/sci/ - Science & Math

i am currently devising a device to detect gravitons in my basement.

Bumping. I took an astronomy course, and know a bit more about stars, but I don't know if I have to tools to really learn about the sky by just observing it. Do I need a spectrum reading of stars in order to really know anything about them? What of distance?

>>6441150
HAHAHAHA, nope.

Such a device would have to be larger than Jupiter is mass to have any chance to detect gravitons.

>>6441988
You wouldn't need that. For most amateurs, a star chart and telescope (or even binoculars) would be fine. You're most likely not going to find a new start you need to classify, but you might find an asteroid.

>>6441141
>build particle collider in basement
>simulate stellar temperatures
>observe results (or don't)

>>6441994
So what am I supposed to be doing with the star chart and binoculars? I have a pair of binoculars I plan to use, but what am I looking at? Just the sky? What does the star chart do for me?
I mean, I understand just looking at the sky to appreciate it, but I wouldn't need a star chart for that, would I?
I just want this to be an actual hobby, and that seems like it'd be limited. I'm not saying I want to classify new stars, per-se, but classifying new ones would be rewarding as well.

>>6441993

Prof. Dr. Dr. Jebediah Kerman used one in his M1 mission to measure orbital proximity

>>6442001

some people do it for the beer and the community.

it's like tupperware. it's never about the tupperware.

>>6442007
Astronomy seems like such a self-guided hobby, though...

>>6442001
I don't think you have the right idea about it. It's not that you won't find new stars, it's that you CAN'T find new stars. Binoculars and telescopes that hobbyists buy aren't very strong, and you would probably not see anything new.

As an amateur, you basically look at things and double check that they're there. Or track asteroids, or look for comets or something.

What did you expect to be doing?

>>6442010
Oh, and the star chart is there to help you navigate.

>>6442010
Fuck, not classifying new ones, that was a typo. Classifying known ones, and double checking. But since I don't know what they actually are before hand, it's just practicing the method. Could I do that? Like if I wanted to know what distance polaris was, and what class, could I do that without just looking up the answers?

>>6442003
Wh-What? Prof. Dr. Dr. Jebediah Kerman died in a horrific accident on the launch pad May 3, 2010. It was his first flight.

>>6442017
*how far away Polaris is
Fuck I'm making typos out the ass today.

>>6442021
this looks like a prolapsed anus

>>6442017
Yeee... Not stars, sad to say. Measuring the distance to stars is actually really hard. You could definitely do it with interplanetary bodies, though. You're welcome to try with other stars, but I'm afraid you might be disappointed.

And as for classifying known stars, I doubt you would be able to do that without an exhaustive astronomical catalog of the sky. Determining how hot a star is and such, you have to know its distance, and you can't really do that by yourself. You can keep an eye out for stuff like proper movement of stars, and stuff, or look for famous stars that are close by, like Barnard's Star. You can't normally see that one without a telescope.

Learning the constellations:

It's easier than you think, even if you live in a light polluted area.

Start with a constellation you can easily recognize like Orion or Cassiopeia, then work your way outward from there.
>Pro tip: Learn to recognize the zodiacal constellations easily. Doesn't matter that you don't believe in astrology, bitches do. And bitches love it when you can find their sign for them.

Observation:
Get yourself a decent pair of binoculars and learn to star hop. Find a bright star like Spica or Regulus, make that star the "center of a clock" and move in the direction of the "numbers." Ex. If Spica is the center of the clock, then Arcturus is at 10pm.

Apps:
Download Stellarium for your computer. It's a free, open-source planetarium software that is use in university labs.
Download Pocket Universe for your smart phone. It uses motion detection to identify what star you're looking at in the sky.

>>6442028
>Measuring the distance to stars is actually really hard.
Not at all. For nearby stars you can use parallax to measure the distance, and for far away stars its just a matter of identifying the type of star and comparing it to "standard candles."

>>6442028
What tools do I need in order to find distances to stars? I know parallax isn't used to find it most of the time, so what is? Spectrum's show alot about a star, such as redshift and shit like that, how do I get that stuff myself?

>>6442035
How does one identify the type?

>>6442035
I don't think even the closest stars can be measured with the parallax method. I've never tried, though, so feel free to try.

And he said "by himself." I consider referring to cepheid variables cheating in that respect. I still think you'd have trouble using that method by yourself, though.

>>6442001
>What does the star chart do for me?
Star charts and the more useful star wheels tell you what is visible in the sky at certain times of night and certain days of the year. They are extremely useful for knowing what you're looking at.

But in this digital age, apps like Stellarium and Pocket Universe are easier to use and accomplish the same- and more- function. But I would still recommend learning to use a star chart. Last time I went to the desert to observe I forgot to bring a phone charger and found myself depending on my star wheel.
>>6442039
Color and size.
>>6442041
>I don't think even the closest stars can be measured with the parallax method.
They absolutely can, and both methods can be done by amateur astronomers with a little patience and practice.
http://lcogt.net/spacebook/parallax-and-distance-measurement

>>6442036
I guess you could use redshift, but I think that only really works for things that are outside of the galaxy. You would have to know a few equations and get a good camera that measures wavelengths and stuff, and you could do it.

>>6442045
Okay, so I would need a camera that gets wavelengths?
>>6442044
How do I get quantitative measurements of color and size?

>>6442044
I stand corrected. I always thought that stars were too far for the parallax method, but I guess not, if you have exceptional equipment. For a beginner, you probably could tackle the closest stars, like Sirius, Alpha Centauri, and Barnard's, but more than that, I don't know.

>>6442045
Yeah. I have no idea of how astrophotography works, though, so good luck on that front.

>>6442052

Yeah. I have no idea of how astrophotography works, though, so good luck on that front.

>>6442029
More:

Astrophotography:
If you're going to take up star gazing as a hobby, you might as well get into astrophotography as well to have something to show for all your hard work.
You need: Telescope, camera mount, tracking motor, Registax

Three main types of astrophotography:
Prime Focus: DSLR camera attached to the telescope without an eye piece, basically the camera lens becomes the telescope lens. Gets you the clearest pictures, but can be very expensive. Take several consecutive pictures (or record a video) and stack the images in Registax.

A-focal photography: DSLR or Point-and-shoot camera. If you've ever held a camera to the lens of a telescope, that's a-focal photography. A camera mount will help to steady the camera. Again, take many pictures and stack them in Registax for a clearer final image.

Piggy-back photography: This is when a DSLR or point-and-shoot camera is attached to the top of a telescope and uses the scopes tracking motor to track the stars. Great for taking nightscapes. If you don't have a tracking motor (or don't want to use one) you can take star-trail images with a long exposure, or several short exposures stacked together in Registax.

Filters:
Most of your images of nebulae and galaxies will be black and white, though planets will come out in (washed-out) color. To get good color images, you need RGB filters. Take one image (or several) in Red, one (or same number) in Green, and one in Blue, then stack them together for a great color photo.
You can also get other wavelengths like IR for some fun stuff you can't see with your own eyes.

>>6442073
>>6442029
Shit man, thanks. Any more info?

ok guys.
I want to ask this:
new age people claim that there are civilizations buildings on the moon/Mars.
How good are amateur telescopes today?
can they take HD pictures?
why new age always relly on NASA pictures instead of buying a professional telescope?

>>6442003

That was a gravioli detector, dingus

>>6442081
Because they build on the dark side of the moon, dingus. You can't take pictures there!

>>6442108
No, I mean the structures of Mars.

>>6442124
They also build on the dark side of Mars.

Too dark for pictures.

>>6442073
>>6442077
yes.

Setting up an Alt/Az Mount:
This is the steepest part of the learning curve for using a telescope, and the reason why most people suggest starting off by using binoculars (so you won't get frustrated by trying to learn 2 difficult things at once).

First, set your latitude. There is a dial on the side of the mount that goes from 0-90. Set it to your specific latitude.
Second, rotate the telescope and point it at true north. Use a compass or just find polaris and point it there. If when you look through the lens you are not centered on polars, adjust your latitude or make small adjustments on the knobs until it is centered in the field of view. Reset all your dials to zero and lock the mount in place (often there's a knob below the mount on the tripod).

Then, aim the telescope by hand until you are close to what you want to look at. Use a spotting scope to help you. Once you are close, use the alt/az knobs to fine tune your aim and get what you're looking for in view.

Finally, lock everything, turn on your tracking motor, and you're good to go.

It will take some practice to get this down. I know it seems easy, but it is much more difficult to do all this in the dark (though a red flashlight will really help).

>>6442128
I was expecting a serious answer.
:/

>>6442134
That was a serious question?

Well, I suppose most tin-foiled hatters can't afford or are too dumb to use telescopes. You're expecting a lot from these people.

>>6442081
>>6442134
You can't expect a serious answer when talking about "New age people claim there are civilizations buildings on the moon/Mars"
The scientific community has no reason to hide shit like that. It's not just the guberment doing science, so it wouldn't be a secret for long.
This is why anyone with half a brain scoffs at conspiracy theories about the faked moon landing and scientists hiding shit. There'd be absolutely no reason to do so, and neigh impossible to keep anything seriously hidden.

>>6442137
>>6442138
No, my question was:
How good are amateur affordable profesional telescopes.
can they take HD pictures of the moon/mars?

>>6442142
Dude, define amateur?
Like, honestly, there's not a very fine line between amateur and professional when it comes to science, especially in regards to astronomy.

>>6442147
well, I don't know.
I mean a telescope in the range of 1.500-3.000 USD.

>>6442147
>>6442142
Safe to say, you WON'T be able to see the surface of Mars with any clarity.

>>6442150
You could definitely make out some features of the landscape, but you wouldn't be able to tell if there was a hut down there or some shit. Probably would need to be out of atmosphere for that kind of clarity.

>>6442151
>>6442152
okay, let me do again the question.
with today amateur telescopes would possible to take pictures that will prove new age claims?

>>6442187
You'll have to be more specific. What claim?

>>6442198
artificial structures made by aliens, ancient aliens or the black budgets of NASA.

Basically taking pictures of buildings in the Mars/Moon.

>>6442203
Then I already answered. The moon, yeah you would be able to see structures, vaguely, with really high end commercial telescopes. Mars, I doubt you would be able to see shit, without a hubble-like telescope.
But honestly, if there were any actual possibility then we would have gotten it by now. Scientists are not part of the illuminati or some shit.

>>6442207
What's the best quality amateurs can get today?

>>6441141
>Recommended viewing
Up is usually where I like to look.

>>6442213
Okay, look, amateur is too vague a term. Everyone is an amateur. Nasa is a bunch of amateurs. There's no real distinction. There's just telescopes. So the hubble, I guess?

>>6442219
by amateur I mean people who don't work as professionals and just take pictures as hobby and don't have access to goverment funded telescopes.

>>6442223
I'm sure there's an upper limit you can reach based on your altitude and available atmospheric cancelling techinques. The most polished mirror isn't going to correct for that kind of stuff. If you have the resources you can launch your own space telescope, not sure if the aviation feds will stop you though.

>>6442219
why is hubble so based bros?

>>6442229
how much will it cost to have a private hubble?
Is in the range of a public university?

>>6442233
quick google search says you'd need 2.5 billionUS

>>6442235
that probably includes R&D costs though

>>6442235
what's the best an university can do?

>>6442223
just using my imagination here, maybe you could engineer a laser system to propel/burn the atmosphere out of your way, effectively creating a vacuum cylinder from the face of the earth into space, through which you could point your expensive "amateur" telescope

haven't run the numbers, might be impossible

>>6442237
I say just wait til we have a fucking space elevator or something.

>>6442239
well a uni isn't going to fire their own telescope into space. They'd probably have a wicked observatory

>>6442242
You might be waiting for a while.

>>6442246
this. While it may be possible, the funding and really just a reason to do it aren't there

>>6442232
Massive scope outside of Earth's atmosphere. So it's basically a perfect image.
>>6442246
Eh, no more than 20 years or so until we have an affordable method for non-profit companies to be able to send up decent sized telescopes. We're on the verge of a dozen different technologies making it very feasible. And if not that, then other affordable methods, like SpaceX and their re-usable rockets. Or SSTO ships. Lots of ways to cut down costs to make ti more feasible.

>>6442254
I don't know about that. There aren't a lot of recent innovations that scream to me "cheap space travel!" yet.

>>6442026
You should know.

>>6442271
To be fair, the shift into privatization is a good start, and costs are probably going down. But I still don't know about how cheap it can really get. We're still using the same fuel and stuff that we have been, albeit more efficiently.

SpaceX is actually very interesting, because I want to see how their hybrid rocket works as a tool for tourism, but I don't know if it can compete with liquid fueled rockets yet.

>>6442271
Just look up the stuff SpaceX is doing.
Also, there a few japanese companies working on the space elevator thing. It's doable, we just haven't found quite the right material yet. Rather, haven't figured out how to mass produce long strands of nano-tubes.

>>6442286
I'm giving credit where credit is due, but their hybrid rocket still isn't quite up there, yet. It's interesting, but I'll just wait to see where it goes.

And space elevators are really low on my "ways to get to space"-o-meter. I don't know if lack of nanotubes is the ONLY reason it'll be hard to build one. I don't know enough about it yet, because it's in the realm of materials science. I just don't get my hopes up for companies to pull through with projects. It's easy to promise things.

>>6442254
Hubble is actually a small research telescope now that the most productive ground based telescopes are 8-10 metres.

>>6442289
I don't care much about their hybrid rocket.
And a space elevator isn't some super difficult thing to do. It's really just waiting around for a material that can be made easily. Deployment is easy, and would provide a relatively free way to get into inter-planetary space, by just making the elevator band go beyond Geo-stationary orbit, then you've got the velocity to escape easily, and the band serves as extra counter-weight.
The a solar-powered tug to get the shit up, and boom. Super cool shit

>>6442241
Even if that did work (it won't) a small armature telescope will see little improvement because it's size limits is resolving power.

>>6442299
What else is SpaceX doing?
Deployment is NOT easy. Construction seems like one of the biggest hurdles to the design. It'll be expensive and possibly very dangerous.

However, I have a bigger issue with keeping it in space. How will it avoid debris? A small nick in the cable would spell doom for the entire system.

>>6442307
I'm not sure exactly how we could fix that. Maybe make a no-debris zone around the place it will be deployed. And with a thin enough cable it's as easy as launching a sattelite and then lowering the shit.
And SpaceX is working on re-useable launch stages, so then all you have to pay is for fuel, not a brand new rocket every time. Not too great an improvement, but still drastically cuts costs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxPj3GAYYZ0

>>6442311
A cable has to be rather thick to be used with a climber, and it hast to stretch a really, REALLY long way. The rocket you'd have to have would be pretty enormous.

