13 replies to this topic

[rwasatonic]

Hi Everyone:  I am interested in possibly looking for asteroids using a CCD.

My observing plan (hopefully) is simple:  Take a CCD image, wait about 2

hours, take another CCD image, and then blink the two images to see if

anything moved.  If so, I would then place the cursor on the object that

moved and have to RA and DEC of that object appear on the computer

screen.  I would do this for both images, that should be taken in B/W

only.  I have a f/10 C-11 and a Windows-10 laptop.  My question is:

Is there a CCD to accomplish these simple observations, that is, to

take the B/W images, blink them, and have the RA and DEC appear on

the screen?  Nothing fancy here.  Any help would be appreciated.

Thank you.  Rick Wasatonic.

 

[Tapio]

It's not a camera thing.
You can find asteroids with any astro camera.
You blink the images with software. And again almost any processing software can do that.
You can also plate solve your images and software can tell you what asteroids you have in image.
For example ASTAP is handy software for that.

PS 2 hours is too long interval at your image scale. Even 10 min is enough.

[chrisecurtis]

Software like Tycho Tracker makes it easy - it does the plate solving and analysis so that it's much better than simple blinking and it's very good at detecting asteroids you didn't even realise were in the image.

[Airship]

Blinking images can be a lot of fun! I do this a lot for various reasons, often looking for variable stars and asteroids in my fields. I have also blinked my modern images with historic photographs that are often over 100 years old and it's a neat way to find stars with high proper motions. Back to asteroids, I am setting up to use my Seestars to observe these little worlds. The approach will be to use the built-in planner to image a set of fields and then go back and image them again about an hour later. Plan-B is to use 2 Seestars to image the same fields about 30 minutes apart. Should be fun!

Enjoy!

[robin_astro]

There is an interesting recent thread on a french forum I follow entitled "The Asteroid Hunter's Blues" which shows how tough it is these days for amateurs to find new (main belt) asteroids and be named as the discoverer. It is in french but if you need to, use the translation tool of your choice to share the pain of the poor observer 

 

http://www.astrosurf...ur-dastéroïdes/

 

Cheers

Robin

Edited by robin_astro, 10 February 2025 - 09:31 AM.

[pvdv]

Indeed. IMO, if you go at it, your goal should be mere intellectual/practical satisfaction or understanding the math behind what you do just to ward off age related brain decay . 

Last week, just for the fun of it I observed a very easy target

NEO 2016 TF 93 = (2016) Heinemann = 1905 UF = 1927 SM = 1930 DF = 1938 SE = 1949 SB1 = 1971 OB1 = 1971 QP2 = 1972 VY = 1977 RZ

If I had a say, I would rename it "Lost&Found". 

And fwiw, its lightcurve was measured by one of the participants in the thread you provide

[Airship]

Indeed, for me this is just for fun, though I have been wanting to try some asteroid photometry. I started observing asteroids back in the 1970s using my Tasco 11T and finder charts from Dr. J.U. Gunter's 'Tonight's Asteroids' bimonthly newsletter.

[SeymoreStars]

Tycho Tracker was recommended to me also and I like it. Unfortunately weather has been poor and Astrometry work has been impossible for 6 weeks.

 

This video was the first attempt to track and record Asteroid Minos (6239) through the background stars - https://www.youtube....h?v=EqaX8AfzYeE

 

There's a need to validate the orbit of asteroids, more can be learned here - https://minorplanetcenter.net/

[SeymoreStars]

Here's a Tycho Tracker screenshot of all the known asteroids in my image's FOV .  Just left above center is the track of asteroid 6239. 

 

The video in the post above consists of 25 back-to-back 120 second images. Yeah asteroid and comet tracking is fun.

 

edit: the images were captured with sharpCap all post processing with Tycho Tracker.

 

It's been too long I need clear skies!!

 

Steve

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by SeymoreStars, 10 February 2025 - 04:39 PM.

[jfgout]

Hi Everyone:  I am interested in possibly looking for asteroids using a CCD.

My observing plan (hopefully) is simple:  Take a CCD image, wait about 2

hours, take another CCD image, and then blink the two images to see if

anything moved.  If so, I would then place the cursor on the object that

moved and have to RA and DEC of that object appear on the computer

screen.  I would do this for both images, that should be taken in B/W

only.  I have a f/10 C-11 and a Windows-10 laptop.  My question is:

Is there a CCD to accomplish these simple observations, that is, to

take the B/W images, blink them, and have the RA and DEC appear on

the screen?  Nothing fancy here.  Any help would be appreciated.

