Comet Palomar Time Lapse

Cool! Thanks Astro.

Outstanding job as always.

Thanks for giving us a look at the comet!!

:bump2:

Thank you.

Amazing!

Looks like a geese to me

Astro I got a few questions for you. What are the differences between your telescope and the Vatican's L.U.C.F.E.R.'s telescope? Also, the differences between yours and the South Pole telescope as well? Oh and are there major differences between the Vatican's & the South Pole telescopes?

Thank you for your time.

Fake and gay.

Vatican telescope is known as the VATT so what is the Lucifer telescope and where did it come from? L.U.C.I.F.E.R stands for Large Binocular Telescope Near-infrared Utility with Camera and Integral Field Unit for Extragalactic Research

Beautifully done! This is awesome! :)

LUCIFER was an instrument built for the large binocular telescope which is located on the same mountain as the Vatican observatory's VATT telescope, but those are two different telescopes in two different buildings. Multiple observatories are located on that mountain, Mount Graham. They're really two different observatories though which just happen to share the same infrastructure facilities for supporting all of the observatories on that mountain. The Vatican had nothing to do with the naming of that instrument, although the secular large binocular telescope observatory probably did it as a bit of a jab at the Catholic observatory next door to them. It would be like blaming a Catholic amateur astronomer living in chiefland astronomy village because his next door neighbor named his new telescope Satan in order to annoy his Catholic neighbor. They may share the same homeowners association but they are two different people and they can name their telescopes whatever they want.

The South Pole telescope that people usually refer to has nothing in common with the Vatican's VATT nor does it have anything in common with the Lucifer instrument on the large binocular telescope. The SPT is a microwave/millimeter wave observatory, more akin to a radio telescope than an optical telescope. The only reason nibiru believers seem to have latched onto the SPT is because it's located at the South Pole and they want to use the excuse that nibiru can only be seen from the South Pole in order to dismiss criticisms that amateur observatories in the southern hemisphere can't see it. It'd be like saying that the north star can only be seen from the North Pole. That's ridiculous of course, it can be seen from anywhere in the northern hemisphere.

Sweet! Thanks Astronaut... I enjoyed the stream last night but to be honest you lost me many times

New, explosive images coming in:

:herehecomes:

I base my belief of Nibiru on what can be found in antiquity. It is even spoken of in the Zohar. I was also shown that long before Nibiru will be seen, fireballs will fall from the sky. Also, you should look into where the hubble was aimed when it was first used.

The reason I ask about the type of scopes is the IR technology. Something is costing Millions of dollars and I personally can not build what is on Mount Graham or the South Pole. Can you? (The LBT cost $130 million to build and equip and takes about $13 million a year to operate.)

Furthermore, what can they do that yours cannot?

Thank you for taking your time to reply. I really do appreciate it.

It is incredible that in the midst of so many idiots that publish on this site, there is someone practicing science ...

I don't base my understanding of astronomy on ancient myth, I go based on the evidence. A massive planet or brown dwarf in an elliptical 3600 year orbit would have destroyed the stability of the solar system. The orbits of the known planets would look nothing like they presently do.

The SPT isn't an IR telescope. And LUCIFER wasn't built for the VATT.

Again, the SPT isn't an infrared telescope. My telescope doesn't need to cost millions to detect infrared. CW Leonis, one of the most popular claims of "Nibiru on Google Sky" can only be seen in infrared but I can see it just fine with the camera I used last night:


If a brown dwarf were anywhere near the vicinity of the known planets of our solar system, you wouldn't need a multimillion dollar observatory to detect it. That's not why those observatories exist.

Hi Astromut, is it scary to look through giant telescopes? Is it like looking at a giant movie screen? Or feel like looking through a normal binoculars?

It's definitely breathtaking, especially with an eyepiece that has a wide FOV. I wouldn't describe it as a movie screen, it's much more like binoculars, but stable and possibly much higher magnification. The thing is, the human eye is incapable of perceiving color in dim nebulae and galaxies. Our night vision perceives these objects as faint fuzzies in the eyepiece, even with a very large telescope. The cone cells that provide our color perception are much less sensitive than the light sensitive rod cells, and the rod cells have a higher density around the periphery of our vision. You therefore get the best looks of deep sky objects through the eyepiece not by staring directly at the object but by using averted vision, looking just away from it and perceiving it in your peripheral vision.

:bump4:

So cool. What are those blinking lights? Like some spots go away while others seem to turn on.

Well, well, well. Lookie at that.

Residual hot pixels. Over time, cosmic ray strikes can damage pixels on the camera and create new ones that aren't in the calibration image. The calibration image was redone halfway through the run when I refocused the telescope, which is why they disappear at one point. The tonemapping I put the raw images through to make the timelapse exaggerates their appearance.

Last Edited by Astromut on 05/22/2021 06:50 PM

Really nice Astromut. Thanks for the time lapse. Thank you for sharing your compilation.

I was surprised to see certain prominent stars wink out behind and forward of the comet during the time lapse.

Do you have an explanation for disappearing stars in your footage?

Thanks for posting it.

Refining previous post. At .29 a star-like light disappears from behind the comet and then two lights appear forward of it in the next clip.

Those are the residual hot pixels I mentioned. They disappear midway through the imaging run because I had refocused the telescope and took a fresh dark frame calibration image at that point (the camera takes an exposure with the shutter closed and subtracts it from all future frames automatically). Then towards the end of the run new residual hot pixels begin to appear once again.

Last Edited by Astromut on 05/22/2021 07:09 PM

Thanks!

I see, now, what the referenced "hot pixels" meant.

Why is there no tail?

Thanks!