New Discoveries *4* - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

Palomar · 2005-02-04 07:42:49

*Interesting information about Sirius B.

http://www.space.com/spacewatch/050204_ … l]Doorstep Astronomy: Sirius

It's believed Sirius B has 98% of 1 solar mass in just 2% of our Sun's diameter; its density must be 90,000 times that of Sol's. A teaspoon of Sirius B's material would weigh approximately 2 tons.

Sirius B is only about 1/10,000 as bright as Sirius, but its temperature is roughly the same. That is really interesting.

From physical laws it follows that B emits the same amount of light per unit surface area as A, therefore to be so dim it must be very small. Later calculations have shown that A has just over twice the mass as our Sun, but B has nearly one solar mass. Since it is so small, B must be exceedingly dense.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2005-02-04 12:34:17

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish … 005]*Upper limit on stellar mass

*Says the ratio of big to little stars is mostly the same in regions observed (whether in a star cluster, within the near-galactic regions or in the Magellanic Clouds). The upper limit on stellar mass seems to be 120 to 200 solar masses. They're trying to figure out, of course, why there'd be a limit.

...this brings up a new mystery. Is this as big as stars get because they run out of material, or is there a fundamental limit in physics that stops them from getting any bigger?

“My African violets won’t grow any bigger now because their roots are totally taking up the maximum room in the pot,” she said. “If I repotted them they would grow larger. Are the stars maxed out because the parent clouds are limiting them, or because, like a whale in the sea, there’s something else physical about stars themselves that limits the size?
“The question about why stars have the masses that they do is fundamental, and our lack of understanding shows that we really don’t know some basics of how stars form.”

--Cindy

Palomar · 2005-02-06 19:47:52

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030913.html]Looks like a watery gateway to another universe

*The dimmer star created this. Is a representative color pic.

it's the asymmetries that help make this planetary nebula so intriguing. Neither the unusual shape of the surrounding cooler shell nor the structure and placements of the cool filamentary dust lanes running across NGC 3132 are well understood.

Superbly beautiful.

-*-

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0502/05survey/]DARK galaxies? ???

...devoid of stars? Concerns NSF's Arecibo Observatory, which has acquired a new compound eye.

Besides providing a comprehensive census of the gaseous content of the near universe, ALFALFA will explore galaxies in groups and clusters and investigate the efficiency by which galaxies convert gas into stars. What particularly intrigues astronomers is that ALFALFA could determine whether gas-rich systems of low mass that have not been able to convert their cosmic material into stars - the so-called dark galaxies - actually exist. Because these galaxies, being starless, are optically inert, it is hoped that they can be detected by their hydrogen signature.

Well...that would certainly be interesting to find out. Will be a "years-long survey." Is anticipated it'll return a "comprehensive consensus" of galaxies 800 million l/y from us, which will be approximately 1/6 of the sky.

the telescope's new instrument, installed last year, called ALFA (for Arecibo L-Band Feed Array). The device is essentially a seven-pixel camera with unprecedented sensitivity for making radio pictures of the sky, allowing astronomers to collect data about seven times faster than at present. The project has been dubbed ALFALFA

Good luck.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2005-02-07 20:38:39

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/m … 7.html]The mystery thickens...(involves brown dwarf vs planet debate, and yet a new possibility...read on...)

*And includes speculation about minature solar systems. The study focuses on a pulsar 1500 l/y away, "in" the constellation of Virgo. It's dubbed PSR B1257+12.

It's a somewhat long, complex article, so will skip a lot of comments right now (besides it's late and I'm battling a cold). But is a "must-read" for astronomy buffs.

They're speculating that "tiny, dim" solar systems may be common.

The object orbits a burned out, fast-spinning neutron star known as a pulsar. Three other roughly Earth-sized planets were already known to circle the pulsar. Their orbits are similar to those of Mercury, Venus, and Earth.

Crazy universe out there. :up:

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2005-02-08 06:11:03

Here is another article talking to the Brown dwarf may someday harbour habitable planets

The construction site of a miniature solar system has been spotted but, unusually, its central star is a tiny brown dwarf. The star is so small it could be mistaken for a giant planet and it is surrounded by a disc of material chunky enough to form several planets the size of Earth or Mars.
Brown dwarfs are "failed" stars with masses of about 15 to 70 times that of Jupiter. They are thought to form like ordinary stars, from a collapsing cloud of gas and dust. But unlike ordinary stars, they do not generate enough heat to trigger the sustained nuclear fusion of hydrogen nuclei that makes stars burn bright.

What are the closest brown draft stars to us? Could there be other earths near by?

Palomar · 2005-02-08 08:16:37

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/d … 08.html]If this is proven true --

*--there'll be no question about space exploration!

Carbon worlds with layers of diamonds miles thick? ???

Have heard speculation that Jupiter's core may be one big diamond.

(And no, I'm not a diamond-fiend type of woman...I just find it interesting)

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2005-02-08 08:39:37

There are also some dwarf stars that are also thought to be made of diamonds as well.

Palomar · 2005-02-08 09:50:38

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.htm … 6102]First Milky Way Stellar Outcast

*...discovered by astronomers. Was originally a binary star which passed too close to the MW's central supermassive black hole; its companion, they speculate, is now circling the MW's central SMBH and this star -- SDSS J090745.0+24507 -- was flung outward. It's traveling at 1.5 million mph, which is twice as fast as the galactic escape velocity. So, of course, the Milky Way's gravity can't hold it.

"Only the powerful gravity of a very massive black hole could propel a star with enough force to exit our galaxy," explained Brown.

They say it is moving almost directly away from the galactic center: "It's like standing curbside watching a baseball fly out of the park."

It faces a lonely future as it leaves our galaxy, never to return.

This is the first time astronomers have detected a star traveling swiftly enough to escape our galaxy.

Bon voyage, "little" star!

--Cindy

::EDIT:: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish … ?822005]An image of this star is contained in the accompanying (different from above) article.

Palomar · 2005-02-10 09:41:03

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960921.html]*This photo has such strange allure...

It's an oldie (1996) but I've not seen it before. Was taken by the Clementine star-tracker camera of the time, and demonstrates the ecliptic plane.

Can see Earthshine on the Moon, on the extreme right side of the image. For some reason I want to keep thinking this photo was taken from behind the Moon (if I ignore the Earthshine)...it really is a unique photo. :laugh:

Saturn, Mars and Mercury in the photo, and Sol peeking up over the Moon's limb. Very nice.

The planetary bodies of our solar system all tend to lie near this plane, since they were formed from the Sun's spinning, flattened, proto-planetary disk. The snapshot above nicely captures a momentary line-up looking out along this fundamental plane of our solar system.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2005-02-11 06:45:39

http://www.space.com/imageoftheday/imag … 1.html]Not a lot of elbow room for these stars

*Near to our galactic center, infrared, deepest view yet. An area 6 light years across, jam-packed with thousands of stars. Amazing image.

Discusses the possibility of many faint Sol-like stars there in binary systems with white dwarves which may be emitting x-rays.

But the locations of bright stars don't match locations of X-ray sources previously discovered by NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory, indicating that the galactic center may contain many faint Sun-like stars with X-ray-emitting white dwarf companions.

If the X-ray sources near the galactic center are accreting white dwarfs, the large numbers of compact low-mass binaries required could suggest that they formed in the very dense star cluster around the galactic center or that they have been "deposited" there by the destruction of globular clusters.

