22 replies to this topic

[Doug_Hole]

Ready for the ultimate challenge?

 

I've had alot of fun posting images in the small bore challenges for planets in the solar system, but now I want to take it to the next level.

 

The rules of this challenge are:

 

• Only objects 10" arcseconds or less of diameter at the time of imaging can be posted
• Any telescope and camera can be used
• Objects must be planetary (Moons, asteroids, planets)

Examples of good objects to image:

•  
• Mercury 4.5 - 13.5 arcseconds
• Mars (out of opposition) 3.5 - 25.6 arcseconds
• Uranus - 3.5 arcseconds
• Neptune - 2.4 arcseconds
• Ganymede 1.2 - 1.8 arcseconds
• Io - 1.2 arcseconds
• Callisto - 1.6 arcseconds
• Europa - 1.0 arcseconds
• Ceres - 0.9 arcseconds
• Titan - 0.8 arcseconds

Here's my first contribution, an Image of Neptune taken early yesterday morning:

[VAviewer]

Here is my very not great pic of titan from this morning, 0.8 arc sec.

[luxo II]

Yay... Uranus, with a 6" mak and ASI533MC Pro.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[kevinbreen]

 

Here's the Sausage Galaxy at 8 minutes to lunchtime. 😋

[kevinbreen]

Oops, wrong forum, better spill the beans to a moderator

[Doug_Hole]

Should been 8 seconds to lunch time 

[kevinbreen]

Ouch, out by a factor of 60. Thanks mate 👍

[Doug_Hole]

Hardly looks like a planet, but scored some detail nonetheless. Here is the 5 arcsecond mars.

[happylimpet]

Ceres in 2018. Compared to a star so the disc is clear, and to the simulation for that moment. Keen to try Vesta and get the elongation.

 

[Matthew Paul]

Nothing crazy but still fun. These are just screenshots of single images from the acquisition software that I labeled a while back. 

 

[Kokatha man]

Ganymede in 2019...just for fun! 

 

 

 

 

[Matthew Paul]

Ganymede in 2019...just for fun! 

Supurb!

[Doug_Hole]

Ganymede in 2019...just for fun! 

 

Ganymede_2019-09-27_10-13#3.png

Nothing short of incredible! Thats the most detail I have ever seen on a Moon of another planet. What size telescope did you use?

[Doug_Hole]

Ceres in 2018. Compared to a star so the disc is clear, and to the simulation for that moment. Keen to try Vesta and get the elongation.

 

Presentation1_4.png

Impressive! I have been curious whether or not its possible can resolve the disk of ceres or not.

[Doug_Hole]

Nothing crazy but still fun. These are just screenshots of single images from the acquisition software that I labeled a while back. 

 

Uranus and Moons_Small.jpg

Neptune and Triton_Small.jpg

SaturnandMoons_Small.jpg

Nice work!

[happylimpet]

Impressive! I have been curious whether or not its possible can resolve the disk of ceres or not.

Its clear while youre imaging - it looks like a Galilean moon disk, clearly not a star.

[Doug_Hole]

Here is Neptune from yesterday morning, under good seeing conditions.

 

[RedLionNJ]

Ready for the ultimate challenge?

 

I've had alot of fun posting images in the small bore challenges for planets in the solar system, but now I want to take it to the next level.

 

The rules of this challenge are:

 

• Only objects 10" arcseconds or less of diameter at the time of imaging can be posted
• Any telescope and camera can be used
• Objects must be planetary (Moons, asteroids, planets)

Examples of good objects to image:

•  
• Mercury 4.5 - 13.5 arcseconds
• Mars (out of opposition) 3.5 - 25.6 arcseconds
• Uranus - 3.5 arcseconds
• Neptune - 2.4 arcseconds
• Ganymede 1.2 - 1.8 arcseconds
• Io - 1.2 arcseconds
• Callisto - 1.6 arcseconds
• Europa - 1.0 arcseconds
• Ceres - 0.9 arcseconds
• Titan - 0.8 arcseconds

Here's my first contribution, an Image of Neptune taken early yesterday morning:

Neptune final destination 3.png

If we're to persist with this thread (which, let me make it clear, I think we should), an additional ground rule may be in order:

 

Simply detecting a solar system object which may fall into the "under 10 arcsec" category isn't sufficient criteria to merit a post. It should be made very clear the object has a resolved diameter associated with it. On images with no reference objects, this can be difficult to tell. Nick has taken the right approach in showing a comparison star with the same imaging setup - the minor planet is not saturated or otherwise greatly over-exposed and distinctly shows a larger apparent size than the comparison star.  An alternate approach (Darryl, etc.) is to show identifiable surface detail on the target object (Mars, Galilean moon, etc.).

