Artifact in Hubble Image

Thanks! I knew I mislaid it somewhere!

Perhaps you could favor us with a link?

Here's the link referred to I believe:

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2006/01/image/a

I'm no imaging expert so I can't say much more than it looks like a shoe print. I suspect that it is just a void in the cloud though.

Just like cloud watching, you sure can pick out images of strange things/faces in the nebula. The central area of the white part looks like the lion from Narnia to me!

I don't see anything except gas clouds.

This was cropped and then compressed for a smaller file size, from the 24 MB high res jpeg download:

Looks like a partially smoked cigar, God's thermos bottle, or perhaps a Klingon turd. But it is interesting whatever it is!

Greg

Oh oh! Looks like Captain Kirk forgot to switch on the cloaking device!

Is this what you're talking about? Ahhh,yeah... Sorry about that. I have a bad habit of flicking my cigar butts out the window.

I found it also after an exhaustive search.

Comment: I do not believe that it is a chip or scratch as that would show starring similar to the starlight which is an effect of the lens. Were it a defect in the lens, there would would be addition distortion and more blurring in the area. Also all of these images are processed to make the gases more readily visible.

The "object" appears to have both hard and soft edges as well as some starlight behind which it appears to be blocking. At first I thought it might be an absence of gas and the background showing through an otherwise unbroken screen of gas. However, expanding the image slightly shows you the gas flows in the region and this is highly unlikely.

At the scales involved, this "object" would either have to be the size of multiple star systems or possibly a bit closer, say within our system like an asteroid or other body.

With all of this said, I believe it is either an object (read: rock) between us and Orion that happens to be spinning end over end (explains blurring on outside edges but solid internal edges) or a smaller dark gas pocket that is diffusing at the edges.

While I freely admit that I am not a qualified Astro-imaging expert, these seem to make sense ALA Occam's Razor.

T-Rex

www.i-sci-fi.com
www.iscifi.tv

I believe this excerpt from the NASA article referenced above holds the key:

"In this bowl of stars we see the entire star formation history of Orion printed into the features of the nebula: arcs, blobs, pillars, and rings of dust that resemble cigar smoke," Robberto said. "Each one tells a story of stellar winds from young stars that impact the stellar environment and the material ejected from other stars. This is a typical star-forming environment."

Jorrie

"..... the features of the nebula: arcs, blobs, pillars, and rings of dust that resemble cigar smoke,"

There you go: it must be a cigar!

Greg

The object you see is Hubble xx looking from the other side.

On the other hand, it looks a lot like a manatee. It's swiming upward and to the left. "So long and thanks for all the kelp!"

Thanks to SkFarmer for this link. http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2006/01/image/a This is a fascinating view of something I would never ever get to see except for Hubble so congratulations to everyone involved in that project and its concept. If there is anyone reading this who has access to daily images from Hubble I would like to ask how long it would take for a picture like that to change it's shape so that we would see a noticeable difference? I mean are we talking minutes, hours, days, months, decades or milleniums?

I strongly suspect this is not an artifact, but an area of dense, gravitationally-bound dust and gas. Orion is a prolific stellar nursery, and a number of compact objects like this can be found in and around the nebula. Inside some of these stellar cocoons are protostars or newborn stars which haven't had time to eject the more loosely-bound progenitor material surrounding the new system. Orion also contains a fairly high number of brown dwarfs, also discussed here.

Similar - and far more pronounced - regions of high density can be found in the Eagle Nebula, here, and here, for example. Hypersonic winds and extremely intense UV from nearby hot stars have managed to ionize and blow away the looser material, exposing globules of high density, gravitationally-bound gas and dust, or such material bound to one or more substantial interior objects - including possibly large, star-less planets (more likely systems of these), protostars, and stars on the verge of thermonuclear ignition.

One of the best Hubble shots of this type of object is this one in the Triffid Nebula.

The Orion Nebula may eventually come to resemble the vast star-forming regions of 30 Doradus. Certainly enough raw material is available. The intense blue-giant stars which dominate the central regions of Orion are very young stars preceded by the process that produced the cigar-like object, the "anomaly" seen in the original poster's image.

-e

I found this higher resolution version of the image... I think it's someone's mother.

"Someone's mother?" That's Mother Nature you, you Vermin.

Nobody messes with Mother Nature.

-e

""Someone's mother?" That's Mother Nature you, you Vermin."

It looks like Mary Poppins to me, but I never met her up close.

Nobody messes with Mary Poppins lest she give them a spoonful of sugar!

This has surely got to be one of those "face on Mars" pics, which is nothing more than an artifact of the lighting so, just to see for myself, I dusted-off my deep space, high-res telescope, CCD camera, and shot this pic:

-e

Just looks like a rectangular hole in the cloud. Cool picture, though. I'll have to bookmark this site. It will be a sad day when this telescope drops into the ocean.

Of course you know what movie this pic is from? Hint: Rodney Dangerfield.

-e

I have the sneaking suspicion that it actually a satellite in a higher orbit than the Hubble telescope.

I am new to the astronomy game but I have been surprised by the number of objects I have seen crossing the field of the telescope while I am viewing something. Currently it is happening about once every one to two hours of viewing.

Given the size of the image and the time it took to expose I wouldn't at all be surprised to see some sort of man made object somewhere within it. Actually given my recent experiences I would be more surprised if there wasn't some sort of piece of man made junk in it.

Given the very long exposure time required for an image of this quality, an object in a higher orbit would appear as little more than a streak - if it appears at all - simply from differential motion between the two orbits (the higher object would fall behind). One should keep in mind that the Hubble is also rotating with respect to its orbital trajectory in order to keep the image centered during the exposure, nor may the Hubble at any time be pointing "upward" in the sense of someone standing on the Earth's surface. It is more likely than not that Orion is at an oblique angle to Hubble's orbit. During the exposure the Earth itself has moved in its orbit around the Sun, carrying Hubble's orbit with it. Hubble has to account for this motion as well. An object in a higher orbit has such a completely different relative motion to Hubble than does Orion, that the chances of making such a clear exposure of an orbital neighbor are virtually nil. The neighbor would simply not be in Hubble's line of sight long enough.

-e

You are most likely correct. But looking at it again it seems unlikely that it is a hole in the gas cloud so therefore it must be something between the gas cloud and camera. The question is what and where, it could be anywhere and accordingly any size.

So what do you think could cause a shadow like this? Another thing is do you know roughly how long it takes for an exposure like this?

I agree, if you were focused into orion's nebula given the distance for clear resolution, the chances of catching an object close by in the foreground is nearly impossible. It would be a streak so fast, you would be lucky even to detect it.

Hello!!! there is not an artifact, is a real object: an edge-on Protoplanetary disk. You can learn more only searching the word " proplyd " in your favorite search engine.

look at this http://www.seds.org/hst/OriEODsk.html

It looks like what Spock found floating in the porcelin pool in Kirk's powder room.

"Captain's LOG"

Hello!!! there is not an artifact, is a real object: an edge-on Protoplanetary disk. You can learn more only searching the word " proplyd " in your favorite search engine.

look at this http://www.seds.org/hst/OriEODsk.html

Thank you debhatli. Spot on. You live and learn. Most impressed by the international feedback on what was a casual observation. I just might break a personal rule and join this site.

From originating Guest.

Watch out, it may be addictive.

Is it just me or dose anybody else find the explanation of an embryonic proto planetoid disk somewhat wanting.

First of all if it where inside the Orion nebula there would be some sort of shading to it as there would be a certain amount of gas and dust between us and the object. Secondly I would expect an embryonic planetary system would have less defined borders and tapered towards the end.

This Disk-Protoplanet Interactions site shows the images we have see earlier but also has images like these that show a more tapered like structure .

I'm just not sure, it could be a protoplanet disk seen edge on and I am probably wrong but I would have expected a more tapered structure that the one in the image. Having said that I havn't got a more plausible explanation so I suppose I will need to accept the protoplanetary disk till a better explanation comes along.

I understand your concerns. But I don't think we (all of us) were prepared for what Hubble revealed to us. There are some awesome images of gas clouds where you can see parts of the edges splitting off like flying blobs off a mud flap!!! Just insanely incredible detail!!!

Also, if I remember correctly, a lot of the high quality images from Hubble are taken in black & white, then assigned an interesting color scheme by a woman that uses Adobe Photoshop. Of course, NASA doesn't do this with images containing spectral information, but she has colored many of the "glamor" shots. That could leave Photoshop artifacts in especially fine detailed photos.

You are of course absolutely correct and I really havn't got a clue what I am looking at. I just have a gut feeling that the explanation doesn't fit the image to the level I would feel comfortable with.

If somebody can provide more evidence to show how a protoplanetary system could look like a cylindrical object I would be more than pleased to accept their explanation.

masu

I don't think there's any set definitive form for a mass of gas, dust and debris forming around a stellar object; whether it is prototypical or not.

Mark

That's sort of my point. The edges of the object seem to be a little too well defined for my liking. The seemingly complete lack of light coming from within it is another thing that worries me. If you had an enormous cloud of dust and gas that had a protoplanetary system congealing within it one would think that it would more than likely be somewhere within the cloud rather than at its edge. If that were the case why isn't there any sign of the gas that would be between us and the condensing solar system.

The fact that the edges are fairly well defined and there is no sign of any light coming from within it would tend to indicate that the object was between the source of light and the point of observation.

Keep in mind, I havn't really got any experience interpreting astronomical photographs so I am really talking out of my left armpit. I'm just playing devils advocate to see if there are any other ideas out there.

I remember reading or hearing somewhere that Hubble takes pictures and someone or some software fixes them up. What we see in the pictures are actually touched up so cannot be taken too literally (or optically, as the case may be).

Sure the thing looks like a real solid object but that may be because of the software.

Ah! The guy who found the answer! Thank you very much.

Still, I'd have preferred it to be the Enterprise, the whale probe, the alien monolith of Space Oddesey 2001, Babylon 5, or some astronaut's cigar floating out in space. 'Be more interesting.

"astronaut's cigar floating out in space"

---

Or a President's. Bill said he didn't inhale, but he didn't say where. Besides, it's a Carnival Joint, not a cigar.

Btw, in another part of the image you can see Jimmy Hoffa toking on an unmanned hookah.

-e

After watching Star Trek one can only say that is the Mother Ship cylinder of those Whale communicators that are coming to disrupt the climate. Oops we have been there already and we still have whales. However on the B.E.M. side of things there has been a cylinder mother ship spotted gathering probes in the past years, could be that is just another one of those? To say honestly that we are the only ones in this part of the Galaxy, who can think and rationalize is a real piece of hubris. I be those guys out there dealing with our leaders, never saw such a bunch of self serving and reality denying people.

Immigrating to a remote part of the Galaxy may be attractive, but I bet that these are Border Guards. Do not want to infect the locals with such silliness as we are unloading and selling to each other daily.

I still think that instead of a mothership, this object is dr. Spok capsule launched in the direction of that planet where they launched the creation principle. Sorry, I don't remember the names, too much coffee during university...

I've got it, it's the first of the Raman probes swooping in towards the small star we can see near its edge, refueling on it's journey to earth. Now if we can just find the other two we might be onto something.

Clarke's original Rendezvous With Rama was just plain fabulous. In contrast Gentry Lee's Rama sequels just plain sucked, and I'm being kind.

The fact that Clarke allowed such tripe to bear his name was, as far as I'm concerned, proof that Clarke himself had gone to seed. I was a huge ACC fan for many years, so it really pissed me off to see Lee's name alongside Clarke's and Lee's patently amateurish scribblings inside. I was so pissed off I tore up Lee's rendition and lined my cat's litter box with the scraps. After that, she insisted on going outside, so I guess it was a Good Thing.

My other two faves were Childhood's End and City And The Stars.

-e

My personal belief is that "2001 as Space Odyssey" was Clarke's superlative work. For nearly two decades he refused to comment on the meaning of the work leaving it completely up to the reader and viewer to develop an interpretation.

Then he blew it completely by writing 2010 and subsequent sequels. I read 2010 and shook my head and havn't bothered to read any of the subsequent books in the series. The difference in styles is so dramatic that I thought that they were by two different authors. He should have done what Kubrick did and moved on to a completely different topic.

You're right about the different authors. Can't remember where I read it but 2010 was written by someone else in collaboration with Clarke. What I do remember was, the other guy wrote it and Clarke just read it and offered suggestions!

Your disappointment is also mirrored in the article.

2001: A Space Odyssey was my fave for many years as far as Sci-Fi movies go (and is still near the top of my list), but the book itself was not even though I read it several times. Compared to some of Clarke's other stories, it seemed a little too prosaic. When 2K1-the-movie came out (1968) my fave books were H.G. Wells' The Time Machine and War of the Worlds. I didn't know about ACC until 2K1 made its debut, and so I checked out his other works. Immediately liked CATS, and CE to a lesser degree. Then I discovered Tolkien (another kid on my schoolbus was reading The Hobbit. "A story," he said, "about little people who lived in holes." I thought the idea was infantile, but it was his description that turned me off to Tolkien's works until I read them for myself a few years later), and sci-fi took a sabbatical from my list for awhile.

-e

Hi e,

The special effects in 2001 would be by a long way the most realistic I have seen in any SciFi movie. I am told that the scene where Dave is trying to get back into the mother ship through the airlock was actually shot inside the vomit comet under actual zero gravity conditions.

You would probably like my chess set. It is made of pewter and the pieces are characters from the Lord of the Rings. The black nights are to me the most impressive and are dragons with their wings outstretched. The black queen is a really nasty looking spider sitting on a pile of human skulls while the white bishops are wizards. There were only ever 20 sets made and I know at least one of the sets was broken up to replace pieces that were damaged in other sets. If you would like I will take some pictures and send them to you, that's when I get a chance and the interstate relocation is finished. Oh by the way I have a couple of photos of the comet McNaught that were sent to me would you care for a copy of them?

"I am told that the scene where Dave is trying to get back into the mother ship through the airlock was actually shot inside the vomit comet under actual zero gravity conditions."

Hi Masu,

The original The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey was published around 1970. This newer version was copyrighted in 2000, and appears to be a compendium (I haven't read it, obviously). In the original rendition the authors describe the scene as being shot with Keir Dulea, suspended by wires, entering the set from the top. The camera was positioned on the floor looking upward while Dulea bounced around at the end of wires fed by spring-loaded spools at the end of a gantry. In the final cut this footage is shown at a somewhat higher playback speed than normal to accentuate the effect.

-------

"If you would like I will take some pictures and send them to you, that's when I get a chance and the interstate relocation is finished. Oh by the way I have a couple of photos of the comet McNaught that were sent to me would you care for a copy of them?"

Please do! Both of the chess set and of the comet. One of our guys down in Chile took this fabulous shot of McNaught:

Cheers!

-e

This is a link to the first comet picture and here is the second.

I thought I would post them rather than mail as others might be interested. The chess set ones will be a while as it's in transit at the moment so as soon as I get settled and unpack it I will send some pictures.

Sweet!

Hope your move isn't too traumatic. I like travel, but hate moving.

You're relocating to Adelaide, right?

