Highest Resolution Photos Ever of the Night Sky
Highest Resolution Photos Ever of the Night Sky
"These images are also at least twice as sharp as what the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) can make because the 6.5m Magellan telescope is much larger than the 2.4m HST."
https://visao.as.arizona.edu/
They converted a 36" broken mirror into a 35.5" secondary mirror with complex adaptive optics that makes 1000 atmospheric corrections per second. The images are toward the blue end of the visible-light spectrum.
Here's a link to one of the papers coming from this new eyeball:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.4155
https://visao.as.arizona.edu/
They converted a 36" broken mirror into a 35.5" secondary mirror with complex adaptive optics that makes 1000 atmospheric corrections per second. The images are toward the blue end of the visible-light spectrum.
Here's a link to one of the papers coming from this new eyeball:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.4155
- geckzilla
- Ocular Digitator
- Posts: 9180
- Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: Modesto, CA
- Contact:
Re: Highest Resolution Photos Ever of the Night Sky
Nice, this image shows a comparison. I wonder if those are from a single image or if each inset had to be done separately?
![Image](https://visao.as.arizona.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/fig4.jpg)
Very curious to see a full color image. Maybe they should do their own version of the Pillars of Creation, which is arguably Hubble's most famous picture.
![Image](https://visao.as.arizona.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/fig4.jpg)
Very curious to see a full color image. Maybe they should do their own version of the Pillars of Creation, which is arguably Hubble's most famous picture.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.
- Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18490
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
- Contact:
Re: Highest Resolution Photos Ever of the Night Sky
The information about this system is very misleading, IMO.geckzilla wrote:Nice, this image shows a comparison. I wonder if those are from a single image or if each inset had to be done separately?
Very curious to see a full color image. Maybe they should do their own version of the Pillars of Creation, which is arguably Hubble's most famous picture.
There is nothing revolutionary about the new camera, it is a fairly typical AO system, with some evolutionary improvements (in particular, a large number of modes and a design that works into the long end of the visible light range). It does not image in color. Like all AO systems, it is extremely narrow field (8 arcseconds square for the visible light camera) and requires a bright reference star (limiting R magnitude of 14) very close (< 8 arcsec) to the target (the system doesn't have an artificial guide star laser).
The wide field reference image was not produced by this instrument, and could not be. The inset images were produced from separate exposures through a red filter (the images themselves, although displayed with a red palette, are single channel, monochromatic). The wavelength range of the camera is 600-1050nm, so all the available filters are red or infrared. The resolution is very impressive, but this instrument isn't going to outperform Hubble for any but a very specific, short list of important science goals.
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
- geckzilla
- Ocular Digitator
- Posts: 9180
- Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: Modesto, CA
- Contact:
Re: Highest Resolution Photos Ever of the Night Sky
It was obvious to me that the background image was the Hubble image included only for comparison and the insets were monochromatic and from the MagAO. With those sorts of limitations you listed, it seems a lot less exciting, though. Extremely narrow field of view. That's what I was curious about.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.
Re: Highest Resolution Photos Ever of the Night Sky
In other words... It fills a particular niche very well ![Question :?:](./images/smilies/icon_question.gif)
![Question :?:](./images/smilies/icon_question.gif)
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.
- Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18490
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
- Contact:
Re: Highest Resolution Photos Ever of the Night Sky
Yes. Exoplanet atmospheres. Deep circumstellar imaging. Close binaries. In the Solar System, the surface of moons and asteroids. All very important and useful.stephen63 wrote:Exoplanet research?
Comparing this with the HST is really a case of apples and oranges.
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
- geckzilla
- Ocular Digitator
- Posts: 9180
- Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: Modesto, CA
- Contact:
Re: Highest Resolution Photos Ever of the Night Sky
I suppose you could look for Yet Another Pluto Moon with it.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.
