Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Nick,
Yeah – I’m sure that’s possible. I’ve deliberately made the database schema as intuitive as possible, so that if I go under a bus, the BAA shouldn’t find it too hard to find a database / web engineer who can make sense of all the data.
I suggest we switch this thread to email, to avoid sharing the details publicly with hackers.
Best wishes,
Dominic
Thanks Nick, and apologies if your original message got a bit hijacked.
The comet section archives are an incredible resource, and I hope everybody submits their images.
James,
Technically, everything you’re asking for is possible.
Concerns about file naming conventions are a bit of a distraction. The image gallery collects the name of the observer and the time of observation as compulsory metadata on all images. People don’t always fill in the object name (and sometimes they observe things that aren’t in the object database yet…), but I tend to fill it in retrospectively where it is left blank, to make the galleries more usefully searchable. With that information available in the database, you could easily imagine an automated process to assign the images whatever filename format is desired when section officers export them.
Adding other metadata is simply a plumbing job.
Best wishes,
Dominic
I very much appreciate the vast deal of work that section officers do. It is indeed important to recognise that this is voluntary work, and volunteers generally do their best work when they’re given as much freedom and autonomy as possible. The BAA sections operate in very different ways, and I agree with Nick that this inevitable – not least because many collaborate with external organisations in very different ways.
But I think the question of why many observers don’t submit images to the BAA sections is an important one, and it’s a pity to imply that it’s because observers can’t be bothered. Meaning no disrespect to the sections, I suspect observers who don’t submit their work probably aren’t actually that interested in doing so. I don’t think the BAA has ever tried to collect evidence as to the reasons, and I can only base my speculation on guesswork.
In the past I’ve heard these people dismissed as somehow ‘now serious observers’. But as Nick says, many of the world’s leading imagers don’t submit images. Browsing online astrophotography galleries, or the finalists of astrophotography competitions, how many of the names are BAA members – even among folks who clearly have a great deal of talent (and kit)? I suspect people who submit observations to the BAA are a minority, even among very serious observers.
So, what are these people doing, if not submitting to BAA sections? A lot of observers are motivated by wanting to build a social media following. Others are clearly motivated by trying to monetise their images (though I wonder how many are successful). Others are over the moon if they get 100 likes on Facebook.
To use some trendy lingo, I think if the BAA wants to maximise engagement from observers, it needs to provide a user experience that members find fulfilling. It needs to build a positive relationship with observers, not seem to chastise them. The solar and comet sections have been pioneers in making their section archives browsable online, and Nick and Peter Meadows deserve a lot of credit for this. I would imagine (once again, with no evidence) observers find it far more satisfying contributing to an archive they can see online.
My conscious aim when I set up the member albums (almost a decade ago now!) was to try to replicate as much of the social media experience that people clearly crave, within the BAA community. I agree with James that this could have been integrated with the work of the sections to a much greater degree – I suspect to everybody’s mutual benefit – but for various reasons it didn’t happen.
The galleries are consciously designed to be as accessible as possible to the BAA sections – for example, the search-by-object-type categories are aligned with the BAA sections. And although a restrictive file size limit was initially in place, I think the current limit is larger than what can reasonably be attached to an email.
Dominic
Thanks for reporting this – the web server settings had been reset during a software update. I think this should now be fixed. Please let me know if not.
Hi Alan,
Thanks for posting these images – and well done on completing your observing project!
Currently I seem to release updates to the image gallery object database roughly once per year – with the exception of comets, which automatically get added when they first appear in the Comet Section archives. It’s about a year since I last added a bunch of extra deep sky catalogues, so it’s probably about time to think about a new update.
The criteria I generally use to decide which catalogues to add is to look through the list of untagged images, and see which catalogues are easily available for download from reliable online sources like CDS / Vizier.
As it happens, the Palomar catalogue is already my top priority for the next update.
It won’t happen right away, but perhaps by the end of the summer.
Best wishes,
Dominic
Hi all,
We’ve discussed this, and agreed to increase the maximum allowed file size from 3MB to 10MB.
Enjoy!
Dominic
I absolutely agree with Mark Phillips above – people are looking up, and that’s a great outcome in itself.
In the 15 minutes after the feature on the BBC news, there was a marked spike in traffic to the BAA website, even though the BAA homepage didn’t have much to offer beginners wanting to find the planets.
I think Catherine Heymans’ approach is spot on… “Hey, you’re looking for the planetary parade? That’s great – there are lots of planets to see right now. This is how you can see them. By the way, you don’t have a hope of seeing Saturn, but let’s not worry about that – Jupiter and Mars are pretty great”.
Hi James,
While I can’t give you a definite answer (I suspect this isn’t documented anywhere), I would expect a DSLR to do a very good job of what you’re proposing. I would expect that the camera is doing intelligent downsampling and interpolation in silicon.
As I understand it, camera manufacturers see wannabe YouTubers who film themselves in dingy conditions as a huge market, and so they’re anxious to do low-light low-noise video well. They certainly wouldn’t be throwing data away. Thankfully for us astronomers, those are exactly the same requirements we have.