And you can't make a "no-debris" area. There's a lot of stuff, and not even all of it is man-made.

Is SpaceX the guys doing that grasshopper rocket? It's neat and all, but they sacrifice delta-v for re-usability, so it might be reusable, but you'd end up with less over-all power, and, therefore, less stuff in space. It's a trade-off I can see as breaking even.

>>6442317
It's less likely to be a band, and more likely a ribbon of sorts. And it doesn't have to be thick, so much as strong. There's a variety of videos out there explaining it. I'm not expert or anything, but for space to really take off, conventional launches will have to be scrubbed. Too expensive.
We're also working on these little super cheap and light boxes that go out and grab debris, and then de orbits it. Could do that for a couple years and then you'd be a bit better. Sure, there's no way to keep it completely clear, but there are ways to try to circumvent the issues.

>>6441141
>Wake up
>look above me when leaving for class
>moon is high (6am)
>see bright spot near it
>search about it on the webs
>it was Venus
It's satisfying to discover things by yourself. The other day I found my longitude using the sun and my lat with the southern cross... And it's a shame that the internet is mostly used for fecesbooking and other idiot things..

>>6442300
well, then he'd need to engineer a better telescope too

might take a few years, bu it could be done

>>6442363
Besides, the heat would distort the image far too much to have less interference than you would from the atmosphere. You also need long viewing times for good images, which would be the goal of this device, yeah?

>>6442369
yeah, I don't think that heating air out of the way would really work without unworldly amounts of power, I was just brainstorming

Bump

Bumpuski.

Anyone have a list of websites to check out for this stuff?

Just got a telescope from my hs physics teacher. Already looked at the sun with a solar lens and saw two sunspots. Can't wait for tonight, gonna be so cash.

>>6442198
Where the fuck is the Sun in that picture?

>>6444732
Don't you like, deserve a ban or something?

>>6445040
it's actually photomontage of two pics

Astronomy undergrad, here. I've never done any real amateur astronomy, so I'm curious. Do you guys ever do any spectroscopy?

>>6445212
I have a hand held spectrometer but I don't use it very often. It's more of a toy than anything useful. I want to get one that can attach to my telescope though.

>>6445221
Ah. You could always try slit spectroscopy on galaxies big/close enough to see it with a backyard scope (M31 etc). Although I'm not sure how great that would work with a Newtonian.

Hi guys/girls, Astrophysics Master's student here, currently working on astrochemical modelling of dark molecular clouds. I'm about to go to sleep now (GMT here), but keep this thread alive and I'll be happy to try and answer any questions you have tomorrow and tell you more about my work and even upload some pictures I have taken from my DSLR and through telescopes from my undergraduate years.

>>6445240
>molecular clouds
Egads, I hear modeling ISM is really painful. What all goes into it? It must be more difficult than just generating 10^60 particles and applying 1/r^2 laws.

>>6445266

In many ways it actually a lot more simple! The work I do works in the following way:

-Select a group of chemicals and reactions you wish to simulate. There are huge resources developed by large research groups that contain thousands of reactions either known to occur in these clouds, or are theorised to occur, or have been tested in special near-vacuum chambers on earth.
-Use a computer program to generate the list of differential equations that link the chemicals and reactions to each other
-Set up parameters (temperature, density, cosmic ray ionisation rate, radiation strength to name but a few)
-Decide if you want to simulate a collapsing cloud or not (density increases slowly)
-Decide if the cloud temperature changes with time.
-Integrate said equations over thousands of timesteps.
-Print out the amounts of each chemical after each timestep. Put it in a graph, see if something cool happens.

This is obviously a very simplified version of what I do, but this is essentially it. The trick is coming up with a model and set of parameters that seem to agree with some kind of realistic description of the physical conditions in clouds (which can vary even across a small region of one cloud)

>>6445275
Hm, interesting. You mention radiation; how do forming stars in these clouds affect the molecular reaction rates? I'd expect them to change as the photon pressure starts blasting the molecules apart.

>>6445275
Do you / will you actually get paid for doing that?

>>6445284

Stars forming in these clouds change a lot of things. Firstly the temperatures and densities are much higher in and around star-forming regions. This leads to higher reaction rates and also it means that some reactions whose activation energies are too high to work in cold regions can be efficient.

It's interesting that you say that radiation pressure blows molecules apart: The pressure needed to dissociate molecules is immense, and doesn't even happen in most high-pressure environments on earth. Radiation pressure itself can sweep regions clean of a lot dense gas (pic related) but can't destroy molecules in that way. However, radiation itself can destroy molecules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photodissociation).).

>>6445289
No I am a student so I pay to study it, though the government gives me a loan which is nice of them. Will I get paid... probably not as I don't plan on pursuing Astrophysics once I gain my Master's.

>>6445299

Pic didn't upload, sorry.

>>6445063

>Not being friends with your old mentors and friends

>Implying I'm not best bros with the best teacher at my old high school

On a side note, I just got back from my first time using a telescope. Saw some stars, Mars, Jupiter (and the 4 brightest moons so cash), and M42, though my area is too bright to see anything other than a faint blur.

Overall bretty gud

>>6445430
If you can see Mars then you can see Saturn too. Tomorrow look for the dull yellow "star" a little to the south of Mars. They're pretty close right now.

>>6445436

Yeah, wasn't above the horizon when I went out, but now its too windy and cold for me to set up the telescope again.

>>6445299
Bumping for this guy, but also, why the FUCK would you get a master's in something you're not going to get a job in?

>>6445639
>his guy, but also, why the FUCK would you get a master's in something you're not going to get a job in?

Because in Britain they have these degrees where you stay on for one extra year after your undergraduate and then you get a master's. It's only £3000/year, so I get a load of skills: Working on projects, presenting my ideas, learning new programming languages for a comparatively low cost.

I am aware that one can learn to program without doing a degree that involves it,.but nothing helps one learn better than a little bit of pressure.

Honestly? Best way to start - laptop with night sky type software on it like stellarium. make sure it has a observing mode or something, for when you take it out with you and don't want t to kill your night vision.

second - go outside, stare at the night sky, find stars, try to dentify them in the software. get experience

>>6442128
could they just use a long exposure?

Bumpumpski
How often do you stargaze?

>>6446740

My first time with a telescope was last night. Usually used to look around most nights with good conditions. Tonight my brother and I are going to go to his gf's house in the country and hopefully look at Andromeda and stuff

>>6446751
Sounds cool man.
How long do you stay out there, most nights?

>>6446753

Maybe 15-30 mins usually. Mostly depends on visibility, but that's gonna change now that I have a telescope.

>>6446971
What kind of telescope do you have? How much better is it than just by eye, or, if you have experience, binoculars?

>>6446976

It's a 80EQ telescope; I think the 80 means the focal length, and the EQ means it has an equatorial rotating base to easily track movements.
Even in my light-polluted area I could see dozens of stars that I had no hope of seeing unaided. I used an app to assist me in star hopping to fond the Orion nebula, though it was too dim BC of my location. I also could see the four brightest moons of Jupiter, which was really cool. Lastly, I saw a few sunspots using a solar filter. I've never tried binoculars before, though.

Also, this was using a 40mm and 25mm lens.

>>6446985
Damn, nice. Thanks for the info.
how well did you see the moons?

>>6446989

Not in detail. To someone who didn't know Jupiter had moons, they might seem to be non-twinkly stars. I couldn't see detail in Jupiter or Mars themselves either, but I could make out their spherical shape (as opposed to just their glow)

Also, when looking at the sun, I could see its edges rippling. This was either from the nuclear explosions or air distortion, not sure which.

>tfw northern hemisphere
>tfw almost never see venus

>>6447100

It's in my range every morning this time of year. Do you have a chart that shows you its annual path?

>>6447100
>northern hemisphere
what? you can totally see venus. what are you at the north pole or something, santa claus?

>>6447121
>chart
I have stellarium. At this time you'll only see it when its light is washed out from the sun. Next year during this time it will be visable for quite long after the sun goes down, though.

What are your guy's favorite thing to look at in the night sky? Planets? Messier objects?
How fun is learning the constellations?
Why do you study astronomy?

>>6447129

Have you tried to see it in the morning? Even when its light out at around 7:00 I can see it easily (hence "morning star")

Bump

>>6447608
>>6447916
are these real?

how long did it take to capture all of the frames?

>>6447941
Yes, both are real. The monocerotis light echo gif (the first one) was made from images taken by the Hubble between May and December 2002. The Crab Pulsar gif (second) was made from images taken by the Chandra x-ray telescope between Nov 2000 and April 2001 (though it looks like that gif has been compressed and lost some of its quality. Here's another view of from the Hubble taken over the same time period).

>>6447947
also, more space gifs because I'm bored.
>Jupiter and Saturn in retrograde

Saturn's movement through the sky over 3 years

Changing seasons on Saturn

Driving on the Moon.

>>6447953
dashcam view

The MESSENGER spacecraft recorded this en route to Mercury.

Jupiter and Moons.
At the start, that's Ganymede to the lower right, Europa nearly disappears as it crosses Jupiter, and Io makes an appearance to the top right near the end.

>>6447947
amazing

>>6441141
>Recommended viewing
The sky
>what to research
Stars and planets 'n shit
>how to look
Using your eyes you daft cunt. And use a telescope.
>where to start
Well, the sky for one.

>>6447962
God, Jupiter is so sexy and delicious. I want to eat it all.

I'm having trouble with my 10 inch skywatcher dobsonian.
The mirrors seem alright and I've collimated according to the manual, but whenever I'm looking at the moon through the telescope its blurry.
I have a 17mm plossl and a 25mm super plossl(stock) lens.
Should I get a different lens?

I dropped my telescope last night. I broke my red dot finderscope. I tested the lenses today by looking at the Swans at the lake. Everything fine except the finderscope and a few scratches. This is what dropping your kid must feel like.

