Silent (Star) Hunter!!!!

Idolater

What, were you born in a barn?
@Silent Hunter you were . . . not 'in' this thread anymore by the time I got around to replying but I wanted to followup!

Post I'm referencing

This is such an interesting talent to me. When you say it takes 43 three-minute exposures, do you have to adjust the telescope after each three minute interval, due to the earth rotating, so that you're always focusing on the same point in the sky? Or are you taking 43 exposures over 43 nights, all at the same time? And when you say it's 43 three-minute exposures, does that mean that the "image" you're sharing is actually a 'composite' of all the 'light data' that your camera is 'capturing'?

It's interesting and it's amazing, what you're able to just 'grab' out of the night sky like that!

Thanks for sharing it.
 

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
@Silent Hunter you were . . . not 'in' this thread anymore by the time I got around to replying but I wanted to followup!

Post I'm referencing
Again, thank you!!

I was kicked from that forum for a while. Apparently, "blasphemy" has no standard definition on TOL and it totally at the whim of the mod. They should let their deity decide if I should be punished, omnipotent as they may be.
This is such an interesting talent to me.
It isn't a talent. It is hard work, time consuming, tedious, expensive (initially), and the learning curve is steep.
When you say it takes 43 three-minute exposures, do you have to adjust the telescope after each three minute interval, due to the earth rotating, so that you're always focusing on the same point in the sky?
The image is an integration (called stacking) of 43 exposures, each of which is 3-minutes long, for a total effective exposure of 2-hours and 9-minutes. All were taken over the same time frame plus time for the telescope to adjust for a process called "dithering" and a few less than ideal exposures. Total time was around 3-hours.

The telescope mount follows the rotation of the Earth using a separate telescope and camera following a single star to within 0.5 arc seconds. The whole assembly turns as one unit.
Or are you taking 43 exposures over 43 nights, all at the same time? And when you say it's 43 three-minute exposures, does that mean that the "image" you're sharing is actually a 'composite' of all the 'light data' that your camera is 'capturing'?
Explained above (hopefully clearly enough you understand).
It's interesting and it's amazing, what you're able to just 'grab' out of the night sky like that!

Thanks for sharing it.
It isn't as simple as it seems at first glance. There are a couple of hours processing the image to remove noise, and enhance brightness and color.

The server won't let me download a picture of my setup (too large it seems). Here's one of my favorite images.
 

Attachments

  • FB_IMG_1610642337306.jpg
    FB_IMG_1610642337306.jpg
    51.1 KB · Views: 6
Last edited:

Idolater

What, were you born in a barn?
Here's an older pic of my rig. About $9k worth.
That is a very slick looking rig SH. I am "level zero" in understanding telescopes and telescope photography. What is your opinion of that new microwave or infrared or whatever that newfangled imaging satellite is? The one with the honeycomb gold mirror (that is like 20 feet across) which makes it much bigger than Hubble's, and plus the spectrum it's detecting is less 'noisy' or something like that, compared to Hubble's visible spectrum. I think it basically had to do with 'glare', a star's light would smear around the star, in the image, which makes an inverse penumbra effect, obscuring the stars almost directly in the line behind these bright and 'glaring' stars.

It's sounds very exciting! It sounds like if we just swapped out Hubble's current imaging system with the one in this new satellite that we would already be getting longer range and greater sensitivity and precision, but especially paired with the giant mirror we're going to boost our range by a large amount proportionally, even if it's not that many more lightyears, that's because the closer you get to the beginning, the longer the years take, or something else, I don't really get it at all, but the "percent gain" from this new telescope isn't going to be that much, measured in lightyears range of the telescope and imaging system. Our range will increase from like 13.4 billion to 13.8 billion, which is a huge deal, even thought it's not on a linear scale much of a difference.

And I figure that the range would be like with Hubble, based on a procedure of taking very many exposures at the absolutely perfectly darkest point in the sky.

I am so curious what you think of that thing because it sounds really exciting from the headlines I'm reading.

What are the chances that behind every object in the night sky, there is one or more objects behind it in the direct line behind it, and that we therefore cannot see?

I don't think it's zero. I wonder how many of these hidden space objects will be revealed by this brand new golden mirrored non-visible spectrum (i.e. not like Hubble) telescope orbiting the sun with us in that weird gravity position, that I just as equally, also do not understand beyond a "level zero".

Thanks again for sharing!
 

Idolater

What, were you born in a barn?
'You know how operating systems have a "safe mode"? Voyager 1, which is over 10 billion miles up in the sky, has a safe mode too.


Voyager 1 & 2 are so high in the sky that it takes almost two days between when they send the remote control signal up in the sky to them, and when we receive the spacecraft's remote control signal confirming receipt of our remote control signal.

That means they're almost one light-day up in the sky. Multiply that height by 365 and you're almost a light-year up, they've got a long way to go.
 
Top