For what it’s worth, my partner has recently dragged me into filming ballet performances where the lighting is also sometimes far from ideal. I’ve been staggered by the video footage my Canon RP (and previously, 750D) can get of high-velocity dancers with hardly any light. By comparison, my Panasonic camcorder really struggles in low-light conditions.
Good luck,
Dominic
Very sorry to hear this – especially as I never got the chance to meet Storm.
It’s less than six months since Wil Tirion’s passing – the other half of the partnership that worked on the “Guide to the Night Sky”.
As it happens, I was contacted by the Guide’s publisher last summer, asking me to help prepare the 2026 edition. Helping with it has been an enormous amount of work over the past six months, and has really made me appreciate how much work Storm and Wil put into it every year. The 2026 Guide should finally be passed over to the typesetters in a couple of weeks, at which point I can breathe a sigh of relief. Back in the day, Wil would have gone on to typeset the whole manuscript and submitted it to the printers in camera-ready form.
If you’re interested, these are the top 100 objects tagged in images uploaded by members in 2024 (member albums only; excluding the Section archives).
The observation counts for composite objects like the Virgo Cluster also include observations of their constituent members, so although there aren’t many images explicitly tagged with the Virgo Cluster, it comes 11th because there are many images of the NGC/IC objects within it.
1) The Sun (577 observations)
2) C/2023 A3 (Tsuchinshan-ATLAS) (213 observations)
3) Aurora (178 observations)
4) The Moon (160 observations)
5) Jupiter (155 observations)
6) Saturn (126 observations)
7) 12P Pons-Brooks (110 observations)
8) Meteor (46 observations)
9) Noctilucent cloud (44 observations)
10) Mars (39 observations)
11) Virgo Cluster (29 observations)
12) Conjunction (28 observations)
13) 13P Olbers (28 observations)
14) Eclipse (27 observations)
15) M42 (20 observations)
16) Venus (20 observations)
17) M31 (20 observations)
18) M45 (20 observations)
19) M33 (19 observations)
20) Mercury (19 observations)
21) NGC7000 (19 observations)
22) Spacecraft (17 observations)
23) M101 (17 observations)
24) Sharpless 103 (17 observations)
25) NGC6888 (16 observations)
26) T-CrB (16 observations)
27) 62P Tsuchinshan (15 observations)
28) Spectrum (15 observations)
29) Uranus (15 observations)
30) NGC5195 (15 observations)
31) Arp 85 (15 observations)
32) M51 (15 observations)
33) NGC5194 (15 observations)
34) C/2021 S3 (PANSTARRS) (15 observations)
35) Barnard 33 (14 observations)
36) M27 (14 observations)
37) Gyulbudaghian’s variable nebula (13 observations)
38) IC1396 (13 observations)
39) Pelican Nebula (13 observations)
40) Nova Vul 2024 (13 observations)
41) Lightcurve (12 observations)
42) Caldwell 49 (12 observations)
43) IC5070 (12 observations)
44) M13 (12 observations)
45) NGC2244 (11 observations)
46) Widefield (11 observations)
47) Equipment (11 observations)
48) Caldwell 33 (11 observations)
49) IC2574 (10 observations)
50) NGC4216 (10 observations)
51) Leo Triplet (10 observations)
52) IC5146 (9 observations)
53) The Earth (9 observations)
54) M82 (9 observations)
55) Observatory (9 observations)
56) M3 (9 observations)
57) Variable star (9 observations)
58) NGC6946 (9 observations)
59) NGC6960 (9 observations)
60) NGC6992 (9 observations)
61) NGC404 (8 observations)
62) IC1318 (8 observations)
63) M1 (8 observations)
64) NGC2237 (8 observations)
65) NGC4565 (8 observations)
66) NGC7635 (8 observations)
67) UGC 9618 (8 observations)
68) Arp 302 (8 observations)
69) Collinder 50 (7 observations)
70) Arp 317 (7 observations)
71) NGC2246 (7 observations)
72) NGC2239 (7 observations)
73) NGC2238 (7 observations)
74) IC434 (7 observations)
75) NGC40 (7 observations)
76) 29P Schwassmann-Wachmann (7 observations)
77) M20 (7 observations)
78) M32 (7 observations)
79) NGC891 (7 observations)
80) Sharpless 101 (7 observations)
81) NGC7380 (7 observations)
82) 2 Pallas (7 observations)
83) Neptune (7 observations)
84) NGC281 (7 observations)
85) NGC6979 (7 observations)
86) Palomar 10 (7 observations)
87) IC1340 (7 observations)
88) NGC6995 (7 observations)
89) M78 (6 observations)
90) NGC3628 (6 observations)
91) M35 (6 observations)
92) NGC2024 (6 observations)
93) M110 (6 observations)
94) Aldebaran (6 observations)
95) Albireo (6 observations)
96) M16 (6 observations)
97) Barnard 143 (6 observations)
98) NGC7023 (6 observations)
99) NGC6760 (6 observations)
100) E Nebula (6 observations)Hi Bill,
I use an off-the-shelf Celestron Powertank (LiFePO4), which provides both 12V telescope output and 5V USB outputs.
