Starship Asterisk*

IC 4592: The Blue Horsehead Reflection Nebula

Explanation: Do you see the horse's head? What you are seeing is not the famous Horsehead nebula toward Orion but rather a fainter nebula that only takes on a familiar form with deeper imaging. The main part of the above imaged molecular cloud complex is a reflection nebula cataloged as IC 4592. Reflection nebulas are actually made up of very fine dust that normally appears dark but can look quite blue when reflecting the light of energetic nearby stars. In this case, the source of much of the reflected light is a star at the eye of the horse. That star is part of Nu Scorpii, one of the brighter star systems toward the constellation of the Scorpion Scorpius. A second reflection nebula dubbed IC 4601 is visible surrounding two stars on the upper right of the image center.

<< Previous APOD

This Day in APOD

Next APOD >>

[/b]

Gee, it actually does look like a horse head. The 'silly' horse in the -horse- link, looks well outfitted for some 'horseing-around' in the Big dipper.

Uuuuuuuuuu, Ann must be in 7th Heaven!

Very nice shot.

:---[===] *

Boomer12k wrote:Uuuuuuuuuu, Ann must be in 7th Heaven!

Very nice shot.

:---[===] *

Yes, why do our Earthly members of the Equus family not come in this cerulean color here, too?

Ann

A present for Ann!

Margarita

Why thanks, Margarita, it looks lovely!

So there are blue horses of the Earth after all!

Ann

Ann wrote:Why thanks, Margarita, it looks lovely!

So there are blue horses of the Earth after all!

Ann

There is a legend in the Blue Grass country of Kentucky as well.
http://www.visitlex.com/blue-horse.php

Although no one has real evidence that blue horses exist, there are many tales of sightings across the region from legions of true believers. Legend has it that a horse called "Big Lex" turned blue from grazing in nourishing bluegrass pastures his entire life. Perhaps he found the very source of these limestone rich waters. Be on the lookout for a big blue horse as you drive around the backroads that are home to hundreds of horse farms in the area -- you might just see the legendary blue horse yourself.

Margarita

So maybe there are blue roses, too?

Even though http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_rose wrote:

Blue roses, often portrayed in literature and art as a symbol of love and prosperity to those who seek it, do not exist in nature as a result of genetic limitations being imposed upon natural variance.

Although in this legend of the blue rose, white roses look blue by the light of the full moon! How appropriate for Starship Asterisk*!

(Or maybe not... it could be that I just made us drift too far off topic now. Sorry.)

Ann

More kind of Ghost Horse Nebula.


Let's find its headless rider.

Neufer's post is an apropos reflection. Speaking of reflections... A horse is a horse unless it's something else. In eighth grade art class, I started a plaster sculpture modeling the Blue Horse logo. I had to change it to a ram head when I carved the ears too short.

Why oh why do astronomers insist on mispronouncing the Greek alphabet? It is not letter Nu, nor Mu. It's Ni and Mi (pronounced 'nee' and 'mee' as in the English words see, fee or bee).
And by the way, Pi is also pronounced 'pee', as in... pee, not 'paï' as in pie - but fine I guess it's too late to do anything about that, sigh.

Fantastic image!

500pesos wrote:Why oh why do astronomers insist on mispronouncing the Greek alphabet? It is not letter Nu, nor Mu. It's Ni and Mi (pronounced 'nee' and 'mee' as in the English words see, fee or bee).
And by the way, Pi is also pronounced 'pee', as in... pee, not 'paï' as in pie - but fine I guess it's too late to do anything about that, sigh.

You are making the mistake of assuming your pronunciations are correct. In English, they are not. Nu and Mu are the correct spellings of those Greek letters, and nyu and myu are the correct pronunciations. Just because they are pronounced one way in modern Greek doesn't mean that the pronunciations used by other languages are incorrect.

If you made a reference to Ni Scorpii, it is you who would be incorrect and likely misunderstood.

How soon we forget...http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060808.html That image could have been taken through one of the Star Shadows Remote Observatory telescopes operated remotely. http://www.starshadows.com

Today's APOD image might have been taken through a ground 1981 Celestron C-8 8" Schmidt Cassegrain telescope. Perhaps that might explain the 8 radial artifacts emanating from each bright star and the faint blue globe at the end of the radial arms? There are probably 2-5 stars in that cluster generating the reflection nebula.

Psnarf wrote:How soon we forget...http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap060808.html That image could have been taken through one of the Star Shadows Remote Observatory telescopes operated remotely. http://www.starshadows.com

Today's APOD image might have been taken through a ground 1981 Celestron C-8 8" Schmidt Cassegrain telescope. Perhaps that might explain the 8 radial artifacts emanating from each bright star and the faint blue globe at the end of the radial arms? There are probably 2-5 stars in that cluster generating the reflection nebula.

It might have been, but it wasn't. It was taken through a Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM lens stopped down to f/3.5. The radial artifacts come from the 8 blades used for the lens diaphragm.

Psnarf wrote:Today's APOD image might have been taken through a ground 1981 Celestron C-8 8" Schmidt Cassegrain telescope. Perhaps that might explain the 8 radial artifacts emanating from each bright star and the faint blue globe at the end of the radial arms? There are probably 2-5 stars in that cluster generating the reflection nebula.

SCTs don't show linear diffraction artifacts. That is one reason they are popular for imaging. (Refractors don't show them, either, but it is impractical to produce refractors with large apertures, whereas it is common with SCTs.)

That is a "horse of a different color"....

:---[===] *

It would be sooooo much nicer, if it weren't sooooo dusty!!! LOL!!!

:---[===] *

Chris Peterson wrote:

500pesos wrote:Why oh why do astronomers insist on mispronouncing the Greek alphabet? It is not letter Nu, nor Mu. It's Ni and Mi (pronounced 'nee' and 'mee' as in the English words see, fee or bee).
And by the way, Pi is also pronounced 'pee', as in... pee, not 'paï' as in pie - but fine I guess it's too late to do anything about that, sigh.

You are making the mistake of assuming your pronunciations are correct. In English, they are not. Nu and Mu are the correct spellings of those Greek letters, and nyu and myu are the correct pronunciations. Just because they are pronounced one way in modern Greek doesn't mean that the pronunciations used by other languages are incorrect.

If you made a reference to Ni Scorpii, it is you who would be incorrect and likely misunderstood.

Gentlepersons, there are many words and letters that are pronounced differently in different languages, idioms, and dialects. Context is everything. It's true that if somebody giving an astronomy lecture in the US referred to "Nee Scorpii" they would probably be met with blank stares. At the least they would need to clarify that in modern Greek that's how "Nu" is pronounced, and they would probably resign themselves to using the English (mis)pronunciations of Greek letters. It's equally true that a foreign astronomer living in Athens would need to learn to pronounce letters correctly in modern Greek in order to be able to communicate and get around.

Now that I've learned the Greek alphabet well enough to find my way through the Bayer star catalogue, I find it fascinating to learn that modern Greeks pronounce everything differently than I've learned. The world is infinitely more diverse than I will ever comprehend, and that gives me joy and hope.

(P.S. -- This discussion reminds me of descriptive vs. prescriptive grammar.)

Anthony Barreiro wrote:
(P.S. -- This discussion reminds me of descriptive vs. prescriptive grammar.)

• Grammar's seeking bet. Armor ticking arson burden barter an shirker cockles.

neufer wrote:

Anthony Barreiro wrote:
(P.S. -- This discussion reminds me of descriptive vs. prescriptive grammar.)

• Grammar's seeking bet. Armor ticking arson burden barter an shirker cockles.

"O Grammar, water bag mousy gut!"

HEY!! I have enuff trubell wit inglash

Anthony Barreiro wrote:

neufer wrote:

Anthony Barreiro wrote:
(P.S. -- This discussion reminds me of descriptive vs. prescriptive grammar.)

• Grammar's seeking bet. Armor ticking arson burden barter an shirker cockles.

"O Grammar, water bag mousy gut!"

My Android won't play RealPlayer so I'm in the dark about 'Armor ticking arson'
Mairzy Doats doesn't come anywhere NEAR that ¿ story? in incomprehensibility!

What I see is blue. Is that a big cloud of oxigen?