3 ms·
If a "nearby" supernova is happening, I don't think looking at it through a telescope is a good idea. Don't quote me on it though.
by Achshar 10y ago
If a "nearby" supernova is happening, I don't think looking at it through a telescope is a good idea. Don't quote me on it though.
- schoen 10y agoThat doesn't feel right to me (though it all depends on how nearby is nearby). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A "Its brightness peaked in May with an apparent magnitude of about 3" (a few million times fainter than the full Moon)
- kordless 10y agoThat nova was in another galaxy, albeit a close one. The one we're talking about here is about 1-2K light years away.
- schoen 10y agoGreat point, thanks! Wikipedia says KIC 9832227 is "almost 1800 light years away" while SN 1987a is "167885 ly" from us. There should be an inverse square relationship for the intensity of light reaching us by our distance from the object, so light from this nova should be You have: (167885 ly / 1800 ly)^2 You want: Definition: 8699.1893 times brighter than that from SN 1987a due to proximity (which would still be much dimmer than the full Moon). However, the expected nova is also far dimmer to begin with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_red_nova#Characteristics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_red_nova#Characterist... "The luminosity of the explosion occurring in luminous red novae is between that of a supernova (which is brighter) and a nova (dimmer)." So I'm still going to say "safe to observe with a telescope".