One of the panelists in the most recent Deep Impact news conference noted that the comet brightened "by a factor of 5" after the impact. He then alluded to the graphic located at: http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/Science/Deep_Impact/NAC_Clear_Lightcurve... Could some of the science types on the list confirm or correct my guess that what all this means is that it brightened briefly by about 1.5 magnitudes? Thanks, Patrick
A difference in apparent brightness “by a factor of 5” is, approximately, an apparent magnitude difference of 1.75. The fifth root of 100 to the 1.75 power is 5.012. Your assessment of a 1.5 apparent magnitude difference is close enough for government work. Besides, Patrick, you probably did the calculation in your head and I did mine on a calculator. Dave On Jul 5, 2005, at 1:58 AM, Patrick Wiggins wrote:
One of the panelists in the most recent Deep Impact news conference noted that the comet brightened "by a factor of 5" after the impact. He then alluded to the graphic located at: http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/Science/Deep_Impact/ NAC_Clear_Lightcurve_H.jpg
Could some of the science types on the list confirm or correct my guess that what all this means is that it brightened briefly by about 1.5 magnitudes?
Thanks,
Patrick
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I don't know about magnitudes per se, but, if you use averted vision when looking at the graph, you can almost see what appears to be a middle finger. ;) But I could be wrong... Quoting Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net>:
One of the panelists in the most recent Deep Impact news conference noted that the comet brightened "by a factor of 5" after the impact. He then alluded to the graphic located at: http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/Science/Deep_Impact/NAC_Clear_Lightcurve... Could some of the science types on the list confirm or correct my guess that what all this means is that it brightened briefly by about 1.5 magnitudes?
Thanks,
Patrick
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I agree with Guy. A 1.75 magnitude gain on nothing is still nothing. Visually this was a non-event, even in a 32-inch telescope. Oh, how SL-9 has spoiled me. --- diveboss@xmission.com wrote:
I don't know about magnitudes per se, but, if you use averted vision when looking at the graph, you can almost see what appears to be a middle finger. ;) But I could be wrong...
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
Chuck Hards wrote:
I agree with Guy. A 1.75 magnitude gain on nothing is still nothing. Visually this was a non-event, even in a 32-inch telescope.
I beg to differ. Granted, SL-9 was easier to see but we did see an obvious difference in the pre and post impact view, a difference caused by the first time humans have "touched" a comet nucleus. Patrick
I stand by my opinion, Patrick; visually, this was a near non-event... human accomplishment and misty-eyed pride aside. I never said there was NO difference- but I can't get as excited as you by such miniscule changes and I do not have to defend that opinion. But of course you can be as overjoyed as you wish. C. --- Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote:
I beg to differ.
Granted, SL-9 was easier to see but we did see an obvious difference in the pre and post impact view, a difference caused by the first time humans have "touched" a comet nucleus.
Patrick
____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
I agree with Chuck - remember, he said that "VISUALLY this was a near non-event." Patrick, of course, is talking about historical significance. After carefully comparing my sketch of the field about 30 minutes after impact with star charts and pics by others, I can say with some satisfaction that I did, indeed, see the comet. But, at the limit of visibility, at least for my sky and scope, it wasn't an exciting event. The two or three meteors I saw that evening were more interesting visually. From an historic perspective, I was and remain very excited about the NASA coverage and stunning images of pre- and post-impact. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck Hards" <chuckhards@yahoo.com> To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 2:42 PM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Tempel 1 brightness |I stand by my opinion, Patrick; visually, this was a | near non-event... human accomplishment and misty-eyed | pride aside. I never said there was NO difference- | but I can't get as excited as you by such miniscule | changes and I do not have to defend that opinion. But | of course you can be as overjoyed as you wish. | | C. | | | --- Patrick Wiggins <paw@trilobyte.net> wrote: | | > I beg to differ. | > | > Granted, SL-9 was easier to see but we did see an | > obvious difference in | > the pre and post impact view, a difference caused by | > the first time | > humans have "touched" a comet nucleus. | > | > Patrick | | | | | ____________________________________________________ | Yahoo! Sports | Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football | http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com | | _______________________________________________ | Utah-Astronomy mailing list | Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com | http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy | Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com | | ______________________________________________________________________ | This e-mail has been scanned by Cut.Net Managed Email Content Service, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. For more information on Cut.Nets Content Service, visit http://www.cut.net | ______________________________________________________________________ | |
