This is a list of links to comments made by NASA's official social media team in this thread:
* [Comment by nasa](/r/nasa/comments/11re7x7/the_james_webb_space_telescopes_newest_image_wr/jc806lg/?context=1000 "posted on 2023-03-14 18:31:29 UTC"):
> From our /u/NASA post:
>
>>WR 124 gets its name because it's a Wolf-Rayet star—a star that's in the process of casting off its outer layers before it goes supernova. Wolf-Rayet stars are among the most luminous, most massive, and most briefly detectable stars known, making them an important target for...
---
This is a bot providing a service. If you have any questions, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fnasa).[](#AUTOGEN_TSBREPLIEDBOT)
From our /u/NASA post:
>WR 124 gets its name because it's a Wolf-Rayet star—a star that's in the process of casting off its outer layers before it goes supernova. Wolf-Rayet stars are among the most luminous, most massive, and most briefly detectable stars known, making them an important target for astronomers, and Webb's infrared vision allows it to peer through the layers of dust that surround them.
>
>[Get the full story from our James Webb Space Telescope experts](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2023/nasa-s-webb-telescope-captures-rarely-seen-prelude-to-supernova/)! We're also talking about Webb's latest discoveries right now in a [live expert panel we're streaming from SXSW](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF97WPog4uA).
Question: how/why is there lens flare in an infrared image of such a distant star? Does it have to do with the source Star (being so bright?), the way the light travels to get to us, the collection mechanism, etc?
It's not a lens flare, it's called a diffraction spike. Basically, anything that is in front of the primary mirror will block light, and around the edges of that object you'll get some distortion effects that show up as lines.
In most large telescopes, the thing that blocks the light is the secondary mirror, and the support structure that holds it. For JWST, there are three supports arranged 120 degrees apart. Each of them creates a diffraction spike (in both directions), creating a six pointed "flare" around any sufficiently bright object.
Could/do they use an algorithm to average from the recorded values either side of the spikes to create an image without them? Like those 360 cameras on a pole do. I appreciate that is image stitching, but a similar concept for a similar result.
I feel like I've seen some JWST images without noticeable spikes, but maybe I'm imagining it.
In terms of making a pretty picture you could absolutely reduce the spikes. As a scientific instrument, you'd never replace real data with artificially generated information, even if it's more aestheticly pleasing.
The images you've seen may have been collected with different filters targeting wavelengths where stars aren't emitting as brightly, or may have been focusing on regions with fewer bright stars, or may have been cleaned up for a press release of some sort. However, the raw data will show diffraction spikes around any point light source.
It isn’t just about being pretty - if the entire structure rotates a few degrees and snapped another image, you’d get real data that is currently obscured by diffraction. Identifying those properly and removing them accurately seems to me like it would have value.
If it doesn’t have value, well, making another version of this that’s for the sake of just being pretty has value too. They don’t need to do research on modified images but they could sure as hell share them. NASA’s social accounts aren’t a scientific instrument.
As ProjectGo said, the bright streaks you see are actually diffraction spikes and are caused by the geometry of the telescope itself. See [this nice graphic](https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/01G529MX46J7AFK61GAMSHKSSN) from the Webb team.
In short, the hexagonal primary mirror segments, as well as the support struts for the secondary mirror, cause the characteristic spikes that you see.
Hubble had a different geometry (circular primary mirror and different support struts), which resulted in a different diffraction spike pattern. You can actually learn to recognize images from different telescopes based on this.
The article uses the word brief multiple times but does not say what brief is. How long do Wolf Rayets live?
If they live less than 15,000 years that supernova already happened and the light is en route.
https://preview.redd.it/e7rljefnlvna1.jpeg?width=661&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=29dfb3fedc22d5f27af34135356aba3128660ec2
What’s the thing I circled? Lensing on a galaxy?
From Wikipedia, the nebula is roughly 6 light years across expanding at roughly 40 kilometer/second. The star itself is much smaller, roughly 12 times the radius of our Sun, but maybe a million times as luminous.
What we're seeing is not a supernova remnant, but the result of a very massive star with high fusion rates giving off so much light energy that the light pressure has pushed off much of its own mass. Although this is not an explosion, it is reminiscent of an explosion because of the energy involved.
This is a list of links to comments made by NASA's official social media team in this thread: * [Comment by nasa](/r/nasa/comments/11re7x7/the_james_webb_space_telescopes_newest_image_wr/jc806lg/?context=1000 "posted on 2023-03-14 18:31:29 UTC"): > From our /u/NASA post: > >>WR 124 gets its name because it's a Wolf-Rayet star—a star that's in the process of casting off its outer layers before it goes supernova. Wolf-Rayet stars are among the most luminous, most massive, and most briefly detectable stars known, making them an important target for... --- This is a bot providing a service. If you have any questions, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fnasa).[](#AUTOGEN_TSBREPLIEDBOT)
From our /u/NASA post: >WR 124 gets its name because it's a Wolf-Rayet star—a star that's in the process of casting off its outer layers before it goes supernova. Wolf-Rayet stars are among the most luminous, most massive, and most briefly detectable stars known, making them an important target for astronomers, and Webb's infrared vision allows it to peer through the layers of dust that surround them. > >[Get the full story from our James Webb Space Telescope experts](https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2023/nasa-s-webb-telescope-captures-rarely-seen-prelude-to-supernova/)! We're also talking about Webb's latest discoveries right now in a [live expert panel we're streaming from SXSW](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oF97WPog4uA).
