Comments and questions about the
APOD on the main view screen.
-
Astronut
Post
by Astronut » Sun May 02, 2010 4:12 am
HHMMMMmmmm, what a strange part of space. All coma's. What do you think it's trying to tell us using only puncuation and no words?
-
alter-ego
- Serendipitous Sleuthhound
- Posts: 1123
- Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:51 am
- Location: Redmond, WA
Post
by alter-ego » Sun May 02, 2010 4:35 am
Pretty nice batch of galaxies. In the Coma cluster, I once counted at least 30 galaxies in the FOV of a 6" Newtonian. It was likely this same area. The field of view is ~35', just a little more than a full moon. Here is the star chart for the uncropped picture:
http://www.jburnell.com/AGC1656CoreMap.jpg
A pessimist is nothing more than an experienced optimist
-
supamario
Post
by supamario » Sun May 02, 2010 6:26 am
Excellent photo of an amazing region.
One object that particularly sticks out for me, is the "gray blob" at the very bottom, right of centre, in the APOD crop. It is a bit more pronounced in the full size image.
It is just as large as almost any other object in the image, but why is it so featureless and faint?
-
owlice
- Guardian of the Codes
- Posts: 8406
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 4:18 pm
- Location: Washington, DC
Post
by owlice » Sun May 02, 2010 8:55 am
alter-ego, nice chart; thank you for sharing it.
supamario,
why is it so featureless and faint?
My guess would be because of distance (but this is just a guess).
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
-
supamario
Post
by supamario » Sun May 02, 2010 9:52 am
owlice wrote:supamario wrote:why is it so featureless and faint?
My guess would be because of distance (but this is just a guess).
My guess is, if it is at the same distance as the rest of the background galaxies, then it probably has a relatively lower star density (less mass) and therefore not as bright.
Otherwise, if it is distance related, then it would be a monster size galaxy if its apparent size still shows up as featureless.
-
gingerd
- Asternaut
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 1:56 pm
Post
by gingerd » Sun May 02, 2010 11:58 am
Why "coma"or is that just the US spelling of comma? If it is comma then why, does it look like one?
-
orin stepanek
- Plutopian
- Posts: 8200
- Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:41 pm
- Location: Nebraska
Post
by orin stepanek » Sun May 02, 2010 12:47 pm
Orin
Smile today; tomorrow's another day!
-
supamario
Post
by supamario » Sun May 02, 2010 2:15 pm
Orin, thanks for the link with the deeper exposure.. unfortunately, it just cuts off the object in question!
-
rstevenson
- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
- Posts: 2705
- Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:24 pm
- Location: Halifax, NS, Canada
Post
by rstevenson » Sun May 02, 2010 2:37 pm
gingerd wrote:Why "coma"or is that just the US spelling of comma? If it is comma then why, does it look like one?
Coma, not commma. This cluster is located in the constellation Coma Berenices. Perhaps that's why it is named as it is. Nothing to do with commas.
Rob
-
Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18572
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
-
Contact:
Post
by Chris Peterson » Sun May 02, 2010 3:12 pm
rstevenson wrote:gingerd wrote:Why "coma"or is that just the US spelling of comma? If it is comma then why, does it look like one?
Coma, not commma. This cluster is located in the constellation Coma Berenices. Perhaps that's why it is named as it is. Nothing to do with commas.
Hopefully this won't start a
hairy debate!
-
Dean Rowe
- Asternaut
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 3:48 am
Post
by Dean Rowe » Sun May 02, 2010 3:29 pm
supamario wrote:Excellent photo of an amazing region.
One object that particularly sticks out for me, is the "gray blob" at the very bottom, right of centre, in the APOD crop. It is a bit more pronounced in the full size image.
It is just as large as almost any other object in the image, but why is it so featureless and faint?
I think that's just and artifact, maybe a reflection from one of the stars or something? It doesn't show up in NED or some other images I looked at. I did find something similar on a DSS image, but in a different location - here's the DSS image superimposed on a crop of my shot.
-
Dean Rowe
- Asternaut
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 3:48 am
Post
by Dean Rowe » Sun May 02, 2010 3:31 pm
alter-ego wrote:Pretty nice batch of galaxies. In the Coma cluster, I once counted at least 30 galaxies in the FOV of a 6" Newtonian. It was likely this same area. The field of view is ~35', just a little more than a full moon. Here is the star chart for the uncropped picture:
http://www.jburnell.com/AGC1656CoreMap.jpg
The FOV of this shot is around 100'x70' or about 3x2 full moons.
-
alter-ego
- Serendipitous Sleuthhound
- Posts: 1123
- Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:51 am
- Location: Redmond, WA
Post
by alter-ego » Sun May 02, 2010 5:09 pm
Dean Rowe wrote:alter-ego wrote:Pretty nice batch of galaxies. In the Coma cluster, I once counted at least 30 galaxies in the FOV of a 6" Newtonian. It was likely this same area. The field of view is ~35', just a little more than a full moon. Here is the star chart for the
uncropped picture:
http://www.jburnell.com/AGC1656CoreMap.jpg
The FOV of this shot is around 100'x70' or about 3x2 full moons.
