APOD: The Milky Way over Snow-Capped Himalayas (2020 May 26)

[APOD Robot]

The Milky Way over Snow-Capped Himalayas

Explanation: What’s higher than the Himalayas? Although the Himalayan Mountains are the tallest on planet Earth, they don't measure up to the Milky Way. Visible above the snow-capped mountains in the featured image is the arcing central band of our home galaxy. The bright spot just above the central plane is the planet Jupiter, while the brightest orange spot on the upper right is the star Antares. The astrophotographer braved below-zero temperatures at nearly 4,000-meters altitude to take the photographs that compose this image. The featured picture is a composite of eight exposures taken with same camera and from the same location over three hours, just after sunset, in 2019 April, from near Bimtang Lake in Nepal. Over much of planet Earth, the planets Mercury (faint) and Venus (bright) will be visible this week after sunset.

<< Previous APOD

This Day in APOD

Next APOD >>

[Ann]

This is a stunning photo, and I can only begin to imagine the efforts the photographer had to make to produce the images that went into this composite image.

However, the colors bother me. The snow-clad mountains are bathed in a bluish light. Yet the Milky Way is so bright, and so dominantly yellow and even brown, that if the brightness of the Milky Way was real, the mountains ought to reflect that color and look yellowish instead.

I'm not asking for yellowish mountains at night, but I am saying that the Milky Way is so bright and yellow that it doesn't look "right" in the bluish hues of this nightly landscape.

Ann

[Robin_Onderka]

I can't agree more with Ann. Seeing a sunshine at the mountain peaks is a little uncomfortable as well as the sharp transition between the sky and landscape, which has an unnatural look for me of a daylight photo turned blue with sky composited. I tried this too, then completely regret and deleted all my posted composites. Simply because I want natural photos.

But to understand this, I had to think about nights in Himalayas. As a photographer, I know that just the animal sounds can be annoying, especially during the night, together with "I can see s%#t", it will be very dangerous in places like these, so composite is always a safer way to show people how the night could be

[anthony@youngman.org.uk]

Minor nit - the Himalayas are the *highest* mountain range - at 4000m tall Everest isn't actually that big.

Hawaii is the tallest - soaring 10000m from sea floor to peak. (Didn't I learn that on APOD?)

[orin stepanek]

Yoo bad that city lights hide the Milky Way!

[TheZuke!]

Minor nit - the Himalayas are the *highest* mountain range - at 4000m tall Everest isn't actually that big.

Hawaii is the tallest - soaring 10000m from sea floor to peak. (Didn't I learn that on APOD?)

I thought a mountain in Ecuador was the tallest (from the perspective of furthest from the center of the Earth).
I just read this weekend that Moana Loa, is no longer considered the tallest Hawaiian mountain.

[Sa Ji Tario]

Zuke, Everest is more than 8,000 mt and the mountain of the equator that you mention is Chimborazo, a dull volcano

[Chris Peterson]

Zuke, Everest is more than 8,000 mt and the mountain of the equator that you mention is Chimborazo, a dull volcano

Everest is not a tall mountain measured from its base, just the highest above sea level. Chimborazo's peak is the highest with respect to the center of the Earth. Mauna Kea is the tallest mountain with respect to its base (or maybe Kilimanjaro or Denali, if we take the base above sea level).

There are lots of reasonable ways to judge the height of a mountain, and they yield different answers.

[Sa Ji Tario]

it can't be more exact

[Chris Peterson]

it can't be more exact

What's that?

[neufer]

Everest is not a tall mountain measured from its base, just the highest above sea level. Chimborazo's peak is the highest with respect to the center of the Earth. Mauna Kea is the tallest mountain with respect to its base (or maybe Kilimanjaro or Denali, if we take the base above sea level).

There are lots of reasonable ways to judge the height of a mountain, and they yield different answers.

Code: Select all

World 	Tallest peak	 	Base-to-peak height
.....................................................
Vesta 	Rheasilvia central peak 	22 km
Mars 	Olympus Mons		 	21.9 km
Iapetus equatorial ridge	 	20 km
Io 	Boösaule Montes "South" 	18.2 km
Oberon 	unnamed ("limb mountain") 	11 km
Earth 	Mauna Kea/Loa		 	10.2 km
Earth 	Haleakala		 	9.1 km 
Earth 	Pico del Teide		 	7.5 km
Mimas 	Herschel central peak	 	7 km
Venus 	Skadi Mons			6.4 km 
Pluto 	Tenzing Montes		 	6.2 km
Earth 	Denali			 	5.9 km
Moon 	Mons Huygens		 	5.5 km
Earth 	Mount Everest		 	4.6 km
Charon 	Butler Mons		 	≥ 4.5 km
Ceres 	Ahuna Mons		 	4 km
Titan 	Mithrim Montes		 	≤ 3.3 km
Mercury	Caloris Montes		 	≤ 3 km
Dione 	Janiculum Dorsa		 	1.5 km

[MarkBour]

A little hard to find this on Google maps, it is often spelled with an extra "h", either as "Bimthang", or more often "Bhimtang". Ah, the fun of going from a language like Nepalese into English with a proper name. In the end, I agree with the choice in the caption, probably best to just spell it as "Bimtang".

A popular trek in Nepal is the Bimtang trekking circuit, that goes near (but of course, well below) Manaslu peak.
Next to the tiny hamlet of Bimtang is an even smaller lake, that is pictured in the APOD. Looking SSE across the lake, you can see the dramatic peaks far above. The one on the left might be Manaslu, the one to the right, appears to be Thulagi Chuli. Farther back would be Ngadi Chuli (again, note the optional "h"s in the spellings).

Google Maps View

Similar Photo

I haven't been to this place, so I may have screwed up quite a few of the details.
According to Wikipedia, Ngadi Chuli is one deadly peak. They don't say it that way, but they list it has having been climbed only "once or twice". That description says it all.

[EmanueleBalboni]

Thanks MarkBour for having found the right place.
The problem with composite images is that sometimes the result is messy: the MIlky Way orientation doesn't look right for the place and anyway good luck if you try to spot the MW center int the first part of the night ("over three hours, just after sunset") in April from the Northern Hemisphere!
Guys, don't trust me: go check with Photopills.