Starship Asterisk*

Gaia: Here Comes the Sun

Explanation: What would it look like to return home from outside our galaxy? Although designed to answer greater questions, recent data from ESA's robotic Gaia mission is helping to provide a uniquely modern perspective on humanity's place in the universe. Gaia orbits the Sun near the Earth and resolves star's positions so precisely that it can determine a slight shift from its changing vantage point over the course of a year, a shift that is proportionately smaller for more distant stars -- and so determines distance. In the first sequence of the video, an illustration of the Milky Way is shown that soon resolves into a three-dimensional visualization of Gaia star data. A few notable stars are labelled with their common names, while others stars are labelled with numbers from Gaia's catalog. Eventually the viewer arrives at our home star Sol (the Sun), then resolving the reflective glow of its third planet: Earth. The featured video is based on just over 600,000 stars, but Gaia is on track to measure the parallax distances to over one billion stars over its planned five year mission.

<< Previous APOD

This Day in APOD

Next APOD >>

[/b]

mighty strong brakes on that UFO

Going by the video, between 10 secs to 20 secs, it appears our Sun (Sol) is part of a Globular Star Cluster. Is that really the case? Or is it a result of insufficient data of the Milky Way so far?

Sudhamshu wrote:Going by the video, between 10 secs to 20 secs, it appears our Sun (Sol) is part of a Globular Star Cluster. Is that really the case? Or is it a result of insufficient data of the Milky Way so far?

I think it's just marking the edge of the data.

geckzilla wrote:

Sudhamshu wrote:Going by the video, between 10 secs to 20 secs, it appears our Sun (Sol) is part of a Globular Star Cluster. Is that really the case? Or is it a result of insufficient data of the Milky Way so far?

I think it's just marking the edge of the data.

Absolutely. We're not inside a globular cluster. Trust me, we'd notice!

Son: Mom, why is the sky so bright? I can't sleep!

Mom: I know, son. It's all those darn stars in the sky. Darn light pollution!

Ann

I know, I know... our eyes would have adapted so that the brilliant starlight wouldn't bother us...geez...

It's interesting and quite demanding to follow each star as it turns up, identify it and check its parallax and distance. One of the first stars we see is Hadar, Beta Centauri, situated apparently next to Alpha Centauri, but almost a hundred times farther away. Still, Beta Centauri isn't the star with the smallest parallax here at all. Antares, which turns up at the same time as Hadar, is more distanct, with a parallax of 5.89 milliarcseconds and a distance of some 550 light-years, versus a parallax of 8.32 mas and a distance of some 390 light-years.

Here are some other stars:

