Starship Asterisk*

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap081225.html
I see the Fox Fur. I think I see the Unicorn; but I'm having trouble with a Christmas Tree. Looks like there may be one of Santa's reindeer over toward the upper left though.
Orin

orin stepanek wrote:I'm having trouble with a Christmas Tree.

The APOD description wrote:... the stars of NGC 2264 are also known as the Christmas Tree star cluster. The triangular tree shape traced by the stars appears sideways here, with its apex at the Cone Nebula and its broader base centered near S Mon.

I would also call this star cluster an "asterism".

Chris Peterson (regarding the [url=http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=15164&p=99643#p99643]Coat Hanger[/url]) wrote:"Asterism" is precisely the correct word to use in this case, because the star grouping suggests a recognizable shape.

---

orin stepanek wrote:I think I see the Unicorn

This APOD is just one small corner of the constellation of the Unicorn (Monoceros). In this view you can see the "Christmas Tree Cluster" as a blue area in the upper right of "Monoceros". Monoceros is essentially the "void" that the eye usually ignores between Orion, Sirius, and Procyon. The Christmas Tree Cluster can be found just south of the "feet" of Gemini.

Ahh! With an angel on top. Nicely decorated.

Orin

pass the beer...........................oh yeah now i see it ...har har har Merry Christm,as to all and long live the telescopes

orin stepanek wrote:http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap081225.html
I think I see the Unicorn;

Oh really!?


<<It takes a lot of imagination to fashion a unicorn [Monoceros] out of this group of stars. In fact, there are several variations. While our figure puts the horn in front, from gamma Monocerotis through epsilon and up to S Monocerotis, another popular form has the horn instead coming from delta Monocerotis through 18 Mon and over to epsilon.>>

Seeing shapes in astronomy images can be great fun. The Fox Fur Nebula and Cone Nebula are very obvious in the image and I could make out the general shape of the Christmas Tree. I did though think that the Unicorn was the area that looks (at least to me!) like the head of a horse which is to the left of centre just below and adjacent to the blue nebulosity (the 'head' has a thin dark band below it).

What looked like what may be a unicorn was the cloud toward the lower center. What I imagined looked like a deer was over to the left and it was looking at the unicorn. What looked like the angel was sitting on top of the Christmas tree. 8) How's that for imagination?
Orin

Deer (upper left) and goat-bison-manatee-thing (lower right) looking at each other:


One angel:


Another angel:

orin stepanek wrote:What looked like what may be a unicorn was the cloud toward the lower center. What I imagined looked like a deer was over to the left and it was looking at the unicorn. What looked like the angel was sitting on top of the Christmas tree. 8) How's that for imagination?

I've seen your deer in other pictures of the Fox Fur Nebula. I always thought of it as the fur still having the head attached, but it does look more like a deer than a fox. I have to agree with apodman on your unicorn. It looks more like a manatee, walrus, or seal. I could see the angel in apodman's tree drawing. I never looked at it that way, seeing instead the Cone Nebula.

Hi apodman.

What I thought looked like the head of a horse is what you think looks like a "goat-bison-manatee-thing". I like that description. The eye looked like a small ear to me.

I'm still though having difficulty seeing the Unicorn shape of the constellation Monoceros. I think I need to see some Unicorns to be sure!

DavidLeodis wrote:I'm still though having difficulty seeing the Unicorn shape of the constellation Monoceros. I think I need to see some Unicorns to be sure!

Try these three artistic renderings:

http://www.astrosurf.com/jwisn/monoceros.jpg

http://hsci.cas.ou.edu/images/jpg-100dp ... oceros.jpg

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/stellar/scenes/s ... /mon_c.gif

And this one too (though it's looking at the celestial sphere from the outside so all the constellations are backwards):

http://www.redorbit.com/modules/reflib/ ... 4ee1a2.jpg

And when envisioning, remember that unicorns (at least the one in the sky) are invisible.

apodman wrote:

DavidLeodis wrote:I'm still though having difficulty seeing the Unicorn shape of the constellation Monoceros. I think I need to see some Unicorns to be sure!

