Nice work! Does the uncertainty come from error bars in the observed trajectory? I would’ve thought an asteroid’s path is pretty easy to pinpoint with enough information.
Yep, even the best telescopes have a bit of inaccuracy in their measurements, and we haven't been tracking it for long enough to determine its orbit with enough precision to know its exact trajectory.
Got moved to tonight at my spouse’s request, didn’t get out until 2100.
Seeing was good, not the clearest I’ve seen, but not bad. The stars seemed overall dimmer than usual, but not shimmering or twinkling. Light pollution was definitely slapping though
What I managed (using 12" f5 dob, 30mm wide field eyepiece in 2x Barlow):
M65 and M66. Took me two or three tries to starhop to them. I did not manage to visualize NGC 3628, but m65 and M66 appeared as vague foggy shadows, oval in shape, both tilted to point upper left and lower right, the right above the left. Very difficult to visualize directly, almost had to visualize exclusively via averted gaze.
Bode’s Galaxy: this involved more dumb luck than I’d like to admit. I tried to starhop here by using the bear’s neck stars to form a pointer to a dimmer bunching of stars that would point to the galaxy. I tried probably four different times until I got on the same group of stars and slewed a bit right and maybe a degree down. Bode’s Galaxy has a more circular appearance than 65 and 66, the core is brighter, and it’s beefy enough to tolerate direct gaze. Still a faint fuzzy, but it left me in less doubt about whether I was just imagining it.
What I missed:
Jupiter, Rosette Nebula, everything in Canis Major, Orion, Gemini, and Monoceros: just didn’t get out in time and my views got blocked =(
NGC 2419: The moon stole the show here, unfortunately. It wasn’t directly blocking my view, but it was bright enough to wash out my view in this area
M97 and M108: Tried maybe six different times and got nowhere fast. Not sure why, but trying to star hop here just showed me a bunch of fairly unremarkable stars and that’s all. Maybe I needed higher magnification?
Each of the several choices available in run 3 for selecting records at random from a database table comes with its own set of advantages and disadvantages. Depending on the specific requirements of the application, one of the methods can be more appropriate than the others.
Yeah, shit idea. And exactly why NASA gets shit on for consuming money with less to show for it.
Spend billions on a program set up by one administration, then some tool comes along and wants to cut costs because they want to look effective and cuts NASA’s programs. Program never completes, now it’s just a waste. NASA, being by default a scientific endeavor thar doesn’t need to return an profit other than exportation and research data, is an easy target. Billions invested and nothing to show for it. WhY iS NaSA So iNeFfeCtIve!?! Repeat for another program later.
Water scouring the surface? Or was it thousands years of wind-blown sand / dust? Dunes have ripples.
There is no water on Mars (not to be confused with liquid CO2) until somebody goes there and drinks some. Anything else is hoping for water to justify the $100billion price tag.
astronomy
Ważne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.