Thank you, Kim, for the clarification. But to be fair to Patrick, I'm going to backpedal a bit and say that he is actually right- from his perspective. Up until 13 years ago, I was wearing the propellored-beanie as well. There was NOTHING as great, terrific, awe-inspiring, meaningful, (pick your favorite superlative) as astronomy and space exploration. Then it happened- I actually did see the most incredible, miraculous thing in the universe, and suddenly everything I'd ever seen through the eyepiece, ever will see, or ever seen beamed to me from NASA or a Great Observatory, paled to a poor second place. I saw my daughter being born. Nothing else will ever match the significance, the awe-inspiring importance, the sheer miracle, of that specatcle. Not smashing a probe into a comet, or even meeting the aliens. So I'm sorry if I sound a bit jaded or bored about certain astronomical events anymore...they just don't, and can't, measure up. And Patrick just doesn't have that perspective. So, from his point of view, he is correct, and I find myself actually happy for him if he finds joy in his perspective, and will defend his point of view when taken within the constraints of that context. C. --- Kim Hyatt <kimharch@cut.net> wrote:
I agree with Chuck - remember, he said that "VISUALLY this was a near non-event." Patrick, of course, is talking about historical significance.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Seems like a Russian Astrologer is upset with NASA over the comet collision. Read about it here: <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161575,00.html>
With a freindly pat on the back, of course, and in the spirit of tolerance and peaceful co-existence. We can't all be Final Frontier poster children, nor should we- some of us are just here to watch the game, not lead the crowd in cheers. Granted, some of it honestly IS Grand Spectacle, but by the same token, much of it isn't- and beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder. The beauty of this event wasn't seen in the eyepiece, it was on NASA TV (to this beholder). One of the neat aspects is that the show is constantly changing, and if the current act isn't up to snuff, there's always another nightfall only a day away. C. ____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com
I would also like to state that "experiences" like this do a bunch to KILL interest in astronomy. I received many calls from interested individuals (as I am sure you all did) asking where they needed to look to see this event. There was publicity and estimates showing that this would be a naked-eye-visible event. This was far from that kind of event. When this was explained to the folks that called, they were, at the very least, disappointed. The public notification of events like this (a real astronomical non-event for 99.99% of the population) needs to be much more realistic. Expectations need to reflect the nature of the event, and not the spectacle. The spectacle frequently evaporates at the time of the event. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Brent Watson wrote:
I would also like to state that "experiences" like this do a bunch to KILL interest in astronomy.
Brent is 100% correct on this one. SLAS and I worked to put the lid on this story with two releases to Utah media cautioning that the comet would not be visible without a large telescope. Further, the Wallop Watch at SPOC was billed as a private event and was not advertised to the public. Despite this I still had calls from two reporters (Joe Bauman was NOT one of them) wanting to know where to tell folks to look. Very exasperating. And it did not help that at least one mission scientist postulated on NASA TV that the event might be visible to just the eye from country locations. I think we were lucky that the event happened during a major holiday. Had it happened on a slow news day there probably would have been a lot more (inaccurate, IMHO) coverage. Patrick
This thing was pretty hyped. I heard one NASA official say that this event would be like hitting a bullet with a bullet. From a purely ballistics standpoint, that would have been more spectacular. However, what I liked most about this event, beside getting a chance to gather in the west desert with some friends and some coyotes, was seeing how accurate our long range space technology and targeting systems have become... Call me cynical, but I'll bet that there were some pretty happy military folks as well as those who's job it is to watch the skies for Near Earth Orbiting Objects... Guy
participants (6)
-
Brent Watson -
Chuck Hards -
Dave Gary -
diveboss＠xmission.com -
Kim Hyatt -
Patrick Wiggins