Thank you.  Rick Wasatonic.

Hi Rick,

 

Are you interested in doing this with known asteroids just for fun, or are you trying to discover new asteroids? If you want to discover new asteroids, this simple strategy will not work, but using Tycho Tracker as suggested by SeymoreStars is the way to go.

 

 

There is an interesting recent thread on a french forum I follow entitled "The Asteroid Hunter's Blues" which shows how tough it is these days for amateurs to find new (main belt) asteroids and be named as the discoverer. It is in french but if you need to, use the translation tool of your choice to share the pain of the poor observer 

 

http://www.astrosurf...ur-dastéroïdes/

 

Cheers

Robin

As the original poster of this thread on the French forum, I'd be happy to answer any question you might have. Note that I'm still quite green in this field (I have been chasing asteroids seriously only for a few months) so there might be more experienced/seasoned asteroid hunters out there too.

 

My current strategy is to focus on a few fields and go deeper than the surveys. This is contrary to what amateurs do these days, where they image lots of fields very quickly, looking for fast-moving NEOs that are relatively bright. Both strategies have their pros and cons. What I like about my strategy is that it requires fewer computational resources and a much simpler observing plan (no need to cover hundreds of fields).

 

JF

[Jiashuo Zhang]

Hi Rick,

 

Are you interested in doing this with known asteroids just for fun, or are you trying to discover new asteroids? If you want to discover new asteroids, this simple strategy will not work, but using Tycho Tracker as suggested by SeymoreStars is the way to go.

 

 

As the original poster of this thread on the French forum, I'd be happy to answer any question you might have. Note that I'm still quite green in this field (I have been chasing asteroids seriously only for a few months) so there might be more experienced/seasoned asteroid hunters out there too.

 

My current strategy is to focus on a few fields and go deeper than the surveys. This is contrary to what amateurs do these days, where they image lots of fields very quickly, looking for fast-moving NEOs that are relatively bright. Both strategies have their pros and cons. What I like about my strategy is that it requires fewer computational resources and a much simpler observing plan (no need to cover hundreds of fields).

 

JF

Hi,JF.
This is an impressive record. In fact, since the MPC revised the "definition of discovery rights concerning asteroids" in 2010, this track has become increasingly challenging for amateurs.

To illustrate with a simple example, let's assume there's an asteroid named "WOW". According to the MPC's rules before 2010, if I were the first to submit data from the same observatory over two nights in 2025, the discovery would be credited to me (if another observatory had submitted data from the same two nights in 2024, the discovery would belong to them. Single-night data from a single observatory does not affect the ownership of the discovery but only improves orbital uncertainty). However, under the new rules introduced by the MPC in 2010, the first reporter within the same observational period will claim the discovery. That is to say, if F51 submitted one-night data of "WOW" on January 1, 2025, and I submitted data on January 2 and January 3, 2025, the discovery would belong to F51.

(So, in a sense, whether the submitted data has an asterisk (*) or not cannot determine the ultimate ownership of the discovery.)

It's evident that the new rules have a significant impact on amateurs. Large-scale survey projects do not specifically focus on consecutive two-night data for a regular asteroid, which amateurs can do. Due to the limiting magnitudes of projects like F51, G96, and so on, they can detect "WOW" days or even years in advance.

 

If you don't mind, I might be able to help you check the asteroid data you submitted to the MPC, such as performing "ITF to ITF" comparisons and determining the current ownership of discoveries.

P.s. By the way, regarding 2024 XA14, I checked the timestamps. F51's data was submitted after your submission, so it won't belong to F51 but to G96 instead.
For 2024 XQ15, the discovery credit (currently) will go to you. Congratulations!

Best regards,

Jiashuo Zhang

[jfgout]

[...]

 

If you don't mind, I might be able to help you check the asteroid data you submitted to the MPC, such as performing "ITF to ITF" comparisons and determining the current ownership of discoveries.

P.s. By the way, regarding 2024 XA14, I checked the timestamps. F51's data was submitted after your submission, so it won't belong to F51 but to G96 instead.
For 2024 XQ15, the discovery credit (currently) will go to you. Congratulations!

