38

(Much of this echoes what antlersoft says in their answer) For a phone photo through the eyepiece that looks about right to me! The size... the brightness... both are as I expect. What you could try is to use the manual mode of your phone's camera and set the ISO down to minimum (100) and the shutter speed down to something like 1/60s. Take a few shots, ...


30

Stellarium shows the Moon and Mars very close together in the sky tonight (Saturday, 3rd October 2020), so yes, it was probably Mars that you saw. Moon and Mars on 2020/10/03 (Stellarium) Stellarium is a great tool for identifying astronomical objects (and satellites), and is absolutely free. Very rough rules of thumb for identifying planets by eye: Very ...


24

The picture isn't a "colour" picture - it is monochrome. i.e. It is obtained at a single microwave wavelength of 1.3 mm, and so not at any wavelength you could see (Akiyama et al. 2019). There isn't therefore any spectral information that would reveal the expected Doppler effect. Any difference of colour in the "false-colour picture" is ...


20

It's very difficult to get any kind of picture just holding your phone up to the eyepiece, and the picture you posted is overexposed and probably motion-smeared, but other than that it's what you'd expect. Planetary observation is a learned skill; planetary detail is usually very low contrast. Mars is a small target and you have to use lots of magnification,...


17

Back when New Horizons was preparing for its flyby back int 2015, NASA's website set up a tool to allow you to experience the brightness of light at High Noon on the subsolar point on Pluto. From Space.com: NASA's 'Pluto Time' Shows You How Bright It Is on Dwarf Planet To an observer on Pluto's surface, the sun would be about 1,000 times dimmer than it is ...


9

I've been trying to figure out the technical details of astrometry.net for quite some time. As others already pointed out, the main input to the whole process is a list of stars. I will not go into details on how astrometry.net does it, just note that you can either use its internal simplexy algorithm or use SExtractor. In the end you need a list of ...


9

This web page -- "Here is why the Hubble Space Telescope only looked a few times at Venus (and why it looked at the Moon instead)" -- seems like a pretty good answer to your main question (note: "MAST" = Mukulski Archive for Space Telescopes): There are only a few times the Hubble Space Telescope did look to Venus according to MAST. ...


8

These two calcs agree pretty well: The Sun's magnitude from from Pluto is -18.7 m = -18.75 magnitudes That's quite a bit brighter than a full moon, so you'd be able to read by it.


7

There is no conventional format, really. For publications purposes if one uses data from a telescope or image or code created by someone else or similar, the source usually requests being cited or acknowledged in a form specific to their own taste. Some examples include what you quoted or “This paper makes use of the following ALMA data: ADS/JAO.ALMA#******. ...


7

Yes, on one of the final orbits it took some pictures of the rings while crossing the ring plane: More details of that image are here, and this page show some still images. Here’s another one: though it’s hard to interpret without reading the description. All the science done during the “Grand finale” orbits is described here.


6

Variable stars might challenge this. A distant Mira type variable or recurrent nova could have been at its minimum when the (for example) Gaia catalogue was being assembled, but appear in an amateur photographs. These stars undergo very large variation in brightness. Mira can increase in brightness by 8 magnitudes, so it is not inconceivable that an ...


6

Just because it's transparent to the human eye, doesn't mean they are the same. They differ in chemistry, physical properties and the dominant processes. One of the main distinctive properties of the layers in the image you show is the temperature, the boundaries are indicated by where the temperature gradient reverses sign. The troposphere is the densest, ...


5

This can easily be tested using software such as Stellarium, where you can visualize the field of view with given focal length. If you have the software installed, click on "ocular view" (the most left button in the upper right corner). The following view is what you culd expect on December 21 with a 10mm eyepiece and a focal length of 1000mm: And ...


5

From Pluto, the Sun is point-like to human eyes, but still very bright, giving roughly 150 to 450 times the light of the full Moon from Earth (the variability being due to the fact that Pluto's orbit is highly elliptical, stretching from just 4.4 billion km to over 7.3 billion km from the Sun). https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/bafact-math-how-...


5

Phil Plait's blog, Bad Astronomy, answers many of these questions. He reports that it was first spotted in WISE (Wide Field Infra-red Survey Explorer) data looking for Submillimeter bright galaxies, in the AllWISE data, it is just a blob. With follow-up observations by the Atacama Pathfinder Experiment (APEX). You can read the journal article but it is ...