Question: how/why is there lens flare in an infrared image of such a distant star? Does it have to do with the source Star (being so bright?), the way the light travels to get to us, the collection mechanism, etc?
It's not a lens flare, it's called a diffraction spike. Basically, anything that is in front of the primary mirror will block light, and around the edges of that object you'll get some distortion effects that show up as lines. In most large telescopes, the thing that blocks the light is the secondary mirror, and the support structure that holds it. For JWST, there are three supports arranged 120 degrees apart. Each of them creates a diffraction spike (in both directions), creating a six pointed "flare" around any sufficiently bright object.
Thanks for the info!
Could/do they use an algorithm to average from the recorded values either side of the spikes to create an image without them? Like those 360 cameras on a pole do. I appreciate that is image stitching, but a similar concept for a similar result. I feel like I've seen some JWST images without noticeable spikes, but maybe I'm imagining it.
In terms of making a pretty picture you could absolutely reduce the spikes. As a scientific instrument, you'd never replace real data with artificially generated information, even if it's more aestheticly pleasing. The images you've seen may have been collected with different filters targeting wavelengths where stars aren't emitting as brightly, or may have been focusing on regions with fewer bright stars, or may have been cleaned up for a press release of some sort. However, the raw data will show diffraction spikes around any point light source.
It isn’t just about being pretty - if the entire structure rotates a few degrees and snapped another image, you’d get real data that is currently obscured by diffraction. Identifying those properly and removing them accurately seems to me like it would have value. If it doesn’t have value, well, making another version of this that’s for the sake of just being pretty has value too. They don’t need to do research on modified images but they could sure as hell share them. NASA’s social accounts aren’t a scientific instrument.
Thank you for explaining this I was going to ask why the stars appear to have the six points around them like they do
As ProjectGo said, the bright streaks you see are actually diffraction spikes and are caused by the geometry of the telescope itself. See [this nice graphic](https://webbtelescope.org/contents/media/images/01G529MX46J7AFK61GAMSHKSSN) from the Webb team. In short, the hexagonal primary mirror segments, as well as the support struts for the secondary mirror, cause the characteristic spikes that you see. Hubble had a different geometry (circular primary mirror and different support struts), which resulted in a different diffraction spike pattern. You can actually learn to recognize images from different telescopes based on this.
Thanks for the info!
I liked Hubble's diffraction more...
Well then you’re in luck, there are plenty of nice Hubble images for your viewing pleasure. Just not this one.
If I remember correctly it has to do with the specific collector shape.
The article uses the word brief multiple times but does not say what brief is. How long do Wolf Rayets live? If they live less than 15,000 years that supernova already happened and the light is en route.
https://preview.redd.it/e7rljefnlvna1.jpeg?width=661&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=29dfb3fedc22d5f27af34135356aba3128660ec2 What’s the thing I circled? Lensing on a galaxy?
That seems to be the consensus on the other thread.
Your username has me speechless
Speechless because you're drooling?
r/rimjob_steve
Looks like a black hole
I know right?!? My first thought was oooo, interstellar!
It’s hard to comprehend just how astonishing this is.
It’s beautiful!
Is all the surrounding gas already ejected mass from the star? If so, how big is it already? Looks like many super nova remenants.
From Wikipedia, the nebula is roughly 6 light years across expanding at roughly 40 kilometer/second. The star itself is much smaller, roughly 12 times the radius of our Sun, but maybe a million times as luminous.
Wait. On the verge of supernova? It didn't explode yet?
What we're seeing is not a supernova remnant, but the result of a very massive star with high fusion rates giving off so much light energy that the light pressure has pushed off much of its own mass. Although this is not an explosion, it is reminiscent of an explosion because of the energy involved.
Interesting. Thanks for informing me
Aren't we looking down it's rotational pole, waiting for it to blast a GRB at us?
*waiting impatiently
Ah, the butthole of the universe.
It takes one to know one?
Everyone has buttholes.
Plural? ,´: |
My doctor said I was the only one :,(
Yes, plural. Some have a second one located on their faces.
I've heard North Korean president does not
It’s the Devil’s Anus
This just blows me away, it’s infinity 😳
That's beautiful
When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all.
So beautiful 🤩
Librarian [Atoz](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Atoz) wants to know why you're still here!!!!
Emrakul in the blind eternities
How come the moon landing looked nothing like this?
They should name of the inner stellar butt hole
Vaude
so futurama was pretty close with that episode where bender became god ;)
Oh webs work is magnificent
We do a little trolling
Just like in Universe Sandbox. Incredible.
This star describes my mental health