museumuesum:

Linda Connor

contact prints on printing-out paper from vintage glass plate negatives of Solar Eclipse from the collection of The Lick Observatory

1893-1910, prints made 1977-1996

(via aimlessinspace)

Source: museumuesum

astronomypictureoftheday: The Red Rectangle Nebula from HubbleHow was the unusual Red Rectangle nebula created? At the nebula’s center is an aging binary star system that surely powers the nebula but does not, as yet, explain its colors. The unusual shape of the Red Rectangle is likely due to a thick dust torus which pinches the otherwise spherical outflow into tip-touching cone shapes. Because we view the torus edge-on, the boundary edges of the cone shapes seem to form an X. The distinct rungs suggest the outflow occurs in fits and starts. The unusual colors of the nebula are less well understood, however, and speculation holds that they are partly provided by hydrocarbon molecules that may actually be building blocks for organic life. The Red Rectangle nebula lies about 2,300 light years away towards the constellation of the Unicorn (Monoceros). The nebula is shown above in great detail as recently reprocessed image from Hubble Space Telescope. In a few million years, as one of the central stars becomes further depleted of nuclear fuel, the Red Rectangle nebula will likely bloom into a planetary nebula. Image Credit: ESA, Hubble, NASA; Reprocessing: Steven Marx, Hubble Legacy Archive
Pop-upView Separately

astronomypictureoftheday:

The Red Rectangle Nebula from Hubble

How was the unusual Red Rectangle nebula created? At the nebula’s center is an aging binary star system that surely powers the nebula but does not, as yet, explain its colors. The unusual shape of the Red Rectangle is likely due to a thick dust torus which pinches the otherwise spherical outflow into tip-touching cone shapes. Because we view the torus edge-on, the boundary edges of the cone shapes seem to form an X. The distinct rungs suggest the outflow occurs in fits and starts. The unusual colors of the nebula are less well understood, however, and speculation holds that they are partly provided by hydrocarbon molecules that may actually be building blocks for organic life. The Red Rectangle nebula lies about 2,300 light years away towards the constellation of the Unicorn (Monoceros). The nebula is shown above in great detail as recently reprocessed image from Hubble Space Telescope. In a few million years, as one of the central stars becomes further depleted of nuclear fuel, the Red Rectangle nebula will likely bloom into a planetary nebula.

Image Credit: ESA, Hubble, NASA; Reprocessing: Steven Marx, Hubble Legacy Archive

jtotheizzoe:

The Earliest Days of NASA

Maria Popova, at Brain Pickings, happened upon a treasure trove of early NASA (and its airplane-only predecessor NACA) archive photos. They are really something. From biplanes to the Mercury capsule, pre-1950 aeronautics seemed to live by the motto of “If we build it, then we can go there.” That’s a sentiment we could use a bit more of.

More here.

(via itsfullofstars)

Source: jtotheizzoe

the-science-llama:

If Earth Had Rings

First off, they would be really pretty to look at. They would also dominate the sky in both night and day at exactly the same place as they would never rise nor set. And at night you would see the Earth’s shadow swing across the rings, like in the 4th photo here.

However, life would be very different on Earth if this were the case. Nocturnal animals would have a hard time being nocturnal, as the light reflecting from the rings would illuminate the night.

Because we are closer to the Sun than Saturn is, the rings would be more rocky than ice, making them less bright but still pretty bright. In fact, you would see far less stars at night (living anywhere other than the equator or the arctic circle) because of the light pollution and not to mention ruin most meteor showers because of that.

During the day the rings would block sunlight in certain regions of the planet creating wild weather cycles and effecting plant life as well. So basically, they would be definitely pretty to look at but they would also make a whole lot of things screwy.

Illustrations by Ron Miller // io9
— Click the photos for captions

(via classicallyforbiddenregions)

Source: the-science-llama

carbonstuff: Let’s talk about the dark night. Yes this post is about Batman. Our common assumption is that the night sky is supposed to be dark with only few dots of light. But then, aren’t there supposed to billions upon billions of stars in the night sky emitting light. Yes, they are very far away, but, there is nothing stopping (like air or glass) the light from reaching us. So, shouldn’t all those stars make the night sky (very) bright and not dark ? This is actually called Olbers’ Paradox.  Let’s look at the problem in another way. We can divide the universe into a series of concentric shells, being 5 light years thick. Thus, a certain number of stars will be in the shell 1,00,000 to 1,00,005 light years away. If the universe is homogeneous at a large scale (i.e., static), then there would be four times as many stars in a second shell between 2,00,000 to 2,00,005 light years away. But, the second shell is twice as far away, so each star in it would appear four times dimmer than the first shell (intensity is inversely proportional to the square of distance). Thus the total light received from the second shell is the same as the total light received from the first shell. Thus, the argument is that if the universe were static and filled infinitely with stars, the night sky should be much brighter than it is now. I think you guessed the loop hole here. I said if the universe were static, which it clearly isn’t. The Big Bang explains this paradox by saying that the universe started at a point, and expanded from that point. Thus, it is not static. We know that the expansion is accelerating. So, two things happen.  One is that, those stars in the night sky are moving away from us and the distance between them and us increases. This increase the time for to see them and eventually it takes millions of years for the light from those stars to reach us. Second, which is the more important reason, is that these starts get redshifted away. Redshifting is when the wavelength of an object moving away from us goes towards the red side of the spectrum and eventually, it goes into the infra red, which we cannot see. It is like we listen to a honking truck passing by at great speed. As it moves away from us, the the sound becomes softer and softer and eventually it is inaudible. So, because of these reasons, we never get to experience the real night sky light. But, it may be a good thing, as otherwise our eyes would be blinded by the light ! Image via Wikimedia Commons
View Separately

carbonstuff:

Let’s talk about the dark night. Yes this post is about Batman.

Our common assumption is that the night sky is supposed to be dark with only few dots of light.

But then, aren’t there supposed to billions upon billions of stars in the night sky emitting light. Yes, they are very far away, but, there is nothing stopping (like air or glass) the light from reaching us. So, shouldn’t all those stars make the night sky (very) bright and not dark ?

This is actually called Olbers’ Paradox. 

Let’s look at the problem in another way. We can divide the universe into a series of concentric shells, being 5 light years thick. Thus, a certain number of stars will be in the shell 1,00,000 to 1,00,005 light years away. If the universe is homogeneous at a large scale (i.e., static), then there would be four times as many stars in a second shell between 2,00,000 to 2,00,005 light years away.

But, the second shell is twice as far away, so each star in it would appear four times dimmer than the first shell (intensity is inversely proportional to the square of distance). Thus the total light received from the second shell is the same as the total light received from the first shell.

Thus, the argument is that if the universe were static and filled infinitely with stars, the night sky should be much brighter than it is now.

I think you guessed the loop hole here. I said if the universe were static, which it clearly isn’t.

The Big Bang explains this paradox by saying that the universe started at a point, and expanded from that point. Thus, it is not static.

We know that the expansion is accelerating. So, two things happen. 

One is that, those stars in the night sky are moving away from us and the distance between them and us increases. This increase the time for to see them and eventually it takes millions of years for the light from those stars to reach us.

Second, which is the more important reason, is that these starts get redshifted away. Redshifting is when the wavelength of an object moving away from us goes towards the red side of the spectrum and eventually, it goes into the infra red, which we cannot see. It is like we listen to a honking truck passing by at great speed. As it moves away from us, the the sound becomes softer and softer and eventually it is inaudible.

So, because of these reasons, we never get to experience the real night sky light. But, it may be a good thing, as otherwise our eyes would be blinded by the light !

Image via Wikimedia Commons

(via andromeda1023)

Source: carbonstuff

A Sun-Shield for Skylab (NASA, Marshall, Archive, 5/14/1973) by NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center on Flickr.Delores Zeroles (front) and Ceal Webb of ILC Industries, Dover, N.J., set up shop at NASA’s George C. Marshall Space Flight Center to stitch together a sun-shield for the Skylab Orbital Workshop, the first United States Experimental space station in orbit, which lost its thermal protection shield during the launch on May 14, 1973. Without the heat shield, the temperature inside the Orbital Workshop became dangerously high, rendering the workshop uninhabitable and threatening the interior insulation and adhesive to deteriorate. Marshall engineers and scientists worked tirelessly around the clock to develop an emergency repair procedure. The Skylab crew and the repair kits were launched just 11 days after the incident. The crew successfully deployed the twin-pole sail parasol sun-shade during their EVA (Extravehicular Activity) the next day. Image credit: NASA/MSFC
Pop-upView Separately

A Sun-Shield for Skylab (NASA, Marshall, Archive, 5/14/1973) by NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center on Flickr.

Delores Zeroles (front) and Ceal Webb of ILC Industries, Dover, N.J., set up shop at NASA’s George C. Marshall Space Flight Center to stitch together a sun-shield for the Skylab Orbital Workshop, the first United States Experimental space station in orbit, which lost its thermal protection shield during the launch on May 14, 1973. Without the heat shield, the temperature inside the Orbital Workshop became dangerously high, rendering the workshop uninhabitable and threatening the interior insulation and adhesive to deteriorate. Marshall engineers and scientists worked tirelessly around the clock to develop an emergency repair procedure. The Skylab crew and the repair kits were launched just 11 days after the incident. The crew successfully deployed the twin-pole sail parasol sun-shade during their EVA (Extravehicular Activity) the next day.

Image credit: NASA/MSFC

spaceplasma:

Intense Color on Rhea

This intense false-color view highlights and enhances color variations across the intensely cratered and cracked surface of Rhea.

To create the false-color view, ultraviolet, green and infrared images were combined into a single black and white picture that isolates and maps regional color differences. This “color map” was then superposed over a clear-filter image. The origin of the color differences is not yet understood, but may be caused by subtle differences in the surface composition or the sizes of grains making up the icy soil.

Wispy markings were seen on the trailing hemispheres of both Rhea and Dione in images taken by the Voyager spacecraft, and were hypothesized by some researchers to be the result of material extruded onto the surface by ice volcanism. Cassini’s earlier revelation of the braided fractures on Dione led to speculation that Rhea’s wisps might also be created by fractures.

Credit: NASA/JPL/Space Science Institute

(via abcstarstuff)

Source: spaceplasma

bobbycaputo:

The Only Known Photograph of Einstein Deriving his Famous E=mc2 Equation

At a public lecture in Pittsburgh in 1934, four hundred lucky students were privy to a lecture by Albert Einstein, in which the great man mathematically derived his famous mass-energy equivalence equation: E=mc2. What you see above is a photo from that lecture, and what is thought to be the only surviving photo that shows Einstein working on that derivation.

The photo was pulled from a halftone newspaper clipping by David Topper and Dwight Vincent of the University of Winnipeg, who discovered it in 2007. Sadly, everything is a bit fuzzy so you can’t really make out the famed equation itself. And even though the original article had a crisp picture of Einstein posing next to one of his blackboards, he’s next to the wrong one.

Here’s a closer look at the man and the math. If you look closely, you’ll see the mass-energy equivalence in the lower left hand corner of the blackboard on the right:

Fortunately, Topper and Vincent managed to take the blurry photo and reproduce both blackboards in their original paper. Here’s the math behind the magic, the derivation of mass-energy equivalence as presented by Albert Einstein.

In case you’re wondering why the famous equation says Δ

(via abcstarstuff)

Source: petapixel.com

Top