Best regards,

Jiashuo Zhang

Hi Jiashuo,

 

Thank you for your offer to help and for taking the time to look at the data. I wrote my own (quick and dirty) python script to check the ITF for observations that match with my observations. It's a very rough script, so I might take you up on the offer to perform ITF to ITF matching if you have a better tool in hands.

 

Do you work for the MPC or one of the big surveys to have access to the timestamps? 

 

Regarding 2024 XA14 and 2024 XQ15, I'm really surprised by what you wrote. For 2024 XA14, I contacted someone who works at the Catalina Sky Survey before submitting my data. It was my very first submission of a potentially new discovery, and I wanted to make sure that I was not submitting a false discovery. So, I shared my measurements from several nights with David at CSS and he confirmed that the detection was real. He also looked in the recently archived images from G96 and was able to find the object, which had been missed by the automatic pipeline processing. He then took care of submitting the observations from G96 and the linking information. That's why the data from G96 was submitted several days after the actual observations.

Once the linking was done, this object was linked to earlier observations from F51, so I assumed that they had "discovered" it before me. Otherwise, that would mean that the observations from F51 were submitted several days after the images were taken, which seems odd to me.

 

Somewhat similar for 2024 XQ15, I'd be really surprised if the observation from G96 were submitted after mine (but since I don't have access to the timestamps, I can't know for sure).

 

I did notice something strange with another observation, and maybe you can help me figure out what happened. The object is: 2025 BN9. It is a Jupiter Trojan which did not have a designation yet when I first noticed the tracklets in my images. I followed this "new" objects over several nights and kept submitting data until it was finally linked (I did submit some linkage information but I don't know if it was actually used or if the linkage occured automatically). Initially, there were observations from 3 previous oppositions linked to this object, but only one night per opposition (so, I figured that I had a good chance of becoming the discoverer). After ~24 hours, many more observations were linked to it, but these observations were not in the ITF. Does that mean that the pipeline went back to the actual images and detected the object which had not been initially reported (probably because the SNR was not good enough)? Any idea of what might have happened here?

 

Best,

 

JF

[Jiashuo Zhang]

Hi Jiashuo,

 

Thank you for your offer to help and for taking the time to look at the data. I wrote my own (quick and dirty) python script to check the ITF for observations that match with my observations. It's a very rough script, so I might take you up on the offer to perform ITF to ITF matching if you have a better tool in hands.

 

Do you work for the MPC or one of the big surveys to have access to the timestamps? 

 

Regarding 2024 XA14 and 2024 XQ15, I'm really surprised by what you wrote. For 2024 XA14, I contacted someone who works at the Catalina Sky Survey before submitting my data. It was my very first submission of a potentially new discovery, and I wanted to make sure that I was not submitting a false discovery. So, I shared my measurements from several nights with David at CSS and he confirmed that the detection was real. He also looked in the recently archived images from G96 and was able to find the object, which had been missed by the automatic pipeline processing. He then took care of submitting the observations from G96 and the linking information. That's why the data from G96 was submitted several days after the actual observations.

Once the linking was done, this object was linked to earlier observations from F51, so I assumed that they had "discovered" it before me. Otherwise, that would mean that the observations from F51 were submitted several days after the images were taken, which seems odd to me.

 

Somewhat similar for 2024 XQ15, I'd be really surprised if the observation from G96 were submitted after mine (but since I don't have access to the timestamps, I can't know for sure).

 

I did notice something strange with another observation, and maybe you can help me figure out what happened. The object is: 2025 BN9. It is a Jupiter Trojan which did not have a designation yet when I first noticed the tracklets in my images. I followed this "new" objects over several nights and kept submitting data until it was finally linked (I did submit some linkage information but I don't know if it was actually used or if the linkage occured automatically). Initially, there were observations from 3 previous oppositions linked to this object, but only one night per opposition (so, I figured that I had a good chance of becoming the discoverer). After ~24 hours, many more observations were linked to it, but these observations were not in the ITF. Does that mean that the pipeline went back to the actual images and detected the object which had not been initially reported (probably because the SNR was not good enough)? Any idea of what might have happened here?

 

Best,

 

JF

Hi, JF.

I'm just an amateur astronomer (a high school student).

You can use MPC Explorer to preliminarily check timestamps. The steps are: input the asteroid's designation, select "Observations," then check the "ObsID" (actually, I mixed up some details in my previous message. You can see my corrected information and explanations below. I feel ashamed of my unintentional mistake....)