--Cindy

::EDIT:: An interesting item about Betelgeuse in a different article:

bright red Betelgeuse is near the end of its career. It is some 522 light-years away and no longer shines with a steady light. It is a "pulsating" star, expanding and contracting spasmodically with a diameter that varies from 550 to 920 times that of the Sun, but so irregular are these pulsations that no one can predict exactly when it will expand or contract.
In trying to describe Betelgeuse many years ago, a lecturer at New York’s Hayden Planetarium once noted that it is "like an old man with his strength almost entirely spent, panting in the asthmatic decrepitude of old age."

http://www.space.com/spacewatch/050211_ … ml]Article

Palomar · 2005-02-14 08:54:22

http://www.space.com/imageoftheday/imag … .html]Baby stars...in blue

*Oh, blue nebulae. ::sigh:: The prettiest.

This is from 210,000 l/y away, in the Small Magellanic Cloud; the nebula itself is NGC 346.

More than 2500 infant stars here (in NGC 346 proper), the youngest of which are only 5 million years old. They're "strung along two intersecting lanes in the nebula, resembling a 'T' pattern." Their hydrogen fuel hasn't yet ignited to sustain nuclear fusion and the smallest have only half the mass of Sol.

And what an exquisite sight.

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2005-02-14 09:12:33

Another Hubble feat that will be greatly missed that is not being preformed by those so called adaptive earth based telescopes.

Palomar · 2005-02-15 06:16:02

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0502/14blossom/]The Ring Nebula -- in a new light

*Is "in" the constellation of Lyra, 2000 light years away. (It's also beyond the reach of my small telescope...).

Anyway, this is the view from Spitzer's infrared array camera: Can plainly see expelled material.

The outer regions are especially prominent in this new image because Spitzer sees the infrared light from hydrogen molecules. The molecules emit infrared light because they have absorbed ultraviolet radiation from the star or have been heated by the wind from the star.

I'm surprised they didn't give a visible light comparison (probably most folks here have seen this already, but I'll post it anyway):

http://www.astr.ua.edu/gifimages/ring.gif]Ring Nebula in visible light

Cool! So many more dimensions added.

--Cindy

Rxke · 2005-02-15 06:43:32

indeed, that one rocks

SpaceNut · 2005-02-15 06:57:14

Some stars are visible in one image but not in the other and just the opposite in the other depending on where in the gas debri one is looking. IMO means we need both types of telescopes in space even if the visible was done with Earth based unit. Whether we are able to save Hubble or not, a visible telescope or telescopes IMO are something we still need.

Palomar · 2005-02-15 07:05:23

*Right SpaceNut. But this isn't the thread to be pitching for a particular telescope. I'm hoping a certain drawn-out debate won't spill over into this thread...which it might, if you keep raising the issue.

Let's please keep focused on the new discoveries themselves (regardless of -how- they are obtained) and leave "the issues" to the other thread or threads established for that purpose.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2005-02-15 10:11:19

http://skyandtelescope.com/observing/ob … ]*Variable stars...

variable stars...

and more about variable stars!

Treasure trove here. Now that Leo's on the rise, I'm going to keep tabs on R Leonis.

Also a nice article on the stellar magnitude system (towards bottom).

I really must get back into the swing of watching variables again; we have such nice weather down here. Growing up in inclimate weather (cloudy, cloudy, cloudy...) I wasn't able to keep tabs on them.

That'll be my astronomy new year's (a bit late) resolution: Watch more variables.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2005-02-18 08:14:22

::EDIT:: An interesting item about Betelgeuse in a different article:
bright red Betelgeuse is near the end of its career. It is some 522 light-years away and no longer shines with a steady light. It is a "pulsating" star, expanding and contracting spasmodically with a diameter that varies from 550 to 920 times that of the Sun, but so irregular are these pulsations that no one can predict exactly when it will expand or contract.
In trying to describe Betelgeuse many years ago, a lecturer at New York’s Hayden Planetarium once noted that it is "like an old man with his strength almost entirely spent, panting in the asthmatic decrepitude of old age."
http://www.space.com/spacewatch/050211_ … ml]Article

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap9906 … Betelgeuse made history

*It has the honor of being the first star whose surface has been photographed other than Sol. :up: Can see a "bright hotspot" on its surface in the photo. It's estimated to go supernova in a few 10 millions of years.

-*-

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990228.html]This "tiny" teardrop-shaped object

...is about the size of our Solar System. I could have sworn I'd posted this previously, but I don't have it listed in my notes (jotting down what's been posted previously to avoid repeats). Says it's "racing against time to condense and form planets." Unfortunately it exists in a particularly hostile region.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2005-02-22 22:19:11

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=16217]The power of infrared

*Images, artistic conceptions, interviews with scientists. Smorgasboard of astrostuff here.

Infrared is particularly effective for penetrating thick, murky regions of space and revealing what lies beyond. ...discoveries include details about the chaotic planet-forming process around stars; a faint, star-like object in an area previously believed to be star-free; and a star system that may harbor the youngest planet ever found.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2005-02-24 15:35:52

*Yes, I know SpaceNut posted a couple of articles pertaining to this in Echus Chasma's thread (wherein EC asked a question about the nature of dark matter). But as I consider the New Discoveries threads an online astronomy scrapbook of sorts...sorry, I can't resist! I've got to put it here! (Chalk it up to my being a woman -- seriously). :laugh:

The possibility pertaining to "dark galaxies" has been raised previously in either this thread or the 3rd New Discoveries thread, so this is for purposes of continuity as well (besides the "scrapbook" sentiment):

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.htm … 6226]First dark galaxy discovered?

This is amazing, if so. Rotates like a galaxy but has no stars. Is located in the Virgo Cluster. Ah, that's especially interesting.

I love the analogy they use (clever):

When astronomers observe the visible Universe it is like looking out at the darkest night from a well-lit room. It is easy to see the street lights, car headlights and other well-lit rooms, but not the trees, the hedges and the mountains because they don't emit any light. We live on a planet close to a star, so as astronomers our observing 'room' is always well-lit. This can make it difficult to find the dark, hidden objects.

This news is the result of international cooperation: UK, France, Italy, Australia.

They say if this galaxy -- VIRGOHI21 -- were an ordinary galaxy it'd be visible even with amateur telescopes.

The astronomers first took observations of the dark object back in 2000 and it has taken almost five years to rule out all the other possible explanations. VIRGOHI21 appears to be the first dark galaxy ever detected.

Simply amazing. I never could have conceived of something like this as a kid, reading those old astronomy books and magazines; I certainly don't remember speculation, then, of something of this nature.

This 'dark matter' still holds many mysteries for astronomers - is it well mixed up amongst the stars, or is it separate from the stars?

Yeah, good question.

Dark galaxies are thought to form when the density of matter in a galaxy is too low to create the conditions for star formation.

I wonder if dark galaxies come in spiral, elliptical, etc., shapes (a variety) like regular galaxies? :hm:

--Cindy

Palomar · 2005-02-28 07:32:35

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/d … ml]Leaking Gravity May Explain Cosmic Puzzle

*If you're interested in dark matter, this is a must-read article. A physicist at NYU is challenging the idea that the universe is expanding because of dark energy. He thinks there's "just a gravity leak." :-\

Article points out the existence of dark energy is "far from proven."

...some researchers believe they and their colleagues simply don't understand gravity at larger scales.

Mentions "gravitons." Also --

"Virtual gravitons exploit every possible route between the objects," Dvali said, "and the leakage opens up a huge number of multi-dimensional detours, which brings about a change in the law of gravity."
The speeding up of the universe suggest that Einstein's laws of General Relativity, describing the interaction of space and matter, must be modified at large cosmic distances.
"It is this modification, and not dark energy, that is responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe," Dvali concludes.

Wow.

They say his ideas might be testable, and refer to the installation of mirrors on the Lunar surface by the Apollo 11 astronauts.

