Talk:V838 Monocerotis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
February 20, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
WikiProject iconAstronomy: Astronomical objects C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Based on, which is in the public domain (Like other NASA-materials, too). -- JeLuF 23:02 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC) has a sharper photo, and they link to wikipedia's Monoceros article. - Jeandré, 2004-03-05t14:16z

Here's a series of four photos showing the expansion of the illuminated region of dust and gas: [1]. --Doradus 14:56, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Starry Night?[edit]

Frankly, I think the Starry Night comparison is silly and immaterial. Monocerotis does not look like Starry Night, despite what some anonymous astronomers might assert. --Doradus 14:41, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I've removed the section. The 2002-05-20 image comes closest but even then the colors are off. — Jeandré, 2005-03-10t11:24z
Someone added the comparison again - i suppose i'll go ahead and remove it Ka5hmirTalk To Me! 07:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sure they said it somewhere! Maybe it's in a different article. I know I read it! Well, if I do see it (I'm sure it's in the Starry Night article itself, but that's not where I saw it), I'll remove it. Ka5hmirTalk To Me! 07:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's back again. I'll remove it. I've also put a citation request on the painting's page. But this is getting silly. If it gets added again, we should ascertain who did it and post polite notices on their talk pages. --Kay Dekker (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2004 Hubble/Esa photo release Behold the magic of google:,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=dea6519f27a77d79&biw=1280&bih=765

> > > — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question for Astronomers[edit]

A question of clarification, to any astronomers out there: is V838 Monocerotis part of the Monoceros Ring, the "trail of stars" being left behind by the Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy as it orbits the Milky Way? Or is this a different Monoceros? Thank you.

I'm not an astronomer, but I don't think that V838 Monocerotis is related to the Monoceros Ring in any way except that both lie in the constellation Monoceros.--Jyril 22:30, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
Suspected that might be the case. All right; thank you very much for your time. Brasswatchman July 31, 2005. 11:20 AM EST.
Maybe it is a different Monoceros.

--Alexrybak (talk) 10:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interstellar vs. Circumstellar Dust[edit]

Analyses of images of V838 Mon from Hubble and the South African Astronomical Observatory suggest that the dust producing the light echoes is more likely in the foreground rather than surrounding the star. The estimated distance of the dust is roughly halfway between the star and the Earth.

I'm a Wikipedia novice, so I'm not sure how to cite the papers publishing these analyses. I'm a researcher studying this star and thought I'd help with the page. Maybe some Wikipedia veteran can help here. I can cannibalize the code you provide for future contributions on this or other topics.

The two main papers on the subject of interstellar dust and the light echoes of V838 Mon are:

L. A. Crause, et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, vol. 358, p. 1352 (2005)

R. Tylenda, Astronomy & Astrophysics, vol. 414, p. 223 (2004)

Any further advice would be greatly appreciated. You're welcome to leave helpful comments on my Talk page.

The Astrogeek 04:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Answered on user's talk page. — Jeandré, 2005-09-30t20:19z

Rewrite request[edit]

The first two paragraphs of this article are basically a copypaste job from this Astronomy Picture of the Day page. While the site is a NASA site and therefore the text is (presumably) not under copyright, surely we can do better than this. Chaos syndrome 22:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll rewrite this article, if I have enough time. No problem with getting enough material, since there are large amounts of sources available. However, it seems that the mystery is far from solved as the authors tend to reach very different conclusions even in more recent papers.--JyriL talk 15:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Phew, that was fast! :) Several things are still missing--for example, a mention on the important amateur observations (AAVSO), chemical compounds found in the atmosphere, masers, and the post-AGB model could be less biased. Although nova eruption models can probably be dismissed, a nova eruption within a common red giant envelope could be described, etc. The pre-exposion data seems to be patchy, but possible variability should be mentioned. Also, an image sequence showing the expansion of the light echo could be included as a gallery. A diagram [and an animation] of propagating light echo would greatly clarify the text (not to mention a whole article on it).--JyriL talk 00:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The subject of this entry is a Star. It seems to me that early on, we need a statement of the basic data on this star. What is its spectral type and size class? Even if that is uncertain, the basic data needs to be stated with some qualifying equivocation if necessary. Marc —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 09:50, March 22, 2007


In times of SETI where extra-terrestrial effects are reduced to no-brainer actions (radio/TV-signals) it's maybe interesting to think about what purpose could have the transformation from before->after. Making a star loose weight should lengthen it's life-span, right? There are star-types that burn just some million years. Is the idea of an intelligence, harvesting a star for long-term use so absurd, under the absurd assumption that extra-terrestrial life would transmit human-entropic information. How stark could a argument for a possible gain of that transformation become, to be a, at least, low-priority serious alternative?—Preceding unsigned comment added by GENtLe (talkcontribs) 18:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Science fiction authors like Stephen Baxter have written about such things. —Viriditas | Talk 23:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


In Models, Model 3 means that V838 Monocerotis has up to 1,000 solar masses! --Alexrybak (talk) 10:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Planet system[edit]

Does V838 Monocerotis have any planets orbiting around it?--ImhotepBallZ (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See end of article: it may be swallowing its planets. Rothorpe (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How many planets might it have?--ImhotepBallZ (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I was intrigued image that shows the timeline of the expansion of the gas, matter, or whatever it is that was displayed in the images. It is so rare that there is an astronomical sighting that you can see change over such short times. I was dismayed at the fact that the image only covers the period of about 2 years. I looked into finding more recent photos of the event but came up at a loss. What I did find though is that I am able to get the raw gray-scale image files from the hubble database and create the images myself.

My question is would that be appropriate for Wikipedia? I noticed that the images present on the page have been taken from webpages that already compiled the images. Would it be OK for me to create a photo montage that covers say 2002-2010 or 2011 of this event for this article if I am the one actually creating the false color images from the hubble images?

    • Edit**

Actually I found the most I can extend it by is another year, maybe two. Nolansykinsley (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1,570 ± 400 solar radii (comparable to Jupiter's orbital radius)[edit]

@Eric Kvaalen:Please explain, how is 1,570 ± 400 solar radii comparable to Jupiter's orbital radius? zzz (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Signedzzz: Well, Jupiter's orbital radius is about 1118 solar radii. So if we want to compare the size of this star to something in our solar system, it's as though the sun reached out to a bit beyond the orbit of Jupiter! Not as far as Saturn. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why is the solar system drawing thing in spanish (or something like that) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WRMetacat108 (talkcontribs) 02:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]