It seems to work fine to power a 12V telescope. My only serious issue is that it automatically switches itself off if you don’t draw some minimum amount of current. My small Star Adventurer mount seemingly doesn’t draw enough power by itself, unless I plug something else into the other USB port.
Best wishes,
Dominic
The new Canon mirrorless bodies seem to allow one to plug in a portable HDMI monitor (perhaps USB powered) into the micro-HDMI socket, and use that as a large viewfinder. Unfortunately, I don’t think Canon’s DSLRs allow this, even in ‘Live view’ mode. At least, I’ve never got it to work, even though they some of the DSLRs do have a (seemingly rather useless) micro-HDMI socket.
There is an official Canon EOS app, which allows some newer DSLRs to be controlled from a phone or tablet. It’s a really horrible hacky app which takes over your phone’s Wifi settings, and uses Wifi to communicate with the camera. But on the few occasions when I’ve tried it, it has worked. It gives a viewfinder image on the phone screen and lets you control some of the cameras settings through the phone.
I agree with James. The internet suggests solar farms can reach ~50C on a summer afternoon, which I imagine would have a significant effect on day-time seeing on sunny days. But I agree with James that their thermal inertia is likely to be quite low, so I would expect the panels to cool off quickly at dusk and pose little problem. But in the absence of empirical data, that’s just my guess!
Hi folks,
Just a comment that I’m aware it’s really annoying that the images of C/2023 A3 are currently split between two galleries:
https://britastro.org/observations/index.php?library=0&tagged_object=CK23A030
https://britastro.org/observations/index.php?library=0&tagged_object=C%2F2023+A3This is due to there being two duplicate entries for the comet in the image gallery object database. There are supposed to be lots of checks to stop this from happening, but I’ve clearly mucked something up. This affects quite a few other comets too. I think the script which scans the MPC website for new comets, and the script which ingests the Comet Section archive, are automatically creating these duplicate entries. Grrargh!
I will fix this and merge the galleries as soon as I can, but I fear I can’t easily fix this immediately. In meantime, feel free to tag your images with either “C/2023 A3” or “C/2023 A3 (Tsuchinshan-ATLAS)”, and eventually they’ll end up in the same place.
Cheers,
Dominic
Yes, I’m happy to help.
On my website, you’ll find vector-graphics files for various planisphere parts here: https://in-the-sky.org/planisphere/index.php
You should be able to load the SVG or PDF files into any good vector graphics package (e.g. Adobe Illustrator or Inkscape) and print them at arbitrarily large sizes.
Thanks – this looks interesting. When I first saw it I was sceptical, but they seem to have put together a very good team.
I see Clive Ruggles is involved. He’s given some great talks arguing that Hoyle and Thom got a bit overexcited in their speculation, so that’s reassuring that this isn’t going to go the same way!
I’d be curious if anybody has any more information about this. The BBC contacted me yesterday asking for an interview, but I declined because I couldn’t find any information to back up their claim that “it is thought it could be a Chinese satellite called Object K”. I wonder where they got that from.
No doubt it’ll be covered in the next issue of Jonathan McDowell’s Space Report.
Hi Ken,
Interesting that you worked at Philips Research. Our paths may well have crossed in the early 2000s, when I did three summer internships at PRL. At the time I was torn between a career in astronomy versus joining Philips, but the decision was made for me when PRL closed down. Just in case the world wasn’t already small enough – I’m guessing you worked in Alan Knapp’s group? His wife taught me chemistry at school…
As you say – you can get a long way by assuming local thermal equilibrium. How far is an interestingly controversial question. Without any independent way of measuring the physical conditions and composition of a star, it’s hard to verify exactly how accurate models are.
It’s a very long time since I’ve looked at these kinds of calculation, but I think the jigsaw piece you’re missing is Kirchoff’s Law. From memory, this has the consequence that any plasma that is in equilibrium for the polychromatic case is also in equilibrium with regard to emission and absorption at every monochromatic wavelength of light. The result is that you never need to solve the polychromatic case. You solve the equilibrium equations monochromatically for every wavelength you’re interested in. As I recall, if you’re interested in solving for the equilibrium occupation probabilities of the quantum states, your monochromatic equations give you a bunch of (thousands of) simultaneous equations that you can solve with a big (sparse) matrix inversion operation. You should end up with something resembling a Boltzmann distribution.
The oscillator strengths reflect the fact that transitions are more likely between quantum mechanical states with similar wavefunctions – which give rise to strong lines – versus those with very dissimilar wavefunctions – which give rise to weak “forbidden” lines. But calculating wavefunctions is somewhere between difficult and impossible, and numerical approximation often don’t seem to resemble reality particularly well. Hence the tendency to use empirical lab measurements.
Best wishes,
Dominic
