This star erupts every 80 years. This Cape Cod astronomer wants to be first to see it.
Boosting his chances are the two remote telescopes he regularly uses to scan the sky — one in New Mexico, the other in Spain — both currently programmed to keep nightly watch on the binary system 3,000 light-years away.
He's monitored T Coronae for the past few years.
"It's an unusual object that has a faint magnitude in the sky, but every 80 years it has an outburst. It will become visible to the naked eye, possibly even in downtown Boston or New York City," he said.
The last time it happened was in 1946, Walker said, "so it would be very interesting to be the first person since to see it in outburst. Many other amateur astronomers are also diligently watching it hoping to capture the honor."
When the nova does occur, T Coronae will brighten over a period of eight hours to a couple of days, then fade within just a few days.
"You have to just be lucky enough to have it happen while you're watching," Walker said.
T Coronae, about 3,000 light-years away in the constellation Corona Borealis, was expected to go nova in 2024. That didn't happen, but NASA recently reignited anticipation after detecting activity changes that could signal an eruption sooner than later.
Walker said the system often flickers and dims, keeping everyone guessing. But, like NASA observers, he also recently noticed unusual activity that's got him and others closer to the edges of their seats.
'I observed it got fainter more than it typically does,' he said, though it's difficult to know if that's meaningful.
Astronomers last recorded an eruption from this system in 1946, with previous outbursts documented in 1866 and 1787. The oldest known record dates to 1217.
Walker got hooked on skygazing at 14 after glimpsing Saturn through a neighbor's telescope. He later spent 17 years as a telescope engineer at Maria Mitchell Observatory on Nantucket and now splits his observing time on his two remote scopes with fellow skywatchers.
"I get between two and four hours a night on each telescope," he said. "The operation is controlled via software and you tell it which object you want to observe, where and when."
Walker and other observers feed their data into the American Association of Variable Star Observers, where both professionals and amateurs track subtle changes in brightness that could signal an oncoming nova.
T Coronae consists of two stars — a white dwarf and a red giant — engaged in a slow-motion exchange of mass.
A nova happens when a white dwarf siphons hydrogen gas from a nearby, larger companion — typically a red giant or a Sun-like star.
As the gas builds up on the white dwarf's surface, the pressure and heat eventually trigger a thermonuclear explosion, causing the star to brighten dramatically for a short time. The white dwarf survives the blast, and the process of gas accumulation and eruption can repeat.
'The correct term is a recurrent nova,' Walker said.
That's different from a supernova, he added, 'which is a star that's burned through all of its hydrogen and helium' and dies in a final, catastrophic explosion.
Novae only happen in binary or multiple-star systems where a white dwarf closely orbits a larger companion. Eventually, the T Coronae red giant will shed its outer layers and become a white dwarf too — likely ending the nova cycle. It is not massive enough ever to burst as a supernova.
T Coronae Borealis usually shines at a faint magnitude of 5.5 — just on the edge of naked-eye visibility under perfect dark-sky conditions. It's 17.6 quadrillion miles from Earth, so far that NASA's fastest spacecraft, the Parker Solar Probe, would take 4.7 million years to reach it.
When T Coronae erupts, astronomers expect it to reach at least magnitude 2. For context, on the astronomical magnitude scale — where lower numbers indicate brighter objects — Venus shines at about -4.5, Jupiter at -2, Saturn around +0.5, and Mars typically near +1.5.
A magnitude 2 nova would make T Coronae Borealis one of the brighter stars visible at night. "It may even be visible in telescopes in the daytime if you know exactly where to look," Walker said.
If the white dwarf has pulled in more material than usual, its nova will be more luminous.
To spot the nova, start by locating the constellation Corona Borealis.
"Right now, it appears high in the sky after midnight," Walker said. "Then all summer long it'll become visible earlier and earlier. In the fall it'll be visible somewhat west of overhead."
The nova will appear between two bright stars: Arcturus in the Boötes constellation and Vega in Lyra. NASA suggests using the end of the Big Dipper's handle as a guide — it points in the general direction of Corona Borealis.
Astronomers recommend getting familiar with the constellation's shape and the star's usual faint location ahead of time. That way, when it does erupt, the appearance of a sudden 'new star' will be easier to notice.
Heather McCarron writes about climate change, environment, energy, science and the natural world, in addition to news and features in Barnstable and Brewster. Reach her at hmccarron@capecodonline.com.
Thanks to our subscribers, who help make this coverage possible. If you are not a subscriber, please consider supporting quality local journalism with a Cape Cod Times subscription. Here are our subscription plans.
This article originally appeared on Cape Cod Times: Cape Cod astronomer tracks star that could soon go nova
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Artemis II on track for moon flight, looking to launch as early as February 2026
The crew of 4 astronauts undertaking NASA's 2026 Artemis II mission say the moon flight is on track for its launch next year. Speaking at Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida on July 30, the crew say there are possible openings for a launch in February.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Eating minimally processed meals doubles weight loss even when ultraprocessed foods are healthy, study finds
Food & health UKFacebookTweetLink Follow People in the United Kingdom lost twice as much weight eating meals typically made at home than they did when eating store-bought ultraprocessed food considered healthy, the latest research has found. 'This new study shows that even when an ultraprocessed diet meets nutritional guidelines, people will still lose more weight eating a minimally processed diet,' said coauthor Dr. Kevin Hall, a former senior investigator at the US National Institutes of Health who has conducted some of the world's only controlled clinical trials on ultraprocessed foods. 'This (study) is the largest and longest randomized controlled clinical trial of ultraprocessed foods to date,' Hall added. Hall's past research sequestered healthy volunteers from the world for a month at a time, measuring the impact of ultraprocessed food on their weight, body fat and various biomarkers of health. In a 2019 study, he found people in the United States ate about 500 calories more each day and gained weight when on an ultraprocessed diet than when eating a minimally processed diet matched by calories and nutrients. The weight loss from minimally processed food in the new study was modest — only 2% of the person's baseline weight, said study first author Samuel Dicken, a research fellow at the department of behavioral science and health and the Centre for Obesity Research at University College London. 'Though a 2% reduction may not seem very big, that is only over eight weeks and without people trying to actively reduce their (food) intake,' Dicken said in a statement. 'If we scaled these results up over the course of a year, we'd expect to see a 13% weight reduction in men and a 9% reduction in women.' Men typically have more lean muscle mass than women, which along with testosterone often gives them a quicker boost over women when it comes to weight loss, experts say. The study, published Monday in the journal Nature Medicine, provided free ultraprocessed or minimally processed meals and snacks to 55 overweight people in the UK for a total of eight weeks. After a short break, the groups switched to the opposite diet for another eight weeks. Study participants were told to eat as much or as little of the 4,000 daily calories as they liked and record their consumption in a diary. By the end of the study, 50 people had spent eight weeks on both diets. While the number of participants may seem small at first glance, providing 16 weeks of food and implementing randomized controlled clinical trials can be costly. For the first eight weeks, 28 people received daily deliveries of minimally processed meals and snacks, such as overnight oats and homemade spaghetti Bolognese. Minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, meat, milk and eggs, are typically cooked from their natural state, according to NOVA, a recognized system of categorizing foods by their level of processing. Concurrently, another 27 people received a daily delivery of ultraprocessed foods — such as ready-to-eat breakfast bars or heat-and-eat lasagna — for eight weeks. Ultraprocessed foods, or UPFs, contain additives never or rarely used in kitchens and often undergo extensive industrial processing, according to the NOVA classification system. Because ultraprocessed foods are typically high in calories, added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat and low in fiber, they have been linked to weight gain and obesity and the development of chronic conditions including cancer, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and depression. Such foods may even shorten life. Researchers in this study, however, did something unusual, said Christopher Gardner, Rehnborg Farquhar Professor of Medicine at Stanford University in California who directs the Stanford Prevention Research Center's Nutrition Studies Research Group. 'They tried to make a healthy ultraprocessed diet by picking ultraprocessed foods with the recommended number of fruits, veggies and fiber and lower levels of salt, sugar and saturated fats,' said Gardner, who was not involved in the study. Both the ultraprocessed and the minimally processed meals had to meet the nutritional requirements of the Eatwell Guide, the UK's official government guidance on how to eat a healthy, balanced diet. The United States has similar dietary guidelines, which are used to set federal nutritional standards. 'This is a very solid study, matching dietary interventions for nutrients and food group distribution, while varying only the contribution of ultra-processed foods,' said Dr. David Katz, a specialist in preventive and lifestyle medicine, in an email. Katz, who was not involved in the study, is the founder of the nonprofit True Health Initiative, a global coalition of experts dedicated to evidence-based lifestyle medicine. The study's goal was weight loss, which often comes with improved cardiovascular readings, such as lower blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar levels. That happened, but in rather odd and surprising ways, said Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard professor emerita of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, who was asked to write an editorial to be published with the study. Instead of gaining weight, people on the ultraprocessed diet chose to eat 120 fewer calories a day, thus losing a small amount of weight. People on the minimally processed diet, however, ate 290 fewer calories a day, thus losing even more weight and some body fat as well. 'One possible explanation is that (people on the minimally processed diet) did not like the 'healthy' meals as much as their usual diets,' Nestle, who was not involved in the research, wrote in the editorial. 'They deemed the minimally processed diet less tasty,' Nestle said. 'That diet emphasized 'real' fresh foods, whereas the ultra-processed diet featured commercially packaged 'healthy' ultra-processed food products such as fruit, nut, and protein bars; sandwiches and meals; drinking yoghurts, and plant-based milks.' Less than 1% of people in the UK follow all of the government's nutritional recommendations, according to the study, often choosing ultraprocessed foods as the basis of their normal daily intake. In the US, nearly 60% of an adult's calorie consumption is from ultraprocessed foods. 'People in this study were overweight or obese and were already eating a diet high in all kinds of ultraprocessed foods,' Gardner said. 'So the ultraprocessed diet in the study was healthier than their typical normal diet. Isn't that an odd twist?' People on the minimally processed diet had lower levels of triglycerides, a type of fat in the blood linked to an increased risk of heart disease and stroke, but other markers of heart health didn't vary much between the two diets, according to the study. There was one notable exception: low-density lipoprotein, or LDL, known as 'bad' cholesterol because it can build up in arteries and create blockages to the heart. 'Surprisingly, LDL cholesterol was reduced more on the ultra-processed diet,' said dietitian Dimitrios Koutoukidis, an associate professor of diet, obesity and behavioral sciences at the University of Oxford, who was not involved in the study. 'This might imply that processing is not as important for heart health if the foods already meet the standard UK healthy eating guidance,' Koutoukidis said in a statement. 'Further research is needed to better understand this.' According to Hall, the results fit quite nicely with preliminary results from his current study that is still underway. In that research, Hall and his team measured the impact of four configurations of ultraprocessed foods on the health of 36 volunteers. Each lived for a month in the Metabolic Clinical Research Unit of the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. 'When you modify an ultraprocessed diet to have lower energy (calorie) density and fewer highly palatable foods, you can offset some of the effects of ultraprocessed foods in causing excess calorie intake and weight gain,' Hall said. In other words, choose healthier foods regardless of the levels of processing. 'People don't eat the best ultraprocessed foods, they eat the worst ones, so the take home here is to follow the national guidelines for nutrient quality,' Gardner said. 'Read your nutrient label and choose foods that are low in salt, fat, sugar and calories and high in fiber, and avoid foods with too many additives with unpronounceable names. That's the key to a healthier diet.' Sign up for CNN's Eat, But Better: Mediterranean Style. Our eight-part guide shows you a delicious expert-backed eating lifestyle that will boost your health for life.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Eating minimally processed meals doubles weight loss even when ultraprocessed foods are healthy, study finds
People in the United Kingdom lost twice as much weight eating meals typically made at home than they did when eating store-bought ultraprocessed food considered healthy, the latest research has found. 'This new study shows that even when an ultraprocessed diet meets nutritional guidelines, people will still lose more weight eating a minimally processed diet,' said coauthor Dr. Kevin Hall, a former senior investigator at the US National Institutes of Health who has conducted some of the world's only controlled clinical trials on ultraprocessed foods. 'This (study) is the largest and longest randomized controlled clinical trial of ultraprocessed foods to date,' Hall added. Hall's past research sequestered healthy volunteers from the world for a month at a time, measuring the impact of ultraprocessed food on their weight, body fat and various biomarkers of health. In a 2019 study, he found people in the United States ate about 500 calories more each day and gained weight when on an ultraprocessed diet than when eating a minimally processed diet matched by calories and nutrients. The weight loss from minimally processed food in the new study was modest — only 2% of the person's baseline weight, said study first author Samuel Dicken, a research fellow at the department of behavioral science and health and the Centre for Obesity Research at University College London. 'Though a 2% reduction may not seem very big, that is only over eight weeks and without people trying to actively reduce their (food) intake,' Dicken said in a statement. 'If we scaled these results up over the course of a year, we'd expect to see a 13% weight reduction in men and a 9% reduction in women.' Men typically have more lean muscle mass than women, which along with testosterone often gives them a quicker boost over women when it comes to weight loss, experts say. The study, published Monday in the journal Nature Medicine, provided free ultraprocessed or minimally processed meals and snacks to 55 overweight people in the UK for a total of eight weeks. After a short break, the groups switched to the opposite diet for another eight weeks. Study participants were told to eat as much or as little of the 4,000 daily calories as they liked and record their consumption in a diary. By the end of the study, 50 people had spent eight weeks on both diets. While the number of participants may seem small at first glance, providing 16 weeks of food and implementing randomized controlled clinical trials can be costly. For the first eight weeks, 28 people received daily deliveries of minimally processed meals