Anyhow, I took this trough a 102mm refractor with a Galaxy s3's camera. On my backyard, with tons of light pollution, no filters and shit tier eyepieces. Currently waiting for new finderscope a few filters, a 2x Barlow and a few Plossls.

>see object as bright as jupiter
>check stellarium
>nothing is supposed to be there
>go back
>it's gone

Should I get a 10x50 or a 8x42 binoculars?

>>6448266

nigga you just saw the space station

>>6448272
10x50 plus tripod

>>6448319
that thing is fast

>>6448417
Yeah, LEO satellites can go all the way around in about an hour and a half.
http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/

There are other satellites you can see besides the ISS, though.

>>6448272
Bigger is better, the more light that gets focused the more clear the image

what telescope do you guys recommend for someone who has no fucking idea how to use one but is very willing to learn?

>>6448532
A pair of binuculars. Easy as fuck to use, and you can see a lot with them.

Question for astrophotographers:

I bought a barlow lens recently in hopes of taking some better pictures of planets, but I when I try to attach that and the camera mount to my telescope, it gets unbalanced and I immediately lose objects from the field of view. I need something to add to the counterweight to rebalance when taking photos.

Any inexpensive suggestions? It has to be something that can be easily attached and removed for normal viewing as well.

>>6448762
the lens, mount, and camera together weigh about 3lbs.

>>6448473
I don't think it works like that m80

Hey guys, amateur astronomer here.

I'm into visible light spectrum viewing(obviously) & astrophotography, and have recently begun a plunge into amateur radio astronomy.

These are all fun and interesting to me but I am curious about being able to see the universe through different wavelengths.

For amateur infrared astronomy I have found that you can purchase infrared filters for optical scopes, awesome.

I have discovered that amateur radar astronomy equipment would be too big and expensive, not to mention power hungry.

Are there other wavelengths I can explore? ultraviolet? microwave?

>>6448797
But it does.

>>6448815
>Are there other wavelengths I can explore? ultraviolet? microwave?
both ultraviolet light and microwave light gets filtered by the atmosphere. Viewing in those wavelengths from the ground won't get you very good images. IR filters are a lot of fun though, and with an IR camera you can take some amazing pictures. Besides optical light, radio light is the best option for in-atmosphere viewing. Also probably the best part about radio astronomy is that you won't be hindered by light pollution.

Still hoping for some ideas for >>6448762. I could buy another counterweight, but I really want something that is easily attachable for astrophotography and detachable for normal viewing without having to disassemble the telescope mount in the dark.

anyone here own a coronado scope for solar viewing?

i have kind wanted for a while to set one up on a tracking mount and just have a nonstop feed of the sun to watch for flares/spots/whatever

You need a decent (£600 or equivalent) camera. Tripod. Warm clothes and patience.

This was taken in Galloway, Scotland - the UK's only Dark Sky area.

Obviously the files are over 8mb so I can't upload them...

>>6448829
Wait, is Ireland considered part of UK? There's now the Kerry International Dark-sky Reserve. It was announced earlier this year.

>>6448838

No Sir, it is not. Part of the British Isles but not the United Kingdom... Probably confusing to someone who doesn't live here.

>>6448838
Not since 1922

>>6448877
>>6448882
ah ok, I've never been clear on that. Well, there's also Kerry Ireland if you feel like traveling outside of the UK, and there's the Isle of Sark in the channel too.

>>6448886
>Sark
Part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, which is a possession of the British Crown, while not being in the United Kingdom.

I love my country's confusing geography.

>>6448899
oh my

>go to yahoo
>see this
http://travel.yahoo.com/photos/the-top-10-stargazing-sites-in-the-world-1395859703-slideshow/

how excitingly relevant. The top 10 best star gazing sites in the world according to Yahoo and Men's Journal. Not sure why they're qualified to make such a list, but all of the places on this list are also IDA certified, so I guess it's at least somewhat reliable.

>>6448930
How else can one find a dark sky area for optimal viewing?

>>6449068
>be on earth
>notice the star it is revolving around lights up a given surface area of the earth for 12 hours, give or take, depending on your latitude latitude and current distance from the star.
>wait until the star is no longer visible
>look up

>>6449068

Destroy the local power grid?

>>6449068
The IDA has a list of certified dark sky communities, parks and reserves on its website.
http://www.darksky.org/night-sky-conservation/dark-sky-places

For locations that aren't quite good enough to be certified, but are still great viewing locations try
http://www.jshine.net/astronomy/dark_sky/
and
http://www.blue-marble.de/nightlights/2010
>>6449077
he's talking about light pollution, anon. Don't be a twat,

>>6449080
Thanks man

>>6449080
>he's talking about light pollution
>light pollution
>pollution

>>6449090
>still being a twat
you're in an amateur astronomy thread. Finding locations without much light pollution is an extremely relevant question.

So in two consecutive nights I saw a light move over across the sky, too slow to be a shooting star, too far and fast to be a plane. Is it possible that they could have been satellites, the ISS, etc.?

>>6449097
That's almost definitely what it was. There's a number of satellite trackers online, too. You could check it out and figure out which one it was

>>6449097
>Is it possible that they could have been satellites, the ISS, etc.?
Very possible. The ISS looks like a bright plane moving across the sky very quickly, but if you see blinking lights you're looking at an airplane. Smaller satellites are harder to see, but the ISS can be as bright as Jupiter so is easy to spot.

>>6447953
>>6447956
more please?

>>6449106
Hell, with a nice pair of binoculars, the ISS isn't even just a point source, you can start to make out its shape.

>>6449111
Seconded. Space program things are the fucking best.

>>6449094
>being this calm with my bored trolling
here, have some sci pron.

>>6449115
Thirded, with an addendum
Wall paper sized please, aspect ratio 16:9 preferably.

>>6449111
>>6449115
>>6449127
Well since I got three requests I guess I'll post a few more. I don't have any wallpaper sized gifs, but I do have a few more space program gifs.
>blast off Space Shuttle Atlantis

>>6449135
Chinese rover Yutu rolling onto the Moon.

>>6449138
Opportunity rocketing toward Mars.

>>6449140
Curiosity rover struts its stuff

>>6449143
Phobos passing Deimos from the Curiosity rover.

>>6449146
I don't remember if this one is animooted or not. I guess we'll find out together.

>>6449150
Guess not.
Last one: All the artificial satellites of Earth.

>>6449150
39 KB and you think its animooted?

Did you invent quantum data compression?

>>6449404

>>6449408

>>6449409

>>6449408
WOW, they fly airplanes to the sun?

>>539850260

Only at night

Can we actually see images such as the op's looking through horoscopes assuming you study enough astrology?

>>6449411

>>6449448

>>6449452

>>6449459

>>6449460

>>6449463
What am I looking at here?

>>6449498
vortex shedding?

>>6449500
is that question mark there implying I'm stupid, or that you're unsure?

>>6449535
I'm unsure.
Try google reverse image search for a wiki article.

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-107/html/s107e05059.html
> S107-E-05059 (18 January 2003) --- Nadir view over the von Karman Vortices off the Atlantic coast of Africa, photographed from an altitude of 146 nautical miles or 270 kilometers on January 18, 2003 during the 29th orbit of the Space Shuttle Columbia. The precise nadir point is located at 12.7 degrees north latitude and 27.8 degrees west longitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_vortex_street

I plan to stargaze tonight because it's a new moon and it's not cloudy for the first time in the last week.
What do you guys suggest I check out first?
I have relatively little light pollution from major cities, but I'm not exactly in a remote locale.

I also should note that I have a pair of 7x35 binoculars, and I live near the 45th parallel.

Also, first time stargazing.

Bumpin.
How do you guys keep warm?

>>6442106
gravioli gravioli give me the formuoli

>>6442271
>There aren't a lot of recent innovations that scream to me "cheap space travel!" yet.

this just in! REL builds high powered precooler necessary for SSTO hydrogen powered spaceplane - hailed as "innovation that screams cheap space travel"!

>>6449947
What are you going on about?

got a beautiful telescope for my birthday. Here are my list of targets

>moon
>jupiter (you can see the bands of cloud on a good night and) as well as Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto
>orion nebula
>mars
>saturn
>venus
those last three are all in a line in the morning sky and they're stunning

link is telescope that I'm using - someday I want to drop a few million dollars on an observatory up in the mountains

or just a few more million and go to space

http://www.telescope.com/Telescopes/Reflector-Telescopes/Reflector-Telescopes-with-Equatorial-Mounts/Orion-SpaceProbe-130ST-Equatorial-Reflector-Telescope/pc/1/c/11/sc/341/p/9007.uts?refineByCategoryId=341

>>6449966
http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/

>>6449978
Alright.

Bumping with space pictures.

>>6450208

MUH IAPETUS

Dat sum Enceledus as well?

>>6450213
Dunno mate.
I could probably figure it out if I weren't as high as I am.

Though, brb. I think I'm going to cover my computer and get my room dark as fuck and stargaze with my binoculars out the window.

>>6450257
good shit anon

>>6450257
Couldn't see much, but I don't really know what I'm looking at, or my binoculars very well. So I'm going to read the books I checked out tomorrow and try again. Also, light pollution in my neighborhood is higher than anticipated.

bumping for amateur astronomy

Well, the thread seems to have died down. It's been a good one guys, thanks for all the help. If there's still interest, then we could bump back to the front page.

>>6442028

you can determine the temperature of star via Wien's Law, that states the wavelength of light most emitted by a star is directly proportional to its temperature, like a hot piece of metal. That's why there are no green stars.

>>6452628
Are you fucking with me?

>>6452671
It's a joke image, anon. C'mon.

>>6442001
You take out your fucking telescope, find galaxies in it and realize that the light and energy your nerves are interacting with is millions of years old and a tangible connection you have with the universe.


Also
>>6442026

>>6452780
shouldn't that say "Asteroid #1 formerly known as the dwarf planet"?

I started out in middle school, with a Meade etx90, CCD camera, and dark desert sky's. Eventually had a half meter scope and was in a club with a meter scope.

Now I live in the light polluted east, and only have the little etx 90 as a macro lens and spotter

>>6449972
Get some moon filters, and don't look at a full moon, you need the contrast of a less than full moon to see a lot of features. Best photos and views are near the terminus

>>6449681
Get a tripod for your binos. A compas you can read at night and a star map. Don't use the phone apps, they kill your night vision.

If you want great astro binocs look for navy surplus ship scopes.

>>6452787
Well, Dwarf planet formerly known as Asteroid #1 formerly known as Planet.

>>6448828
bump because this sounds interesting. is there anything interesting to see thru coronado scopes?

>>6453079
the sun, maybe?

Bump

git hype

>>6454149
Why would I get hype about that?

I forget why, but can someone explain to me exactly WHY this is wrong?

>>6441141
choose a different hobby.

>>6454567

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/04/vortex_motion_viral_video_showing_sun_s_motion_through_galaxy_is_wrong.html

what's a really nice and easy way to memorize all the stars and their respective consternations?

mnemonics or greek myths would be helpful and greatly appreciated

>>6454616

Orion chases Draco or something, don't remember which. All I know.

>>6454589
Ah, thanks. I never noticed that the animations had the planets BEHIND the sun, that's fucking pants-on-head retarded.

>>6454625
You're thinking of Canis Major. Canis major, the dog, follows Orion, the hunter, who is hunting Taurus, the bull.

As far as learning the stars in the constellations, you may want to learn them both at the same time. For example, Spica is the brightest star in Virgo and one of the brightest stars in the sky. It's easy to recognize and find (you can actually use the Big Dipper to find it and Arcturus), but the rest of Virgo isn't so easy to recognize. So for that case and many others, you can find the bright star and say "that's virgo."
(also if you find Spica tonight, that red "star" above it is Mars, and this is the best time in 2 years to view the planet!)

>>6454567
Because the orbital plane of the planets of our solar system lie mor eor less within the galactic plane

n00b here... does earth have an axial orbit?

>>6454955
what?

>>6454771
Spica still looks like a little bitch next to Mars now.

>astronomy
>science

pick one

Bumping with space pics

>>6456783
>implying astronomy isn't the most important science
It's literally the only way for the human race to prevail and survive for more than a few million years. Go to the stars or fade to nothing.

>>6456783
It is and it was the oldest science.

>>6456789
That's aeronautical/aerospace engineering.

There's a massive difference between guys staring at objects that will never have an effect on humanity and guys sending people off into space.

>>6456830
I think medicine might be older.
Wish we had records that old.

>>6456873
How do you think they know we should leave the planet in the next couple million years?

>>6456873
gr8 b8 m8, ir8 tr8, rly h8

>>6456873
>staring at objects that will never have an effect on humanity
The Sun has an influence on us every day and is a huge part of modern astronomy. There are dozens of other examples.

>sending people off into space.
How do you predict solar particle events? What will you do to protect against them? What can we expect from galactic cosmic rays? How do you engineer a solution to a problem you don't understand. Astronomy is needed.

Much of it is science that has no direct application but there is technology transfer and astronomy can use the universe as a physics lab. Where on Earth can you measure the cosmological constant or test Einstein's gravity in the strong field case? You can't, not today. Astronomy offers an opportunity to understand where we came from and the universe around us. That's science.

>>6456883
Medicine as a science is not considered older because there were no precision experiments for a long.time. People have been measuring the position of the rising Sun however for much longer. Medicine as a concept might be older.

Jesus Christ.

God made the heavens so beautiful.

I mean I'm sure it looks different up close, but down here in the mud, the beauty is unspeakable.

>>6456922

>>6456926

>>6456930

>>6456933

>>6456891
That sounds so fucking nice. Like, just saying.

This shit is part of what makes astronomy so beautiful, I think. It's poetic.

>>6458135
I-Is that real?

>>6458477
It's the sombrero galaxy, hombre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sombrero_Galaxy

>>6458490
t-thanks anon

>>6458507
No prob anon.
Why the stuttering?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfEdEIwhj6s

Is this bullshit? The meteor has to move AT LEAST at terminal velocity, which it's not.

>>6458509
looks like a rock that got caught when the parachute was being wrapped

>>6458533
While I'd like to believe you, that thing was going wicked fast, and would have had to be dropped way earlier and from higher up.
>>6458509
That is definitely moving at terminal velocity dude

Spotted mars earlier while I was stargazing, pretty neat, but I wish I had a telescope powerful enough to resolve actual details instead of my shitty 7x35 binoculars.

>>6458599

>>6447962
Is that Callisto at the bottom left at the beginning?

Last Saturday, I drove 5 hours to a nice place with a perfectly black sky and set up my telescope. Pointing it at Jupiter, I gazed into it, only to see the biggest planet in the solar system giving me the fucking finger.

Fuck Astronomy

>>6459947
What?

>>6460061
Did I stutter?

>>6460085
No, your statement just didn't make sense.
I didn't know Jupiter even had fingers.