Meteor through telescope

[hotspur]

I had to use all my skills as a ametur astronomer, to capture this shot

I used a 4 inch ED scope on EQ5 mount,with canon 450D

Its a nine second ex,and my very quick reflexes to press button,just at the right moment,

regards Chris

[Dennis]

Really excellent work Chris - this is certainly a 1st for me, as I haven't seen a meteor captured through a telescope before!

Cheers

Dennis

[renormalised]

Great shot, Chris....you'd need the reflexes of a cat to grab this:eyepop::D

[Screwdriverone]

Nice one Chris,

Although, I am looking for the little triangle space ship in the middle which shoots all the rocks, it seems to have that "Asteroids" look to it.:gamer:

Cheers

Chris :)

[hotspur]

The photo is geniune Chris,i can provide all specs if nessary,i also had people with me when i took photo,i took the photo ar QLD astrofest.

so it not a fake

[DavidU]

That is such a rare shot to get ! Even centered !

[leon]

Yep you sure were lucky to get that one, nice capture.

Leon

[GrahamL]

Late friday early saturday ? saw a ripper that night looks to be the right bit of sky north to south and it split in two right at the end .

[Inmykombi]

What a little ripper of a shot.
Well done.
I dont know how you could even plan for that shot.

Excellent work.

[rat156]

I have to say that it looks like a star that has been slewed off screen, though it's a bit hard to tell with the low res jpeg. It seems to have some PE in its trail.

Cheers
Stuart

[iceman]

The head of it doesn't look bright enough to be a meteor.

Can you explain what you saw and how you took it?

[jjjnettie]

Well done Chris.

[hotspur]

i am a bit dissapointed that some are doubting this photo.

It is simply a "chance shot",i was taking long exposures of ngc253,i han just taken a 10 minute shot,and was about to do another,i didnt think i had fired the camera,so checked by pressin button,i had infact previously fired,but wasnt sure,so by doing so the second time,ended the 9 second exposure which captured the meteor,pure chance,lucky shot.i went on to take the next long exposure of 253.

If there is any doubt,i can produce witnesses,that were with me at the time,i took this at astro fest.

Mike,you say its not bright enough,well given the above valification,what is it.

There are plenty of stars in back ground that DO NOT TRAIL

[sheeny]

Lucky shot, Chris!

Al.

[Dennis]

Hi Chris

I don’t think that anyone is questioning your integrity at all; the questions raised are just trying to investigate other possible alternatives and this can be quite healthy and helpful in these instances.:)

For example, I posted a photo of what I thought was a comet, using my Canon 40D and 400mm F5.6L lens and upon further discussion, it was shown to be lens flare, or more specifically, flare from my UV filter!:(

Cheers

Dennis

[hotspur]

Yeah,i can see that Dennis.

It is certainly unusual,the tail trail is slightly wiggly.if is not a meteor

what could it be? i am happy to put the series of frames i took that night

on a disc and have someone like Dennis ,or other experienced lens men

to examine,

I am keen to find out what it is,or isnt,

May be its the cover shot for the next UFOoligist!

:)

[Screwdriverone]

Hi Chris,

Please don't think I was doubting the shot, I was only commenting (as I do) about what it reminded me of, certainly it looked like the ol' Asteroids game I used to play in the Milkbar when I was a whippersnapper. :)

Trying to be funny, so I apologise if it came off as though I thought it wasnt genuine.

Cheers

Chris

[TheDecepticon]

Very cool shot.:eyepop:

[iceman]

I'm not doubting, just trying to understand the picture.

Is it a crop or a full frame?

I expected it to look like this, which is how most meteor captures look: http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod2009/24aug09/Brian-Emfinger1.jpg

Obviously that one is a much wider field.

[astro_south]

Hi Chris

A "wiggly" tail is typical of a meteor. When out observing and I see a bright meteor I quickly move the scope around to where the meteor shot through to see if I can see the smoke trail left behind and when I can it is typically a spirally structure. Sometimes you can watch it for tens of seconds before it dissipates with the high winds, but these have to be really bright bolide types.

It's freakish timing :thumbsup:

[suma126]

Hi thats a very nice shot there i did capture similar shot about 5 mouths ago to . :)

[hotspur]

iceman asks a good question,the photo is full frame,as is,no doctoring

except low res to put on site.from a few replies;it appears normal for

meteors to have "wiggly" tails,

So,if it appears that i had camera going for the nine seconds,turned it off and in that very last few mini seconds captured the meteor,(and centered it so well)

it may be "accidental excellence",but it does look cool!

regards Chris

[rat156]

Hi Chris,

I also wasn't questioning what you thought you have captured, for all I know it may be real. I just don't think it is what you think.

Let me address the issues I have with the picture

1. The trail brightening to a ball. If you look at the other pictures posted in this thread, this is what I would expect to see from a meteor trail, a progressive brightening until the meteor has burnt up. Yours doesn't look like this.

2. The other (non trailing) stars. Are very small for a 100mm scope and DSLR combo. I suggest that they may be hot pixels. Do you have a dark frame for the camera? Or they are dim stars and the data isn't stretched enough to show the trailing effect.

3. The wiggly tail. Agreed that meteors may spiral when they reach the atmosphere and encounter gas at different densities, but really the gas trail should be straight as in every other picture of meteors I've seen. Sorry but it looks like the mount moved and there was a bright star in the frame.

4. Your witnesses. I'm sure that you saw a meteor, and that it was roughly in the right place, but to know what your scope is seeing at the time you'd have to be peering through another. Which means it's impossible for you to have observed it naked eye. Your witnesses really can't tell exactly where your scope is pointing, the FOV of a 100mm scope is tiny.

I really hope it's real, because it'd be a great capture, but I'm unconvinced.

Post the raw data to an FTP type site so we can all have a look.

Cheers
Stuart

[hotspur]

Stuart,its a meteor

[Lumen Miner]

I would have to say in my short lived experience, that there is ALOT of junk / meteors coming in at any point in time.
Although I do agree this is a one in a million shot, it is more than possible given the showering we constantly receive.

Check this shot, 3 frames of 30secs. Two burnup's captured... This goes on all the time everywhere. Only a matter of time till someone captures some good shots...


Could well be an error etc. I hope it is not though... :)

[rat156]

Sorry Chris, but I'm a skeptic.

Please post the raw data to www.yousendit.com so we can confirm.

Cheers
Stuart

[hotspur]

The camera was ICNR mode,there is no noise

i.e when i turned camera off after nine second frame,it took a another

nine second dark,and automatically sutracted any noise.

