M22 and millions of Milky Way stars

strongmanmike (Michael) · #1 02-08-2009, 10:30 PM

This is a quicky shot I took while waiting for the Helix to rise the other night, I nearly forgot about it actually but I am glad I remembered I did it!

Remember to press F11 on your keyboard to view in Full Screen mode (windows PC's) really helps in seeing all the stars

Full frame small size (2meg):
http://www.pbase.com/strongmanmike20...23322/original

Close up crop (1.6meg)
http://www.pbase.com/strongmanmike20...23324/original

and for those with good broadband have a swim around in this full frame large size image (6.5meg) - there's a prize if you can count the stars (without software) too

well worth a look I think, if you have the time:
http://www.pbase.com/strongmanmike20...23325/original

enjoy

Mike

h0ughy (David) · #2 02-08-2009, 10:33 PM

glad you posted it, far too many to count

renormalised (Carl) · #3 02-08-2009, 10:45 PM

Really nice piccies, Mike...especially when you bump it up to full screen.

BTW stars = 10 billion

RB (Andrew) · #4 02-08-2009, 11:14 PM

Mike there's 3 stars missing....any idea why??

Crickey unbelievable amount of stars.

Terrific shot mate.

citivolus (Ric) · #5 02-08-2009, 11:53 PM

There are some nice faint dark nebula overlaid on that too. It is very nice that your stars are not burnt out by processing.

strongmanmike (Michael) · #6 03-08-2009, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by h0ughy

glad you posted it, far too many to count

Cheers Houghy, I posted it to the AP yahoo group and they seemed to enjoy it, mostly northern hemisphere guys on that list so stuff like this that passes only 12 deg from the Zenith always goes down well..I feel so sorry for them up there

Quote:

Originally Posted by renormalised

Really nice piccies, Mike...especially when you bump it up to full screen.

BTW stars = 10 billion

Yes Carl, those with a big moniter > 21" should get a good eyefull of sand

Quote:

Originally Posted by RB

Mike there's 3 stars missing....any idea why??

Crickey unbelievable amount of stars.

Terrific shot mate.

Cheers Andy, stars missing?? where?

I'm sure I got them all.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by citivolus

There are some nice faint dark nebula overlaid on that too. It is very nice that your stars are not burnt out by processing.

Yes Ric there are two vague dark patches that flank M22, it almost gets lost in the Milky Way really huh?

gregbradley · #7 03-08-2009, 07:42 AM

Great image. Love that sandstone backdrop. Hard to tell if the glob is fully in front of all those background stars or merged in with them to some degree.

Greg.

h0ughy (David) · #8 03-08-2009, 07:59 AM

lol i had a thought - maybe use registar or DSS to count the stars

Liz · #9 03-08-2009, 08:04 AM

"My God, it's full of stars!"

That is absolutely gorgeous ..... hard to comprehend the size of our universe with a stunning image like that. Thanks Mike!!

Tamtarn · #10 03-08-2009, 08:15 AM

Wow !! That's a super image Mike everything about it is spot on. Well resolved and the star colours managed perfectly.

The full frame is stunning

BerrieK · #11 03-08-2009, 10:42 AM

Mike that is an amazing capture and process, mind blowing. Beautiful.
(we are so small).

Kerrie

ps I thought that my broadband speed was reasonable until I downloaded the big beautiful wander-around-in version!! But as you say well worth it, just a pleasure to explore.

pps I've used your image as my desktop background, hope this is okay!!

telecasterguru (Frank) · #12 03-08-2009, 11:26 AM

Mike,
I love your short images that are 2 hours.
Fantastic.

Frank

DavidU (Dave) · #13 03-08-2009, 12:25 PM

WOW
Thats a lot of stars. Fantastic shot.
I read some where that there are more stars than grains of sand on all the worlds beaches.
Now I feel very small

Robh (Rob) · #14 03-08-2009, 02:02 PM

It's a bit busy. Can you filter some of the stars out?
Just kidding. Amazing shot!
I knew there had to be a lot of stars in the region but that's mind-boggling.