- neufer
- Vacationer at Tralfamadore
- Posts: 18805
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
- Location: Alexandria, Virginia
Re: Highest Resolution Photos Ever of the Night Sky
The problem with finding small moons of Pluto probably has less to do with high resolutiongeckzilla wrote:
I suppose you could look for Yet Another Pluto Moon with it.
than it has with long exposures and a really dark background.
The examples shown here had only 60 second exposure times.
Art Neuendorffer
Re: Highest Resolution Photos Ever of the Night Sky
60 seconds
Heck, streakers get more exposure time than that, especially if they can run fast. ![Yes. :yes:](./images/smilies/yes.gif)
![Question :?:](./images/smilies/icon_question.gif)
![Yes. :yes:](./images/smilies/yes.gif)
To find the Truth, you must go Beyond.
- Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18490
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
- Contact:
Re: Highest Resolution Photos Ever of the Night Sky
No, I think it's more of a resolution issue. This thing is attached to a very big telescope. Pluto will saturate in seconds; even a dim moon wouldn't require a long exposure. Pluto itself would probably need to be occulted, but the camera has that capability. The problem is that Pluto isn't generally bright enough for the AO system's wavefront detector, so any search would need to be carried out while the planet was passing within a few arcseconds of a star brighter than mag 14.neufer wrote:The problem with finding small moons of Pluto probably has less to do with high resolutiongeckzilla wrote:
I suppose you could look for Yet Another Pluto Moon with it.
than it has with long exposures and a really dark background.
The examples shown here had only 60 second exposure times.
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
- geckzilla
- Ocular Digitator
- Posts: 9180
- Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: Modesto, CA
- Contact:
Re: Highest Resolution Photos Ever of the Night Sky
If Stellarium is accurate, 2014 May 9th at 00:00 is a time to look. A magnitude 13.3 star almost touches Nix 35 minutes prior to that. ![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.
- neufer
- Vacationer at Tralfamadore
- Posts: 18805
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
- Location: Alexandria, Virginia
Re: Highest Resolution Photos Ever of the Night Sky
Pluto isn't tiny enough for the AO system's wavefront detector.Chris Peterson wrote:No, I think it's more of a resolution issue. This thing is attached to a very big telescope. Pluto will saturate in seconds; even a dim moon wouldn't require a long exposure. Pluto itself would probably need to be occulted, but the camera has that capability. The problem is that Pluto isn't generally bright enough for the AO system's wavefront detector, so any search would need to be carried out while the planet was passing within a few arcseconds of a star brighter than mag 14.neufer wrote:The problem with finding small moons of Pluto probably has less to do with high resolutiongeckzilla wrote:
I suppose you could look for Yet Another Pluto Moon with it.
than it has with long exposures and a really dark background.
The examples shown here had only 60 second exposure times.
Nevertheless I stand by my statement:
The problem with finding small moons of Pluto probably has less to do with high resolution
than it has with long exposures and a really dark background.
geckzilla wrote:You won't get much but noise in a couple of hours.NoelC wrote:
I know very well what the Hubble can produce...
Ah to have a couple of hours time on that beautiful machine to do some wideband RGB imaging...
Edit to above statement: Actually, it would depend on what object you are looking at.
A bright object probably would only take a couple of hours.
Art Neuendorffer
- Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18490
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
- Contact:
Re: Highest Resolution Photos Ever of the Night Sky
That is almost certainly true, although in principle you can use AO techniques with non-stellar references as long as you have knowledge of their true profile. But for anything non-stellar, the wavefront analysis becomes much more complex, and the correction rate would necessarily drop.neufer wrote:Pluto isn't tiny enough for the AO system's wavefront detector.
Hubble images of Pluto saturate in about a second. The VisAO camera will probably saturate about an order of magnitude faster, so the exposure time for targeting shots will be no more than a few hundred milliseconds. Hubble collects high S/N images of Nix and Hydra with 8-minute exposures, so that would be about 1-minute exposures with the VisAO. The most recently discovered moons are about three magnitudes dimmer, so would require exposures some 16 times longer.Nevertheless I stand by my statement:
The problem with finding small moons of Pluto probably has less to do with high resolution
than it has with long exposures and a really dark background.