The stars are stars,it a fluke shot

I am sending Dennis Simmons a disc with full res copy,of it ,and

the two long exposure pics.

I can send any once else who doubts this photo,a full res pic

I am dismayed of the negativity,that some people have shown.
:(

[rat156]

This is more like what I'd expect to see...

http://www.mikesastrophotos.com/baltimore-pa-meteor/update-on-baltimore-pa-meteor/

In particular notice the size of the meteor trails and their linearity.

Cheers
Stuart

[rat156]

It's not negativity, it's simple skepticism. When you claim something it has to stand up to scrutiny, if it passes, then it can be taken as factual until someone else comes up with a better explanation. It's not personal, it's the way scientific discoveries are validated.

I'm sorry if that offends you, but I am a scientist, so I suppose I'm used to having my results questioned. Water off the proverbial ducks back for me.

As I said I'll be happy to confirm your picture if you send me the full res image, use the link above and PM me for my email.

Cheers
Stuart

[Lumen Miner]

Stuart,
I can appreciate where you are coming from, I really can. Ultimatley it would be of a scientific purpose, to qualify an image as plausible. However given the arena we are conducting such analysis within, it seems almost tainted to be on the side of scepticism. I as I believe you, have indicated our doubts, unless convinced otherwise. Getting back to the "arena", perhaps we should not thus excruciate answers to the upmost, yet be qualified with saying "Well done".

Just my two cents, not that it's needed. :thumbsup:

[hotspur]

Those that want a higher res version,please PM your

private Email address,

and i will post you the highest res pics i can,i can get a half meg pic

may be more.

C

[rat156]

Chris has sent me the file, I'm reviewing it.

Thanks
Stuart

[hotspur]

Thanks to all those people that examined the full res pics i sent them,

I have had some feed back after experienced people have examined

them,and its comforting to know that it is a meteor,and not a star trail,

or a hot pixel.

I hope others can enjoy this "lucky shot".

all the best,Chris

[DavidU]

Excellent Chris. Shot of a life time

[rat156]

Well, since you're claiming it to be real I'll post the stuff that says it isn't...

A quick examination has revealed that this is unfortunately not a meteor.

I assume you were using a bright star to focus the camera, this is normal practice.

I assume that you then slewed to the target (NGC253?).

The bright spots are clearly hot pixels. They are 4x4 squares, which is typical of Bayer colour CCDs (as the CCD has to interpret the GRGB matrix).

The bright spot in the centre is a star, I assume again it's the one you were focussing on. I think you may have opened the shutter, told the scope to slew to the target and then closed it some 9 seconds later. This will leave a bright spot in the centre, where you were focussing, trailing off (with increasing speed by the look of it, do you have a GEM?). Also present in the image are multiple non-parallel streaks that start at one edge and make it through to another, this is caused by the scope slewing in both RA and Dec, these are stars moving through the frame. The fact that none of them stop means the shutter closed before the mount had stopped.

The bright spots also don't have a gaussian profile, which they should due to the atmosphere. The second and third jpgs confirm this. As you can see, you adjust the black level up and the spots don't change shape (like the star in the middle). They just disappear or stay the same (depends on the pixel value), try this one for yourself in Photoshop.

Cheers
Stuart

[Screwdriverone]

I would have to agree with Stuart after this comprehensive analysis and speculation as to what may have occurred, as disappointing as this explanation would be for Chris.

Just my opinion of course,

Cheers

Chris

[hotspur]

I am sorry to see one person thinks i am a fake.

I had a read of the above comment.

There are a few points that are incorrect.

1)there was no bright star i was focusing at the time,i had allredy done

this earlier in the evening,

2)i had just taken a long exp,and was continuing-the scoped

hadnt just recently slewed to target,i had guiding too,which

elimimnates "star trail"

3) the camera had ICNR going,this eliminates pixel nonsense.

I have to ask why i should continue to havt to prove all of my
post,

I have joined many forums,and never had the problems that i do on this

one,i have had other experinced astronomers look at this photo,and they have not had any issues,

Finally,and this is the last comment i will make on my photo,as i have a life away from the internet.

I was there at the time,i know that everything was operating as it should,i got some ten minutes exp of objeccts around the same time
and really had no problems with gear that night.

I certainly dont think i will bother putting any more posts on this site

if they have to be subjected to the same scutiny as N.T.S.B

investigation,i noticed this forum has "favourites" i havent noticed this in

other forums,if one of the "favourites" nhad of posted this pic,they

would not have had the headaxches,they would have been told

to enter it in David Malin awards,and proberbly won too.

so thats my last post:(

[rat156]

I'm sorry it has come to this Chris, I didn't mean anything nasty and have sent you an email regarding this.

Regards
Stuart

[MikesAstro]

Chris,

Coming from someone who has also taken a picture of a meteor through a telescope I know what you are going through right now. You feel amazingly good for what you have done (seeing a shooting star gets you 1 wish. photographing it through a telescope? that's got to be at least 100 wishes). At the same time you have people telling you its not real. I dealt with the same thing with my picture. There is overwhelming evidence that my picture is in fact a meteor and not a plane, but some people still want to believe what they want to believe.

I looked at your picture and I don't understand how one star could have trails but not all the others. I'm a novice but that explanation doesn't make sense to me. Congratulations on doing this. I know what it feels like to be doubted.

Stuart, my picture is a little different of a situation because 1) the mason dixon meteor was a very big fireball/bolide, it lit up the entire sky brighter than the full moon and made a sonic boom 2) the distance in my picture was roughly 16.5 miles away at 12km altitude after the moment of fragmentation. Most meteors are the size of a grain of rice and burn out at 100km altitude. I'm not an expert about astro photos and I really don't understand your technical explanation, mostly because I'm not familiar with the procedures you reference.

I'm not trying to get in the middle of a debate being this is my first post and everything. I'm just trying to add a little info about the picture that was referenced on this post.

Thanks,

Mike Hankey
http://www.mikesastrophotos.com

[rat156]

The difference between the two photographs is huge, your's is what I would expect from any meteor. OK your's was a big one and fragmented on it's way into the atmosphere, if you look closely at the trails they seem to be divergent from top to bottom, this is what you would expect from a large rock exploding, even though there is an amount of energy imparted sideways (to diverge the fragments) the overwhelming amount of momentum is still in a straight line on the original path. There are a couple of very small fragments that seem to die out on the sides as well.

