Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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
Ken,
I fear this may be a rather trickier task then you think.
The first problem is that stellar atmospheres are not in thermal equilibrium. There’s convection going on, dredging up hot gas to the surface, which then cools and sinks back down. The cooling gas is not in thermal equilibrium.
Furthermore, stellar atmospheres are translucent: light can penetrate a certain depth into the atmosphere. Temperature and pressure change with depth. This means that to model a stellar spectrum you need to do ray-tracing through a finite depth of partially opaque medium, modelling absorption, emission, and photon scattering. This is the branch of astrophysics called radiative transfer.
And to make things worse, the quantum mechanical equations for atomic line spectra are not soluble for anything more complicated than hydrogen. Computational models of bigger atoms exist, but they’re notoriously inaccurate. To be sure of what an atom’s spectrum looks like, you really need to measure it empirically in a laboratory. But that’s hard, because it involves recreating the conditions at the surface of the Sun. Atoms need to be exceedingly hot to reach the ionisation states they attain in the Sun. So you need a very large laser, some very hot and very pure samples of each chemical element, and a very fast camera that can measure the spectrum of the plasma formed after the laser fires.
To compound the challenge, there are > 100 elements in the periodic table, each of which can have N-1 ionisation states, leading to thousands of atomic states, each with distinct spectra. And that’s just the atoms – stellar atmospheres have molecules too.
I have professional experience working with a couple of codes which attempt to model all of the above, and each is the culmination of several PhDs worth of work. Turbospectrum (Bertrand Plez et al. 2012) is simpler and open source. PySME (Nikolai Piskunov et al. 2018) is more sophisticated in its modelling of non-equilibrium effects, and is available in binary form online but not open source. Both rely on the VALD list of atomic lines – maintained at Uppsala University – which is essentially a synopsis of a vast number of laboratory studies. The oscillator strengths in there are mostly not calculated by quantum mechanics; they’re fitted to empirical data. Quantum mechanics may allow you to write down equations for oscillator strengths, but that’s not much good if they can’t be solved.
I hope that’s vaguely helpful.
Best wishes,
Dominic
Dear Richard,
I fear we’ve got a while to wait for such a conjunction. By my calculations, the next will be in 2164-6 (0.8-degree separation). A graph of the angular separation of the pair around this time is here: https://in-the-sky.org/graphs.php?gtype=8&startday=7&startmonth=1&startyear=2162&duration=8&obj1type=1&obj1txt=Uranus&obj2type=0&obj2txt=Neptune
However, my calculations also suggest there was a recent conjunction of the pair (less close; 1 deg separation) in 1993: https://in-the-sky.org/graphs.php?gtype=8&startday=7&startmonth=1&startyear=1992&duration=7&obj1type=1&obj1txt=Uranus&obj2type=0&obj2txt=Neptune . I’m a few years too young to have observed that, but I’m sure there are plenty of others here who would have done!
Cheers,
Dominic
Hi Dave,
The position of the Earth’s point of perihelion is fairly random.
Over astronomical timescales, the point of perihelion undergoes considerable precession over hundreds of millions of years, and so there’s not much significance to where it happens to be right now. Further evidence that perihelion points are random comes from the fact that the perihelion points of the other planets are all in different positions around their orbits (see the attached screenshot, taken from https://in-the-sky.org/solarsystem.php , showing the terrestrial planets, with perihelions marked ‘P’).
The fact that the sun’s tilt is always reasonably close to zero is not such a coincidence – the Sun and planets formed out of a common protostellar nebula, and both the Sun and the planetary orbits take their plane of rotation from the rotation of the gas cloud from which they formed.
Cheers,
Dominic
Attachments:
It’s always interesting to read this thread each year.
I find it interesting to correlate the responses above with the number of images submitted to the BAA’s online image gallery over the year (using the histogram button in the gallery; screenshot attached below).
In 2023, we saw 2,967 images uploaded by BAA members (excluding section archives), slightly down from 3,240 in 2022. But curiously, the month-by-month rate of image submissions doesn’t seem very strongly weather dependent – it was actually slightly increased during the wet autumn months, possibly driven by the start of the new deep sky season. And of course, some observers are using non-UK-based telescopes. There are some clear spikes marking the dates of eclipses and major meteor showers.
One of the most prominent features is a very clear dip in BAA observing activity over the past couple of weeks, presumably driven by a combination of Storm Gerrit, Storm Henk, and excessive mince pie consumption! 🙂
Attachments:
Welcome to the forum, Christopher Baddiley. I recall seeing some of your research presented at NAM 2022, and I was seriously impressed by your systematic approach. For me, it was one of the stand-out talks at a very busy conference. It’s great that you’re doing this work, and it’s great to see it talked about in this forum.
AlanM – There is a place in space where you could observe a Sun/Earth eclipse – near the Second Langrange point (L2). Nick is probably quite familiar with it since he has worked on spacecraft that operate there. L2 is actually slightly beyond the Earth’s umbra, so you’d see a partial/annular eclipse there, but any spacecraft en-route to L2 will pass through the Earth’s shadow to get there.
Unfortunately there aren’t many eclipse observations, though. Those pesky spacecraft project managers tend to get upset if you propose to point expensive spacecraft cameras at the Sun…
I think the problem is that meteorites need to be stored in tightly-controlled clean environments if they are to remain scientifically useful. It would be very costly to put a meteorite on public display without contaminating it. The NHM would be kicking themselves if they put a particular meteorite on display, only to discover they’d spoiled a specimen that subsequently turned out to be of scientific interest.
This is a dilemma the NHM faces with other exhibits too. I remember my disappointment when I visited a few years ago, to discover they’d removed all the fossilised dinosaurs I remember gaping at as a kid. Of course, what I hadn’t realised as a kid was that original fossils are far too precious to mount for display, and so the ones I had gaped at were all rather dubious plaster models.
Having made many of the BAA’s meeting videos in the past, I would re-iterate what James and Andy have already said. It can be pretty time consuming.
In theory, it’s simple enough to wire the speaker up with a microphone, and insert an HDMI recorder between the laptop and the projector.
But that’s just the beginning.
When you get home, you’ve got a hundred GB of raw video. That needs sending (by post?) to somebody with access to (inevitably, very expensive) video editing software. First, the audio needs synchronising with the video. Inevitably, if the footage was shot by a novice, there will be problems with it (e.g. the speaker was breathing into the microphone, the microphone wasn’t turned on, etc, etc) which need to be identified and worked around. Eventually, once you’ve spent a couple of days fixing everything, you do an export to compressed web-ready video. That takes many hours of CPU time in itself.
Then, you circulate the video, and discover somebody showed copyright material on one of their slides, and you get asked to cut something out. So you have to re-export the video – which is another overnight job.
I’m as supportive as anybody of the BAA filming talks, but it’s a lot of work to expect anybody to do on a voluntary basis. And for the same reason, companies that do this professionally are also not cheap.
Sad news, indeed.
I didn’t know Tom personally, but many of my colleagues did. The past couple of months have been an extremely difficult and upsetting time for them, and everybody connected with Warwick University. Tom seems to have been universally liked and admired by everybody who had the good fortune to know him.
It has been apparent for some weeks that the chances of his survival were extremely slim, given the extremely harsh environment of the Atacama Desert. I’m told by colleagues who have visited La Silla that going out for a walk is usually strictly prohibited without careful preparation and regular radio contact. I suppose the one positive from today’s news is that at least there’s now some closure for his family and friends.
RIP Tom.