Try these three artistic renderings:

http://www.astrosurf.com/jwisn/monoceros.jpg

http://hsci.cas.ou.edu/images/jpg-100dp ... oceros.jpg

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/stellar/scenes/s ... /mon_c.gif

And this one too (though it's looking at the celestial sphere from the outside so all the constellations are backwards):

http://www.redorbit.com/modules/reflib/ ... 4ee1a2.jpg

And when envisioning, remember that unicorns (at least the one in the sky) are invisible.

Ta for that. It's so much easier to see when the Unicorn is drawn in!

I believe it's bad luck to kill a Unicorn (asuming it can be seen in the first place!) so I trust that Monoceros does not get destroyed any time soon!

DavidLeodis wrote:... I trust that Monoceros does not get destroyed any time soon!

It's apparently up to you. Illustrating a dim constellation is less like connect-the-dots and more like draw-what-you-want. Did you see modern office equipment in one of the linked views?

apodman wrote:

DavidLeodis wrote:... I trust that Monoceros does not get destroyed any time soon!

It's apparently up to you. Illustrating a dim constellation is less like connect-the-dots and more like draw-what-you-want. Did you see modern office equipment in one of the linked views?

Yes (in the second link) but that just confused me even more! Trying to make out a Unicorn is hard enough but how anyone could form such things as a laptop in those stars baffles me! but also

apodman wrote:And when envisioning, remember that unicorns (at least the one in the sky) are invisible.

Not to virgins, maybe we can enlist Virgo's help finding Monoceros. I've never been able to envision any of the constellations, except Crux. I suspect a lack of imagination on my part.

bystander wrote:

apodman wrote:And when envisioning, remember that unicorns (at least the one in the sky) are invisible.

Not to virgins, maybe we can enlist Virgo's help finding Monoceros.

But Orion The Hunter and his two hunting dogs
have apparently already taken Monoceros :
-----------------------------------------------
The HUNT of the unicorn

<<One traditional method of hunting unicorns involved entrapment by a virgin.

In one of his notebooks Leonardo da Vinci wrote: "The unicorn, through its intemperance and not knowing how to control itself, for the love it bears to fair maidens forgets its ferocity and wildness; and laying aside all fear it will go up to a seated damsel and go to sleep in her lap, and thus the hunters take it.">>
-----------------------------------------------

Found this on the web. It's called "unicorn jumping fire". If the unicorn is Monoceros, the fire is Sirius.

I connected some dots on my own. Greek letter stars are knees (α, β, γ); back (δ); nose (ε); and tail (ζ).


From above, for comparison.

apodman wrote:Found this on the web. It's called "unicorn jumping fire". If the unicorn is Monoceros, the fire is Sirius.

The little dog laughed to see such fun,
And the crow jumped over the moon.

neufer wrote:And the crow jumped over the moon.

Corvus?

apodman wrote:

neufer wrote:And the crow jumped over the moon.

Corvus?

------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crow_T._Robot

<<According to the MST3K storyline, Crow T. Robot, like his fellow robots Tom Servo, Gypsy, and Cambot, were built by Joel Robinson, who created them to help him withstand the torment of watching bad movies on the Satellite of Love, where Joel was trapped by mad scientist Dr. Clayton Forrester and his assistants. Crow was referred to as being made of molybdenum, as well as high-density Kevlar.

Crow is also sometimes called "Art". This arose from a gag in episode 203, Jungle Goddess, in which Joel introduces the bots as Jackie Gleason did with his fellow cast members at the end of every episode of The Honeymooners, calling each one out individually to take a bow. During this, Joel refers to Crow as "Art Crow!", a reference to the enthusiastic way that Gleason would introduce his long-time partner Art Carney. Later, Best Brains received a letter from a child who had evidently missed the cultural reference and labeled a drawing of Crow as "Art".>>

Didn't they introduce him as "cro-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-w"?

I miss that show. These days I have to go to the Café if I want "mystery science".

apodman wrote:Didn't they introduce him as "cro-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-w"?
I miss that show. These days I have to go to the Café if I want "mystery science".