You are correct about the original picture. My size estimate referred to the displayed APOD picture which is cropped to a smaller size from the original, whereas the star chart shows the original picture (as I stated). Often cropped / reoriented pictures are presented for aesthetics, focus on detail, aspect ratios, etc.
No matter how careful one is trying to be clear, there is always confusion.
A pessimist is nothing more than an experienced optimist
-
DavidLeodis
- Perceptatron
- Posts: 1169
- Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 1:00 pm
Post
by DavidLeodis » Mon May 03, 2010 10:28 am
Almost every object in the photograph is a galaxy! I get mentally lost trying to envisage the sheer unimaginable (well at least to me) vastness of 'Space'. It's an amazing Universe out there and probably also whatever is beyond the Universe that we know of. It's time that Warp Drive was here to give me a chance to boldly go and seek out!
-
supamario
Post
by supamario » Mon May 03, 2010 1:29 pm
Thanks Dean for the superimposed image and the likely explanation.
Cheers.
Mario
-
DavidLeodis
- Perceptatron
- Posts: 1169
- Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 1:00 pm
Post
by DavidLeodis » Mon May 03, 2010 4:37 pm
Dean Rowe wrote:alter-ego wrote:Pretty nice batch of galaxies. In the Coma cluster, I once counted at least 30 galaxies in the FOV of a 6" Newtonian. It was likely this same area. The field of view is ~35', just a little more than a full moon. Here is the star chart for the uncropped picture:
http://www.jburnell.com/AGC1656CoreMap.jpg
The FOV of this shot is around 100'x70' or about 3x2 full moons.
I am confused (easily done I admit
) as to what is the size of the image used as the APOD. Does the "this shot" refer to the APOD or the larger FOV image from which the APOD is clearly derived or even the star chart?
I would be grateful for any help. Thanks.
-
bystander
- Apathetic Retiree
- Posts: 21590
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:06 pm
- Location: Oklahoma
Post
by bystander » Mon May 03, 2010 5:16 pm
DavidLeodis wrote:I am confused (easily done I admit
) as to what is the size of the image used as the APOD. Does the "this shot" refer to the APOD or the larger FOV image from which the APOD is clearly derived or even the star chart?
I would be grateful for any help. Thanks.
I probably shouldn't answer for Dean, but I'm fairly certain when he refers to
"this shot" he is speaking of
his original image, referred to in the APOD link
pictured above (the larger FOV).
BTW: Welcome to The Asterisk*, Dean, and congratulations on your APOD.
Great Pictures!
-
DavidLeodis
- Perceptatron
- Posts: 1169
- Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 1:00 pm
Post
by DavidLeodis » Mon May 03, 2010 7:34 pm
bystander wrote:DavidLeodis wrote:I am confused (easily done I admit
) as to what is the size of the image used as the APOD. Does the "this shot" refer to the APOD or the larger FOV image from which the APOD is clearly derived or even the star chart?
I would be grateful for any help. Thanks.
I probably shouldn't answer for Dean, but I'm fairly certain when he refers to
"this shot" he is speaking of
his original image, referred to in the APOD link
pictured above (the larger FOV).
BTW: Welcome to The Asterisk*, Dean, and congratulations on your APOD.
Great Pictures!
Thanks bystander. From that and by measuring the area covered by the APOD in the full FOV image I calculate that the APOD image covers approximately 48'x39' or about 1.4x1.1 full moons (give or take a bit and hoping not too much!).
Last edited by
DavidLeodis on Tue May 04, 2010 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Dean Rowe
- Asternaut
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 3:48 am
Post
by Dean Rowe » Tue May 04, 2010 2:35 am
bystander wrote:DavidLeodis wrote:I am confused (easily done I admit
) as to what is the size of the image used as the APOD. Does the "this shot" refer to the APOD or the larger FOV image from which the APOD is clearly derived or even the star chart?
I would be grateful for any help. Thanks.
I probably shouldn't answer for Dean, but I'm fairly certain when he refers to
"this shot" he is speaking of
his original image, referred to in the APOD link
pictured above (the larger FOV).
Yep - I didn't realize they cropped it on the APOD page until just now (the large version when you click the image is uncropped
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1005/co ... we_big.jpg )
BTW: Welcome to The Asterisk*, Dean, and congratulations on your APOD.
Great Pictures!
Thanks
-
DavidLeodis
- Perceptatron
- Posts: 1169
- Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 1:00 pm
Post
by DavidLeodis » Tue May 04, 2010 9:46 am
Thanks Dean. Your response is appreciated.
APOD images are regularly croppped, which can cause some confusion when reading the information about images that is brought up through links in explanations.