A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Astro Pictures
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

MCG+12-02-001/PGC 3182 One Arp Should have Included



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 6th 16, 07:34 AM
WA0CKY WA0CKY is offline
Senior Member
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: Feb 2008
Posts: 689
Default MCG+12-02-001/PGC 3182 One Arp Should have Included

Repost after SpaceBanter lost the original

MCG+12-02-001/PGC 3182 is a major train wreck of two galaxies about 200 million light-years from us in northern Cassiopeia. NED classifies each as E? pec and as LIRG (Luminous Infra Red Galaxies). There is so much dust that these came out super red when I processed them. Very little blue was seen in either except near the cores. Yet the stars were correct. Indicating the dust was beyond most of the stars I was picking up. An artificial color image by the HST shows what appear to be expected colors without the dust. I assume they made severe adjustments for the dust. I looked up the IR and blue frames used on the HST site and the result was the same super red color I was getting. I normally don't adjust one part of an image to get a galaxy or whatever "right". I adjust the entire frame or not at all. I broke my rule here and did partly compensate for the extreme dust this is being seen through. Though it is still far redder than the HST image. Their image and text about it can be found he http://hubblesite.or...08/16/image/bm/ Their version has south at the top while I put north at the top. They give a distance of 200 million light-years or 50 million parsecs. Sounds like they rounded that to one significant digit. NED's redshift puts it at about 210 million light-years using my usual two significant digits. One highly suspect Tully-Fisher measurement says 42 million parsecs which works out to 140 million light-years. NASA's 50 million parsecs is 160 million light-years which is close to the T-F measurement while the light-year figure agrees well with the redshift measurement. In other words we don't really know its distance very well at all.

These are not very large galaxies even all spread out by the collision. Assuming a distance of 200 million light-years the lower (southern) galaxy is a tad over 50,000 light-years across and the upper 60 million light-years across its much wider but far less populated plumes. Obviously before the collision both were much smaller with the southern one probably larger. It's higher mass helping to hold its plumes in check while the lower mass of the northern galaxy allowed it to be pretty well torn apart and spread all over. At least that's what I saw back in the early 1980's when I ran simplified galaxy collisions on what passed for a powerful computer of the day.

This far north and deep in the Zone of Avoidance there is no useful data on anything else in the image so no annotated image was prepared.

After seeing the initial 10 frames I realized this one was so obscured I needed more data so ran it a second time for twice my usual data. It could have used even more.

14" LX200R @ f/10, L=8x10 RGB=4x10, STL-11000XM, Paramount ME

Rick
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	PGC 3182L8X10RGB4X10R.JPG
Views:	425
Size:	384.0 KB
ID:	6180  Click image for larger version

Name:	PGC 3182L8X10RGB4X10CROP150R.JPG
Views:	134
Size:	125.7 KB
ID:	6181  

Last edited by WA0CKY : April 6th 16 at 07:36 AM.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ASTRO: VII Zw 941: Another Arp could have included in his atlas Rick Johnson[_2_] Astro Pictures 1 September 26th 12 09:31 PM
So why has this pair been included? ukastronomy Amateur Astronomy 6 October 10th 07 10:01 PM
So why has this pair been included? ukastronomy Astronomy Misc 0 October 9th 07 09:19 AM
So why has this pair been included? ukastronomy UK Astronomy 0 October 9th 07 08:31 AM
What is included in the Celestron Fastar Package? Phil Wheeler Amateur Astronomy 3 September 18th 03 07:11 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.