[HN Gopher] A star system 3,000 light-years away is predicted to...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       A star system 3,000 light-years away is predicted to become visible
       soon
        
       Author : gnabgib
       Score  : 174 points
       Date   : 2024-03-19 01:40 UTC (21 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (blogs.nasa.gov)
 (TXT) w3m dump (blogs.nasa.gov)
        
       | dredmorbius wrote:
       | Nasa's report, which BI cites (and blocks the link behind a
       | regwall) is here:
       | 
       | "View Nova Explosion, 'New' Star in Northern Crown"
       | 
       | <https://blogs.nasa.gov/Watch_the_Skies/2024/02/27/view-nova-...>
       | 
       | This also adds the useful information that this is a _recurring_
       | nova, though I 'd like to know how the forecast is being made and
       | what it's based on.
        
         | mr_toad wrote:
         | Just past observations. If you've seen it go nova exactly every
         | 80 years odds are it will do it again. Some nova are very
         | regular, others can be unpredictable.
        
           | dredmorbius wrote:
           | That makes sense. As opposed to a main-sequence nova, in
           | which a very-late-sequence star goes through the _advanced
           | burning_ phases, with fusion progressively of carbon, neon,
           | oxygen, and finally silicon (to iron) occurs. The final
           | stages of this occur quite quickly, on the order of months,
           | weeks, days, and even hours, as I understand. Whether or not
           | the burning phases can be astronomically observed and
           | predicted I don 't know, and was what inspired my question
           | above.
           | 
           | <https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept16/Rauscher/Rauscher
           | ...>
           | 
           | For a 25M star (one 25 times our Sun's mass), these phases
           | last ~0.5 my (helium), ~600 years (carbon), 6 months (neon),
           | 6 days (oxygen), and about a day (silicon).
           | 
           | (More massive stars burn much hotter and faster than lighter
           | ones.)
        
         | dang wrote:
         | Ok, we'll change to that from
         | https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-see-exploding-star-no...
         | above. Thanks!
        
       | PopePompus wrote:
       | From the article: "As the red giant tears apart nearby stars, the
       | dense white giant absorbs the shrapnel, a mixture of hydrogen-
       | rich materials that come its way. The tiny dead star then
       | gradually becomes hotter until it reaches a breaking point when
       | all that energy is released in a huge cosmic explosion -- a so-
       | called nova."
       | 
       | That's the worst explanation of a nova I've ever seen. You'd
       | think the author would have at least glanced at the Wikipedia
       | article about novae.
        
         | febed wrote:
         | The explanation isn't good but they aren't talking about a
         | normal supernova here, it's a recurring one that I too never
         | heard about earlier.
        
           | gus_massa wrote:
           | Nitpicking: Don't confuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova
           | and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova
           | 
           | From Wikipedia:
           | 
           | > _For other uses, see Nova (disambiguation), Novas
           | (disambiguation), and Novae (disambiguation)._
           | 
           | > _Not to be confused with luminous red nova, supernova,
           | kilonova, or micronova._
           | 
           | (Disclaimer: I have no idea what half of them mean, but I
           | guess they are nasty things that can make a star brighter.)
        
             | JumpCrisscross wrote:
             | Yup, syndrome versus disease.
        
         | dredmorbius wrote:
         | NB: The quoted text appears in the BI article originally
         | submitted.
         | 
         | <https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-see-exploding-star-
         | no...>
         | 
         | The URL's been changed to the Nasa source it references.
        
       | ahazred8ta wrote:
       | T Coronae Borealis is overhead in the evening in July. It's
       | expected to go nova in 2024 brightening from mag10 to mag3.
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_Coronae_Borealis
        
         | denton-scratch wrote:
         | > T Coronae Borealis is overhead in the evening in July.
         | 
         | Sort of depends on where your head is located.
        
         | irrational wrote:
         | It's unfortunate that where I live, it doesn't get dark until
         | well after bedtime in July.
        
       | ars wrote:
       | The reason is predictable is that it repeats every 80 years or so
       | - I guess that's the orbit of the dwarf sun it's eating.
        
         | mr_toad wrote:
         | The orbital period is 228 days. They are very close (relative
         | to the size of the red giant) which is why the white dwarf is
         | absorbing material from the other star.
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T_Coronae_Borealis
        
       | Fezzik wrote:
       | The NYT posted the (better) article that BI cribbed from 10 days
       | ago: https://www.nytimes.com/article/nova-new-star-t-coronae-
       | bore...
        
       | mysterypie wrote:
       | It's nice that the nuclear explosion of novas and supernovas
       | occur on a human perceptible timescale -- taking weeks to months,
       | instead of a nanosecond or ten million years. I'm not suggesting
       | anything superstitious or supernatural about it. Just that it's
       | oddly convenient.
        
         | teraflop wrote:
         | The speed of light pretty much precludes anything happening to
         | an entire star on a nanosecond timescale.
         | 
         | In the other direction, it's basically a tautology. A "nova" or
         | "new star" is, _by definition_ , a relatively fast change. Much
         | slower changes to stars also occur, but they tend not to get
         | news articles written about them when they happen gradually
         | over millions of years, and we don't call them novas.
        
           | dredmorbius wrote:
           | For a main-sequence star, yes.
           | 
           | For a neutron star, at ~12 -- 30 km diameter, light-speed
           | timescales are on the order of 40--100 microseconds, which
           | would be the _lower_ bound on whole-star cataclysmic events.
           | 
           | (Time dilation might extend this somewhat, perhaps by a
           | factor of two or so.)
           | 
           | For a white dwarf, ~10,000 km, lightspeed events would be
           | about 30 milliseconds (~300 times longer than on the neutron
           | star). That's about 1/10 of an eyeblink.
        
         | teekert wrote:
         | I'm not religious but my fav "that's oddly convenient" fact is
         | that just by going fast enough you can cross the universe in a
         | human lifetime because of time slowing down. As a biologist I
         | find that much more fascinating than all those poor
         | "irreducible complexity" anti-evolution arguments. Perhaps a
         | physicist feels the other way around.
        
           | Arnavion wrote:
           | Well, you can cross the universe in any amount of time. The
           | human lifetime isn't special in that regard. A photon crosses
           | the universe in zero time, and anything with non-zero mass
           | can get arbitrarily close to zero time.
        
             | dredmorbius wrote:
             | As I've seen this point made in the past, it's that
             | _travelling at a constant 1g acceleration_ the subjective
             | time for an astronaut would be about 45 years in traversing
             | the observable Universe (~14 billion light years).
             | 
             | That is, a comfortable and familiar acceleration gives a
             | human-lifetime-equivalent journey (subjective time).
             | 
             | If you're planning a round-trip, you'll find rather more
             | time has transpired on what used to be Earth.
             | 
             | <https://www.universetoday.com/129086/far-can-travel/>
        
               | saalweachter wrote:
               | > If you're planning a round-trip, you'll find rather
               | more time has transpired on what used to be Earth.
               | 
               | Or less, depending on the rotation of the universe as a
               | whole.
        
               | ben_w wrote:
               | Or no return may be possible at any speed/acceleration
               | given the expansion of the universe.
        
               | dredmorbius wrote:
               | Given that the outbound journey is already technically
               | challenging, that's very nearly quibbling, despite
               | cosmological accuracy.
        
               | heavenlyblue wrote:
               | That 1g constant acceleration requires practically
               | infinite amounts of energy
        
             | denton-scratch wrote:
             | > A photon crosses the universe in zero time
             | 
             | That is not consistent with my observations.
        
           | Intralexical wrote:
           | Multiple universes, perhaps, depending on your
           | cosmology/eschatology:
           | 
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tau_Zero
        
         | yitchelle wrote:
         | Surely these are occurring very frequently as there are
         | trillions of stars out there. I imagine that space is so vast
         | that the vastness makes these events difficult to observe. Am I
         | wrong with this thought?
        
           | widforss wrote:
           | > This recurring nova is only one of five in our galaxy.
        
             | kugelblitz wrote:
             | > This could be a once-in-a-lifetime viewing opportunity as
             | the nova ouburst [sic] only occurs about every 80 years.
        
             | SiempreViernes wrote:
             | Just like how you can't see much of your body (without
             | mirrors) because your body is in the way, we can't see much
             | of the galaxy because there's galaxy in the way.
        
           | NohatCoder wrote:
           | It is only 2600 light years away. Our galaxy is a little
           | under 100000 light years across, depending on how you
           | measure. So it is a rare type of double star, and it is very
           | close to Earth, the combination is what makes it special.
        
         | sweezyjeezy wrote:
         | Example: the Crab Nebula was the result of a supernova that was
         | seen by Chinese astronomers about 1000 years ago:
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_Nebula
        
       | neurostimulant wrote:
       | > The star system, normally magnitude +10, which is far too dim
       | to see with the unaided eye, will jump to magnitude +2 during the
       | event. This will be of similar brightness to the North Star,
       | Polaris.
       | 
       | I've never been in the northern hemisphere so I don't know how
       | bright the polaris is :(
        
         | lou1306 wrote:
         | Not _that_ bright but it is visible to the naked eye even in
         | presence of mild light pollution.
        
         | itishappy wrote:
         | I've never been to the southern hemisphere either, but
         | Wikipedia's got our back!
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_brightest_stars
         | 
         | Looks like similarly bright southern stars include some of the
         | following:
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphard
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Ceti
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Pavonis
         | 
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_Trianguli_Australis
         | 
         | It's pretty bright, but not uniquely so. It'd be about the 20th
         | brightest object in the sky (assuming even distribution).
        
         | denton-scratch wrote:
         | It's visible with the naked eye, even in the presence of light
         | pollution. But it's not eye-catching.
        
       | baggy_trough wrote:
       | Corona Borealis is easy to see from the northern hemisphere. This
       | nova gets to around 2.5 magnitude which should make it fair game
       | to pick out with the eye even with some light pollution as in the
       | SF bay area.
        
       | bkloppenborg wrote:
       | In case anyone is interested in learning more about this star,
       | Dr. Brad Schaefer wrote a nice article about it in the March 2024
       | issue of Sky and Telescope (subscription required):
       | 
       | https://skyandtelescope.org/sky-and-telescope-magazine/insid...
       | 
       | There is also an open-access journal article from March 2023 that
       | summarizes his research on the system:
       | 
       | https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/524/2/3146/7077557.
       | 
       | And a blog post announcing the latest estimate for the eruption
       | (2024.4 +/- 0.4):
       | 
       | https://www.aavso.org/news/t-crb-pre-eruption-dip
       | 
       | My organization, the AAVSO, has material that can help you learn
       | how to observe variable stars and make scientifically useful
       | measurements. You can do this by eye, with binoculars, with a
       | telescope, or with various digital sensors. In the case of T CrB,
       | visual observations will yield very useful information. Please
       | see https://www.aavso.org/tutorials and
       | https://www.aavso.org/observing-manuals for more information.
        
       | punyearthling wrote:
       | business insider is maliciously unhelpful
        
       | mateo1 wrote:
       | Is there a mailing list or something that I can register to in
       | case that actually happens? I bet Ill miss the news.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-03-19 23:02 UTC)