Even though Chris' would be much smaller and wouldn't have fragmented I would still expect to see a straight tail. This is not the case. If it's small and simply burnt up in the atmosphere, why is there a ball at the end? Did it stop? Did it explode? Even if it exploded then there would be smaller fragments that continued on and formed fainter trails, you can't stop something moving that fast without it hitting something very solid (like the ground). It doesn't make sense.



Quite simply the other "stars" are not stars. If you look at your photo, or indeed any photo of the night sky the stars are an even distribution from very faint to very bright, these "stars" don't have this distribution, they seem to be on or off at very high pixel counts. These are hot pixels, ask any astrophotographer. I have asked Chris to do some tests with his equipment and send me the results. I have received nothing yet, so I can't say definitively that this is the case, but it is much more likely than not.



To a telescope 16.5 miles (26.4 km) is the same as 100 km, you are at infinite focus. Agreed Chris' meteor (I don't doubt that he saw one) would have been smaller, so fainter, but the size of the plasma streak from the heated air would have been similar. Given that I don't know what sort of scope camera combo you were using it would be hard to tell what the image scale would have been. I could do some maths, but there would be too many assumptions to make it worthwhile.



Hey, I don't mind debating the subject, I don't mind being corrected, but you have to have some evidence.

The facts as I see them are;
1) Chris and others saw a meteor.
2) Chris was taking photos at the time.
3) Chris' telescope was pointing in or around the right direction.
4) Chris got a frame back from the camera that wasn't what he was expecting.

Chris has put these facts together and came to the conclusion that he photographed a meteor. This is a valid assumption, but the photograph doesn't fit the evidence or known properties of meteors.

My explanation of the photograph, doesn't take situation into account, i.e. I didn't see him taking photos, nor did I see the meteor. I simply tried to fit his photograph to other known causes. From a close look at the photo, there are other streaks in frame, these aren't divergent, so that leads me to suspect that something was moving during the exposure. Knowing how mounts move (I have observed the EQ range slew from target to target), they start of slowly, then speed up to the slew speed, then slow down as they approach. If Chris was centred on a star for focus purposes (common practice), then slewed the scope to the target (NGC253 in this case) it would produce a bright spot in the middle (where the star was staionary) then a wiggly line moving off frame (periodic error of the drives). As the telescope slewed towards the target it would have encountered other stars, these would be recorded on the CCD of the camera, which it has done, but the trails would not be in the same direction as the initial trail as the scope slews in RA and Dec at the same time and usually not at the same rate unless it's got a long way to go. These we observe in Chris' photo as the dimmer trails moving through the frame. If the shutter closed during the slew then the approach to the target would not be recorded. If the shutter remained open then I would expect a set of stars to trail into frame and then slowly brighten (as the mount slows down) and finally stop. NGC253 has some bright stars around it , two very bright ones, and a characteristic asterism of four foreground stars over the top of the galaxy, these aren't in Chris' picture.

I'm happy to continue the debate, but I need more evidence that this is a meteor. Chris seems to have been upset by this, which is I understand, but he is claiming something almost unique, so his hypothesis must stand up to scrutiny.

Call me a non-believer if you like, but that won't convince me, only proper evidence.

Cheers
Stuart

P.S. sorry for the long post.

[Octane]

I have to agree with Stuart after his presentation of the stretched files. That looks to me like PE whilst slewing.

Where the line ends looks like its a star, all the other white pixels look like noise.

How fast do meteors travel? Their trajectory must be such that they leave vectors. I can understand spirally trails left behind in gaseous vapour, but, this doesn't appear to be the case in this image.

There's a new case for not using ICNR and taking your own darks. :)

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Regards,
Humayun

[Dennis]

I think that whilst Stuart has arrived at some conclusions based upon his observations about the data presented to him, he is just proposing an alternative explanation to what has been recorded by the sensor and in his judgement, that explanation better fits his understanding of what a meteor trail should look like through a telescope.

Whilst Stuart has listed his findings, this does not necessarily mean that his interpretation is the whole truth. Chris appears to have already corrected some of the (incorrect?) educated assumptions Stuart made; that is, Chris writes that he was not focusing on a bright star at the time and he was also auto guiding. However, these corrections from Chris do not necessarily invalidate all the points raised by Stuart.

However, if Chris’ corrections to Stuarts assumptions can be validated, then that in itself can only be good news, as those uncertainties (focusing & auto guiding) can then be put to bed and the remaining issues can be further investigated.

I think that this ad hoc peer review process has been very useful thus far and I have asked Chris to e-mail me a copy of the original file to see if I can match up the “stars” with a planetarium program such as The Sky. If I can correlate Chris’ “stars” with certainty, to candidate stars in The Sky, then the hot pixel issue at least, can be put to bed and other issues focused on.

I personally did not feel that Chris’ integrity was being questioned and I also recognise that Stuart was working, in part, in the dark as he does not know Chris, his set up, his capabilities, equipment configuration, etc. and precisely what Chris was doing at the time. A lot of unknowns!

Cheers

Dennis

[rat156]

That's pretty much it Dennis.

I'm not saying I'm right, just that I think I'm right.

Some of Chris' corrections come down to "I know what I was doing at the time". Whilst I don't doubt that he thinks he knows what the scope was doing, in reality he wasn't watching it, he was obviously looking at a clear night sky (who wouldn't). Because of this he can't be absolutely certain that his scope etc was working as he thinks.

I have asked for the preceeding shot of NGC 253 that he took, that will either kill or confirm the hot pixels absolutely, if he has a long exposure picture with stars there I will stand (or in this case sit) corrected.

Unfortunately Chris seems to have followed through with his threat of walking out, which is a shame really. I'm sorry Chris (if you're still reading this thread) but it's like you've stormed off in a huff, which wasn't anyone's intention.

Cheers
Stuart

[seanliddelow]

I believe its a meteor:thumbsup:

[gman]

I couldn't tell you wether it is a slewing problem, hot pixels or a meteor but I can tell you that I don't think there are "favourites" on this site that just get cudos for posting.

Just about every image I have seen put on this site has been up for scrutiny and members actually ask for it to be analyzed.
This is not to have a go at you but to learn and possibly take on a minor changes or something mentioned to assist in extracting the best you can with the equipment you have at hand.

Keep on imaging and posting as novices like myself do learn from reading all these posts.:thumbsup:

[MikesAstro]

Stuart,

Thanks for the analysis of my photo.

I found this video today of a fireball taken from the space shuttle or the ISS.

http://www.mikesastrophotos.com/baltimore-pa-meteor/bolide-meteor-video-from-space/

The trail on this video looks very wavy like Chris' photo. In this video's case I think this is caused from the video camera being mounted on a moving/unstable object? Is it possible that chris' telescope got bumped during the photo and that caused the wavy lines, or some more minor vibration? I do remember him saying that he snapped the photo manually.