Regards, Rob

Hagar (Doug) · #15 03-08-2009, 03:34 PM

Magnificent Mike. The 6.5mb version really shows how well your scope resolves a big starfield.
No I didn't count the stars, too much like hard work.

Beautiful rich colour image.

strongmanmike (Michael) · #16 03-08-2009, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregbradley

Great image. Love that sandstone backdrop. Hard to tell if the glob is fully in front of all those background stars or merged in with them to some degree.

Greg.

Cheers Greg, there was a time where I played with sandstone on a weekly basis: http://www.pbase.com/strongmanmike20...11894/original

. This image was truly a "hmmm? what can I grab before the Helix hits 40deg elevation?" Yes I am not sure myself but I would hazard a guess that the bulk of the stars are closer than M22..?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Liz

"My God, it's full of stars!"

That is absolutely gorgeous ..... hard to comprehend the size of our universe with a stunning image like that. Thanks Mike!!

You are most welcome Elizabeth, I am happy to make you feel insignificant

I agree, 200 Billion Galaxies X 200 Billion stars each = ?

...a frigin big number of stars

(4 X 10^22..?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tamtarn

Wow !! That's a super image Mike everything about it is spot on. Well resolved and the star colours managed perfectly.

The full frame is stunning

Thanks Barbave (

) the large image is only a 66% size image too!

This was deffinitely an image that surprised once I processed it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by BerrieK

Mike that is an amazing capture and process, mind blowing. Beautiful.
(we are so small).

Kerrie

ps I thought that my broadband speed was reasonable until I downloaded the big beautiful wander-around-in version!! But as you say well worth it, just a pleasure to explore.

pps I've used your image as my desktop background, hope this is okay!!

Hey as long as you don't go around bashing us blokes, you can have anything of mine on your backdrop Kezza!

(talk about holding on to a thought

..sorry

)That big image is still only a 66% size version of the raw image too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by telecasterguru

Mike,
I love your short images that are 2 hours.
Fantastic.

Frank

Yes one of the draw backs of LRGB imaging Franko with a mono CCD = lots of exposure even for "quickies"

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidU

WOW
Thats a lot of stars. Fantastic shot.
I read some where that there are more stars than grains of sand on all the worlds beaches.
Now I feel very small

Yep! see above reply to Liz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robh

It's a bit busy. Can you filter some of the stars out?
Just kidding. Amazing shot!
I knew there had to be a lot of stars in the region but that's mind-boggling.

Regards, Rob

Yes Rob. lots of stars and perhaps most with planets?...Hmmm? no other life in the Universe??? me thinks not!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hagar

Magnificent Mike. The 6.5mb version really shows how well your scope resolves a big starfield.
No I didn't count the stars, too much like hard work.

Beautiful rich colour image.

Thanks Doug simple shots can often end up the best. The Starfire is a fabulous scope and as I have said before, I genuinely feel very lucky to have one

Quote:

Originally Posted by h0ughy

lol i had a thought - maybe use registar or DSS to count the stars

Yes be interested in any results if anybody has the right software..?

renormalised (Carl) · #17 03-08-2009, 05:41 PM

4 x 10^22 stars....that's right

h0ughy (David) · #18 03-08-2009, 05:42 PM

ok did a first pass register of the image in registar - it counted # of stars identified = 43557 thats not really reflective of the glob either

strongmanmike (Michael) · #19 03-08-2009, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by h0ughy

ok did a first pass register of the image in registar - it counted # of stars identified = 43557 thats not really reflective of the glob either

Wow

renormalised (Carl) · #20 03-08-2009, 05:55 PM

In order to count the number of stars there, properly, you have to work out what area, in terms of light years, the piccie covers, then multiply that by the distance to M22. That gives you the volume in cubic light years. You then multiply that by the average density of stars per cubic light year (for the galaxy as a whole). That'll give a reasonable estimate of how many stars there are there, including those you can't see, up to the distance M22 lies at

Then add 750000 for M22 itself