 

I'd like to add my own nemesis to the list of potential targets too - but I likely live too far north to get the degree of seeing required - elongation of the Pluto/Charon system, compared with a round, regular nearby star.

 

Thanks for starting this thread, Doug!

[Doug_Hole]

If we're to persist with this thread (which, let me make it clear, I think we should), an additional ground rule may be in order:

 

Simply detecting a solar system object which may fall into the "under 10 arcsec" category isn't sufficient criteria to merit a post. It should be made very clear the object has a resolved diameter associated with it. On images with no reference objects, this can be difficult to tell. Nick has taken the right approach in showing a comparison star with the same imaging setup - the minor planet is not saturated or otherwise greatly over-exposed and distinctly shows a larger apparent size than the comparison star.  An alternate approach (Darryl, etc.) is to show identifiable surface detail on the target object (Mars, Galilean moon, etc.).

 

I'd like to add my own nemesis to the list of potential targets too - but I likely live too far north to get the degree of seeing required - elongation of the Pluto/Charon system, compared with a round, regular nearby star.

 

Thanks for starting this thread, Doug!

I think that makes alot more sense. I will make it clear that the object needs a resolved diameter as well. 

[Matthew Paul]

Simply detecting a solar system object which may fall into the "under 10 arcsec" category isn't sufficient criteria to merit a post.

 

I disagree and feel that clearly labeled images like those that I shared, which detect multiple moons, including small ones rarely mentioned, give a useful perspective. I'd love to see more images like this from other people, including comets, astroids, or other solar small angle solar system objects.

 

Perhaps the images would be more useful if posted in combination with a planetarium screen shot helping to verify for others the objects are what they are. 

 

But, I digress, this isn't my thread or my idea, and I am not a moderator. If we would like to only post fully resolved images with comparisons stars from here out -- that will also be interesting, useful, and for sure challanging. Though I probably can't contribute much given my horrendous seeing conditions, located between two rivers at the bottom of a mountain ridge, but I'll gladly follow along!

[RedLionNJ]

I disagree and feel that clearly labeled images like those that I shared, which detect multiple moons, including small ones rarely mentioned, give a useful perspective. I'd love to see more images like this from other people, including comets, astroids, or other solar small angle solar system objects.

 

Perhaps the images would be more useful if posted in combination with a planetarium screen shot helping to verify for others the objects are what they are. 

 

But, I digress, this isn't my thread or my idea, and I am not a moderator. If we would like to only post fully resolved images with comparisons stars from here out -- that will also be interesting, useful, and for sure challanging. Though I probably can't contribute much given my horrendous seeing conditions, located between two rivers at the bottom of a mountain ridge, but I'll gladly follow along!

I ultimately leave it up to Doug (it's his thread, after all) - but if we include anything that can be detected with an apparent size under ten arcsec (as opposed to resolved), that would then encompass every minor planet in the solar system - kind of makes the 'challenge' not a challenge at all. 

 

Resolving Titan (or better yet, its shadow) would be a worthwhile exercise these days, though. We don't get these opportunities year after year.

[Doug_Hole]

Hi everyone after alot of thought, I've concluded that all images should be resolved as a disk, the point if this challenge is to be a difficult challenge, but I am torn because I do not want to exclude those who do not have access to sufficient equipment or seeing to compete. I guess what matters is that if an object looks like a star, then there isn't much that differes between that object and other stars in the sky. There are still times when Venus shrinks below 10 arcseconds, and Mars is almost always below that size. So I've decided to add the following rule:

All objects must have a resolved 'disk' and pictures of said objects must have attached proof of this or have a simulation of the object.

But I'm willing to make an exception for smaller telescopes under 6" of size:

Moons of Saturn, Neptune, Uranus and Mars do not need to be resolved.

If you live in poor areas for seeing this exception can apply to you, but you must state why this is the case.

Edited by Doug_Hole, 03 June 2025 - 06:30 PM.

[Doug_Hole]

Here is Mercury from back in April (7.5 Arcseconds)

The phase is clear therfore meaning the disk is easily resolved.