Starship Asterisk*

by **Nitpicker** » Mon Dec 16, 2013 3:37 am

luraystars wrote:You have the photo of the comet facing up. Make it face down to be accurate. The sun if obviously below the horizon, and the comet heat faces the sun at all times.

In this APOD, Celestial East is up and Celestial North is to the right. But everyone is different aren't they? Did you try tilting your head or your monitor (or both)?

by **Ann** » Mon Dec 16, 2013 3:26 am

: Click to view full size image

Beyond wrote:Hmm... so that means not only can no-one hear you scream in space, but they also wouldn't be able to tell which direction they couldn't hear you scream from.

>>>AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!<<<

Ann

by **Beyond** » Mon Dec 16, 2013 3:13 am

Hmm... so that means not only can no-one hear you scream in space, but they also wouldn't be able to tell which direction they couldn't hear you scream from.

by **Chris Peterson** » Mon Dec 16, 2013 2:19 am

luraystars wrote:You have the photo of the comet facing up. Make it face down to be accurate. The sun if obviously below the horizon, and the comet heat faces the sun at all times.

The image is accurate. There is horizon in every direction. This image is intended to be seen in astronomical coordinates (if any), not in horizon-based coordinates. Just consider the Sun to be above. This is how the comet might appear in space, where there are no horizons, no preferred orientations.

by **luraystars** » Mon Dec 16, 2013 2:11 am

You have the photo of the comet facing up. Make it face down to be accurate. The sun if obviously below the horizon, and the comet heat faces the sun at all times.

by **geckzilla** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 2:21 pm

Sure, but you'd be surprised at how often people come in to loudly report a typographical error in such a disdainful way that you'd think they'd never made one themselves. The reason we respond so defensively to them is because they're almost always from drive-by posters who never contribute anything else to the forum but want to denigrate the editors despite their many years of service over a simple typo. It's just plain rude. It really is just two guys picking out cool photos and writing descriptions for them. They don't have editors and no one proofreads for them unless they happen to ask for help on some difficult wording.

by **Mizar** » Wed Dec 04, 2013 9:33 am

geckzilla wrote:The rolling-eyes emoticon is pretty nasty itself if used in certain ways, such as this one. There is an art to criticizing without sounding critical.

Chill out man, there's nothing nasty I said. But you've got a criticism every time you see that emoticon. Emoticons are meant to clarify the tone of speech in a written format like the web, where it is otherwise not communicated. Yet, they can themselves not have a clear meaning, or multiple interpretations. Such as the rolling eyes one could also be synonymous with something like shrugging shoulders, but that's not one of the choices. For someone toting just how to criticize without sounding it, you sure sound critical.

Is this an artistic site, or is it a scientific site? It can be a mix of both, but astronomy, as in Astronomy Picture of the Day, is a science. Scientists tend to be more civil of accepting and delivering criticism, as that is what the scientific process is all about. Ever changing, evolving, advancing ideas require it.

by **Anthony Barreiro** » Tue Dec 03, 2013 6:37 pm

BDanielMayfield wrote:Fine fellow finders! Found fine finely refined finer finder here:

http://media.skyandtelescope.com/docume ... oy_Dec.pdf

Thanks! I was looking for that chart on S&T, but I couldn't find it.

BDanielMayfield wrote: » December 3rd, 2013, 7:38 am
Looked by Beta Boo, couldn’t catch comet coma due to dew, how 'bout you

Oh, I'm sorry. Keep trying! Lovejoy will be moving farther south during the coming days, that might help you in south Texas. Although it will also be sinking lower toward the dawn horizon, and probably getting slightly dimmer. Saturday December 14 looks like an interesting morning: Lovejoy will be 1.5 degrees south of Zeta Herculis, the southwestern star of the keystone of Hercules, and still about 16 degrees above your nominal horizon at astronomical dawn.

by **Beyond** » Tue Dec 03, 2013 6:05 pm

Art. The Master Mixer of all that is not unrelated.

by **geckzilla** » Tue Dec 03, 2013 5:06 pm

And then there's Art.

by **neufer** » Tue Dec 03, 2013 5:00 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
Actually, this was just a typo (or an incorrect word choice). There was nothing wrong with the grammar at all. Identifying it as a grammatical error is likely to be seen by pedants such as myself as a more serious error than the original!

owlice wrote:
It was a homophone error. These are quite common in writing.

by **owlice** » Tue Dec 03, 2013 4:19 pm

It was a homophone error. These are quite common in writing.

by **Chris Peterson** » Tue Dec 03, 2013 3:18 pm

Mizar wrote:
garyadels wrote:The Lovejoy post says, "should remain a good site in binoculars for another few weeks". Proper grammar is "good sight", as in seeing with one's eyes, not "good site" as in location.
I've seen much worse grammar on the APOD captions. Careful, sometimes you can get nasty posts when criticizing about such things.

Actually, this was just a typo (or an incorrect word choice). There was nothing wrong with the grammar at all. Identifying it as a grammatical error is likely to be seen by pedants such as myself as a more serious error than the original!

by **neufer** » Tue Dec 03, 2013 3:10 pm

geckzilla wrote:
Mizar wrote:
I've seen much worse grammar on the APOD captions.
Careful, sometimes you can get nasty posts when criticizing about such things.
The rolling-eyes emoticon is pretty nasty itself if used in certain ways, such as this one.

There is an art to criticizing without sounding critical.

http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/ladle/ wrote:
"Coma ink, sweat hard," setter wicket woof, disgracing is verse.

Ladle Rat Rotten Hut entity bet rum an stud buyer groin-murder's bet.

"O Grammar!" crater ladle gull, "Wood bag icer gut! A nervous sausage bag ice!"

by **Beyond** » Tue Dec 03, 2013 3:02 pm

For me, the usual clouds and/or tree blockage. ::sigh::

by **BDanielMayfield** » Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:38 pm

Looked by Beta Boo, couldn’t catch comet coma due to dew, how 'bout you

by **geckzilla** » Tue Dec 03, 2013 1:24 pm

Mizar wrote:
garyadels wrote:The Lovejoy post says, "should remain a good site in binoculars for another few weeks". Proper grammar is "good sight", as in seeing with one's eyes, not "good site" as in location.
I've seen much worse grammar on the APOD captions. Careful, sometimes you can get nasty posts when criticizing about such things.

The rolling-eyes emoticon is pretty nasty itself if used in certain ways, such as this one. There is an art to criticizing without sounding critical.

by **Mizar** » Tue Dec 03, 2013 5:16 am

Wow, Comet Lovejoy is surreal in this image! At first I thought it was a painting!

I've only seen it in light polluted skies, as a B & W coma-only. Perhaps I'll take my new giant binos out to dark skies... it's just that it's so darn frigid though, in the early morning.

BDanielMayfield wrote:
Anthony Barreiro wrote:I find this chart easier to read.
That's exactly what I was hoping for Anthony. Thanks.

That's a cool site, I like how it shows an archive of recent past bright comets. Here's another that shows currently bright comets (and dimmer ones), but it figures in more than just the misleading magnitude alone, to show which ones are truly the most visible. Comet Chasing

garyadels wrote:The Lovejoy post says, "should remain a good site in binoculars for another few weeks". Proper grammar is "good sight", as in seeing with one's eyes, not "good site" as in location.

I've seen much worse grammar on the APOD captions. Careful, sometimes you can get nasty posts when criticizing about such things.

by **BDanielMayfield** » Tue Dec 03, 2013 4:47 am

Fine fellow finders! Found fine finely refined finer finder here:

http://media.skyandtelescope.com/docume ... oy_Dec.pdf

by **Nitpicker** » Tue Dec 03, 2013 3:31 am

charlieo3 wrote:Could it not be said that it is now possible to cite the site where site was sighted instead of sight? Yet, nay! The site is not there to cite. For site has been changed to sight, and now we sight sight. Good grief! Good site, good sight, good cite, and good night.

Bravo buffalo!

by **charlieo3** » Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:58 am

Could it not be said that it is now possible to cite the site where site was sighted instead of sight? Yet, nay! The site is not there to cite. For site has been changed to sight, and now we sight sight. Good grief! Good site, good sight, good cite, and good night.

by **BDanielMayfield** » Tue Dec 03, 2013 12:42 am

Nitpicker wrote:I use Stellarium, which is very accurate (and free). Certainly accurate enough to tell me that Lovejoy will be too far North for me to see before dawn.

From Texas, before dawn on Dec 3, Comet Lovejoy will be in Bootes at about (15h20m, 38°48').

Thank you very much too Nitpicker.

by **BDanielMayfield** » Tue Dec 03, 2013 12:41 am

Anthony Barreiro wrote:I find this chart easier to read.

That's exactly what I was hoping for Anthony. Thanks.

by **Nitpicker** » Tue Dec 03, 2013 12:38 am

I use Stellarium, which is very accurate (and free). Certainly accurate enough to tell me that Lovejoy will be too far North for me to see before dawn.

From Texas, before dawn on Dec 3, Comet Lovejoy will be in Bootes at about (15h20m, 38°48').

by **Anthony Barreiro** » Tue Dec 03, 2013 12:32 am

Nitpicker wrote:
BDanielMayfield wrote: Well stated Anthony. I’d like to take a stab at seeing this comet tonight, but I find that the description of how to locate it to be rather vague. The explanation that it is “near the big dipper” covers much sky, and the linked to finder charts are rather course. Does anyone have a link to a finer finder chart for this period of Lovejoy’s maximum brightness?
The first Comet Lovejoy link in the caption takes you here:
http://www.aerith.net/comet/catalog/2013R1/2013R1.html

I find this chart easier to read.

Starship Asterisk*

APOD: Comet Lovejoy Before Galaxy M63 (2013 Dec 02)

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: APOD: Comet Lovejoy Before Galaxy M63 (2013 Dec 02)

Re: APOD: Comet Lovejoy Before Galaxy M63 (2013 Dec 02)

Re: APOD: Comet Lovejoy Before Galaxy M63 (2013 Dec 02)

Re: APOD: Comet Lovejoy Before Galaxy M63 (2013 Dec 02)

Re: APOD: Comet Lovejoy Before Galaxy M63 (2013 Dec 02)

Re: APOD: Comet Lovejoy Before Galaxy M63 (2013 Dec 02)

Re: APOD: Comet Lovejoy Before Galaxy M63 (2013 Dec 02)

Re: APOD: Comet Lovejoy Before Galaxy M63 (2013 Dec 02)

Re: APOD: Comet Lovejoy Before Galaxy M63 (2013 Dec 02)

Re: APOD: Comet Lovejoy Before Galaxy M63 (2013 Dec 02)

Re: APOD: Comet Lovejoy Before Galaxy M63 (2013 Dec 02)

Re: APOD: Comet Lovejoy Before Galaxy M63 (2013 Dec 02)

Re: APOD: Comet Lovejoy Before Galaxy M63 (2013 Dec 02)

Re: APOD: Comet Lovejoy Before Galaxy M63 (2013 Dec 02)

Re: APOD: Comet Lovejoy Before Galaxy M63 (2013 Dec 02)

Re: APOD: Comet Lovejoy Before Galaxy M63 (2013 Dec 02)

Re: APOD: Comet Lovejoy Before Galaxy M63 (2013 Dec 02)

Re: APOD: Comet Lovejoy Before Galaxy M63 (2013 Dec 02)

Re: APOD: Comet Lovejoy Before Galaxy M63 (2013 Dec 02)

Re: APOD: Comet Lovejoy Before Galaxy M63 (2013 Dec 02)

Re: APOD: Comet Lovejoy Before Galaxy M63 (2013 Dec 02)

Re: APOD: Comet Lovejoy Before Galaxy M63 (2013 Dec 02)

Re: APOD: Comet Lovejoy Before Galaxy M63 (2013 Dec 02)

Re: APOD: Comet Lovejoy Before Galaxy M63 (2013 Dec 02)

Re: APOD: Comet Lovejoy Before Galaxy M63 (2013 Dec 02)

Re: APOD: Comet Lovejoy Before Galaxy M63 (2013 Dec 02)