December 2009 - Utah-Astronomy - mailman.xmission.com

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Cheap meteor camera?
by Canopus56 11 Dec '09

11 Dec '09

Patrick wrote, in part: > http://www.supercircuits.com/search?keywords=pc222 My guess would be that it would not work as a meteor camera. The lux sensitivity spec is only 0.1 lux. From past experience using a regular terresterial photographic light-meter, I believe this corresponds to about 15-20 minutes after civil twilight. However, like the old Quickcams, the sensitivity gain appears to be hardware crippled. Supercircuits also sells a generic board and 90 deg lens with a lux sensitivity spec of 0.0003 lux. Super low light camera http://www.supercircuits.com/Security-Cameras/Board-Cameras/PC402UXP 90 Deg TFOV lens http://www.supercircuits.com/Security-Cameras/Board-Cameras/PC302XS At 0.0003 lux you are probably talking about down to mag 3 or 4, roughly based on Fred Parker's EV computation website. These generic board cameras are intended to be used with separate infrared illuminating LEDs. http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm#evfclux http://www.fredparker.com/ultexp1.htm#Light%20Intensity%20Chart Supercircuits also has a low light camera (0.0003 lux) in a pre-built fixed weatherproof housing with a 90 deg TFOV for $100. http://www.supercircuits.com/Security-Cameras/Bullet-Security-Cameras/PC88W… I suspect pairing the low-light board camera with a generic M12 mount screw in lens from Edmund - that 160 deg 1.6mm lens I previously mentioned in another thread - you could get a useable meteor camera with a 160-180 deg TFOV that would see meteor streaks down to mag 1 or 2. I was sufficiently intrigued to order a PC402UXP to see what it can do in a unintended meteor camera role. Thanks for pointing Supercircuits out. I had been unsuccessfully looking for a machine vision camera board with the gain not hardware crippled in Edmund's catalogue. - Kurt P.S. If you do buy a PC88WR, I would appreciate the opportunity to look at it to see if it can be disassembled and if a 160 deg TFOV 1.6 mm M12 threaded lens can be substituted.

2 1

Re: [Utah-astronomy] Friday Vandenberg Launch (probably not)
by Canopus56 10 Dec '09

10 Dec '09

Has been rescheduled to 12-14-2009 7:09 MST (Monday morning). http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/WISE/main/index.html http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/WISE/news/wise20091210b.html Per Hill's Vandenberg launch list, the liftoff will be broadcats on nasa tv, which can be viewed on the internet, on the DISH sat network or via some cable providers. Departure az from Vandenberg is 196 degs. - Kurt

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] New Hubble ultra deep field
by Canopus56 10 Dec '09

10 Dec '09

Joe wrote - > You know what would be fun? To take an amateur view of the exact same spot (which we could do, using the diagrams) > to see if anything at all showed up in, say, exposures that amounted to 10 hours. I just picked up a dual channel dew heater controller. Your'r welcome to borrow it and a couple of dew strips. -:) Kurt

2 1

New Hubble ultra deep field
by Canopus56 10 Dec '09

10 Dec '09

The STSci has released a new Hubble Deep Field for 2.4 arcminute square at J033238.5-274700.0. See - Hubble's Deepest View of Universe Unveils Never-Before-Seen Galaxies News Release Number: STScI-2009-31 Dec 8 2009 http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2009/31/image/ http://www.universetoday.com/2009/12/08/hubble-takes-a-new-deep-field-image… Both articles include a constellation diagram that shows location of the field. J033238.5-274700.0 is east in azimuth from alf Fornax and south in az from tau4 Eri (16 Tau). This position transits low on the southern SLC horizon at about 11:00pm MDT. At that time and local horizon position, you are looking out the "bottom" or southern part of the Milky Way at about a 45 deg angle to the galactic disk. The observing angle allows for galaxy viewing unobstructed by the Milky Way disk. The true south galactic pole is at J005126.28-270741.7 in Sculptor but below the local horizon. This new image represents the best infrared long exposure ultra deep field image collected by Hubble to date and reveals the earliest galaxies at formed 600 million years after the Big Bang. I mention this only because having read the news release yesterday, I made it home at about midnight last night and was pleasantly suprised to step out of my car to see the region of this new Hubble ultra deep field image near the southern horizon. Spent a chilly minute enjoying the night sky and contemplating distance-then looking back 12.8 Giga light years towards the beginning of creation. - Kurt