4

The Photographers Ephemeris is a very nice tool to give you the direction and time of both Moon and Sunset and -rise, made for exactly that purpose: plan and time shots to be at the right place and time for an awesome scenery. Other programmes and tools to tell you rise and set times are Stellarium heavens above time and date


4

I'll note that the only use of "/" in your list seems to be in "ESA/Hubble", and I suspect this is supposed to mean something like "the part of ESA [European Space Agency] devoted to Hubble". It shows up on the esahubble.org website a lot, for example. So the best way to think about this may be: "Only use '/' when it's part ...


4

Direct viewing through an eyepiece When looking through an eyepiece, there is an apparent field of view. This answer says: Because I was lazy, I used the default telescopes and eyepieces. which means that the circles shown are what one would see if one had an eyepiece with a field of view equal to the default eyepiece used in the Stellarium simulation. If ...


4

Hubble was designed in the late 1980s, when electronic detectors were small (the original Wide Field/Planetary Camera had two different 2x2 arrays of 800x800-pixel CCDs); it also had to carry multiple different instruments, each taking up nominal space in the focal plane. So it was optimized to use small fields of view to go with the small detectors. WFIRST/...


4

Those are probably just "hot pixels" that don't move on the sensor like the real stars do, so that the stacking spread them out in an arc. I don't think the software processes and treats each star separately, they can't be "skipped stars" mingled with "recognized stars". Notice that they are all 1 pixel wide, whereas stars are ...


4

Those are almost certainly "ghosts" caused by the internal reflection of light from very bright stars. (That is, the light is reflecting off the insides of the camera, filter, etc.) The pattern is an image of the "entrance pupil" of the telescope, which in practice means the primary mirror + the blockage caused by the secondary mirror and ...


3

The Milky Way's central supermassive black hole (SMBH) is feeding, albeit at a very low level. Radio emission from the accretion disk (and/or weak jets) is responsible for the long-lived "Sgr A*" radio source. Here is a paper from 2000 (Falcke et al.) arguing that VLBI (as used by the Event Horizon Telescope) should be able to image the "black ...


3

Consider an extremely transparent lens. If you photograph the lens, what the camera really picks up where the lens covers is the distorted image of what is behind the lens. Would you say that is still a photograph of the lens? I would say yes. If you take a picture of an object coated with Vantablack, the amount of light entering the camera from that object ...


3

This is usually referred to in astronomy as the "drift scan" technique, and has actually been used with ground-based telescopes since the early 1980s (e.g., McGraw, Angel, & Sargent 1980, Wright & Mackay 1981). Gibson & Hickson (1992) have a summary of work done in the 1980s and early 1990s in the Introduction section of their paper; ...


3

Planets are very small objects. Getting a camera with a bigger sensor won't help you here. The 23MP of the Sony a6000 is already more than enough. Make sure you're capturing them when they're at their highest point and when the seeing is at its best. I like to check meteoblue. When the "arc sec" value is low, below 1.0, then you should get great ...


3

Unmounted filters are just the bare filters which are designed to be put into slots in filter wheels (which have square or round recessed slots in them to hold filters). Mounted filters have a metal rim around them which holds (and slightly protects the edge of the filters) and typically have screw threads on them to enable them to be screwed into eyepieces. ...


2

Neptune has an axial tilt of 28.3 degrees and an orbital period of 164.8 Earth years; currently, the north pole is tilted away from Earth. The maps in your question were each constructed from twelve exposures of Neptune: four each in 845 (red), 547 (green), and 467 nm (blue) wavelengths. Each of the exposures was then converted from an effectively-...


2

(this is an incomplete answer: it doesn't provide a solution to the problem, but might result in a solution) Thanks to the USB vendor ID we were able to find the manufacturer, but unfortunately that didn't lead to any drivers. Browsing Meade's site from 2004/5 via Archive.org, I found an old downloads page and there's some software there which Archive.org ...


2

I think that the other approaches are a lot easier and faster, but here is another approach. In case you know the approximate direction you pointed your camera, you can use planetarium software such as Stellarium to identify the stars: Set your field of view to be equal to the photo you took (in Stellarium, you can specify sensor size and focal length) ...


2

Large objects can be very faint if they are far enough away. So large objects wouldn't necessarily be discovered a long time ago. The object you mentioned is very faint and required a long view time to acquire enough photons to "see" it. As stated in a comment by @Pierre Paquette, the object was viewed for over 59 hours.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible