No, but they might have bright X-rated libidos.
I’m not sure what that means either.
I was going to guess that maybe they were going to confirm this European dark matter discovery, but I don’t think the grammar sounds right. NASA refers to it as “an object in our Galaxy astronomers have been hunting for more than 50 years.” They wouldn’t call dark matter “an object.” The dark matter discovery was low-density gas, and that doesn’t sound like “an object” either.
It wouldn’t be a Gamma Ray Burst in the galaxy would it? That might not be good news, depending on how far away it is. NASA has been flying the Swift satellite since 2004, specifically to look for Gamma Ray Bursts. It uses both X-ray and optical telescopes.
The description of this ‘major event’ causing telescopes around the earth to suddenly stop what they are doing and focus on it sure makes it sound like a transient event, not just the discovery of an object or objects.
The nice thing about gamma ray bursts is we will never have to deal with the anxiety of seeing one coming.
The wording of the announcement still isn’t right for a gamma ray burst. Gamma ray bursts weren’t discovered until the late 60s so they haven’t been looking for them for “over 50 years.” Plus, you wouldn’t call them an object.
I swear I’m usually not a grammar cop.
“New evidence to show that there really, really, Really might have been liquid water on Mars at some point in the past.”
They finally found the source of Illudium Phosdex!
A new planet, but it’s flat, and balancing on the back of four elephants standing on a giant turtle.
There’s also this recent story about NASA plans preparing for landing on an asteroid in an Armageddon-style manner, according to “a study due to be published next month” which somehow leaked out.
Everbody is invited to concoct a connection between these two stories.
Those probably wouldn’t emit much in the way of X-rays.
Wouldn’t news of a habitable planet within the galaxy have leaked before next Wednesday’s news conference? That sounds like something the public would have a lot of fun with and I imagine it would be hard to keep that under wraps. I know - not *inhabited * - but still…
As a former astronomer who was interested in extrasolar planets, but not an X-ray astronomer, I’d agree.
We don’t use X-ray telescopes to study asteroids.
No, but I’d like to use x-ray specs to study heavenly bodies.
I’ve wasted half the day yesterday and all of this morning chasing this, and haven’t come up with a damn thing. I learned a lot that wasn’t covered in my community college astronomy course, though. I think I may have a nibble, but I dunno—still seems flimsy.
That can’t be it,cause what’s the turtle standing on?
It’s turtles all the way down. Duh.
The Turtle Moves!
Oh, btw, here’s a cite.
So far the best choices (in my NOT expert opinion) seem to be either the galactic central black hole or dark matter.
Hmmm…
Still, dark matter is not an ‘object’. Did you read the link I provided? It seems to fit the search criteria better than anything else suggested, with the possible exception of the exact location of the Big Black Hole in the ‘Hood. It would seem reasonable that astronomers would have looked for evidence of young neutron stars 50 years ago by searching for their radio signatures, so that would solve the problem of what they could have been looking for prior to the invention of x-ray telescopes.