Rigel: Parallax 3.98 mas, distance ~ 860 light-years

Canopus: Parallax 10.55, distance ~ 310 light-years

Alnilam: Parallax 1.65, distance ~ 2,000 light-years

87 Virginis, parallax 4.82, distance ~ 680 light-years

Delta Scorpii, parallax 6.64, distance ~ 490 light-years

Betelgeuse, parallax 6.55, distance ~ 500 light-years

HIP 69269, parallax 7.08, distance ~ 460 light-years

Spica, parallax 13.06, distance ~ 250 light-years

Kappa Virginis, parallax 12.80, distance ~255 light-years

89 Virginis, parallax 13.35, distance ~ 245 light-years

Alnitak, parallax 4.43, distance ~ 740 light-years

Gamma Corvi, parallax 21.23, distance ~ 154 ly

Beta Libra, parallax 17.62, distance ~ 185 ly

Delta Ophiuchi, parallax 19.06, distance ~ 170 ly

Lambda Virginis, parallax 17.49 distance ~ 185 ly

Gamma Hydrae, parallax 24.37, distance ~ 134 ly

Pi Hydrae, parallax 32.30, distance ~ 101 ly

Saiph, Kappa Orionis, parallax 5.04, distance ~ 650 ly

Alpha-2 Libra, Zuben Elgenubi, parallax 43.03, distance ~ 76 ly

37 Libra, parallax 34.57, distance ~ 94 ly

Delta Orionis, Mintaka, parallax 4.71, distance ~ 690 ly

Bellatrix, Gamma Orionis, parallax 12.92, distance ~ 250 ly

Arcturus, parallax 88.83, distance ~ 37 ly

Regulus, parallax 41.13, distance ~ 79 light-years

Mu Virginis, parallax 54.73, distance ~ 60 ly

Rasalhague, parallax 67.13, distance ~ 49 ly

Capella, parallax 76.20, distance ~ 43 ly

Vega, parallax 130.23, distance ~ 25 ly

Aldebaran, parallax 48.94, distance ~ 67 ly

Alnath, Beta Aurigae, parallax 24.36, distance ~ 134 ly

Mirach, Beta Andromedae, parallax 16.52, distance ~ 200 ly

Beta Canis Majoris, parallax 6.62, distance 490 ly

Sirius, parallax 379.21, distance 8.6 ly

Pollux, parallax 96.54, distance ~ 34 ly

Alhena, parallax 29.84, distance ~ 109 ly

Rigel Kentaurus, parallax 754.81, distance ~ 4.3 ly

Hamal, Alpha Arietis, parallax 49.56, distance 66 ly

Procyon, parallax 284.56, distance ~ 11.46 ly

Epsilon Eridani, parallax 310.94, distance ~ 10.48 ly

Adhara, parallax 8.05, distance ~ 405 ly

Delta Canis Majoris, Wezen, parallax 2.03, distance ~ 1600 ly

Gamma Crucis, Gacrux, parallax 36.83, distance ~ 89 ly

Theta Centauri, Menkent, parallax 55.45, distance ~ 59 ly



Okay! I'm done! I don't want to do this anymore.

Please note that all the parallaxes and distances are Hipparcos parallaxes and distances.

Ann

Hi,

Starting from 0:11 in the movie, do all these points represent actual stars or only the named ones are in the data ? Really impressive anyway.

Thanks

Many milky way simulations suffer from this problem - the galaxy itself is presented as a generic agglomeration of stars (with the best information we have about the central bar and spiral arms guiding the overall appearance) but the data we have on the actual stars of our galaxy is known to within a few hundred light years of the sun. So when the simulation zooms in on our location, actual star location data takes over from the low resolution "average" galaxy appearance, and you have this apparent cluster of stars in our solar neighborhood. I'm pretty sure our stellar neighborhood is pretty typical of what you'd find anywhere else in a spiral arm, it's just that looking at the real data as opposed to the broad-brush averages is pretty apparent.

Sudhamshu wrote:Going by the video, between 10 secs to 20 secs, it appears our Sun (Sol) is part of a Globular Star Cluster. Is that really the case? Or is it a result of insufficient data of the Milky Way so far?

Pretty cool.

As we begin to zoom in on the solar system, there is a faint number in the background stars: 3796072587910775936
What is this number and why is it there?

mwhidden wrote:As we begin to zoom in on the solar system, there is a faint number in the background stars: 3796072587910775936
What is this number and why is it there?

This is a Gaia catalog number, given to a specific star. The star likely doesn't have a Hipparcos, HD, SAO or other number belonging to a well-known catalog.

I hope Gaia will release a catalog soon, so we can check up its stars!

Ann

Ann wrote:
Absolutely. We're not inside a globular cluster. Trust me, we'd notice!

• Son: Mom, why is the sky so bright? I can't sleep!
  
  Mom: I know, son. It's all those darn stars in the sky.

Son: Mom, why is the sky so bright? I can't sleep!

Mom: I know, son. We live at 56N and the Sun doesn't set until 10 PM.

neufer wrote:

Ann wrote:
Absolutely. We're not inside a globular cluster. Trust me, we'd notice!

• Son: Mom, why is the sky so bright? I can't sleep!
  
  Mom: I know, son. It's all those darn stars in the sky.

Son: Mom, why is the sky so bright? I can't sleep!

Mom: I know, son. We live at 56N and the Sun doesn't set until 10 PM.

Is this 56N "Sun" set on the planet in the global cluster?