Also, wouldn't lining the picture up with a star map prove / disprove the hot pixel theory?

Good luck Chris, I hope your picture is proven to be true. In the end this process/thread will only make the argument for your picture stronger.

Mike

[mike-wulff]

I think it's time for me to say something here.
It was my Telescope SW pro series 100mm Refractor on a HEQ Pro5 mount that Chris was shooting through, this was guided by an 80mm Orion Refractor using the Orion Star Guider.
Chris's honesty is beyond reproach in this matter.
I'm shocked that this has caused such decisiveness amongst a small community that should be focused on encouragement not negativity.
If the picture is a camera and slewing fault I certainly didn't witness it.
The mount was guiding at the time.
Maybe if one of us has the resources to have the image verified by an expert in this field and post his comment along with his qualifications as to finally put this contentious issue to bed for once and for all.
Chris, mate when you post something that is unique as this image may or may not prove to be. You must expect sceptisism, it goes with the territory of a public forum.
If the image does hold up to independent and qualified scrutiny , I can say with pride I was there. However if it is proven to be a glitch, well I'm still proud to be your friend.
Hang in there mate and try not to take it personally.

Mike.

PS. I swapped your chair over today.

[Screwdriverone]

I don't see why all this is any different to say, me taking a photo of a UFO through a camera that was set up to take a shot of Jupiter or a DSO and then posting it here.

I may believe that what I saw with my eyes is what I captured, but when I post that image with a description that its a UFO and people take a look at it and think "hang on, that doesn't look right" surely there is room for people to be free to say "I don't think thats a UFO".

Most of us are not experts in what a meteor looks like when captured through a telescope, but if it looks significantly different to what you see in widefield pictures and video as well as what you see with your own eyes, then why can't we be skeptical? There certainly hasn't been a raft of personal attacks or derision or anything negative by calling someone a fake, liar or questioning their integrity.

When I initially looked at this photo and made the comment (intended as humour and not with any sort of malice) about it looking like an Asteroids game, this was probably because to me it didnt look right. I expected to see a meteor streak like I have seen in real life and in pictures. I am not an expert in these matters, so if I thought this was strange, I can certainly see why others more qualified and experienced would have their doubts too.

After reading Stuart's analysis and hypothesis as to how this occurred, it seems in my opinion an experienced and plausible explanation as to what happened. Just because its plausible doesnt mean its correct either!

I don't think that there needs to be any ill feeling because someone is expressing their opinion which may not agree with someone else's.

If we all just sat here and only gave positive comments to every post or picture or discovery, then IIS would be a lot poorer place because of it.

I can understand Hotspur's disappointment in having his capture analysed, broken down and possibly debunked, but I honestly dont think anyone is calling him a fraud, or even vilifying him. Certainly he has been very open with providing the raw files for analysis which I applaud him for and sort of expect anyone would do in the same situation.

I also applaud Stuart for publicly sticking up for his own opinions and experience and dont think he or anyone else who may disagree with Chris should be criticised for voicing their opinion either.

It's all really just about the picture, which, to me, doesnt look like a meteor. It really all just boils down to this, doesn't it?

Chris

[rat156]

Hi Mike,

I have no problem with the gear used, but now I know exactly what it was it may help.

Chris' honesty about what he believes the photo to be has never been in question. Just because we question his conclusion doesn't mean we question him personally, I have gone to great lengths to ensure that I didn't post a personal comment.

I'm not sure that there is an expert in this field i.e. what a meteor would look like when photographed through a telescope. I have taken many deep sky and planetary pictures and have seen just about everything go wrong with an exposure. I have created pictures just like this one in the manner that I have explained may have occurred to Chris. So whilst not an expert in the field of meteor photography, I would consider myself to be an expert in stuffed up astrophotography, simply from experience.

Again, I have asked for the preceding photograph of NGC 253 so we can see if the stars match up etc. Chris hasn't sent it to me, I can only comment on what I have to examine.

Again, I have no vested interest in this, I would love to be able to analyse the pictures and confirm that this is indeed a picture of a meteor. I can't say that with any confidence with the evidence available. Things go horribly wrong very quickly when autoguiding, I have lots of subs where the guide star has been lost, sometimes because our cat has investigated the scope when I was inside watching telly (he left pawprints on the scope).

Try talking to Chris and get him to send me that file.

Cheers
Stuart

[hotspur]

Thanks Mike! I to am shocked at the grass fire this meteor has caused

I have posted this pic on other forums and not been subjected to the

negativity,as i have here,I have submitted high res pics to many other people,including other experienced astronomers in other countries,again

i have had no doubting feed back,I currently have another person in Brisbane looking at it,and is making analaysies.I have spoken with that person on the phone,to give all details.

As Mike has confirmed there was no slewing going on,or star that we were focusing on,also Stuart,if you have examied the full res pic,

Why did'nt you make a comment on the second meteor in the picture?
or have you not seen it,too busy counting pixels?perhaps.

It is above the bright one and goes right across the sky,its faint but
when you blow the pic right up,you should have noticed that straight away!

So that evidence by it self blows Stuarts threoy of focusing on a star and slewing bit,Plus Mikes statement,WHO WAS THERE AT THE TIME!

I don't have a problem with Stuats Threoys,what i do have a problem

with is people are looking at it.and Going "yes,he is right,chris appears to be wrong"

already that is the feeling i am getting,by reading Octranes,and Sckrerdruver ones comments,and others.

I feel that Stuart has not really taken into account all of waht was going on.

I am not sending any more full res pics,as this debate has cost me alot of bandwidth,time,and headaches.there are plenty of people around the
world that have most of the frames i took that night,i an sure they will nut it out,


C:shrug: P.S stuart is a cat did things like that in my observatory,it would be dead!

[rat156]

Hi Chris,

Firstly, welcome back, it's good to see you posting again.

Secondly it would have had to have been a meteorite to cause a grass fire;);););)

As to the no negative feedback, if you're going to quote people, you have to name them, merely saying that other people have looked at it and don't agree with me is not enough. At least let them know you need some support for your theory and get them to post here, that way you won't have to do anything more, just sit back and watch.

OK, now I've tried really hard not to get personal, then you turn that around and attack me personally, not fair!

From one of my previous posts;
"Also present in the image are multiple non-parallel streaks that start at one edge and make it through to another, this is caused by the scope slewing in both RA and Dec, these are stars moving through the frame. The fact that none of them stop means the shutter closed before the mount had stopped."

