Starship Asterisk*

mastrulo wrote:That's part of the whole picture that I simply don't understand, why did those points of light (stars) also scintillate?

Look at any 10 second exposure, how many points elongated do you see?

then if the camera is swung why are there only 2 points.

If I look up at night with a camera I cannot Isolate any single point of light let alone 2 in the same frame.

StarCuriousAero wrote:This is a beautiful image, and it doesn't look photoshopped at all, I have no idea what that guy was complaining about. You can actually see two additional stars, lower left AND lower right, but I have no idea which one it is, I'll refer that question to someone else.

Also, thank you Neufer for reminding me of Lissajou orbits, it's only been 2 years since I'd thought about them last but had already almost completely forgotten about them, haha. It's a shame I don't use more of the stuff I learned in college, but such is life. Pretty much any orbit utilizing the Lagrange points is pretty darned fascinating though, it's a shame they aren't used more often, YAY for JWST!! Can't wait for launch.

Even color indexes are not very good indicators of apparent color to the eye (except in extreme cases), since they are calculated by looking at the intensity of light at two or more broad spectral bands that have no relationship to the absorption spectra of the pigments in human cones.

mitcoyote wrote:Doesn't atmospheric attenuation = f(wavelength [= f (diffraction)]) account for "twinkling" here?
Thus if diffraction isn't much of a factor, then neither is wavelength, so neither would be attenuation,
so neither would be brightness. Or am I missing something?

Ann wrote:Thanks, Noel! But Regulus isn't white, and neither is Nu.

Indigo_Sunrise wrote:Geez, whiner! (I would've said whiners, but:)

Why post the same thing twice, under different user names? And within four minutes of each other? We get it, you're disappointed.
Well, as has been said before, "you can always come back tomorrow......."


I think this is a pretty unique and different image, with some interesting links included.
And I've always liked the word, scintillating'!
Hooray for today's APOD!!!!!

NoelC wrote:It's a beautiful image! What a great way to show how the twinkling of a star differs from the relatively stable light of a planet.

I like the way the magnitude 4 K3 red star BSC 31 Leo also barely shows at the lower-left.

That was a relatively high focal length setup... Field of view is what, about 4 degrees?

-Noel

NoelC wrote:

bystander wrote:There's also an image in the lower right.

BSC 27 Nu Leo, Magnitude 5, almost as white as Regulus.

-Noel

bystander wrote:There's also an image in the lower right.

NoelC wrote:I like the way the magnitude 4 K3 red star BSC 31 Leo also barely shows at the lower-left.

mitcoyote wrote:Seems there's a far simpler way to explain Mars' apparently stable color in this view

owlice wrote:
neufer, (Mr. Added Value), thanks for the additional information!
I haven't thought about Lissajous curves in I don't know how long...
long enough to have forgotten why I used to think of them, certainly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lissajous_curve wrote:
In mathematics, a Lissajous curve or Bowditch curve is the graph of a system of parametric equations:



which describe complex harmonic motion. This family of curves was investigated by the American mathematician & astronomer Nathaniel Bowditch in 1815, and later in more detail by Jules Antoine Lissajous in 1857. The visual form of these curves is often suggestive of a three-dimensional knot, and indeed many kinds of knots, including those known as Lissajous knots, project to the plane as Lissajous figures.

Lissajous figures where a = 1, b = N and are Chebyshev polynomials of the first kind of degree N.

A Lissajous (e.g., [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webb_Telescope]JWST[/url]) orbit around L2

---

In orbital mechanics, a Lissajous orbit, is a quasi-periodic orbital trajectory that an object can follow around a Lagrangian point of a three-body system without requiring any propulsion. Lyapunov orbits around a libration point are curved paths that lie entirely in the plane of the two primary bodies. In contrast, Lissajous orbits include components in this plane and perpendicular to it, and follow a Lissajous curve. Halo orbits also include components perpendicular to the plane, but they are periodic, while Lissajous orbits are not.

A purely mechanical application of a Lissajous curve with a=1, b=2 is in the driving mechanism of the Mars Light type of oscillating beam lamps popular with railroads in the mid-1900s. The beam in some versions traces out a lopsided figure-8 pattern with the "8" lying on its side.>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Light wrote:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjwc2qpe ... re=related[/youtube]

<<Mars Lights are signal-safety lights used in the United States and built by Mars Signal Light Company for railroad locomotives and fire apparatus. Mars Lights used a variety of means to cause the light to oscillate vertically, horizontally, or both, to catch the attention of motorists and pedestrians.

Mars lights were developed by Jerry Kennelly, a Chicago firefighter who realized that oscillating lamps would benefit fire departments and railroads. He performed an operational test with the C&NW railroad in 1936, and Mars Lights began appearing on locomotives in the 1940s.

The name "MARS" Light originated when the Mars Candy Company took over design and production. The majority of funding was provided by Mars, and they insisted that it carry the MARS name. It has nothing to do with "the light from Mars".>>

mastrulo wrote:don't get it!
Where is the science, how can any of the presented "photos" be taken seriously, it's 2 "points of light" heavily 'photoshopped' to remove all other points? What was done to enhance the scintillating, and 'a clever use of a swinging camera?'
As I said.
I simply don't get it.
APOD, Astronomy Picture of the Day?
Let's swing on the roller coaster with an open shutter, then use an application to make it look like we want and viola! iIt becomes a new branch of Astronomy.
Can we see a non swinging camera with a 10 second shutter and compare the results? I would of course ask than nothing be 'retouched' nor enhanced.
Disappointed.
Tony Mastrullo.

Guest wrote:I don't get it!
Where is the science, how can any of the presented "photos" be taken seriously, it's 2 "points of light" heavily 'photoshopped' to remove all other points? What was done to enhance the scintillating, and 'a clever use of a swinging camera?'
As I said.
I simply don't get it.
APOD, Austronomy Picture of the Day?
Let's swing on the roller coaster with an open shutter, then use an application to make it look like we want and viola! iIt becomes a new branch of Astronomy.
Can we see a non swinging camera with a 10 second shutter and compare the results? I would of course ask than nothing be 'retouched' nor enhanced.
Disappointed.
Tony Mastrullo.