The gravitational pull between any two objects becomes less with distance. But in Dvali's view, it weakens more than standard theory predicts.
Dvali would modify the theory of gravity so that the universe becomes self-accelerating, eliminating the need for dark energy.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2005-03-01 05:19:54

You bet, Cindy. "Wow" is right!
These are exciting times in both Cosmology and Physics. I've only just been reading about the possibility of gravity 'leaking' into higher dimensions in the recent edition of New Scientist magazine.
Apparently, such 'leakage' would explain why gravity, of all the fundamental forces, is so extraordinarily weak. Of course, when you trip and fall and land with a thump on the ground, gravity doesn't seem weak at all; in fact, it seems all together too strong! But, when you pick up a pin with a toy magnet, that little magnet is out-pulling Earth's 5,980,000,000,000,000,000,000 tonnes of mass.

So, where did these higher dimensions come from and where are they? Why can't we see them and move around in them?
Well, they were first mooted as part of string theory, which describes all matter and energy as consisting of infinitesimal strings rather than tiny particles. In this theory, the various characteristics of what we think of today as particles are explained by different vibrational frequencies of these tiny strings. But, if you understand the mathematics (I don't), one of the consequences of having tiny strings is that you get multiple higher dimensions into the bargain!
The fact that we only notice three-dimensions-plus-time (sometimes called 4-space), is because the extra dimensions above and beyond these are curled up very tightly and are very small.

It occurred to some very smart people that gravity's incredible weakness might arise from a loss of its strength via seepage into these dimensions.
This, in turn, led to the not unreasonable idea that we should be able to use very sensitive measurements of gravity to: (a) test for the existence of curled-up extra dimensions by checking for measurable gravity leakage, and (b) get some idea of just how small these curled-up dimensions actually are.

Anyhow, to cut a long story short, from the results of devilishly clever torsion balance experiments, it looks like the extra dimensions can be no bigger than 70 micrometres. And preliminary measurements from further experiments suggest no deviation from Newton's inverse-square-law for gravitation down to about 10 micrometres.
Of course, none of this means anyone knows for sure that higher dimensions actually exist. They're simply placing constraints on the possible upper limits of the size of these little balls of curled-up higher dimensions .. that's all.

Nevertheless, it's potentially ground-breaking research and it could have profound effects on our understanding of what makes the Universe tick.

SpaceNut · 2005-03-01 06:18:55

Can not help picturing the known galaxy as a balloon with the end not tied releasing the inflated contents slowly into the next.

Possibly the galaxies have worm holes that lead to the other dimensions and that is where we are leaking out of ours into there's.

Palomar · 2005-03-01 14:07:31

You bet, Cindy. "Wow" is right!

*Trying to visualize all that makes my head a bit ... erm ... lightheaded.

But, if you understand the mathematics (I don't),

Me neither

The fact that we only notice three-dimensions-plus-time (sometimes called 4-space), is because the extra dimensions above and beyond these are curled up very tightly and are very small.

Yes, I recall references to extra dimensions (and what exactly is IN one of these extra dimensions anyway?) as being "curled up." Not sure about the "very small" aspect (having been mentioned previously). Boggles the mind. :-\

It occurred to some very smart people

Vast understatement (by comparison, I possess the brain of a snail -- LOL)

that gravity's incredible weakness might arise from a loss of its strength via seepage into these dimensions.
...
Anyhow, to cut a long story short, from the results of devilishly clever torsion balance experiments, it looks like the extra dimensions can be no bigger than 70 micrometres. And preliminary measurements from further experiments suggest no deviation from Newton's inverse-square-law for gravitation down to about 10 micrometres.

That's awfully tiny.

Of course, none of this means anyone knows for sure that higher dimensions actually exist.

Good thing no one is relying on me to provide proof or answers.

Nevertheless, it's potentially ground-breaking research and it could have profound effects on our understanding of what makes the Universe tick.

Sure seems that way. I'll be following this, definitely. Nice question to the dark energy "answer."