 

MPC Explorer: https://data.minorpl...r.net/explorer/

 

 

The ObsID consists of a string of letters and characters. The order is determined by comparing characters from the first position onward: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th... in sequence, sorted as 1, 2, 3...9, A, B, C...Z, a, b, c... If the first character is identical, compare the second character, and so on. For example, see the case of 2024 XQ15 below.

 

 

Regarding 2024 XA14, according to the ObsID, the earliest submission was from F51 in 2021. So F51's submission indeed preceded that of W05. Based on my previous explanation, the discovery is currently credited to F51 in 2021.

 

For 2024 XQ15, based on ObsID comparisons: G96 submissions predate W05.

All ObsIDs share identical first two characters ("LI"), so we compare the third character. For example, "LlZCIW2J0000GTEO0100001Dp" vs. "Lle3F9Bg0000GTne010000003." Following the sorting rules, "Z" (uppercase) precedes "e" (lowercase), so G96's observation LlZCIW2J... is the earliest submission. Under MPC's new rules, discovery credit currently goes to G96.

 

 

For 2025 BN9, Perhaps your assumption is correct—they likely retrospected historical data.

 

 

I also checked forum data: JFG0027=2025 BU12 is currently credited to W05. I’ll examine other ITF data later, though I’m unsure if I’ll successfully find linked observations.

 

Best regards,

Jiashuo Zhang

Edited by Jiashuo Zhang, 24 February 2025 - 01:17 AM.

[jfgout]

[...]

You can use MPC Explorer to preliminarily check timestamps. The steps are: input the asteroid's designation, select "Observations," then check the "ObsID" [...]

 

The ObsID consists of a string of letters and characters. The order is determined by comparing characters from the first position onward: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th... in sequence, sorted as 1, 2, 3...9, A, B, C...Z, a, b, c... If the first character is identical, compare the second character, and so on.

[...]

Thank you for the tip! I had not thought about using the ObsID as a pseudo "timestamp", or at least, as a way to check the chronological order of submissions.

 

 

Regarding 2024 XA14, according to the ObsID, the earliest submission was from F51 in 2021. So F51's submission indeed preceded that of W05. Based on my previous explanation, the discovery is currently credited to F51 in 2021.

Yes. And that's because there is a second observation of this object (also by F51, but that's not important) at that same apparition. If there had been observations only from one night in 2021, they would not have gotten the discovery credit...

 

 

For 2024 XQ15, based on ObsID comparisons: G96 submissions predate W05.

All ObsIDs share identical first two characters ("LI"), so we compare the third character. For example, "LlZCIW2J0000GTEO0100001Dp" vs. "Lle3F9Bg0000GTne010000003." Following the sorting rules, "Z" (uppercase) precedes "e" (lowercase), so G96's observation LlZCIW2J... is the earliest submission. Under MPC's new rules, discovery credit currently goes to G96.

Yes, I was just a bit too slow to submit my data on this one.

 

 

For 2025 BN9, Perhaps your assumption is correct—they likely retrospected historical data.

That would make sense also when looking at the ObsCode. My data, submitted in Jan/Feb 2025 is "LmO..." to "LmZ...". Most of the older observations are "Lma..." which suggests that they have been submitted shortly after my latest observations. We can also see the observations that had been submitted in the past: one night in 2014 (ObsCode: "KiwJwN..."), one night in 2015 ("KprGvi...") and one night in 2022 ("LYs0U.."). It looks like I got really lucky with this one.

 

 

I also checked forum data: JFG0027=2025 BU12 is currently credited to W05. I’ll examine other ITF data later, though I’m unsure if I’ll successfully find linked observations.

I had a look at this one already, and did not find any other observations in the ITF (going back to 2010 I think). The issue is that the orbit is not super precise (uncertainty level 6) so I'm not sure that observations from 10 years ago would be linked. Due to the fairly high eccentricity of this object (e = 0.23), most oppositions are not favorable. There was a favorable one in 2021, so the main question is: are there observations from 2021 that have not been linked yet due to the large uncertainty in the orbit? We might have to wait until the LSST catches it before we can answer this question...

 

 

I'm just an amateur astronomer (a high school student).

 

[...]

 

(actually, I mixed up some details in my previous message. You can see my corrected information and explanations below. I feel ashamed of my unintentional mistake....)

No need to feel ashamed, we all make mistakes. And your level of understanding of the field is remarquable for a high school student! Keep it up.

 

Best,

JF