We're talking exposures well under an hour, which means that there shouldn't be a problem keeping a reference star in the field, and any moons should produce very little movement. So I hardly think sensitivity is an issue (although as I noted, an occulting disc would need to be used to prevent blooming around Pluto). The magnitudes of bodies in orbit around Pluto are nowhere near the limiting magnitude of the camera and telescope, so sky background isn't an issue. Finally, the camera employed is an EMCCD, which means it has no readout noise and can be operated at high (even video) frame rates. So if conditions or AO requirements dictate, an image can be summed from shorter exposures with little or no S/N penalty.
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
- neufer
- Vacationer at Tralfamadore
- Posts: 18805
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
- Location: Alexandria, Virginia
Re: Highest Resolution Photos Ever of the Night Sky
The next moons of Pluto will probably be at least another three magnitudes dimmer,Chris Peterson wrote:Hubble images of Pluto saturate in about a second. The VisAO camera will probably saturate about an order of magnitude faster, so the exposure time for targeting shots will be no more than a few hundred milliseconds. Hubble collects high S/N images of Nix and Hydra with 8-minute exposures, so that would be about 1-minute exposures with the VisAO. The most recently discovered moons are about three magnitudes dimmer, so would require exposures some 16 times longer.neufer wrote:
I stand by my statement:
The problem with finding small moons of Pluto probably has less to do with high resolution
than it has with long exposures and a really dark background.
We're talking exposures well under an hour, which means that there shouldn't be a problem keeping a reference star in the field, and any moons should produce very little movement. So I hardly think sensitivity is an issue (although as I noted, an occulting disc would need to be used to prevent blooming around Pluto). The magnitudes of bodies in orbit around Pluto are nowhere near the limiting magnitude of the camera and telescope, so sky background isn't an issue. Finally, the camera employed is an EMCCD, which means it has no readout noise and can be operated at high (even video) frame rates. So if conditions or AO requirements dictate, an image can be summed from shorter exposures with little or no S/N penalty.
and so will require exposures at least 16 times longer still. (Advantage Hubble.)
Art Neuendorffer
- Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18490
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
- Contact:
Re: Highest Resolution Photos Ever of the Night Sky
Why will they be three magnitudes dimmer? Why would that give Hubble an advantage? Three magnitudes dimmer is still within the limiting magnitude of ground based instruments.neufer wrote:The next moons of Pluto will probably be at least another three magnitudes dimmer,
and so will require exposures at least 16 times longer still. (Advantage Hubble.)
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
- neufer
- Vacationer at Tralfamadore
- Posts: 18805
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
- Location: Alexandria, Virginia
Re: Highest Resolution Photos Ever of the Night Sky
Chris Peterson wrote:Why will they be three magnitudes dimmer?neufer wrote:
The next moons of Pluto will probably be at least another three magnitudes dimmer,
and so will require exposures at least 16 times longer still. (Advantage Hubble.)
Because there is no trace of them currently.
(Unless Charon has companion Trojan moons the size of Nix or Hydra.)
We're talking exposures well over an hour for ground based instruments, which means that there should be a problem keeping a reference star in the field, and moons probably would produce noticeable movement at hi-res.Chris Peterson wrote:
Why would that give Hubble an advantage? Three magnitudes dimmer is still within the limiting magnitude of ground based instruments.
The 6.5m Magellan telescope was clearly designed to resolve brighter stars using short exposures. If Charon has companion Trojan moons the size of Nix or Hydra then Magellan has the advantage.
Art Neuendorffer
- Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18490
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
- Contact:
Re: Highest Resolution Photos Ever of the Night Sky
One magnitude would be enough for that. As would the presence of objects closer to Pluto.neufer wrote:Because there is no trace of them currently.Chris Peterson wrote:Why will they be three magnitudes dimmer?
