(full site)
Fark.com

Back To Main
   Amazing photo of the Pinwheel Galaxy, 600 million light-years away in the constellation Serpens

15 Dec 2012 01:34 PM   |   13046 clicks   |   Wired
Showing 1-50 of 64 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
OtherBrotherDarryl    [TotalFark]  
I don't think that's the Pinwheel Galaxy. I think this one is.
upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size


But, yes, that is a great pic!

15 Dec 2012 10:12 AM
Bontesla     
Dear NASA,

Just shaddup and take my money already.

15 Dec 2012 10:15 AM
ThrnPhl    [TotalFark]  
Pinwheel, pinwheel, spinning around. Look at my Pinwheel and see what I've found...

15 Dec 2012 10:58 AM
sammyk     
Is that a giant sun in the center? I did not think that is how galaxies worked.

/genuinely curious

15 Dec 2012 11:21 AM
Matticus     

sammyk: Is that a giant sun in the center? I did not think that is how galaxies worked.

/genuinely curious


Those are older stars.

15 Dec 2012 12:34 PM
MaudlinMutantMollusk    [TotalFark]  
Amazing how it's directly side on to us so we can see it like that

/you can't explain that

15 Dec 2012 12:43 PM
Mattyb710     
Our existence is so farking trippy when you stop to think about it.

15 Dec 2012 01:38 PM
nekom    [TotalFark]  

ThrnPhl: Pinwheel, pinwheel, spinning around. Look at my Pinwheel and see what I've found...


Came here for this, leaving satisfied.

/LOL1980s

15 Dec 2012 01:38 PM
austin_millbarge     
The Pinwheel Galaxy is actually in the constellation of Ursa Major (off the handle of the big dipper). Its designation is M101 and it actually looks like a pinwheel unlike the one shown in the Wired pic.

Link

15 Dec 2012 01:40 PM
Ed Finnerty     

ThrnPhl: Pinwheel, pinwheel, spinning around. Look at my Pinwheel and see what I've found...


Ebenezer shakes his gigantic, green head at you.

15 Dec 2012 01:40 PM
leevis     
Since when can an entire galaxy be in a constellation?

15 Dec 2012 01:43 PM
RedVentrue     
Gravitational lensing

15 Dec 2012 01:44 PM
aerojockey    [TotalFark]  
Interesting. At first I thought it was a galaxy with a star in the foreground that was slightly overexposed, but that can't be. Overexposing would not be perfect--it would overexpose in some directions more than others, due to internal reflections and such. Which is why overexposures are often four-pointed start shaped. Nope, none of that in this image, the thing in the middle is definitely a large and perfectly homogenous elliptical cluster, and the "haze" around the center is just the density of stars thinning out.

15 Dec 2012 01:49 PM
austin_millbarge     

leevis: Since when can an entire galaxy be in a constellation?


The galaxy in question is indeed within the constellation of Serpens. It may not be one of the objects that forms the asterism, but there are more stars (and objects) within the boundaries of a constellation than the ones that form the primary asterism.

And to answer your question... since forever.

15 Dec 2012 01:51 PM
Misch    [TotalFark]  
How long until we have an ERMAGHERD SERPENS image macro?

15 Dec 2012 01:54 PM
whidbey    [TotalFark]  

Mattyb710: Our existence is so farking trippy when you stop to think about it.


If only more people would. Maybe we wouldn't be so hung up on our stupid little inconsequential rat race thinking.

The fact we have pictures so clear and detailed of stuff like this gives me hope people might look and realize there's more to all this.

15 Dec 2012 01:57 PM
had98c     

whidbey: Mattyb710: Our existence is so farking trippy when you stop to think about it.

If only more people would. Maybe we wouldn't be so hung up on our stupid little inconsequential rat race thinking.

The fact we have pictures so clear and detailed of stuff like this gives me hope people might look and realize there's more to all this.


