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

[BDanielMayfield]

The first Comet Lovejoy link in the caption takes you here:
http://www.aerith.net/comet/catalog/2013R1/2013R1.html

Yes, I saw that link. I was hoping for something finer. The S&T charts I'm used to have me spoiled I guess.

[Anthony Barreiro]

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.

[Nitpicker]

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').

[BDanielMayfield]

I find this chart easier to read.

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

[BDanielMayfield]

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.

[charlieo3]

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.

[Nitpicker]

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!

[BDanielMayfield]

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

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

[Mizar]

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.

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

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.

[geckzilla]

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.

[BDanielMayfield]

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

[Beyond]

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

[neufer]

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.

"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!"

[Chris Peterson]

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!

[owlice]

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

[neufer]

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!

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

[geckzilla]

And then there's Art.

[Beyond]

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

[Anthony Barreiro]

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.

» 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.

[Mizar]

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.

[geckzilla]

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.

[luraystars]

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.

[Chris Peterson]

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.

[Beyond]

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.

[Ann]

Click to view full size image

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