--Cindy

Palomar · 2005-03-01 15:14:19

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/p … Proto-Star

*They describe it as akin to a baby's first ultrasound: Looking into a "womb of star birth." The information was obtained mostly by ESA.

Some previously unrealized energetic process, likely related to magnetic fields, is superheating parts of the cloud, nudging it to become a star, scientists said.
The detection of X-rays from the cold stellar precursor surprised astronomers. The observations reveal that matter is falling toward the core 10 times faster than gravity could account for.
"We are seeing star formation at its embryonic stage," said Kenji Hamaguchi

The proto-star in question is contained in the region of R Corona Australis, approximately 500 l/y from us. It's estimated to be between 10,000 to 100,000 years of "pulling itself together."

The cloud temperature is about 400 degrees below zero Fahrenheit (minus 240 Celsius). In a few million years, it will become dense enough to ignite the nuclear fusion that powers our Sun and other stars.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2005-02-04 07:42:49

Re: New Discoveries *4* - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

#102 2005-02-04 12:34:17

Re: New Discoveries *4* - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

#103 2005-02-06 19:47:52

Re: New Discoveries *4* - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

#104 2005-02-07 20:38:39

Re: New Discoveries *4* - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

#105 2005-02-08 06:11:03

Re: New Discoveries *4* - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

#106 2005-02-08 08:16:37

Re: New Discoveries *4* - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

#107 2005-02-08 08:39:37

Re: New Discoveries *4* - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

#108 2005-02-08 09:50:38

Re: New Discoveries *4* - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

#109 2005-02-10 09:41:03

Re: New Discoveries *4* - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

#110 2005-02-11 06:45:39

Re: New Discoveries *4* - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

#111 2005-02-14 08:54:22

Re: New Discoveries *4* - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

#112 2005-02-14 09:12:33

Re: New Discoveries *4* - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

#113 2005-02-15 06:16:02

Re: New Discoveries *4* - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

#114 2005-02-15 06:43:32

Re: New Discoveries *4* - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

#115 2005-02-15 06:57:14

Re: New Discoveries *4* - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

#116 2005-02-15 07:05:23

Re: New Discoveries *4* - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

#117 2005-02-15 10:11:19

Re: New Discoveries *4* - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

#118 2005-02-18 08:14:22

Re: New Discoveries *4* - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

#119 2005-02-22 22:19:11

Re: New Discoveries *4* - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

#120 2005-02-24 15:35:52

Re: New Discoveries *4* - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

#121 2005-02-28 07:32:35

Re: New Discoveries *4* - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

#122 2005-03-01 05:19:54

Re: New Discoveries *4* - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

#123 2005-03-01 06:18:55

Re: New Discoveries *4* - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

#124 2005-03-01 14:07:31

Re: New Discoveries *4* - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

#125 2005-03-01 15:14:19

Re: New Discoveries *4* - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

Board footer

Re: New Discoveries 4 - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

Re: New Discoveries 4 - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

Re: New Discoveries 4 - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

Re: New Discoveries 4 - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

Re: New Discoveries 4 - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

Re: New Discoveries 4 - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

Re: New Discoveries 4 - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

Re: New Discoveries 4 - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

Re: New Discoveries 4 - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

Re: New Discoveries 4 - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

Re: New Discoveries 4 - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

Re: New Discoveries 4 - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

Re: New Discoveries 4 - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

Re: New Discoveries 4 - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

Re: New Discoveries 4 - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

Re: New Discoveries 4 - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

Re: New Discoveries 4 - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

Re: New Discoveries 4 - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

Re: New Discoveries 4 - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

Re: New Discoveries 4 - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

Re: New Discoveries 4 - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

Re: New Discoveries 4 - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

Re: New Discoveries 4 - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

Re: New Discoveries 4 - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd

Re: New Discoveries 4 - ...Solar System, Deep Space, cont'd