Most people seem to just not give a rat's ass about astronomy/cosmology/anything beyond their front yard. I consider myself to be a pretty avid stargazer and find cosmology fascinating, but any time I try to show someone something through a telescope or some picture from Hubble it's almost always followed by some version of "meh".

15 Dec 2012 02:00 PM
thenooch     
FTA: The Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 took this image on July 9, 2001.

/not news
//not pinwheel
///...

15 Dec 2012 02:01 PM
Hot Carl To Go     

whidbey: Mattyb710: Our existence is so farking trippy when you stop to think about it.

If only more people would. Maybe we wouldn't be so hung up on our stupid little inconsequential rat race thinking.

The fact we have pictures so clear and detailed of stuff like this gives me hope people might look and realize there's more to all this.


Hush. The Kardashians are on, don't bother me.

15 Dec 2012 02:02 PM
tricycleracer     
What if the universe has already ended and we're just catching up on the highlight reel? Like, what if we already don't exist but our own consciousness is lagging behind by millions of light years?

/Can I buy some pot from you?

15 Dec 2012 02:07 PM
drdank    [TotalFark]  
No word from minus and plus?

15 Dec 2012 02:09 PM
Fark Rye For Many Whores     
600 million light-years away in the constellation Serpens

www.webstore.comView Full Size

15 Dec 2012 02:10 PM
madgonad     

had98c: whidbey: Mattyb710: Our existence is so farking trippy when you stop to think about it.

If only more people would. Maybe we wouldn't be so hung up on our stupid little inconsequential rat race thinking.

The fact we have pictures so clear and detailed of stuff like this gives me hope people might look and realize there's more to all this.

Most people seem to just not give a rat's ass about astronomy/cosmology/anything beyond their front yard. I consider myself to be a pretty avid stargazer and find cosmology fascinating, but any time I try to show someone something through a telescope or some picture from Hubble it's almost always followed by some version of "meh".


It is all in the presentation.

Lunar eclipses bring a lot of people out and the total solar eclipse in 2017 is going to be a huge event. I have gotten a lot of people in my neighborhood interested based upon little things like the ISS crossing the sky at sundown (which it will be doing around 5:30pm tonight if you are anywhere near Kansas City). They think that is cool based upon how bright it is and how fast it moves. Next, you show them the moon, but not when it is full. With a decent telescope you can see tremendous depth and detail of lunar craters and mares when the moon is between a quarter and a crescent. After that, you show them Saturn (the rings are always a crowd pleaser) and top it off with Jupiter - and with decent aperture and dark skies you can show off the Jovian moons too. After that you show off some of the brighter Messiers. That is how you get them hooked.

And no, that $200 department store or eBay refractor isn't going to do this

15 Dec 2012 02:14 PM
occamswrist     
meh

15 Dec 2012 02:21 PM
Snapper Carr     
cosmic areola

15 Dec 2012 02:23 PM
had98c     

madgonad: had98c: whidbey: Mattyb710: Our existence is so farking trippy when you stop to think about it.

If only more people would. Maybe we wouldn't be so hung up on our stupid little inconsequential rat race thinking.

The fact we have pictures so clear and detailed of stuff like this gives me hope people might look and realize there's more to all this.

Most people seem to just not give a rat's ass about astronomy/cosmology/anything beyond their front yard. I consider myself to be a pretty avid stargazer and find cosmology fascinating, but any time I try to show someone something through a telescope or some picture from Hubble it's almost always followed by some version of "meh".

It is all in the presentation.

Lunar eclipses bring a lot of people out and the total solar eclipse in 2017 is going to be a huge event. I have gotten a lot of people in my neighborhood interested based upon little things like the ISS crossing the sky at sundown (which it will be doing around 5:30pm tonight if you are anywhere near Kansas City). They think that is cool based upon how bright it is and how fast it moves. Next, you show them the moon, but not when it is full. With a decent telescope you can see tremendous depth and detail of lunar craters and mares when the moon is between a quarter and a crescent. After that, you show them Saturn (the rings are always a crowd pleaser) and top it off with Jupiter - and with decent aperture and dark skies you can show off the Jovian moons too. After that you show off some of the brighter Messiers. That is how you get them hooked.

And no, that $200 department store or eBay refractor isn't going to do this


Trust me I'm familiar with all of that. I used to run public Astronomy Nights at my university. The big hurdle I found was getting people to appreciate what they're looking at despite the fact that it appears either too small or too gray. People think they're gonna be seeing full color Hubble images by looking through an 8" Schmidt-Cassegrain. It's just not going to happen. Usually ends up being "That's all?" I gotta find a way to temper their expectations without totally turning them off.

15 Dec 2012 02:29 PM
snocone    [TotalFark]  
It's full of stars!

15 Dec 2012 02:33 PM
SwiftFox     

leevis: Since when can an entire galaxy be in a constellation?


Go out. Look up. See the second (middle) star in Orion's Sword? There's one.

15 Dec 2012 02:52 PM
Amos Quito     
Space is big,

15 Dec 2012 02:56 PM
Amos Quito     
600 million year-old news is so exciting!

15 Dec 2012 03:00 PM
d23    [TotalFark]  
www.qube-tv.comView Full Size


doesn't seem quite right without the audio of a little kid who really can't pronounce "pinwheel" correctly.

15 Dec 2012 03:00 PM
Jon iz teh kewl     
images3.wikia.nocookie.netView Full Size

15 Dec 2012 03:03 PM
Nick Nostril     
Shopped.

15 Dec 2012 03:09 PM
tricycleracer     

Jon iz teh kewl: [images3.wikia.nocookie.net image 850x637]


GET OUT OF MY CHILDHOOD

15 Dec 2012 03:15 PM
JMel     
Am I the only one who gets depressed when I hear about the vast distances of space?

I can't explain it...perhaps it makes me feel unbelievably insignificant? Perhaps it depresses me to know that we'll never be able to reach any of those distances in my lifetime?

/I need a drink

15 Dec 2012 03:37 PM
Al Hashshashin     

SwiftFox: leevis: Since when can an entire galaxy be in a constellation?

Go out. Look up. See the second (middle) star in Orion's Sword? There's one.


Ummm...no.

That's actually a nebula, not a galaxy and it's well inside our galaxy, the Milky Way.

When astronomers refer to an object being "in" a constellation they actually mean in the direction of the constellation. When austin_millbarge: pointed out to subby that the actual "Pinwheel Galaxy" is located "in" Ursa Major (the big dipper) and is not the galaxy in the article, he meant that you could see it by looking in that direction, not that it was physically located in the constellation itself. The Pinwheel Galaxy is hundred of orders of magnitude further away than any of the stars in Ursa Major, 21 million light years distant from our galaxy and is the namesake of a class of galaxies known as "pinwheels" because it's such a perfect example of one.

Hell, some of the stars in the Big Dipper aren't really "in" the Big Dipper. We're viewing them as a 2D pattern from here on earth but the stars the make up the constellation itself aren't necessarily even in the same region of space. Some of them are much farther away from us than others and the constellation would look very different if viewed from a different angle than we get from our vantage point.

/the more you know

15 Dec 2012 03:42 PM
gorgon38     
Hoag's object. Pretty strange big yellow blob surrounded by a ring of stars

15 Dec 2012 03:47 PM
Flying Lasagna Monster     
upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size


This is the actual Pinwheel Galaxy.

15 Dec 2012 04:00 PM
silverjets     
Only subby called it the Pinwheel Galaxy. The article (which is well below the photo so I'm guessing not a lot of Farkers saw it) correctly identifies it as Hoag's Object.

15 Dec 2012 04:10 PM
megarian    [TotalFark]  
I clicked on the article and made the mistake of going to Wikipedia. And just kept clicking. For hours.

But I'm pretty sure I'm an astronomer now.

Also I don't know where my kid is.

15 Dec 2012 04:24 PM
Ann Coulter's Diiick     

had98c:
...It's just not going to happen. Usually ends up being "That's all?" I gotta find a way to temper their expectations without totally turning them off.


I play the same game every weekend with girls at the club

15 Dec 2012 04:28 PM
Stone Meadow     

madgonad: After that, you show them Saturn (the rings are always a crowd pleaser) and top it off with Jupiter - and with decent aperture and dark skies you can show off the Jovian moons too. After that you show off some of the brighter Messiers. That is how you get them hooked.

And no, that $200 department store or eBay refractor isn't going to do this


While a better telescope will offer greater resolution, it's simple not true that one must have a good 'scope to see either Saturn's ring or the Jovian moons. Both are readily viewable through inexpensive telescopes or even binoculars.

In fact, there is a long recorded history of persons with superior vision sighting the Jovian moons unaided under optimal conditions. Even the cheapest binoculars can pick them out for us mere mortals under good conditions (clear dark skies, no moon, right time of the year, etc.). Virtually any telescope can do the same.

Saturn's rings are a bit trickier, but still viewable without a major investment under the right conditions. While the rings are not really resolvable to the naked eye at sea level (the atmosphere is too unsteady), at certain phases of Saturn's and Earth's orbits the disk of the rings IS viewable through binoculars and low powered telescopes. For the next 4 1/2 years the rings' angle of inclination will be increasing to maximum, and at opposition (during the spring and early summer of each year) the viewing will be best, with June 2017 the high point for this Saturnian orbit. (Link)

Binoculars are fantastic tools with a thousand and one uses, including astronomy. Get yourself a decent pair to enjoy for a lifetime.

15 Dec 2012 04:38 PM
Beanlet     

had98c: The big hurdle I found was getting people to appreciate what they're looking at despite the fact that it appears either too small or too gray. People think they're gonna be seeing full color Hubble images by looking through an 8" Schmidt-Cassegrain. It's just not going to happen. Usually ends up being "That's all?" I gotta find a way to temper their expectations without totally turning them off.


That is exactly what I have had happen. The "that's it?" because they are expecting these blown up Hubble pictures to pop at them through my little earthbound telescope. I was so excited to show my MIL the jovian moons and Saturn's rings. After the disappointment of how small the moons were, she didn't stay for the rings. We didn't even get to the "that fuzzball over there is a galaxy, want to see it a bit more clearly?"

I've moved into a much darker neighborhood, less light polution. Still haven't set up the telescope, but need to. I miss staring at fuzzballs, a little more clearly.

15 Dec 2012 04:38 PM
BalugaJoe     
Do they have Jesus?

15 Dec 2012 04:49 PM
Tillmaster     

Stone Meadow: madgonad: After that, you show them Saturn (the rings are always a crowd pleaser) and top it off with Jupiter - and with decent aperture and dark skies you can show off the Jovian moons too. After that you show off some of the brighter Messiers. That is how you get them hooked.

And no, that $200 department store or eBay refractor isn't going to do this

While a better telescope will offer greater resolution, it's simple not true that one must have a good 'scope to see either Saturn's ring or the Jovian moons. Both are readily viewable through inexpensive telescopes or even binoculars.

In fact, there is a long recorded history of persons with superior vision sighting the Jovian moons unaided under optimal conditions. Even the cheapest binoculars can pick them out for us mere mortals under good conditions (clear dark skies, no moon, right time of the year, etc.). Virtually any telescope can do the same.

Saturn's rings are a bit trickier, but still viewable without a major investment under the right conditions. While the rings are not really resolvable to the naked eye at sea level (the atmosphere is too unsteady), at certain phases of Saturn's and Earth's orbits the disk of the rings IS viewable through binoculars and low powered telescopes. For the next 4 1/2 years the rings' angle of inclination will be increasing to maximum, and at opposition (during the spring and early summer of each year) the viewing will be best, with June 2017 the high point for this Saturnian orbit. (Link)

Binoculars are fantastic tools with a thousand and one uses, including astronomy. Get yourself a decent pair to enjoy for a lifetime.


THIS. I'd add that it's well worth paying a bit extra for a pair with image stabilization.

15 Dec 2012 04:53 PM
GypsyJoker     

Flying Lasagna Monster: [upload.wikimedia.org image 850x566]

This is the actual Pinwheel Galaxy.


Which is somewhat debatable, as M33 is also (and probably more-commonly) known as the Pinwheel Galaxy.

www.astrosurf.comView Full Size

15 Dec 2012 04:58 PM
GypsyJoker     

Tillmaster: Stone Meadow: madgonad: After that, you show them Saturn (the rings are always a crowd pleaser) and top it off with Jupiter - and with decent aperture and dark skies you can show off the Jovian moons too. After that you show off some of the brighter Messiers. That is how you get them hooked.

And no, that $200 department store or eBay refractor isn't going to do this

While a better telescope will offer greater resolution, it's simple not true that one must have a good 'scope to see either Saturn's ring or the Jovian moons. Both are readily viewable through inexpensive telescopes or even binoculars.

In fact, there is a long recorded history of persons with superior vision sighting the Jovian moons unaided under optimal conditions. Even the cheapest binoculars can pick them out for us mere mortals under good conditions (clear dark skies, no moon, right time of the year, etc.). Virtually any telescope can do the same.

Saturn's rings are a bit trickier, but still viewable without a major investment under the right conditions. While the rings are not really resolvable to the naked eye at sea level (the atmosphere is too unsteady), at certain phases of Saturn's and Earth's orbits the disk of the rings IS viewable through binoculars and low powered telescopes. For the next 4 1/2 years the rings' angle of inclination will be increasing to maximum, and at opposition (during the spring and early summer of each year) the viewing will be best, with June 2017 the high point for this Saturnian orbit. (Link)

Binoculars are fantastic tools with a thousand and one uses, including astronomy. Get yourself a decent pair to enjoy for a lifetime.

THIS. I'd add that it's well worth paying a bit extra for a pair with image stabilization.


True--image stabilizing binocs are excellent.

I would also suggest that a small Dobsonian such as the Orion StarBlast is a terrific and very inexpensive starter scope--a good enough scope that many exprienced amateurs with large scopes own one as a quick grab-n-go scope for times when it's not worth setting up the 24".

\innuendo city

15 Dec 2012 05:06 PM
Flying Lasagna Monster     

GypsyJoker: Which is somewhat debatable, as M33 is also (and probably more-commonly) known as the Pinwheel Galaxy.


M33 is the Triangulum Galaxy. You are wrong.

15 Dec 2012 05:37 PM
GypsyJoker     

Flying Lasagna Monster: GypsyJoker: Which is somewhat debatable, as M33 is also (and probably more-commonly) known as the Pinwheel Galaxy.

M33 is the Triangulum Galaxy. You are wrong.

Burnham's Celestial Handbook

, Kepple & Sanner's The Night Sky Observer's Guide, Sky Atlas 2000.0, Uranometria 2000.0, Eicher's The Universe From Your Backyard, Walter Scott Houston's Deep-Sky Wonders, and the vast majority of other astronomy guides--not to mention almost everyone I've ever met in 34 years as an amateur astronomer--considers M33 to be the Pinwheel Galaxy. I'll scan those pages for you if you like.

Identification of M101 as the Pinwheel Galaxy is a fairly recent trend. And referring to M33 as the Triangulum Galaxy is something that has followed along with it.

15 Dec 2012 05:53 PM
GypsyJoker     
Oh, look--here's a discussion about the shifting identification of "The Pinwheel Galaxy."

15 Dec 2012 06:01 PM
Showing 1-50 of 64 comments
Refresh Page 2
View Comments:
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined