies that concept very accurate, in several scene is show that part of the space station is spinning to create the centrifugal force. I had to replay the scene several time because I want to be sure and yes, the concept is there. I don't think that others movies show that concept to create gravity, at least I have not seen any

by **geckzilla** » Sun Feb 16, 2014 5:13 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
geckzilla wrote:It's very easy to see the eagle's wings and its hooked beak in this image. For a long time I had no idea why the Eagle Nebula was called that because I was only familiar with Hubble's Pillars of Creation.
But what you're seeing isn't really the Eagle nebula, which is local to the Pillars and has no beak, just a body, wings, and talons.

Hmm, I'm afraid I don't follow you on this.

by **Anthony Barreiro** » Sun Feb 16, 2014 5:04 pm

Cousin Ricky wrote:
Tszabeau wrote:How do the pillars form? Are they pulled out by the stars births? Do the pillars push the newborn stars or do the stars string the pillars out like breadcrumbs as the accelerate? What starts the motion of a newborn star? Does the nebula exert positive or negative momentum to it's child stars, relative to outsider stars which just happen to pass through it?
They are not extruded or built up like clay sculptures; they are chiseled like marble. Intense radiation from the O- and B-stars in the center of the nebula is constantly eroding the dust cloud, but there are denser parts of the cloud which resist erosion. It’s similar to the way buttes form on Earth. These denser parts also shield the parts of the cloud behind them, which is what causes the pillars. The pillars are essentially the “umbras” of the OB-stars.

New stars form inside the pillars because inside the pillars is cold enough for proto-stars to collapse. As the dust cloud is eroded by existing OB-stars, the new stars become exposed.

This is the clearest, most vivid explanation I've heard. Thanks. "Chiseled like marble," like buttes. I'm going to steal those lines.

Starship Asterisk*

APOD: Inside the Eagle Nebula (2014 Feb 16)

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: APOD: Inside the Eagle Nebula (2014 Feb 16)

Re: APOD: Inside the Eagle Nebula (2014 Feb 16)

Re: APOD: Inside the Eagle Nebula (2014 Feb 16)

Re: APOD: Inside the Eagle Nebula (2014 Feb 16)

Re: APOD: Inside the Eagle Nebula (2014 Feb 16)

Re: APOD: Inside the Eagle Nebula (2014 Feb 16)

Re: APOD: Inside the Eagle Nebula (2014 Feb 16)

Re: APOD: Inside the Eagle Nebula (2014 Feb 16)

Re: APOD: Inside the Eagle Nebula (2014 Feb 16)

Re: APOD: Inside the Eagle Nebula (2014 Feb 16)

Re: APOD: Inside the Eagle Nebula (2014 Feb 16)

Re: APOD: Inside the Eagle Nebula (2014 Feb 16)

Re: APOD: Inside the Eagle Nebula (2014 Feb 16)

Re: APOD: Inside the Eagle Nebula (2014 Feb 16)

Re: APOD: Inside the Eagle Nebula (2014 Feb 16)

Re: APOD: Inside the Eagle Nebula (2014 Feb 16)

Re: APOD: Inside the Eagle Nebula (2014 Feb 16)

Re: APOD: Inside the Eagle Nebula (2014 Feb 16)

Re: APOD: Inside the Eagle Nebula (2014 Feb 16)

Re: APOD: Inside the Eagle Nebula (2014 Feb 16)

Re: APOD: Inside the Eagle Nebula (2014 Feb 16)

Re: APOD: Inside the Eagle Nebula (2014 Feb 16)

Re: APOD: Inside the Eagle Nebula (2014 Feb 16)

Re: APOD: Inside the Eagle Nebula (2014 Feb 16)

Re: APOD: Inside the Eagle Nebula (2014 Feb 16)

Re: APOD: Inside the Eagle Nebula (2014 Feb 16)