Type 1a Supernovas do have some effect on triggered starformations, but since they are decently rare, and since it takes quite awhile for such a scenario to reach the end, core collapse SN should have significantly larger impact.

1. The star must become a white dwarf, without going supernova by core collapse. This rules out stars that start with more than about 8 Msun.
2. It must still have a small companion that reaches the midlife crisis and start transferring matter over to the white dwarf. The companion may be speeded up in its aging though by masstransner from the 'to-be' white dwarf while it is still a red giant
3. The white dwarf must reach the chandrasehkar mass limit, and the transfer mechanism isnt the fastest.

Most likely, that white dwarf will go nova a number of times as it accretes fresh hydrogen from its companion, slowly gaining mass overall (but loosing some each time it goes nova).

Then, when the mass is around the Chandrasekhar limit, a small increase in mass leads to large contraction of the white dwarf, wich heats the interior up enough to start fusion of carbon/oxygen in the core. This is the important difference between type 1a and core-collapse, the core still contains fusable matter in a white dwarf. Core collapse SN have run out of 'fuel' completely.

And since a white dwarf is degenerate, the increase in temperature to start with does not lead to increased internal pressure, so the temperature becomes higher and higher, and the fusion becomes faster and faster, and when the carbon/oxygen runs out, the heavier byproducts ignite – eventually the temperature is so high that radiation pressure becomes dominant and the fusing core rapidly expands.

This long set of events make type 1a Supernovas less important in triggering new stars in starforming regions (likely starforming has subsidid at that time), and core collapse supernovas more likely (as they only have the requirement for 1 initial star with more than about 8Msun mass, wich is common in fresh starforming regions). Type 1a do however spew out a significantly larger portion of heave elements compared to core-collapse, especially iron and nickel, so they do have an impact on life.

Type 1a is very interesting as a standard candle, as they always have the about same mass (Chandrasekhar limit) and so have similar total energy output.

Anything that can explode is intersting though,, be it a Nova, a Supernova, or a fire-cracker.

Also a white dwarf if I understand correctly can be the diameter of Earth with a mass equivalent to 5 metric tons per teaspoon full (bear in mind that calculation is naturally going to be scrutinzed over the years to come)..

we still need to go back and re-evaluate these basic working assumptions of star death..moreover I would NOT be surpised if these obliterated white drwarfs (type 1a novas) are playing a much much bigger role even in protoplanetary formation…not just death from a binary relationship.

would a proto planet be better served if it were formed around a small remnant of a obliterated highly dense and ionized white dwarf and how would such a thing effect a terrestrial planets magnetosphere if it was forming around its core near the protostar?

to what degree is it obliterated and do these obliterated white dwarf remants pentrate the forming protostar? do we see evidence of their gravitational proximity in these birth events?

There are similarities between a nova and a type !a supernova, both including white dwarfs accreting matter from a nearby companion, but the explosive mechansim are quite different. The Nova blasts off a small, maybe irregular, shell of matter where the rest of the white dwarfs remains intact. A Supernova type 1a obliterates the white dwarf completely because the thermonuclear detonation happens at a state where the white dwarf is crossing the chandrasekhar mass-limit of little over 1.4 Msun.

Nova are often recurring, possibly always recurring, and some might end up as type 1a Supernova at the end of the line.

However, in this case, they've really got it all wrong.
V589 Pup is a galactic nova, not a supernova, and the reason no one saw it go off in June 2007, even though it was naked eye brightness, is because Puppis is essentially in conjunction with the Sun in June.

I've taken Greg up on his challenge "If those who leave the arrogant comments could do any better then let them try" and written a clarification of the facts on my blog.

None of us are paying for this after all.

"X-rays are only released from a supernova after visible light. The expanding cloud of dust and debris from the initial explosion blocks most of the X-rays from being released."

now if I understand this correctly this is suggesting the intial type 1a supernova explosion is going to uninformally eject material/dust in a near perfect 360 direction from the center of the disturbance.

Am I incorrect in this assumptiuon?

therefore, one possible explanation is that under certain conditions the explosion is more concentrated and NOT uniformally dispursed…thus causing an irregular build up of "ejecti" that is simply temporaily in perfect alignment with Earth BOTH X-rays and the visible spectrum of light. If we had been in another area of the galaxy its would have been observed normally from ground based telescopes.

seems to me that makes perfect sense that explsions are NOT always uniform 360 degrees in their dispersal pattern and that ejecti can be easily influenced or blownback in on itsellf.

now what could casue it is the big mystery and why?

1. Could an irregular gravitational tug from a nearby star cause simulateoulsy a perfectly aligned momentum/ressonance that concentarted the ejecti.

2. Could blowback from the compaion binary-star that was obstensibly consumed by this super nova may have had chemical elemental properties at its core that impeded ist dispersal pattern thru some sort of inonization?

what do we know EXACTLY about the other stars near it and the composition of the binary that may have contributed to the nova?

if my reasoning is wrong, I more than welcom assitance since I am an electrical engineer who is trying to explore the science of astronomy as a hobby.

Isn't this statement stupid? If the star went nova on that date for us to see, it really means this event happened years and years ago. Nobody seems to be putting light years into perspective.