-e

Hi again, Masu. Would you please give this a try, and post the results? Strap your camera on your scope using the scope as a tracking platform for the camera. Then take some long, wide-field time exposures of the night sky in the direction of the Magellanic Clouds. Mind?

Thanks!

-e

We are actually moving from Adelaide to Sydney. We are currently in Sydney and have spent over 3 of the last 5 years here for various reasons so we decided to bite the bullet and move on a more permanent basis.

I will definitely try and take some pictures as you asked but it will probably be a few weeks. Do you have any recommendations on film speed and exposure times?

By the way I ended up getting a 7.5 Ah 12 V SLA battery to run it on rather than the 8 AA batteries. So far the SLA battery has cost less than using the AAs and I haven't even needed to recharge it yet.

Hi Masu,

"We are actually moving from Adelaide to Sydney. We are currently in Sydney and have spent over 3 of the last 5 years here for various reasons so we decided to bite the bullet and move on a more permanent basis."

My apologies. I thought it was the other way around.

Insofar as film speeds and exposure times go, I was assuming you would be using a digital camera, which lets you experiment to your heart's content. Besides, you can process your images to remove noise, artifacts, and so forth. I'd go digital if it's within your budget.

I took the liberty of posting your McNaught images on the observatory's internal network. Lots of kudos for you, btw. Not bad considering these folks are all professional, seasoned astronomers.

One of our ppl is from Sydney. While at university, Bev did an internship in Antarctica photographing the Aurora Australis. She asked if you see much of The Southern Lights from your observing location. As Adelaide and Sydney are at roughly the same latitude (about 34°, I think), I thought it unlikely on the assumption that your fave site is near one of those cities.

-e

"She asked if you see much of The Southern Lights from your observing location."

Aurora australis is known in Adelaide, Melbourne and Tasmania but it is rare and I have never seen it myself. Keep in mind the closest part of the mainland is over 5,500 Km and Adelaide is over 6,000 Km from the south pole.

Unfortunately I can't claim credit for the photographs but I will pass on the complements.

Well remembered! I knew it reminded me of something I'd read.

Or, the other three might show up, if you meant Raman Noodle probes, and if they're on 4 for $1.00 !

Mark

(Why am I doing this???)

"I be those guys out there dealing with our leaders, never saw such a bunch of self serving and reality denying people."

---------

Yes, but every cloud has its mithral lining. Or should I say scrith. Think about it: King George's bubble is not only impervious to Good Advice, but even to neutrinos. Once we figure a way to mass produce this stuff, even Pierson's Puppeteers will quake (more so than ever) in their..um..hooves?

And not only is George's Bubble (artist's conception. We don't really know what he looks like) impervious to nearly everything (more so even than scrith, which is about 40% transparent to neutrinos; or about the same as a sheet of lead one light-year thick. And magnetic fields. But not to money), so is Bill's. When two such bubbles touch, they meld - even without the use of a cziltang brone. Witness Dubya's chat with the Gates of Hell: they actually talk to each other and yet both continue to remain oblivious to RAWKI (Reality As We Know It).

'Scuze me....

Waiter! WAITER! Yes, I'll take two Mac OS-Xs with cheeze, a side of Linux, and nix the screensavers. I'll write my own...

-e

Hmm, the scary thing here is that I understood every word.

I personally think it is a tear in the space/time continuum!

Could be wrong though - in fact I probably am wrong!

I hate to say it...........but ................

I'll go with that! Now all we need now is the Microsoft's Flying windows to reveal the secrets of the Universe. Ladies and Gentlemen..........WE ARE NOT ALONE. Take me to your dealer, Earthling...::???

Wonder if this is what Dante had in mind when he wrote "Inferno"?

No people, not the coke bottle!

It looks like an obelisk, and may have the proper dimensional ratios (1x4x9 or 1²x2²x3²). I believe they found one of these on the moon back in 2001.