The Café only has MST2K

You know that you can buy DVD's:
http://www.mst3kinfo.com/satnews/dvds/index.html
http://www.mst3k.com/store/home.php?cat=8

I highly recommend the book: http://www.mst3kinfo.com/mstfaq/book.html

apodman wrote:These days I have to go to the Café if I want "mystery science".

------------------------------------------------------------------------
'MST3K' founder back with new tack on proven yak
By Robert K. Elder | Chicago Tribune staff reporter
December 12, 2008

<<Joel is back. This time, without the 'bots.

Joel Hodgson, creator of "Mystery Science Theater 3000," spent years as character Joel Robinson, heckling movies with wisecracking robots Crow and Tom Servo, skewering Z-grade films such as "Attack of the Eye Creatures." But halfway through the cult TV show's decade-long run, Hodgson exited the show.

Next week, Hodgson and the show's cast bring "Cinematic Titanic," a new live version of the movie-riffing template, to the Lakeshore Theatre. (New versions of the show, minus the live audience, also are being released on DVD.) Below, Hodgson talks about his new venture, leaving "MST3K" and possibly returning to cable television.

Q: You've made talking back to the screen an art. But do people heckle you during live shows?

A: In St. Louis, we played our biggest event. They took a hockey arena and split it in half. The acoustics were awful. Supposedly, there was a drunk guy there yelling out stuff, but I didn't hear him. But that's what I'd do.

No, I'm kidding.

But people don't really do that. If they go to all the trouble to come to the show and pay, they pretty much want to see what we're up to.

Q: But what is the wraparound story for "Cinematic Titanic"? Who are these figures, and why are they heckling movies?

A: We're slowly unfolding it, and I'm trying to stay one ahead of everybody, just trying to reveal what's going on. Each disc, we kind of reveal more of where they are and what they are doing. I don't want to completely give it away. Basically, they are doing it to save movies.

Q: Why isn't this project "Mystery Science Theater 4000"?

A: We had talked about it. [Producer] Jim Mallon and I got together and talked about working together again, and it just kind of fell apart. But doing "Mystery Science Theater" again would kind of feel like doing "After M*A*S*H." And so, instead, to get the same impact and the same feeling, I thought we should take another run at it.

Q: Did the fact that your former colleagues put their toes into the water with similar projects, "RiffTrax" and the "Film Crew," make you want to get back into it?

A: I knew about it, but I didn't really see it until after we started and I felt obliged to look at it, just to make sure I wasn't going to do anything they did. I'm not sure how I feel about it yet. It's kind of like: They didn't do it the way I would have done it.

I think I had the impulse to do it again before "Rifftrax" or "Film Crew." It's the most fun I've ever had in show business, and I felt really frustrated that I didn't get to get in on all of it. I really regret what happened with "Mystery Science Theater." I felt like I got cheated out of five good years of doing something I loved. If anything, that's what motivated me.

Q:In previous interviews, you said that you left the show over clashes with Mallon. ... Was that the extent of it? Creative differences?

A: I ran the creative side, and he ran the production. I think the day he came in and said, "I want to direct the movie," he kind of walked into my domain. There weren't creative differences because he wasn't even supposed to be in the creative realm. He had directed a feature before, so I think that's what he was thinking. And I said, "You know, if you do that, I don't think I want to be part of it."

Q: If a cable station came to you and said, "Listen, we like what you do and we want you to do it for us and we're not going to give you notes"—would you consider doing "Cinematic Titanic" for television?

A: Absolutely. But if you look at it in terms of what we did with "Mystery Science Theater," we didn't even pitch it to a network until we had done 22 shows. And so, by those standards, it'll be another two or three years until we're kind of at the same level. Of course, we're a lot more cagey now. It could happen any time, if the right deal came along.>>
--------------------------------------
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=WQKRXSo-qTo
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=C_N1NnrJdJk
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=IlVdQn2uuXg
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ukmFqOVKntM
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=eoVAdxUN_bA
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=cFlw5rDzAqI
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Y375LhFGDds
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc2eAZV2Mn0
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=MQ0eAPAzvm4

So Joel traded Pearl Forrester's microbus for Gonzo Gates' RV?