I don't think so. Pluto has a drift rate of about 1 arcsecond per hour, so it should be possible to keep a properly selected reference star in the field for as long as 16 hours. The known moons have orbital periods measured in days, so an exposure of several hours should not be a problem.We're talking exposures well over an hour for ground based instruments, which means that there should be a problem keeping a reference star in the field, and moons probably would produce noticeable movement at hi-res.
The telescope was clearly not designed for such a narrow purpose! Neither is this accurate for the AO system or the VisAO camera. They are perfectly well suited to long exposures, as long as there is a bright reference star close to the target. It is only in the case where the target and the reference are the same that we see short exposures, as in the examples.The 6.5m Magellan telescope was clearly designed to resolve brighter stars using short exposures.
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
- neufer
- Vacationer at Tralfamadore
- Posts: 18805
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
- Location: Alexandria, Virginia
Re: Highest Resolution Photos Ever of the Night Sky
I grant that Hubble is at a distinct disadvantage for moons closer to Pluto (and for resolving features on Pluto).Chris Peterson wrote:One magnitude would be enough for that. As would the presence of objects closer to Pluto.neufer wrote:Because there is no trace of them currently.Chris Peterson wrote:
Why will they be three magnitudes dimmer?
Pluto currently has a "drift rate" of about 1 arcsecond per hour due to its own speed.Chris Peterson wrote:I don't think so. Pluto has a drift rate of about 1 arcsecond per hour, so it should be possible to keep a properly selected reference star in the field for as long as 16 hours. The known moons have orbital periods measured in days, so an exposure of several hours should not be a problem.neufer wrote:
We're talking exposures well over an hour for ground based instruments, which means that there should be a problem keeping a reference star in the field, and moons probably would produce noticeable movement at hi-res.
The retrograde drift rate (taking into account the Earth's speed) can be as much as 3 to 4 arcseconds per hour.
My guess is that the Magellan telescope takes a number of 1 minute exposures and only uses the shot where the atmospheric turbulence is at a minimum. I could be wrong.Chris Peterson wrote:The telescope was clearly not designed for such a narrow purpose! Neither is this accurate for the AO system or the VisAO camera. They are perfectly well suited to long exposures, as long as there is a bright reference star close to the target. It is only in the case where the target and the reference are the same that we see short exposures, as in the examples.neufer wrote:
The 6.5m Magellan telescope was clearly designed to resolve brighter stars using short exposures.
Art Neuendorffer
- Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18490
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
- Contact:
Re: Highest Resolution Photos Ever of the Night Sky
That isn't how it works. It is a perfectly conventional astronomical telescope (a pair, actually, although I think only one is finished). As such, it is used in a variety of ways, the most common being long exposure tracked images of deep sky objects. What you are describing is called "lucky imaging", and isn't often used professionally. When it is, it is on bright objects and with very short exposures - less than a second.neufer wrote:My guess is that the Magellan telescope takes a number of 1 minute exposures and only uses the shot where the atmospheric turbulence is at a minimum. I could be wrong.
The VisAO instrument (which is only one of many instruments used on this telescope) works by modifying the optical wavefront, thereby allowing the camera to operate near the theoretical resolution of the 6.5 meter objective (which is quite a bit better than the atmosphere limited resolution without active optics). The VisAO instrument isn't designed for any particular exposure time; it will be short for bright objects, and long for dim ones.
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
- neufer
- Vacationer at Tralfamadore
- Posts: 18805
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
- Location: Alexandria, Virginia
Re: Highest Resolution Photos Ever of the Night Sky
I stand by my assumption that the Magellan telescope depends upon:Chris Peterson wrote:That isn't how it works. It is a perfectly conventional astronomical telescope (a pair, actually, although I think only one is finished). As such, it is used in a variety of ways, the most common being long exposure tracked images of deep sky objects. What you are describing is called "lucky imaging", and isn't often used professionally. When it is, it is on bright objects and with very short exposures - less than a second.neufer wrote:
My guess is that the Magellan telescope takes a number of 1 minute exposures and only uses the shot where the atmospheric turbulence is at a minimum. I could be wrong.