This is what you are referring to as the second meteor I assume. I have noticed, commented on them and explained then rationally, so the don't disprove my theory, in fact they strengthen it. Why haven't you commented on the other streaks in the enhanced image I posted, I can count at least five trails other than the ones mentioned. All these trails move from lower left to upper right (or vice versa, it's impossible to tell). Are these five other meteors? I think not, so I have to attempted to explain the streaks in a rational, logical manner.

Clearly, you do have a problem with my hypothesis. I am trying to take everything into account, but I don't have all the evidence required. You have sent the files to other people, why not me? You have my email.

Please send me the preceding frame of NGC253, that should be all I need to at least settle the issue of the bright spots being hot pixels or stars. I'm also trying to "nut it out", but your resistance to sending the files to me is perplexing.

Luckily for my daughter's cat I'm a little more tolerant, I would have like to take a picture of the cat on a Cat though!

Cheers
Stuart

[hotspur]

Stuart

I think its time for you to move on and ruin someone eles'

post,

You have done a pretty good job in discrediting,this one,and

making yourself look good.

I really don't have the time to continue presenting data,to

you,

I also think its time for a moderator on this site,to come in

and may be,offer some adutication,or perhaps some monitoring.

I never put this photo on with the intent to cause such a stink.

I do feel the some people on this (please note i am not making a comment directly about Stuart) may tend to over do the anyalasises

on many of the post,the last three post i have put on this site,have

caused considerable flak,i never thought this would occur on such a forum site,i thought this was supposed to be a family orrientated forum

not a site where you had to have N.T.S.B training,or a degree in astrophysics before you could safely post a basic star picture.
Have said all that,this recent thread has

really turned me off,ever posting a photo again,

good luck to all the people who post pictures here,your going to

need it,and a swag of reference books too!

C

[fringe_dweller]

meteors can indeed have a wavy/zig zaggy path/non-linear, and i'm not talking about a smoke train over time due to winds - here's a pic of a wavy meteor (terminal end trail) rom my friend took while we observed it visually during 2001 leonids, widefield tripod shot, film
- also there are historical woodcuttings of wavy meteors, cant find the best one, lost it somewhere, but theres another i found, its a very old argument still i dont think its a meteor either, sorry!

[Octane]

Chris,

I wish you wouldn't take comments so seriously, or as personal attacks, or as attempts to question your credibility. We have nothing to gain by going down that path.

I simply offered up what I thought I was looking at. And, as I said, nothing ventured, nothing gained. You could quite as well have caught a meteor in your photograph, and, if you have, it is a fantastic shot. I don't understand the central brightening, however. That part doesn't make any sense to me. It's like as if it has hit something and blown up. It is very reminiscent of a star.

No hard feelings, Chris.

Regards,
Humayun

[rat156]

Hang on a minute there. Like I've said at least three times before, I didn't want this to get personal. I have apologised to you personally (via email) and publicly in this forum if you had taken offence to anything that I have written. I welcomed you back with open arms when you started posting again, what more do I need to do, short of saying that it is a meteor (which I still don't believe, so won't be saying)? I don't think that I deserve such invective. You should apologise (though I'm not expecting it).

It's not YOUR post, this is a public forum, it's everyone's post.

I do not gain anything by analysing your picture. My reputation stands or falls on my own work in astrophotography. When I post a picture I expect critisism, it's sometimes the only way to get better. I marvel at other shots and tell them when I really like them, or try to glean details from them to emulate them.

I'm sure the moderators are monitoring the forum. I'm sure if I had written something not fit for a family oriented discussion that they would have stepped in. Let's get this straight, you are claiming to be the second person to photograph a meteor with a telescope, and you don't expect that people will analyse the image to determine if it is what you say? Get real, of course they will. It seems that I am a lone voice in trying to analyse your picture, did you send it to anyone else, why haven't they posted?

This is not a basic star picture!

Anyways, I'm now sick of the invective so I'll state what I really think.



This is a picture of a bright star.
The mount was stationary for a period of time, then slewed.
During the slew the shutter closed.
The other bright spots are due to imperfect subtraction of a dark frame.
The bright spots do not conform to any known asterism near NGC253.
Chris' refusal to supply other images confirms that he suspects I am right but doesn't want to back down.
Chris' refusal to supply another analysis by an independant person shows he has received no such independant analysis that substantiates his claim

I will attempt to recreate Chris' image at some stage in the future, I know what happened, so you will see that what I am saying is correct, confirmed by experiment.

Cheers
Stuart

[fringe_dweller]

inspired by the revelation that Einstein came up with the einstein cross/halo ect. E=MC2 blah blah after watching the defractions of light in a river/pond, an experiment to determine if meteors can have non-linear paths (which i believe they can after seeing many over the years - could have perturbed actions, like a tumbler in a way) would be to throw at great velocity stones into a pond or pool and have someone observe their path below the water - eureka!

[hotspur]

Thanks Octane

for your cooling comments,i am glad somebody has stepped in and

cooled things down a bit,

I have spoken t Dennis Simmions about this picture and he is doing some

work on it,unfortunatly Dennis has had some bad family news( i wish to send my condolances to the Simmions family),and has many other things

on his mind than looking at this star picture,I really am tired of all this,

i am not going to say that its ,or isnt a pic of a meteor any more

as it seems to be upsetting some members on this forum,

C:shrug:

[Dennis]

Chaps

Can I respectfully suggest a time out!

From a review of the posts, it seems to me that you are coming from “culturally different” backgrounds.:)

Chris comes from a rural background, is a keen wildlife observer, skilled craftsman and generally good bloke amongst other things, but has little experience of the “brutality” of the impersonal peer review process. A rural environment provides scant opportunities to grapple with the raft of issues when one’s work products are subjected to an independent review, from what are essentially a bunch of strangers. Often it is received as personal criticism and understandably so, with such little experience and exposure to the process.:(

Stuart has identified that he is a scientist and this suggests that he dwells in a culture where data, objective analysis and peer review are the norm and such independent reviews are not received as personal attacks. In this culture, with heaps of experience, training and a thick skin, the peer review process tends not to ruffle the feathers too much!:lol:

I’m sure if you guys met in a pub over a beer, or at the telescope, you’d iron things out quite quickly!:thumbsup:

Cheers

Dennis

[rat156]

Now you're talking sense. Where's halfway between Melbourne and South Queensland?

Of course it has to have a pub and dark skies as well.

Cheers
Stuart

[hotspur]

i agree!!!

