A few of us have been coming up with lists of possible targets to image at next month's imaging session. But I just realized one thing was not included in the original list of limitations. Namely how small a target size should we consider? FOV of the scope is 7' x 7' so obviously we can't go over that. But what about minimum size? How small a target do y'all think we could work and still get a decent image with nice detail? Thoughts? patrick
Also, a few of us (well, I) would like to know when the deadline is for making the suggestions. I have a lot to do and want to schedule a little time to work on the project. Thanks, Joe ________________________________ From: Wiggins Patrick <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> To: utah astronomy listserve utah astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 8:17 PM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Your opinion: Faulkes target size A few of us have been coming up with lists of possible targets to image at next month's imaging session. But I just realized one thing was not included in the original list of limitations. Namely how small a target size should we consider? FOV of the scope is 7' x 7' so obviously we can't go over that. But what about minimum size? How small a target do y'all think we could work and still get a decent image with nice detail? Thoughts? patrick _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
I don't know that anyone has mentioned a deadline. Though it would probably be handy if we were able to come up with a short list at least before we arrive at Bob's conference room. We've got about 35 minutes after our session starts before the start of astronomical dark and we could use part of that time to make quick shots of a few short list targets before picking the one we decide to work seriously on. But we probably would not have time to test more than a small handful. FWIW, using round numbers it appears RA 04h 30m will be transiting in the south at the start of astronomical dark with RA 07h 00m transiting at the end of our session. So my preference would be to work something transiting half way through our working time. That would be near RA 05h 45m. Also the facility's website indicates we could shoot as low as 35 degrees altitude which would be about Dec -30 in the south and Dec +70 on the north. But personally I'd prefer to stay as high in the sky as possible. If we ignore the lower limit on size there are several possible targets. But that's why I asked earlier about a lower limit on size so we can narrow the search. patrick On 14 Jan 2013, at 23:47, Joe Bauman wrote:
Also, a few of us (well, I) would like to know when the deadline is for making the suggestions. I have a lot to do and want to schedule a little time to work on the project. Thanks, Joe
Probably we could handle a fairly small target because the aperture will be good for enlarging the object. I'll have to scratch my head on this one for a while (and hope I don't lose any more hair!) ________________________________ From: Wiggins Patrick <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> To: Utah Astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 12:23 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Your opinion: Faulkes target size I don't know that anyone has mentioned a deadline. Though it would probably be handy if we were able to come up with a short list at least before we arrive at Bob's conference room. We've got about 35 minutes after our session starts before the start of astronomical dark and we could use part of that time to make quick shots of a few short list targets before picking the one we decide to work seriously on. But we probably would not have time to test more than a small handful. FWIW, using round numbers it appears RA 04h 30m will be transiting in the south at the start of astronomical dark with RA 07h 00m transiting at the end of our session. So my preference would be to work something transiting half way through our working time. That would be near RA 05h 45m. Also the facility's website indicates we could shoot as low as 35 degrees altitude which would be about Dec -30 in the south and Dec +70 on the north. But personally I'd prefer to stay as high in the sky as possible. If we ignore the lower limit on size there are several possible targets. But that's why I asked earlier about a lower limit on size so we can narrow the search. patrick On 14 Jan 2013, at 23:47, Joe Bauman wrote:
Also, a few of us (well, I) would like to know when the deadline is for making the suggestions. I have a lot to do and want to schedule a little time to work on the project. Thanks, Joe
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Joe and all, I would like to have the list narrowed down to less than three targets by February 1, 2013. Thanks Rodger C. Fry -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 11:47 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Your opinion: Faulkes target size Also, a few of us (well, I) would like to know when the deadline is for making the suggestions. I have a lot to do and want to schedule a little time to work on the project. Thanks, Joe ________________________________ From: Wiggins Patrick <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> To: utah astronomy listserve utah astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 8:17 PM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Your opinion: Faulkes target size A few of us have been coming up with lists of possible targets to image at next month's imaging session. But I just realized one thing was not included in the original list of limitations. Namely how small a target size should we consider? FOV of the scope is 7' x 7' so obviously we can't go over that. But what about minimum size? How small a target do y'all think we could work and still get a decent image with nice detail? Thoughts? patrick _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Interesting objects for imaging: Barnard 33 (Horse Head nebula) NGC 2024 (Flame Nebula) H.V. 27 and NGC 2264 (Cone Nebula and Christmas Tree Cluster) NGC 2362 (Tau C Ma cluster) NGC 2169 (37 Cluster) Prove Douglas Adams wrong - 37 is written in the stars, not 42. NGC 2261 (Hubble's Variable nebual) That may get the list started. Add as desired. From: Rodger C. Fry <rcfry@comcast.net> To: 'Utah Astronomy' <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 4:24 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Your opinion: Faulkes target size Joe and all, I would like to have the list narrowed down to less than three targets by February 1, 2013. Thanks Rodger C. Fry -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Joe Bauman Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 11:47 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Your opinion: Faulkes target size Also, a few of us (well, I) would like to know when the deadline is for making the suggestions. I have a lot to do and want to schedule a little time to work on the project. Thanks, Joe ________________________________ From: Wiggins Patrick <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> To: utah astronomy listserve utah astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 8:17 PM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Your opinion: Faulkes target size A few of us have been coming up with lists of possible targets to image at next month's imaging session. But I just realized one thing was not included in the original list of limitations. Namely how small a target size should we consider? FOV of the scope is 7' x 7' so obviously we can't go over that. But what about minimum size? How small a target do y'all think we could work and still get a decent image with nice detail? Thoughts? patrick _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options". _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Maybe this has already been posted and I missed it, but my questions are, what is the type of imaging being done- Is this a single-shot color chip, or filtered monochrome? What is the pixel size of the imaging chip? Is any narrowband imaging allowed? The answers may help narrow the target search. Thanks! On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Wiggins Patrick <paw@wirelessbeehive.com>wrote:
A few of us have been coming up with lists of possible targets to image at next month's imaging session.
But I just realized one thing was not included in the original list of limitations. Namely how small a target size should we consider?
FOV of the scope is 7' x 7' so obviously we can't go over that.
But what about minimum size?
How small a target do y'all think we could work and still get a decent image with nice detail?
Thoughts?
Chuck The Faulkes imaging session will be done using a filtered monochrome camera using multiple exposures of various filter options (RGB, OIII, Halpha, and others). Last time we used 16 images with the various filters stacked. We also took luminescence (unfiltered) and will do the same this time. Thanks Rodger Fry -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 8:06 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Your opinion: Faulkes target size Maybe this has already been posted and I missed it, but my questions are, what is the type of imaging being done- Is this a single-shot color chip, or filtered monochrome? What is the pixel size of the imaging chip? Is any narrowband imaging allowed? The answers may help narrow the target search. Thanks! On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Wiggins Patrick <paw@wirelessbeehive.com>wrote:
A few of us have been coming up with lists of possible targets to image at next month's imaging session.
But I just realized one thing was not included in the original list of limitations. Namely how small a target size should we consider?
FOV of the scope is 7' x 7' so obviously we can't go over that.
But what about minimum size?
How small a target do y'all think we could work and still get a decent image with nice detail?
Thoughts?
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
Thanks Rodger. That's a great combination for emission nebulae. Any idea what the pixel size is and if any capture binning is being used? Someone was asking about how small an object could be imaged and knowing that would help narrow down targets. Of course, if people are going for "wow" factor, going as big as the FOV permits is the best bet. On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Rodger C. Fry <rcfry@comcast.net> wrote:
Chuck
The Faulkes imaging session will be done using a filtered monochrome camera using multiple exposures of various filter options (RGB, OIII, Halpha, and others). Last time we used 16 images with the various filters stacked. We also took luminescence (unfiltered) and will do the same this time.
NGC 1977 the "Running Man (or Gingerbread Man) Nebula". But, something tells me it may exceed the required 7' x 7' dimensions. ________________________________ From: Wiggins Patrick <paw@wirelessbeehive.com> To: utah astronomy listserve utah astronomy <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 8:17 PM Subject: [Utah-astronomy] Your opinion: Faulkes target size A few of us have been coming up with lists of possible targets to image at next month's imaging session. But I just realized one thing was not included in the original list of limitations. Namely how small a target size should we consider? FOV of the scope is 7' x 7' so obviously we can't go over that. But what about minimum size? How small a target do y'all think we could work and still get a decent image with nice detail? Thoughts? patrick _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".
participants (6)
-
Brent Watson -
Chuck Hards -
Joe Bauman -
M Wilson -
Rodger C. Fry -
Wiggins Patrick