and snacks, such as overnight oats and homemade spaghetti Bolognese. Minimally processed foods, such as fruits, vegetables, meat, milk and eggs, are typically cooked from their natural state, according to NOVA, a recognized system of categorizing foods by their level of processing. Concurrently, another 27 people received a daily delivery of ultraprocessed foods — such as ready-to-eat breakfast bars or heat-and-eat lasagna — for eight weeks. Ultraprocessed foods, or UPFs, contain additives never or rarely used in kitchens and often undergo extensive industrial processing, according to the NOVA classification system. Because ultraprocessed foods are typically high in calories, added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat and low in fiber, they have been linked to weight gain and obesity and the development of chronic conditions including cancer, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and depression. Such foods may even shorten life. Researchers in this study, however, did something unusual, said Christopher Gardner, Rehnborg Farquhar Professor of Medicine at Stanford University in California who directs the Stanford Prevention Research Center's Nutrition Studies Research Group. 'They tried to make a healthy ultraprocessed diet by picking ultraprocessed foods with the recommended number of fruits, veggies and fiber and lower levels of salt, sugar and saturated fats,' said Gardner, who was not involved in the study. Both the ultraprocessed and the minimally processed meals had to meet the nutritional requirements of the Eatwell Guide, the UK's official government guidance on how to eat a healthy, balanced diet. The United States has similar dietary guidelines, which are used to set federal nutritional standards. 'This is a very solid study, matching dietary interventions for nutrients and food group distribution, while varying only the contribution of ultra-processed foods,' said Dr. David Katz, a specialist in preventive and lifestyle medicine, in an email. Katz, who was not involved in the study, is the founder of the nonprofit True Health Initiative, a global coalition of experts dedicated to evidence-based lifestyle medicine. The study's goal was weight loss, which often comes with improved cardiovascular readings, such as lower blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar levels. That happened, but in rather odd and surprising ways, said Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard professor emerita of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, who was asked to write an editorial to be published with the study. Instead of gaining weight, people on the ultraprocessed diet chose to eat 120 fewer calories a day, thus losing a small amount of weight. People on the minimally processed diet, however, ate 290 fewer calories a day, thus losing even more weight and some body fat as well. 'One possible explanation is that (people on the minimally processed diet) did not like the 'healthy' meals as much as their usual diets,' Nestle, who was not involved in the research, wrote in the editorial. 'They deemed the minimally processed diet less tasty,' Nestle said. 'That diet emphasized 'real' fresh foods, whereas the ultra-processed diet featured commercially packaged 'healthy' ultra-processed food products such as fruit, nut, and protein bars; sandwiches and meals; drinking yoghurts, and plant-based milks.' Less than 1% of people in the UK follow all of the government's nutritional recommendations, according to the study, often choosing ultraprocessed foods as the basis of their normal daily intake. In the US, nearly 60% of an adult's calorie consumption is from ultraprocessed foods. 'People in this study were overweight or obese and were already eating a diet high in all kinds of ultraprocessed foods,' Gardner said. 'So the ultraprocessed diet in the study was healthier than their typical normal diet. Isn't that an odd twist?' People on the minimally processed diet had lower levels of triglycerides, a type of fat in the blood linked to an increased risk of heart disease and stroke, but other markers of heart health didn't vary much between the two diets, according to the study. There was one notable exception: low-density lipoprotein, or LDL, known as 'bad' cholesterol because it can build up in arteries and create blockages to the heart. 'Surprisingly, LDL cholesterol was reduced more on the ultra-processed diet,' said dietitian Dimitrios Koutoukidis, an associate professor of diet, obesity and behavioral sciences at the University of Oxford, who was not involved in the study. 'This might imply that processing is not as important for heart health if the foods already meet the standard UK healthy eating guidance,' Koutoukidis said in a statement. 'Further research is needed to better understand this.' According to Hall, the results fit quite nicely with preliminary results from his current study that is still underway. In that research, Hall and his team measured the impact of four configurations of ultraprocessed foods on the health of 36 volunteers. Each lived for a month in the Metabolic Clinical Research Unit of the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. 'When you modify an ultraprocessed diet to have lower energy (calorie) density and fewer highly palatable foods, you can offset some of the effects of ultraprocessed foods in causing excess calorie intake and weight gain,' Hall said. In other words, choose healthier foods regardless of the levels of processing. 'People don't eat the best ultraprocessed foods, they eat the worst ones, so the take home here is to follow the national guidelines for nutrient quality,' Gardner said. 'Read your nutrient label and choose foods that are low in salt, fat, sugar and calories and high in fiber, and avoid foods with too many additives with unpronounceable names. That's the key to a healthier diet.' Sign up for CNN's Eat, But Better: Mediterranean Style. Our eight-part guide shows you a delicious expert-backed eating lifestyle that will boost your health for life.
