8 comments

  • 7373737373 13 minutes ago
    Also check out the Simulated Observation of the Solar System by the Habitable Worlds Observatory (under "Videos"), expected to be launched in the 2040s, the first to be able to detect Earth-like planets around Sun-like stars! https://habitableworldsobservatory.org/multimedia

    DrBecky's video on it: https://youtube.com/watch?v=z2JIkAPcdnU

  • Juvination 13 minutes ago
    What are the odds of there being smaller exoplanets that are effectively being outshone by the others? Since each one these is more massive than Jupitar.
  • tocs3 6 hours ago
    Amazing. Scrolling down one of the comments has an animation of starts around the center of the Milky Way. I have seen a few short ones of nebulae. There should be much much more of this sort of thing.

    I appreciate that scientist are not always after the pretty pictures. They can be expensive, do not always give the data needed, and the experiments do not always produce data that has obvious pretty picture potential. Still, for the average non professional scientist (me) the pictures are about all I will ever get out of the science.

    • turtletontine 1 hour ago
      The galactic center data actually proved there was a supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way, and weighed it precisely from those stars motions. The name of the account that posted that animation (Sagittarius A*) is the name of that supermassive black hole.

      This work earned the 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2020/summary/

    • swiftcoder 1 hour ago
      A good chunk of science communication centres around how one conveys the wow factor to folks who aren't already obsessed with the particular field. Images like this really help sell it to the rest of us
  • Kaxo 1 hour ago
    The noise from the blocked-out star noticably decreases in 2017. Is that due to changes in the stars' activity cycle, or is that due to better processing/capture technology?
    • ajcp 20 minutes ago
      I believe it's because the star's brightness does fluctuate, so activity cycle based?
    • rietta 58 minutes ago
      I do not know, but my best guess would be an improved post processing algorithm was introduced.
  • 317070 1 hour ago
    Wow, in terms of angle, how far are these planets separated from the star?

    I always thought we would never be able to image something like that. The distances would be too small and the contrast too large to figure something at the resolution we can get on earth. I'll need to read up on how this was done.

    • turtletontine 1 hour ago
      The scale bar (20 AU) represents 20 time the distance between the Earth and the sun. This star is about 41 parsecs away, so the angular size of that scale bar is about half an arcsec. (One degree is split into 60 arcminutes, one arcminute into 60 arcseconds. Just like a clock).

      That angle is about the diameter of a US quarter coin seen from 11km (7mi) away.

    • ceejayoz 1 hour ago
      • ryandrake 1 hour ago
        Yea, the planets are gigantic, and in distant orbits from their star. I don't think we even have the ability yet to directly image exoplanets much smaller than, say, Saturn, or closer to their stars than Saturn.
      • jcims 1 hour ago
        TL;DR - Two inside (16, 26AU) and two outside (43, 69AU) Pluto's orbit (39AU). They are all estimated to be a bit bigger than Jupiter.
  • Sarkie 56 minutes ago
    They need to remove that one frame
  • sixothree 42 minutes ago
    When my mother was born, plate tectonics was a hypothesis. When I was born we didn't know for certain if planets existed outside of our solar system.
    • forinti 38 minutes ago
      When my grandparents were born, we didn't know there were other galaxies.
  • mmooss 44 minutes ago
    From ~0:04 - 0:05, two dots at ~10 and 8 o'clock fade in and out simultaneously, with roughly the size and brightness of the planets. They peak at observation ~2016-07-06. Any idea what they are?

    Their balanced position and simultaneous changes make them seem like an artifact of the imaging.