The VisAO instrument (which is only one of many instruments used on this telescope) works by modifying the optical wavefront, thereby allowing the camera to operate near the theoretical resolution of the 6.5 meter objective (which is quite a bit better than the atmosphere limited resolution without active optics). The VisAO instrument isn't designed for any particular exposure time; it will be short for bright objects, and long for dim ones.
BOTH modifying the optical wavefront AND "lucky imaging."
(With 1 minute disposable "frames" I'll bet it gets a lot of "lucky imaging.")
Art Neuendorffer
- Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18490
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
- Contact:
Re: Highest Resolution Photos Ever of the Night Sky
I'd love to see some evidence of your second assumption.neufer wrote:I stand by my assumption that the Magellan telescope depends upon:
BOTH modifying the optical wavefront AND "lucky imaging."
(With 1 minute disposable "frames" I'll bet it gets a lot of "lucky imaging.")
I doubt very much that the other cameras used on this telescope use short exposures (because there is a terrible readout noise penalty for doing so, very few of their targets would value from one minute exposures, and to take advantage of lucky imaging requires subsecond exposure times, which makes the readout noise problem even greater).
The VisAO camera doesn't use lucky imaging because it has something better: active optics.
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
- neufer
- Vacationer at Tralfamadore
- Posts: 18805
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
- Location: Alexandria, Virginia
Re: Highest Resolution Photos Ever of the Night Sky
I'd love to see a 10 minute hi-res exposure from the Magellan telescope.Chris Peterson wrote:I'd love to see some evidence of your second assumption.neufer wrote:
I stand by my assumption that the Magellan telescope depends upon:
BOTH modifying the optical wavefront AND "lucky imaging."
(With 1 minute disposable "frames" I'll bet it gets a lot of "lucky imaging.")
There doesn't have to be zero turbulence just minimal turbulence.Chris Peterson wrote:
I doubt very much that the other cameras used on this telescope use short exposures (because there is a terrible readout noise penalty for doing so, very few of their targets would value from one minute exposures, and to take advantage of lucky imaging requires subsecond exposure times, which makes the readout noise problem even greater).
The larger the effective aperture the more work the active optics have to perform.Chris Peterson wrote:
The VisAO camera doesn't use lucky imaging because it has something better: active optics.
There's plenty of work for the Magellan telescope to do without forcing it to also observe the faintest stars.
Art Neuendorffer
- Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18490
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
- Contact:
Re: Highest Resolution Photos Ever of the Night Sky
Here are a bunch of them, most much longer than 10 minutes.neufer wrote:I'd love to see a 10 minute hi-res exposure from the Magellan telescope.
It is a 6.5 meter telescope. Its primary function is observing the faintest objects!There's plenty of work for the Magellan telescope to do without forcing it to also observe the faintest stars.
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
- neufer
- Vacationer at Tralfamadore
- Posts: 18805
- Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
- Location: Alexandria, Virginia
Re: Highest Resolution Photos Ever of the Night Sky
None of them super hi-resChris Peterson wrote:Here are a bunch of them, most much longer than 10 minutes.neufer wrote:
I'd love to see a 10 minute hi-res exposure from the Magellan telescope.
![Exclamation :!:](./images/smilies/icon_exclaim.gif)
Not at super hi-resChris Peterson wrote:It is a 6.5 meter telescope. Its primary function is observing the faintest objects!neufer wrote:
There's plenty of work for the Magellan telescope to do without forcing it to also observe the faintest stars.
![Exclamation :!:](./images/smilies/icon_exclaim.gif)
Large apertures with adaptive optics permit super hi-res but not for the faintest objects!
(They also permit hi-res for the faintest objects!)
Art Neuendorffer