APOD and General Astronomy Discussion Forum
https://asterisk.apod.com/
Yes, I saw that link. I was hoping for something finer. The S&T charts I'm used to have me spoiled I guess.Nitpicker wrote: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 wrote:The first Comet Lovejoy link in the caption takes you here: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?
http://www.aerith.net/comet/catalog/2013R1/2013R1.html
That's exactly what I was hoping for Anthony. Thanks.Anthony Barreiro wrote:I find this chart easier to read.
Thank you very much too Nitpicker.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').
Bravo buffalo!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.
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.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 ChasingBDanielMayfield wrote:That's exactly what I was hoping for Anthony. Thanks.Anthony Barreiro wrote:I find this chart easier to read.
I've seen much worse grammar on the APOD captions. Careful, sometimes you can get nasty posts when criticizing about such things.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.
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.Mizar wrote:I've seen much worse grammar on the APOD captions. Careful, sometimes you can get nasty posts when criticizing about such things.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.
geckzilla wrote:The rolling-eyes emoticon is pretty nasty itself if used in certain ways, such as this one.Mizar wrote:
I've seen much worse grammar on the APOD captions.
Careful, sometimes you can get nasty posts when criticizing about such things.
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!"
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!Mizar wrote:I've seen much worse grammar on the APOD captions. Careful, sometimes you can get nasty posts when criticizing about such things.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.
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.
Thanks! I was looking for that chart on S&T, but I couldn't find it.BDanielMayfield wrote:Fine fellow finders! Found fine finely refined finer finder here:
http://media.skyandtelescope.com/docume ... oy_Dec.pdf
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.BDanielMayfield wrote: » December 3rd, 2013, 7:38 am
Looked by Beta Boo, couldn’t catch comet coma due to dew, how 'bout you
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.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.
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.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.
>>>AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!<<<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.