Yes,i am not at all at ease with my skills via typing over internet.

I am have been envolved with public speaking most of my life,eveything

from Tarot card reading to presentations to tourist groups that visit

our country property,So have plenty of experience with vebal communication,and could talk my way out of a trip to Mars if needs be.

Not the best a this words on screens stuff its rather new,so dont

have the dextrety the Dennis or others have,

So,yeah over a beer bit sounds good,

Cheers C;)

[Lumen Miner]

Even if the meteor had a straight tail, from the evidence available, a scientist could not fully conclude it was actually a meteor.
There is always a possibility of it not being one. The wavy tail has only enlargened this margin.

Stuart needs to realise there is a point where scientific assesment needs to back off. If your right, your right, you should have enough confidence in your own assesment, to allow the debate to finish. This means not only to stop "baiting" for more info, but to actually disregard the "baiting" you are receiving.

Lets face it, if you were supplied with every bit of data to the event, you still could not confirm it as real. Therefore as hard as this may be, you can not disprove that is not a meteor.

Given that, I would assume the lighter path of, "I think not, but congrats if it is" approach a bit more site relevant... By all means in the eyes of science and given the correct environment, shread an image apart and reveal its flaws.

Maybe it is just me, but given the poster was not really claiming any fame, just posting an image, even if I knew the picture was a bit off, I still wouldn't smash the person down over it... Which is what you are doing, to someone whom doesn't work in this field.



On a side note, you do see to be almost "Trolling", as you know you are not is the same catagory of knowledge as the poster, your analysis has been posted, yet you still seem intent on pursuing this till the envitable end of
" OK, you right, it's not a meteor "...

Call it a day mate. :thumbsup:

[rat156]

Hi Mitchell,

I'm sorry, but when I see something that needs correcting I correct it. I'm not baiting for information, I'm genuinely interested in the outcome. Not to prove me right or wrong, but just to get to the bottom of it. I hate unresolved problems that I know could be solved simply.

Why should the debate finish, to my mind, and probably others, the question as to what Chris has photographed remains open. Healthy debate never hurt anyone.

With the right amount of data (one more photograph) I could at least disprove my theory. The second sentence has a triple negative in it, I assume you mean that I can not prove that this is not a meteor. I never wanted to prove that this is not a meteor, I just wanted to be able to explain it in a ration manner.

I tried the lighter path and got flamed. I offered my opinion and got flamed. I suppose I should have not responded after my analysis was called into question?

I think the vast majority of us here are amateurs, not many would work in the field. I didn't "smash" Chris down, I merely pointed out that there is another explanation for the image. I was the one who was "smashed". I took it and still tried to respond in a calm and rational manner.

So shoot me for being interested in the subject! I'm not trolling, I'm interested, I follow the postings in the forum and this thread closely as I'm interested. I try to impart what little knowledge (there are people on this forum with vastly more experience than I) I have, to others. It's called teaching and learning, again, something that never hurt anyone. The "inevitable" end to this maybe not possible, certainly not without some more pictures.

I still like the idea of meeting over a beer or two and going through the photos. Unfortunately I'm working over IISAC09, which is probably the closest I'll be to SE QLD for a while.

Cheers
Stuart

[javier alves]

very good aim :eyepop:

[Screwdriverone]

OK, let me make this statement then,

First: Stuart is not bullying Chris, he is offering his opinion as to what he thinks Chris' picture is, because to him, it DOESNT look like a meteor and he is explaining what HE thinks caused the picture.

Second: I have my doubts as to WHAT IS IN THE PICTURE! Simple. Just because I happen to agree with Stuart's analysis doesn't mean that I am correct EITHER. I also take offence to the belief that I am therefore effectively bullying Chris by agreeing with Stuart. Something which Stuart is not doing.

No-one is criticising Chris for what he is said or who he is or what sort of bloke he is, we are simply commenting on the picture, something I thought we are ALL allowed to do here?

To effectively state that "everyone else thinks it's a meteor, so SO SHOULD YOU" is just naive and sorry for this in advance, a little bit childish. I believe this because of the subsequent comments threatening to pack up, take your bat and ball and go home.....

It seems that the entire content of what I have posted has not been read or understood, but simply boiled down to an emotional feeling of "Screwdriverone thinks Stuart is right and Chris is wrong"

Obviously, the words, like "possibly", "believe" and "im my opinion" were translated to "you are wrong" in each case? Not ONCE have I said, you are wrong, you have not captured a meteor, because, quite frankly, I cannot rule out that you HAVE captured one!

For the record, I agree that Chris' picture of the meteor is PLAUSIBLE, Stuart's explanation of what is in the picture is ALSO PLAUSIBLE.

I, personally, think that by looking at the picture, what is captured, doesn't look like a meteor based on what I have seen. This therefore means that Stuart's explanation seems MORE PLAUSIBLE to me.

That's it, in a nutshell.

Chris.

[MrB]

Excellent post Chris.

[gregbradley]

Not wanting to upset anyone but I think it is a meteor shot.

Basically for these reasons:

1. If it were a bright star and the scope slewed it would have left a straight trail and not a wiggly trail. Try it. Also it would have had to
be a few seconds still and then slew as the bright ball would not have exposed hardly at all otherwise.

2. There are trails in the background that are not parallel. If it were trails from an accidental slew these would have been parallel not at different angles. Looks like he caught a few in the background. Maybe fragments?

3. Hot pixels don't look like that or at least not in DSLRs I have used. There usually aren't that many and they aren't different brightnesses as much as those are. They look like underexposed stars. If his camera has that many hot pixels it may be time to get a new camera!

4. I wonder if it was space junk or irregular in shape and perhaps tumbling.

5. Meteor shots in a long exposure are a very common event. Not rare
at all in fact if you image 5 hours you will no doubt have at least several meteor trails in your images.

I'd love to see a bright meteor/space junk. So far I haven't seen a really bright one. It must have been a great sight.

It certainly has captured the groups notice and I am sure Chris is really glad he posted it!:lol:

Greg.

[matt]

An interesting thread, demonstrating (as Dennis has pointed out) the different 'cultural' approaches we take to reviewing images such as this.

Personally, I don't care one way or the other. If it is indeed a meteor, well....well done! If not...oh well.

I think it's unfortunate that Chris chose to react negatively to the process of evaluation and criticism. I think a few people were just trying to work through the possibilities of what may or may not have been captured. And keep in mind, Chris, that plenty of other posters wrote to congratulate you.

