(Credit: ESA/Hubble & NASA. Acknowledgement: Claude Cornen)
2 comments:
Nicholas
said...
The image was really cool. I think it is cool how a blast from 600 years ago could still resonate. I do not see how it is relevant that this is the remains of a dwarf star, but it is. I think it is cool how the Hubble telescope could pick up an image of something 150,000 light years away! This was an extremely short article that explained nothing in depth. I would give it a B-
This is so cool! I wonder why a thin blood red shell/ shells remain from when an "unstable progenitor star" that exploded. I wonder how the pieces lasted 600 years (the star blew up 600 years ago).
I learned:
- that here are several types of supernovae. -The star that exploded is known to have been a white dwarf star. -This star is located over 150 000 light-years from Earth -It is in the southern constellation of Dorado -The thin, blood-red shells are actually the part of the unstable star that exploded.
Give this article a A. It was cool but a little hard to understand.
2 comments:
The image was really cool. I think it is cool how a blast from 600 years ago could still resonate. I do not see how it is relevant that this is the remains of a dwarf star, but it is. I think it is cool how the Hubble telescope could pick up an image of something 150,000 light years away! This was an extremely short article that explained nothing in depth. I would give it a B-
Sophia said,
This is so cool! I wonder why a thin blood red shell/ shells remain from when an "unstable progenitor star" that exploded. I wonder how the pieces lasted 600 years (the star blew up 600 years ago).
I learned:
- that here are several types of supernovae.
-The star that exploded is known to have been a white dwarf star.
-This star is located over 150 000 light-years from Earth
-It is in the southern constellation of Dorado
-The thin, blood-red shells are actually the part of the unstable star that exploded.
Give this article a A. It was cool but a little hard to understand.
Post a Comment