A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

If one of our neighboring stars like Proxima Centauri went nova...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 28th 05, 07:19 AM
Jason Macadamia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default If one of our neighboring stars like Proxima Centauri went nova...

....what would we see and how would it affect us?

Thank you


  #2  
Old January 28th 05, 07:57 AM
SaberScorpX
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jason Macadamia wrote:
...what would we see and how would it affect us?


From 41*N I wouldn't see anything and it would **** me off.

But here's what Ask the Astronomer says about Alpha Centauri:
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11585.html

  #3  
Old January 28th 05, 02:29 PM
Michael Barlow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I asked a similar question probably about a year ago. I was given a
link to a site that described all the variables and came to a conclusion
that a star would have to be something like three light years or closer
before any possible damage could occur to us. If I find that link I'll post
it.
--
Michael A. Barlow

"Jason Macadamia" wrote in message
nk.net...
...what would we see and how would it affect us?

Thank you




  #4  
Old January 28th 05, 04:07 PM
RMOLLISE
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Jason Macadamia wrote:
...what would we see and how would it affect us?

Thank you



Hi:

Well, luckily for us, Proxima is not a candidate for supernovahood.

In order for a star to become a supernova it must be a massive single
star, about 8 times more massive than the Sun. That results in a Type
II supernova, a single, huge star blowing its top.

OR...

A supernova, a Type I supernova, apparently comes from a binary star
system that probably includes a white dwarf and a fairly massive and
evolved giant companion star.

The Alpha/Proxima system does not fit these requirements. Which is a
danged good thing since the explosion of a supernova that close would
be...pretty bad news. IOW, it would open a real can of whoop-ass on us.
;-)

Again, luckily, it doesn't look like there are any candidate supernovae
progenitors close enough to put a hurtin' on us. ;-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise

  #5  
Old January 28th 05, 04:10 PM
Mark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If there was, it could give a whole new meaning to the term "global
warming"

  #6  
Old January 28th 05, 04:29 PM
Michael Barlow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It's been some time but this site looks like the one I was talking
about.
http://stupendous.rit.edu/richmond/answers/snrisks.txt
This site talks about all the effects on us from nova and how close a nova
would have to be to do anything to us.

Brian Bishop http://www.rochesterastronomy.org/snimages/ is the guy I
asked the question to some time ago (and just did again to get help
re-finding that site). after reading a bit I remembered the question was
about Betelgeuse going nova and what effects that would have on us.
--
Michael A. Barlow

"Michael Barlow" wrote in message
...
I asked a similar question probably about a year ago. I was given a
link to a site that described all the variables and came to a conclusion
that a star would have to be something like three light years or closer
before any possible damage could occur to us. If I find that link I'll

post
it.
--
Michael A. Barlow

"Jason Macadamia" wrote in message
nk.net...
...what would we see and how would it affect us?

Thank you






  #7  
Old January 28th 05, 05:49 PM
Tim Killian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You're forgetting the effects of charged particles and neutrons that
would arrive after some years after the initial burst of neutrinos and
photons. These particles travel slower, but when they arrived at Earth,
the effect would be serious.

Atmospheric gasses would be transmuted into radioactive isotopes with
half lives of decades or more and because of the high, persistent
radiation levels, there would be little chance of survival for many
species. On a more positive note, since we'd have at least 10-50 years
warning, we could gather up asteroid belt material and build a 2
km-thick shield with a diameter of 15000 km (+/- !) to shadow the Earth
from the stream of particles ;-)

Bottom line is a supernova would have to be 50-100 ly distant for
minimal effects from the heavier particles.

Michael Barlow wrote:
I asked a similar question probably about a year ago. I was given a
link to a site that described all the variables and came to a conclusion
that a star would have to be something like three light years or closer
before any possible damage could occur to us. If I find that link I'll post
it.


  #8  
Old January 28th 05, 06:50 PM
Stupendous_Man
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Tim Killian wrote:
You're forgetting the effects of charged particles and neutrons that
would arrive after some years after the initial burst of neutrinos

and
photons. These particles travel slower, but when they arrived at

Earth,
the effect would be serious.

Atmospheric gasses would be transmuted into radioactive isotopes with


half lives of decades or more and because of the high, persistent
radiation levels, there would be little chance of survival for many
species. On a more positive note, since we'd have at least 10-50

years
warning, we could gather up asteroid belt material and build a 2
km-thick shield with a diameter of 15000 km (+/- !) to shadow the

Earth
from the stream of particles ;-)

Bottom line is a supernova would have to be 50-100 ly distant for
minimal effects from the heavier particles.


Could you please show the calculations which
lead you to state the critical distance as
50-100 lyr? I would love to be able to add
this information to my page:

http://stupendous.rit.edu/richmond/answers/snrisks.txt

which currently places only weak limits on the
dangers of high-energy particles.

Michael Richmond

  #9  
Old January 28th 05, 06:59 PM
Jason Macadamia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"RMOLLISE" wrote in message
oups.com...

Jason Macadamia wrote:
...what would we see and how would it affect us?

Thank you



Hi:

Well, luckily for us, Proxima is not a candidate for supernovahood.


Rod,

Not to burst the bubble here, but I asked about a nova and not a supernova.
I realized Proxima wouldn't supernova, but maybe others wouldn't so your
post still applies!

Jason


In order for a star to become a supernova it must be a massive single
star, about 8 times more massive than the Sun. That results in a Type
II supernova, a single, huge star blowing its top.

OR...

A supernova, a Type I supernova, apparently comes from a binary star
system that probably includes a white dwarf and a fairly massive and
evolved giant companion star.

The Alpha/Proxima system does not fit these requirements. Which is a
danged good thing since the explosion of a supernova that close would
be...pretty bad news. IOW, it would open a real can of whoop-ass on us.
;-)

Again, luckily, it doesn't look like there are any candidate supernovae
progenitors close enough to put a hurtin' on us. ;-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise



  #10  
Old January 28th 05, 07:01 PM
Jason Macadamia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Tim Killian" wrote in message
...
You're forgetting the effects of charged particles and neutrons that
would arrive after some years after the initial burst of neutrinos and
photons. These particles travel slower, but when they arrived at Earth,
the effect would be serious.

Atmospheric gasses would be transmuted into radioactive isotopes with
half lives of decades or more and because of the high, persistent
radiation levels, there would be little chance of survival for many
species. On a more positive note, since we'd have at least 10-50 years
warning, we could gather up asteroid belt material and build a 2
km-thick shield with a diameter of 15000 km (+/- !) to shadow the Earth
from the stream of particles ;-)

Bottom line is a supernova would have to be 50-100 ly distant for
minimal effects from the heavier particles.


Good points here and that's what I was thinking about initially- the long
terms effects. Yes, we would survive initially, but for how long
afterwards?

Jason


Michael Barlow wrote:
I asked a similar question probably about a year ago. I was given a
link to a site that described all the variables and came to a conclusion
that a star would have to be something like three light years or closer
before any possible damage could occur to us. If I find that link I'll

post
it.




 




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
AMBER ALPHA STAR CESAM stellar model harlod caufield Space Shuttle 0 December 27th 03 09:12 PM
AMBER ALPHA STAR CESAM stellar model harlod caufield Policy 0 December 27th 03 09:10 PM
Incontrovertible Evidence Cash Astronomy Misc 1 August 24th 03 07:22 PM
Incontrovertible Evidence Cash Amateur Astronomy 6 August 24th 03 07:22 PM
Stars rich in heavy metals tend to harbor planets, astronomers report(Forwarded) Andrew Yee Astronomy Misc 0 July 21st 03 05:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:39 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.