You need to accept that in a forum such as this there are going to be some members who approach images with inquiring/questioning/sceptical minds. They're not accusing anyone of being a bulldust artist. It's just in their nature to seek confirmation when it comes to claims of the more unusual or rare. That's all.

At the end of the day, you were there. You captured the image.

If you're happy....that's the main thing, mate:)

[moltenuniverse]

no chance.



no one ever said it was a fake.Just not what you assume








so,it was all your skills and your quick reflexes? Then later it turned into just a fluke and accidental excellence.Gotta raise the BS flag here

The only negativity I see here is from you ,sorry OP but I can read this one with my eyes closed.You got called on your shot and threw your rattle out of the pram.Now dry yer eyes and stop imagining the world is against you,it's simple deductive reasoning and analysis of the facts,nothing more ,nothing less

moltenuniverse
Jay

[hotspur]

Thank you Greg Bradley for you comments,you have so wel put on screen what i couldnt,Yes,i am a public speaker,i could of articulated that if i was having a beer with Stuart,But words on screen is very new to me.

Anyhow,i would like those who have been following ths to take a hard look at point Number #3.

This is the point that i have the most difficulty in accepting Stuarts thoughts,

the strongest point i believe in proving that it is a meteor are those "white spots", Stuart feels that they are hot pixels,he has done some study on them,and he feels that he is confindate,that with all his knowledge a skills,that,that is what they are.

The camera as i stated was in ICNR reduction,which OK isnt going to get rid of all noise,but hey,remember the camera was only exp for 9 seconds,Those 'white spots" are a hec of a lot of noise,also the camera
is only 3 weeks old(i can produce receipts),

Octane,it you had just paid $850 for a DSLR and it produced that much noise after 3 weeks,what would you do?My old 300D never produced tat much noise,and it was 5 years old.

I have donr some testing of the camera (450D canon) i did many exp

at nine second without INCR on,and no noise,i did tests with ICNR on

once again no noise.

As i stated i had other people with me that night(thanks Mike for the use
of your gear to test my new camera,and oh what a test its turned out to be!).

Appart from Mike i had another fellow who is a very good fried,and a prize winner of the coverted Astro fest photographic competition,not once but twice,

So there was quite a bit of high talent that was photographing with me that night,both these fellows were keen to see this new piece of kit.

I feel that to say "that the pic is of slewing star etc",is wrong because

i was working with Mike.and he recalls that we didnt take an exp wilst slewing,To both of us this would be incongreous,Mike used to belong to a distinct army regiment and to fire at a target when unsure would not have been an option,I to have had training of presscion instruments and to fire at a dingo,and not be sure of a kill is certainly not even worth thinking about(the current currency fo a dingo scalp in this shire is $100)

So,yes to say,we were firing at a star and slewing,is a bit,well doesnt sit well.

Another highly experienced astronomer/photographer has taken the image and done an evaluation,on those "white dots" and in his opinion
feels that the data,indicates that they are more star like than pixels.

I was'nt going make another comment,but Greg Bradleys' comments

are something to think about.

regards Chris

[Octane]

I'd take it back and ask for my money back. :)

Not even Nikon's are that horrible. :P *tongue firmly in cheek*

Regards,
Humayun

[rat156]

Although I don't have a GEM (yet, one on the way), I have observed that when they start to slew they start slowly then speed up. Is this the case for an EQ5? I don't know, perhaps someone with one can confirm this?



If it's slewing in both RA and Dec then the trails won't be parallel, as the scope may be moving at different speeds in each direction, That's what my RCX does, it slews each axis independently.



The bright spots don't fit a stellar profile, if you look at the intensities of the spots, the go from 0 to 128ish to 255 over three pixels, there are only 256 levels in an 8 bit image, so that's 0 to half full to full. That's pretty much what I'd expect from the conversion from RAW to Jpeg in camera for a colour CCD. The bright spot in the middle doesn't do this, it pretty much shows a gaussian profile until it gets saturated.



Perhaps, but that isn't a meteor, and why the bright spot in the middle?



Have to disagree with you on this one Greg, never seen one, seen plenty of satellites, no meteors, though I may have, but I would have thought a meteor trail would be especially bright if it was visible to the naked eye. There's heaps of times I spend many hours out at night and don't see any meteors at all. That may have something to do with light pokkution though.

I hope this answers your questions Greg. When I get my new mount I'll try and reproduce the photo, but I expect months of clouds.

Cheers
Stuart

[rat156]

Hi Chris,

I'm having a beer at home, if you're having one as well, that'll have to do for a minute.

wrt


I agree, that the ICNR should have taken care of these. I have no explanation as to why it didn't. Unfortunately the EXIF data on the photo says the exposure was >1024 seconds, which probably means you had it set to Bulb, as that's about 17 minutes. It's a shame the camera didn't record the time of the exposure.

Did you have any focal reducers or anything else in line? If I can work out how to do it, I'll chuck it through TheSky and try to plate solve the photo, I think I can work out the image scale (450D and 100ED right?). The last few times I tried something like that it was an effort in frustration, so it may take a while. That's why I want the previous shot, so I can look at the stars in the field you were shooting, much easier to use the MkI eyeball.

Bottoms up, I think it's your shout.

Cheers
Stuart

[MeteoritesUSA]

Hello all, after receiving an email from another list/forum regarding this thread I decided to come over and see what all the fuss was about.

Great image Chris, but before I give my opinion, I'd like to ask a quick question...Was the camera/scope moving "at all" during the 9 second exposure?

I'm assuming (being new to astronomy and scopes) that slewing means rotating or moving the scope into position for focus?

Thanks,
Eric

[Dennis]

Hi Stuart

The EXIF data from a copy that Chris e-mailed to me shows 9 secs at 1600 ASA.
Here is a screen print from The Sky giving a FOV of approx 83’ x 55’ centred on NGC253 (not my image!)

Cheers

Dennis

[mithrandir]

Did Chris say what part of the sky he thinks this is? It could be Scorpio but the match isn't very good.

[gregbradley]

[QUOTE=rat156;485492]Although I don't have a GEM (yet, one on the way), I have observed that when they start to slew they start slowly then speed up. Is this the case for an EQ5? I don't know, perhaps someone with one can confirm this?

All mounts start off slowly and build up speed.
I am referring to what I have seen with my setup when the camera was say doing a focus exposure and I slewed it to some other spot. It leaves a straight line trail oir perhaps slightly curved. I'd have to do it again on purpose to tell but it wouldn't look like that it looks more like star trails and the whole line is the same intensity rather than a ball at one end and then trails off in brightness. All the stars in the image are lines or slightly curved lines.
9 secs is plenty long enough for that to occur but it would look different to that from what I have seen on my rig.