If so, those entities would be similar to hydrogen-helium type beings (perhaps like on Jupiter) who may sense human sight wavelengths like a match in the dark.

Ann wrote: I hope Gaia will release a catalog soon, so we can check up its stars!

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=36371

Ann wrote:I hope Gaia will release a catalog soon, so we can check up its stars!

They already did. http://gaia.esac.esa.int/documentation/GDR1/.

Ann wrote:

geckzilla wrote:

Sudhamshu wrote:Going by the video, between 10 secs to 20 secs, it appears our Sun (Sol) is part of a Globular Star Cluster. Is that really the case? Or is it a result of insufficient data of the Milky Way so far?

I think it's just marking the edge of the data.

Absolutely. We're not inside a globular cluster. Trust me, we'd notice!

Son: Mom, why is the sky so bright? I can't sleep!

Mom: I know, son. It's all those darn stars in the sky. Darn light pollution!

Ann

I know, I know... our eyes would have adapted so that the brilliant starlight wouldn't bother us...geez...

I was waiting for a different punch line

Son: Mom, why is the sky so bright? I can't sleep!
Mom: I know son. It's morning and the Sun is up

Did that when I was 18. Around 1971'... In Meditation, left my body, with no break in consciousness, went out, way out... past galaxies... came back, galaxies whipping by, to our Galaxy, and finally our part, and stars, and Solar System, and finally Earth, North America, Oregon, Salem, neighborhood, and above the house, when "HUUUUUUUUHHHH...." big inhale... Without any break in consciousness, I reentered the body. Re-entry was a bit hard... but I slammed into the body, and became aware of the sensations and was in normal conscious awareness... it was such an event, that I put away my meditation tools the next day, and forgot about the incident, until the early 80's, when I picked up meditation with my martial arts practice...
Regardless of what you think, delusion, or illusion, imaginary, or conscious dreaming, I had full control of what I did, except re-entry, that was more sudden, as it happened from outside the house... which to me at least, shows me that I WAS out...
You have to be super relaxed to do it. I had done candle meditations for weeks. No drugs were involved... just in case you were thinking that...

Now here is a similar video representation... Cool.

:---[===] *

Boomer12k wrote:Did that when I was 18. Around 1971'... In Meditation, left my body,
Regardless of what you think, delusion, or illusion, imaginary, or conscious dreaming,...
:---[===] *

I don't discount that! There's much more to the Universe than astronomy: http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf

heehaw wrote:

Boomer12k wrote:Did that when I was 18. Around 1971'... In Meditation, left my body,
Regardless of what you think, delusion, or illusion, imaginary, or conscious dreaming,...
:---[===] *

I don't discount that! There's much more to the Universe than astronomy: http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf

BMAONE23 wrote: I was waiting for a different punch line
Son: Mom, why is the sky so bright? I can't sleep!
Mom: I know son. It's morning and the Sun is up

Good one!
But…. Is the new heehaw punch line…
Mom: I know son. It’s morning and the Sol us ipse

Spot the deliberate mistake anyone ?
Shouldn't our favourite star (Sol) seem to get bigger as we get nearer to it ?

Wolf wrote:

heehaw wrote:

Boomer12k wrote:Did that when I was 18. Around 1971'... In Meditation, left my body,
Regardless of what you think, delusion, or illusion, imaginary, or conscious dreaming,...
:---[===] *

Hmmm 1971.............I don't suppose you were tending more towards "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" than "Here Comes the Sun" ?

Tdere is another Wolf ere ?

Brit_in_Exile wrote:Spot the deliberate mistake anyone ?
Shouldn't our favourite star (Sol) seem to get bigger as we get nearer to it ?

It's representative of the Sun's position, but it's not representative of its size. Your question would be better phrased: Shouldn't our favourite star (Sol) be smaller than a pixel when we are far away from it?

They could have made all the stars their actual size and then the animation would be totally black.

ta152h0 wrote:Tdere is another Wolf ere ?

Ja, virtually... but traveling at about 6 kpc/s

earth looks like a louse egg on a hair