2 1

Re: [Utah-astronomy] How to handle "wars" on UA
by Jay Eads 10 Dec '09

10 Dec '09

I guess it depends on what type of message board is wanted here. I am a member on a couple that the owner makes very clear what will and will not be tolerated and in that case if he perceives the discussion to have become personal, topic is ended. Others seem to allow anything and thus they get off topic. I leave those boards because I see little worth in it. If it is simply left to someone posting an opinion and others stating theirs, I see no problem, and I see no problem if someone makes a comment that says "I disagree based on . . . " because that is not personal, nor is it snide or rude. I think that is what drives others off. So if you want a measuring stick I would state if the post gets personal or become rude or snide that the topic is considered closed. If it is intelligent, respectful, even of opposing views, and polite, then if someone is offended that becomes the other issue. Perhaps we just need more people posting topics of what they would like to discuss, learn more of etc. Just my two cents and feel free to disagree, I'm use to it, I'm married and more importantly have two teenagers . . . ;o) On 2009-12-10 04:10, Patrick Wiggins wrote: > On 09 Dec 2009, at 16:24, David Rankin wrote: > > > Chuck, > > > > This discussion had nothing to do with what you perceive as "fact". > > Actually Chuck has left the list (another victim of our recent climate change flame war). > > He certainly was not the first which has me wondering about ways to keep such things from happening in future. > > One option would be to have the system set that if a certain numbers of folks post, either to the list or to the administrators, that a discussion has gone on too long the administrators would cut off the discussion. > > The liberal side of me sees that as a form of censorship. During the recent war I found myself using the "delete" key very liberally. > > But, then again, if a discussion becomes so heated and drawn out that it drives folks away, maybe such an option should be pursued. > > You opinions (on this and other way of handling wars) would be much appreciated. > > patrick > co-admin >

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] How to handle "wars" on UA
by sjseebergp＠webtv.net 10 Dec '09

10 Dec '09

Just a thought from the Northlands [Vancouver, Washington]. My husband and I enjoy ALL of the posts. Even those we may not agree with we often learn from. At least to the degree how differently others view the world. So, as freedom of speech is high on our foundational beliefs, we say what the heck,[?] Let everyone express their thoughts, respectfully. These things always run their course on their own AND IF ALL WE HEARD WAS FROM THOSE WITH WHOM WE AGREE LIFE WOULD BE BORING AND DANGEROUS. Thank you ALL for allowing us to share in your iformative posts, wish we were closer to join in your star gazing! Be safe and Healthy for Christmas and 2010 Jan n Stan Vancouver USA Sidewalk Astronomers

1 0

Re: [Utah-astronomy] M51 reprocessed
by Wayne Sumner 10 Dec '09

10 Dec '09

Chuck and David, Your back and forth discussion of color will provide an excellent introduction to the world of astrophotography and image processing for my astronomy classes tomorrow. Thank you both for a passionate but professional discussion. It has been a pleasure to follow it. Wayne A. Sumner Math/Physics/Astronomy/Engineering Boy's Tennis Coach Northridge High School Davis School District (801) 402-8610 >>> David Rankin 12/02/09 3:35 PM >>> Chuck, You brought up aliens ;) If cameras did not do an excellent job of reproducing what the "general population" sees, they wouldn't be selling any of them. Your also not correct about "having" to shoot in raw format. You can easily set the the white balance of the camera, shoot a shot of M42 in low resolution JPG mode, and end up with a very nice image that will look very similar to one you would have to tweak out in raw format. The simple compression scripts in the camera *that are designed to create the color pallet our brain sees* work well with no processing. The reason you shoot in raw is to gain more data, and control over that data, and to remove false readout signals such as noise. I think my point still stands. Cameras are designed to create the colors the general population sees, and thus, they capture the same set of colors from space, which would be the colors we would see if our eyes were bigger, and capable of long exposure. ;) I don't know if you have ever seen color in M42 with your eye before, I have. I can also make out the blues and reds in the trifid nebula after a minute or two. The colors the camera are capturing are accurate relative to the general human population. At least as far as consumer grade DSLR's and Point and Shoots go. Chuck Hards wrote: > You don't have to invoke aliens as perceiving colors differently, there are > plenty of humans who do it, just not in great numbers compared to the > general population. And many terrestrial animals and insects "see" well > outside of our visual window. Undoubtedly "colors" correspond to energy > levels differently for them, than they do for us. > > You wrote "As good as the camera". Let me try and understand what that > means. I'm going get picky here so forgive me, David. > > That is true if you ignore the fact that the camera (computer, actually, or > film emulsion in the old days) builds image intensity over time. In > real-time, it is not much better than the eye in the visible part of the > spectrum. > > The tint and saturation of a particular image is rarely aesthetically > pleasing in raw format straight from the camera, apparently, so we need to > "re-balance" those attributes with image processing software. > > We spend as much or more time manipulating the image after the file (or > files) have been acquired and stored. The (astronomical) camera does none > of this, it's all done by either a photo technician at the enlarger, or the > computer operator if it's a digital image. The individual is then more > artist than documentarian, just by nature of the activity itself. > > So I stand by my statement that color is still all in the mind, and has no > intrinsic qualities at all. "Correct" color is subjective and not > objective. Like beauty, it is strictly in the eye of the beholder. > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 2:23 PM, David Rankin wrote: > > >> Thus, if our eye was as good as a camera, the galaxy would look just like >> the photo. >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Utah-Astronomy mailing list > Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com > http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy > Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php > Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com > > _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy(a)mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com

9 23

Fwd: Friday Vandenberg Launch
by Patrick Wiggins 10 Dec '09

10 Dec '09

I've seen a couple Vandenberg launches from Stansbury and one for the Midvale Harmons. However, those were evening launches with the exhaust plume backlit. As Brian mentions this, being a morning launch, may not be as spectacular. But if the weather permits I'm going to give it a try just to see how a morning launch looks. Note that you can subscribe to receive Brian's messages at no charge. patrick Begin forwarded message: > LAUNCH ALERT > > Brian Webb > Ventura County, California > kd6nrp(a)earthlink.net > http://www.spacearchive.info > > 2009 December 9 (Wednesday) 19:59 PST > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > TWILIGHT EFFECT > > Regarding Friday's Vandenberg launch, space analyst Rick Baldridge > wrote: > > "From my calculations, the rocket gets into sunlight 3 minutes 15 > seconds after launch (if launched about 6:09:33 am PST Dec. 11th) -- > with MECO about 1 minute 10 seconds after entering sunlight." > > Rick has been very accurate in the past, so it's likely that since > Friday's launch occurs at dawn, we will see a Twilight Effect as the > first stage's exhaust plume is illuminated by the Sun after the > Delta II climbs out of the Earth's shadow. > > However, since the sunlight will be reflecting off of the plume > rather than shining through it (as would occur during a dusk launch), > the display will probably be interesting, but not spectacular. > > Refer to the following page for a photo of a similar Delta launch > during dawn from several years ago: > > www.spacearchive.info/delta-ii-iridium-ms-11.htm > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > LAUNCH SUMMARY > > Launch: Delta II/Widefield Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) > > Date: 2009 December 11 > > Launch Window: 06:09:33-06:23:51 PST (14:09:33-14:23:51 UTC) > > Launch Site: Pad SLC-2W, Vandenberg AFB > > Vehicle: Boeing Delta II with three strap-on solid rocket motors > > Launch Heading: Toward the south (196° flight azimuth) > > The following table is a listing of flight events for this launch: > > > Time Altitude > (mm:ss) Event (nautical mi) > ------- ------------------------------------- ------------- > > 00:00 Liftoff > 00:36 Mach 1 > 00:50 Maximum Dynamic Pressure > 01:04 Solid Rocket Motors Burnout 8.8 > 01:39 Jettison Solid Rocket Motors 16.9 > 01:40 Begin Dog-Leg Maneuver > 02:20 End Dog-Leg Maneuver > 03:15 Vehicle Emerges from Earth's Shadow > (probable Twilight Effect) > 04:24 First Stage Main Engine Cutoff (MECO) 56.9 > 04:32 Staging > 04:38 Second Stage Ignition 62.7 > 04:56 Payload Fairing Jettison 69.7 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > RESOURCES > > Please consult the following sources for information related to > Friday's Delta II/WISE launch. > > Launch Viewing Locations and Information > > www.vandenberg.af.mil/questions/topic.asp?id=745 > > www.spacearchive.info/vafbview.htm > > Launch Photography > > www.spacearchive.info/vafbphoto.htm > > Mission Background > > www.nasa.gov/wise > > Launch/Countdown Status > > www.nasa.gov/wise > > www.spaceflightnow.com > > Launch Webcasts > > www.nasa.gov/wise > > www.nasa.gov/ntv (NASA TV) > > NASA TV is reportedly available on Dish TV channel 213 and Direct TV > channel 376. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Copyright 2009, Brian Webb. All rights reserved. This newsletter may > be distributed in its entirety without restriction. Excerpts may not > be reprinted or posted elsewhere without prior permission. Patrick Wiggins NASA/JPL Solar System Ambassador to Utah & NE Nevada http://utahastro.info paw(a)wirelessbeehive.com 435.882.1209

1 1

Well, they claim it was real
by Patrick Wiggins 09 Dec '09

09 Dec '09

Have a look at the picture on the front page of SpaceWeather.Com today. Weird. http://spaceweather.com patrick

2 3

Nova update
by Patrick Wiggins 08 Dec '09

08 Dec '09

As expected the nova continues to fade. Down by about .25 magnitude since I first measured it 3 nights ago. With clear skies, lots of time and no other projects to work tonight I spent some time getting a context image which could be compared to the POSS image I posted earlier. But between haze and a very bright Moon the results were less than spectacular. Really washed out: http://users.wirelessbeehive.com/~paw/temp/nova02.jpg (made from 5 one minute unguided exposures) But it does show the star is considerably brighter than its pre-nova self. Weather does not look good for the next several days. Maybe by the time the Moon goes away next week the clouds will be gone too. patrick

3 2