PDA

View Full Version : Dangerous supernovae



Ruslan_Sharipov
2009-Dec-17, 08:53 AM
It is clear that a supernova explosion of a star close to the Sun is a danger for our civilization. Is there a list of expected supernova stars being potentially dangerous for us?

eburacum45
2009-Dec-17, 11:42 AM
Yes. Here it is:



-----------
None of the stars expected to go supernova are close enough to be dangerous to anyone on Earth. Even an astronaut in orbit would not be in significant danger if Betelgeuse went supernova, and I'm sure that Betelgeuse is the closest known supernova candidate.

There may be class 1a supernova progenitors closer than Betelgeuse but we haven't seen 'em yet.

mantiss
2009-Dec-17, 03:18 PM
There's WR 104 that's roughly 8000 ly from us that was thought, for a time, to be more or less collimated towards us. If it was to go GRB it could potentially be bad news, but some research (http://www.universetoday.com/2009/01/07/wr-104-wont-kill-us-after-all/) suggest that the polar alignment of the WR 104 is aimed away from us.

Jens
2009-Dec-18, 02:02 AM
And in fact, even if there were such a threat, it actually wouldn't be of much use to do anything about it. Asteroids are something that we should really be dealing with more seriously because: (1) they are a known threat, and (2) we can most likely do something about it if we try hard enough. But gamma ray bursts do not qualify for number (2), so even if we were to discover a threat, there is really nothing we could do about it.

slang
2009-Dec-18, 01:56 PM
Duck and cover!

EDG
2010-Mar-27, 11:04 PM
*bump* (sorry, was going to ask the same question myself, figured it'd be better to bump up a few-months old thread than start a new one).

I've always been a bit fuzzy on how close a supernova actually has to be to Sol in order to be potentially dangerous to life on Earth. Is there any coherent information on this that someone can point me to?

Gamefreak89
2010-Mar-28, 12:30 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe there was a Mega Disaster episode on Super Novaes on the history channel and how humans survive the after math of one maybe this might help you out alittle bit Ruslan.

StupendousMan
2010-Mar-28, 01:09 AM
I've always been a bit fuzzy on how close a supernova actually has to be to Sol in order to be potentially dangerous to life on Earth. Is there any coherent information on this that someone can point me to?

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

Gamefreak89
2010-Mar-28, 06:55 AM
A supernovae has to be with in 25 light years or less to directly affect us but then again with the solar systems outer heliosphere most incoming radiatin from other stars is blocked by it correct me if I'm wrong.

StupendousMan
2010-Mar-28, 02:04 PM
A supernovae has to be with in 25 light years or less to directly affect us but then again with the solar systems outer heliosphere most incoming radiatin from other stars is blocked by it correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong. The heliosphere does not block X-rays and gamma-rays at all.

Gamefreak89
2010-Mar-28, 06:35 PM
Then what exactly does our heliosphere do anyways? Inlighten me. :)

Gamefreak89
2010-Mar-28, 06:36 PM
But I know I am right about the 25 ly thing though.

01101001
2010-Mar-28, 07:15 PM
But I know I am right about the 25 ly thing though.

How do you know you're right? Thanks.

Gamefreak89
2010-Mar-28, 07:53 PM
How do you know you're right? Thanks.

By measuring the distance between each star and the blasts of radiation coming from the supernovae is known to travel over very vast distances. Why do you think the supernovae remnants are so big for depending on the class of the star.

StupendousMan
2010-Mar-28, 08:50 PM
Then what exactly does our heliosphere do anyways? Inlighten me. :)

There are many resources on the Internet, and in textbooks and encyclopedias, which describe what the heliosphere is. Why don't you do a little reading yourself before asking questions here?

Gamefreak89
2010-Mar-28, 09:09 PM
There are many resources on the Internet, and in textbooks and encyclopedias, which describe what the heliosphere is. Why don't you do a little reading yourself before asking questions here?

Because I've been taught all of this stuff before that is why I don't need to research it all.

slang
2010-Mar-28, 09:31 PM
Then what exactly does our heliosphere do anyways? Inlighten me. :)


Because I've been taught all of this stuff before that is why I don't need to research it all.

I see a bit of a contradiction here.

Gamefreak89
2010-Mar-29, 05:06 AM
What I meant to say is that all of the stuff I learned from the past all the way up till now. So I meant no disrespect to anyone on this thread lol.

01101001
2010-Mar-30, 12:31 AM
By measuring the distance between each star and the blasts of radiation coming from the supernovae is known to travel over very vast distances.

That's how you know you're right? OK, we'll presume you did that -- and that you will cough up the research data if asked. What about the other experts with opinions that disagree with you that "a supernovae has to be with in 25 light years or less to directly affect us"? Are they wrong?

For instance, what about the one for actual danger to life (not merely direct effect) cited in the NASA Goddard: Ask an Astrophysicist :: Destruction of the Earth by a nearby supernova (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980521a.html)?


The author concludes that a supernova has to be within 10 parsecs (30 light years) or so to be dangerous to life on Earth.

Gamefreak89
2010-Mar-30, 06:30 AM
Ok So I was close on that one. I learned at least some of this stuff from the history channel and a few science books. So its ok if I'm wrong about some things no need to thump on the butt about being wrong with a few things.

01101001
2010-Apr-03, 04:03 AM
Thanks. Well done.

Here, it can go easier if you avoid absolutes like "I know I'm right..." unless you really know you are right and are ready to back it up.

It keeps the quality high.

Cougar
2010-Apr-09, 03:06 PM
I learned at least some of this stuff from the history channel and a few science books.

Not to say such sources are necessarily wrong, but they do have to strike some balance between the science and entertainment. They're generally great for sparking the interest and imagination, but in order to reach the broadest possible audience, there is typically a lot of "dumbing down" going on. It's generally a good idea to do a little more research beyond the learning gathered from those sources. Even with general audience science books, one must be careful about the author's credentials. Nobelists are usually a pretty good bet for good information. Phil Plait is also good. :wink:

Van Rijn
2010-Apr-10, 06:23 AM
Nobelists are usually a pretty good bet for good information.


. . . if they're talking within their field of expertise, scientific Nobel winners are a good bet. I wouldn't trust them too far outside their field unless they demonstrate they are truly knowledgeable in those other areas.

Gamefreak89
2010-Apr-10, 06:29 AM
That I truly agree with.

neilzero
2010-Apr-21, 02:27 AM
Hi Jens: Having a few humans far below Earth's the surface, would assure some survivors, even from a gamma ray burster 100 light years away or a supernova 5 light years away, but neither is likely in the next 50,000 years, and far below ground may be a bad place to be when we get hit by an asteroid or comet. Even minor earthquakes can also be bad far underground. Ten kilometers below the surface is expensive due to the long supply line and the air conditioning costs. 200 degrees c rock temperature is not unusual, ten kilometers below the surface. Neil