If it's slewing in both RA and Dec then the trails won't be parallel, as the scope may be moving at different speeds in each direction, That's what my RCX does, it slews each axis independently.

Yes it can be a bit curved rather than dead straight but even.



The bright spots don't fit a stellar profile, if you look at the intensities of the spots, the go from 0 to 128ish to 255 over three pixels, there are only 256 levels in an 8 bit image, so that's 0 to half full to full. That's pretty much what I'd expect from the conversion from RAW to Jpeg in camera for a colour CCD. The bright spot in the middle doesn't do this, it pretty much shows a gaussian profile until it gets saturated.


That's an assumption of what a star should look like. I have seen lots of stars that look like that in a very short exposure. At only 9 seconds they would be only barely exposed. My DSLRs never showed hot pixels that bright, that large and that many and certainly not with ICNR where there would be none. They are stars for sure. If his camera has that many hot pixels its time to take it back to the shop for a new one! Not saying for sure they aren't hot pixels but hot pixels on my cameras are way smaller and far less. In the CCD world a camera with that many "hot pixels" would be engineering grade or lower. DSLRs are different but the Niukon D70, Canon 20Ds and 40D I have used never showed anything like that many and that intense.


Perhaps, but that isn't a meteor, and why the bright spot in the middle?

Who knows what light comes off a buring meteorite or space junk can't answer that. I have never captured one just like that. Normally it is just an annoying streak of light in an image that disappears with median combine with other exposures that don't have it.



Have to disagree with you on this one Greg, never seen one, seen plenty of satellites, no meteors, though I may have, but I would have thought a meteor trail would be especially bright if it was visible to the naked eye. There's heaps of times I spend many hours out at night and don't see any meteors at all. That may have something to do with light pokkution though.


Never seen any metoerites? Do you image from an urban location which suppresses them. At my dark site which has virtually no light pollution on a no moon night if I stood and watched the sky I would be pretty guranteed to see 5 meteors per hour minimum of varying brightnesses. I see heaps of 10 minute exposures with meteorites. I mean really common. yes satellites as well but they are only closer to dawn and shortly after sunset when they are still in the sun at their high altitude not in the dead of the night. The occasional jet lights too.

Meteorites are very interesting to watch. Some are really unbelievably fast and scoot across a large amount of sky, some are really slow depending on whether they are moving, which direction into or away from earth (ie earth catches up with a slow moving one going away from us too slowly or one that is coming at us at a great speed.
I have seen some leave smoke trails (not often) a few that were quite bright, one that came down almost like a firecracker but none that were big fireballs (I have just missed out a couple of times).

But in short they are a really common thing out in a really dark sky but they lack contrast and only the really bright ones are visible in urban locations. Perhaps that is what has setoff this discussion your experience of hardly ever seeing any where you image and others who see them a lot in really dark skies as a fairly common event (several a night when you aren't even really looking out for them). I don't see many meteorites at home either. Only the very few that are really bright and most I see aren't that bright but are visible.

I remember once looking out the window of a jumbo jet at 36,000 feet near the equator and seeing many many meteorites. Must have been a shower at the time.

The best meteorite I have seen was after a night of imaging I was struck by the beautiful sight of a small crescent moon with Venus nearby as dawn was beginning and I was admiring the beautiful view and thought gee it'd be nice if a meteorite flashed nearby and one did right nearby and it set it off just perfectly.


Greg.

[Moon]

Here is a plate solve from Astrometry (http://live.astrometry.net/status.php?job=alpha-200908-76419708)

Cheers!

[Octane]

James,

:eyepop:

Hooray for Octans -- finally, it's good for something. :P

Well done! :)

Regards,
Humayun

[MrB]

Wow, well done James.

[Gallifreyboy]

It looks like the ample proportioned female might be singing. Although there was a lot of heat in this thread I think in the end the process produced the best possible outcome. I certainly learnt from the different points of view. It seems everbody's feelings aren't too hurt after all but there is a rather strange bit of life advice from a new member in this thread.:eyepop:
Keep up the good work everbody. Cheers and a virtual beer for Chris and Stuart and everybody else.:)

[Dennis]

Excellent detective work James – that is a great find! Here is a composite showing Chris’ photo and below it, the approximate field in The Sky.

Cheers

Dennis

[Nightskystargaz]

Hi,

I was out last Monday Night, and a metor went thru my field of view, that was the frist time it happen to me.

I say one other metor later on, but in a different part of the sky.

Thanks,

Tom

[coldspace]

Yep Tom,

Its a nice exciting thing to see a meteor go through the field of view in your eyepiece.
I have seen a couple streak through when observing. When in surburbs its cool when one streaks through the eyepiece and observers watching next to you didn't see it as its way too dim for naked eye.

Matt.

[gregbradley]

So the final conclusion is that it is in fact a bright star that smeared as the mount slewed and the dimmer stars didn't smear as they weren't bright enough?

Nice find to locate the star. Easy enough to confuse with a meteorite.

This is like CSI Astronomy.

Gerg.

[rat156]

Well done everyone, particularly James for doing something I should have much earlier.

I better make an apology first of all, OK they are stars, weird profile, but stars. I suppose I'm used to oversampled pictures.

The plate solve solves one problem, but opens up another couple for me. Why didn't the other stars trail? Brightness difference?

Why did Chris think he was taking pictures of NGC253, when the camera was pointing at beta-octans? The two objects are widely separated.

Problem (almost) solved, I feel sorry for Chris, but satisfied that we've collectively gotten to the bottom of this.

Cheers
Stuart

[Dennis]

Short exposure DSLR stars can appear quite peculiar – I have had similar stellar profiles with my Pentax *ist DS so my previous (short exposure) results help keep that possibility open! Clearly you are being spoiled by your ST-10XME!;)

Cheers

Dennis

[gregbradley]

Another possibility is the autoguider was going nuts and doing really big corrections as it lost the guide star or was set incorrectly. For example when you slew to the other side of a GEM you have to click the reverse X box so the corrections are issued for the other side of the mount otherwise the X errors build up and up and up as the corrections are going the wrong way.

Perhaps why the squiggly tail. The other stars may not have been bright enough to expose well?


greg.

[mike-wulff]

Damn you guys are good.

It is CSI Astronomy and it was my gear so my prints are all over it.

Chris, I hope your happy with the end result mate.
Yours will certainly be a post revisited many times and not a bad teaching tool.

It certainly has an an eye opener for me.:thumbsup: