cuivenion

Yep, I've probably been a bit too ruthless with subs, and on other images as well, the processing on the second is pants as well I've been experimenting with starnet and dimmed the stars too much.

Yeah, There was a lot of subs that were effected by thin cloud which raised the FWHM. I've always wondered if I should keep data like that or not. Guess I should unless star shapes are really bad.

This was originally a four hour image taken in 2018. I've thrown about 2 1/2 hours of data away because the conditions on the second night of imaging weren't very good. Taken with a HEQ5 and 130pds with an asi224.

The original image, 4 hours of exposure:

The reprocess, 1 hour and 36 minutes:

I'll definitely have to add more time to it. What do you guys think, better? worse? Go for something inbetween?

Yes, the clutch only holds the RA in place with pressure, it's not a locking mechanism. It's designed like this so the gearing inside isn't damaged if it does get knocked.

I'm sorry you have slow internet but I really don't see why faster internet can't be provided by more conventional means. I'm not going to pretend I'm clever enough to gauge the impacts on near earth asteroid observation, I'm going off studies such as the one from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

In addition the European Southern Observatory projects satellite mega-constellations may severely affect between 30 and 50 percent of observations taken by the Rubin Observatory.

I have not seen one news report of a professional astronomer saying this isn't going to be a problem for them.

8 minutes ago, Zakalwe said:

Get in the queue...I'm still waiting for delivery of Eagle from 1999....

 

😄

 

Marty McFly's hoverboard and of course the time travelling delorean were my childhood sci fi wishes.

It's 2020, where's my moonbase?

4 hours ago, Zakalwe said:

Starlink will provide, certainly at first, the US with Internet access.

Gravity is a Hollywood film, and a pretty terrible one at that. It's depiction of how orbital mechanics operate was tenuous at best.

 

Cuivenon seems determined to miss my point. I'm not particularly in favour of Starlink and certainly if there was another way to achieve SpaceX's goals then I'd be in favour of it. However, on the balance, I'm happy to trade a small part of amateur astronomy to achieve those goals. I do think that the impact won't be as bad as some of the hand-wringers make out.

What I am absolutely against is the spread of disinformation and, dare I say it, fake news. This is primarily a science-based hobby discussed on a science-based board. If we can't get simple facts about orbits, reflectivity, and maths correct then the general public has no chance. Parroting nonsense about objects  in very low Earth orbits lasting for decades, or making it impossible to transverse  LEO, especially when those things can be checked in seconds doesn't bode well. We are better than that, people.

anyhoo, an interesting debate.

I don't see how I can be missing the point when I've been directly quoting you. You say you're fine with amateur astronomy being impacted to achieve SpaceX's goals, but what about professional scientific observations? They will arguably be much more effected expecially near earth asteroid hunters, who from my understanding observe nearer to twilight than the rest of us. This is a point you've consistantly refused to answer.

Here's an earlier post of yours:

"Strictly speaking, the motivation is to provide funding to make Man an interplanetary species, just in case a lump of rock from the sky wipes us out. Our species is unique and leaving it on one planet to the vagaries of some random piece of rock is too risky.

I'm comfortable with some home astronomers having their hobbies affected if that's the price."

I would argue it's more important to see the random piece of rock coming in the first place which Starlink in it's current form will make a lot more difficult. Significant Mars colonies are still pie in the sky at this point and despite what you're saying I don't see any reason why they can't fund it without Starlink. Also I don't think Amazon and others will have such lofty goals.

Regarding the reflectivity of the darksat they achieved a magnitude reduction of 55%, which sounds great until you realise it still leaves a big white streak through a photographic image.

16 hours ago, Zakalwe said:

Well, this IS the planning stage.

Regarding the second point, a bit of basic research wouldn't do any harm. The sats are in very low Earth orbit, so their orbits will decay quickly. Even if a sat dies and cannot use it's thruster then it will take about a year to de-orbit..

The first stage burns about 440 tonnes of RP1 (refined jet fuel). In comparison, a Jumbo jet burns about 10 tones per hour in cruise. In the great scheme of things the impact of launches is negligible. Everyday Astronaut did an excellent article a few months ago on this very subject.
When SuperHeavy flies it will burn methane and LOX in comparison to the Falcon9's RP1/LOX combination. The main reason is methane can be readily made in-situ on Mars using the Sebatier process by extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and combining it with hydrogen extracted from water electrolysis.

 

By the way, it's 60 sats per Falcon9 launch, not 16. And once SuperHeavy and Starship are operational it will be 200 sats per launch.

If environmental concerns are a big concern of yours (and rightly so, I might add), then you should really be a big fan of Musk. After all, no-one has done as much in the last decade to take fossil fuels out of transportation, via Tesla. One of his other companies, Solar City, are also doing great work in PV installations and development.

Regarding your first point, I do wish you'd read what I said. I never made light of the impact.

Regarding the second point, some of the impact was known pre-launch (that's why the sats do not transmit on the frequencies used in radio astronomy. The deployable visor is one of three different mitigation strategies that are being currently tested, but this list is not exhaustive. The blackening paint made a significant reduction in brightness (though not enough to render the sat invisible). It had a knock-on impact in that it caused the sats to overheat, however. A third technique, where the sats re-orient themselves to prevent reflecting light onto the ground is also in testing.

Lastly, to address your third point "if you don't like it, tough." Again. please re-read what I have said and not what you think I said. Starlink, and other mega-constellations, are an unfortunate fact of life. The FCC have issued the necessary licences to SpaceX (and also to LeoSat, Kepler and Telesat). They do not need to ask for anyone else's permission. Now, rather than pearl-clutching and venting, we have to work with these companies to mitigate their impacts.  Jim Lowenthal,  along with a working group from the AAS, for example meet once a month with SpaceX to discuss our, as astronomers, concerns about Starlink. It's also interesting to note that SpaceX is the only company that is meeting like this with concerned professional astronomers. Talking and agreeing a plan is the way forward, not ranting about shooting sats out of the sky.

 

Anyhoo, must dash. The outrage bus is due at my stop any moment now. 😆

 

 

First point:

'You might as well complain about there being no true darkness and damn whoever put the Sun in the sky. Complaining about that wouldn't be as fashionable though.'

'Right, I'm off to throw rocks at my nearest airport....'

'I'm comfortable with some home astronomers having their hobbies affected if that's the price. '

That's making light of the issues you said you were aware of but don't acknowledge because they don't fit your argument. Refering to people as pearl clutching and venting fits that bill as well.

Second point:

I've read that the blackening paint didn't make a significant difference at all. However, If they manage to find an answer to the problem then great.

Third point:

Sorry, that still reads as; if you don't like it, tough. 'Starlink, and other mega-constellations, are an unfortunate fact of life. The FCC have issued the necessary licences to SpaceX (and also to LeoSat, Kepler and Telesat). They do not need to ask for anyone else's permission.'

'Now, rather than pearl-clutching and venting, we have to work with these companies to mitigate their impacts.'

This is where you lose me. Throughout this thread you've been suggesting that the effects of starlink on astronomical observations are no big deal, nothing to worry about, but you're also suggesting that we work with SpaceX and others to mitigate their impacts. Either the the impacts are negligible or they aren't.

36 minutes ago, Zakalwe said:

No I'm not.  I'm well aware of the concerns. I'm also well aware that these sats are easiest to spot in precisely the conditions that we have in Summertime.  They are also easiest to spot in the days and weeks after launch when they are in their initial orbits. Once they move up to their operational orbits they are far less visible.

SpaceX are also experimenting with a number of mitigation techniques. The next launch (tonight) ill carry sats with deployable  visors to prevent sunlight from reflecting off them.

No matter where you stand on these mega constellations there is one incontestable fact and that is they are here to stay and they will grow in size. Amazon are planning a similar mega constellation. Heck, even the British government are toying with pumping £millions into buying the failed One Web company now that they've realised that we don't have the cash or wherewithal to build a UK GPS alternative (though I'll not comment on this latest B word fiasco as it's against the rules).

As these constellations are here to stay we and the professionals had better get used to them, as well as working with the owners. SpaceX are listening and as a direct result of feedback from the AAS they have introduced experiments to mitigate the impact (as above).

So there is an impact that SpaceX are trying to mitigate? It's a bit strange that you've made light of issues that SpaceX themselves are trying to fix. I'd heard of earlier attempts to reduce the sats brightness that hadn't made a significant difference. The deployable visor sounds hopeful and shows that at least SpaceX are listening which is good.

The rest of the post reads as, if you don't like it, tough. I've never been a fan of that argument.

5 hours ago, Zakalwe said:

Strictly speaking, the motivation is to provide funding to make Man an interplanetary species, just in case a lump of rock from the sky wipes us out. Our species is unique and leaving it on one planet to the vagaries of some random piece of rock is too risky.

I'm comfortable with some home astronomers having their hobbies affected if that's the price.

Zakalwe you seem to be trying to make out this is just about a few complainers in bobble hats in their backyard, starlink is going to effect (ironically) near earth asteroid detection as well as other scientific endeavours.

We'll just tell all those fashionable astronomers at professional observatories to stop worrying then. The problem is going to get a lot worse once there's upwards 100,000 of these satellites, and to be honest I don't see the correlation between the position of the sun, darkness levels and a billionaire's vanity project ruining the night sky for the rest of us.

I'm not really set up for drilling and tapping, so I bought a 6mm to 4mm flexible coupler, hopefully that will do the job. The o ring coupler probably would have worked, but I'm more comfortable with a bolted connection.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Flexible-shaft-coupling-joint-Stepper-Motor-Coupler-Connector-VARIOUS-SIZES/262814471837?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&var=561957397165&_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649

Cheers Noddy.

Cheers Mackie.

Just to let you know EQMOD only works in EQ mode and you'll have to run it on a windows computer.

Off to a cracking start there mate.

Thanks Paul. Clear Outside says Morecambe is a bortle 5 area, but I tend to have problems with security lights sometimes. There are worse places to image from though.

Cheers Graham.

I imaged this back in December 2019. Unfortunately I didn't get much time on the target, only 6 x 4 minute lights, so I didn't bother with darks. I'm quite happy with the image considering the short exposure time. I'me definitely going to make a project out of it when Auriga comes back around.

Imaged with a 200mm Takumar f4 lens, Skywatcher HEQ5 and Baader modded Canon 600d.

Congratulations on 20 years!

If you're using it in equatorial mode you could try controlling the mount through EQMOD. EQMOD has a setting to control goto rates.

Cheers Paul.

Cool, I'll get a few durecells in that case then. I was thinking rechargables might be good if they only lasted a couple of nights.

I'll add one more question has anyone tried rechargable 9v batteries in these. I thought I'd better check as astro gear can be quite sensitive to voltage, and rechargables tend to run a little lower in voltage than alkalines.