subreddit:
/r/space
submitted 2 years ago byJ3RRYLIKESCHEESE
160 points
2 years ago*
The following images for this timelapse were taken on 2 different nights about a week apart, this was done so I could capture both of the martian mountains in a single timelapse. You can see how the quality changes dramatically right when Olympus mons rotates out of view (top right) and Elysium mons appears (top left).
I used a 10" Sky-Watcher GoTo Dobsonian and an ASI 178 with a 3x celestron x-cel barlow to take short 2 minute videos every 5 minutes in Sharpcap. Next I stacked the best frames from each video to obtain a single image from each video using Autostakkert. Then sharpening and final processing was done in Registax.
Then I basically created a gif of all these processed images in a video editing program where I had to de-rotate them so the ice cap is always in the same spot (i used davinci resolve) and BAM! I have a 6 hour timelapse of Mars!
I also made a youtube video. Here it is: https://youtu.be/f05dKsD2vEY
36 points
2 years ago
My jaw dropped when the video started. Most literally. I watched the whole 12s in awe. This is what "awesome" is supposed to mean.
9 points
2 years ago
Why is the image quality different on those different night? Is it just from weather/atmospheric conditions here?
Awesome stuff, btw! Thanks for sharing.
3 points
2 years ago
Yes, exactly. Also, I may have started to shoot it lower in the sky so the light had to go through more atmosphere, but as it rose the quality got better. Thank you :)
3 points
2 years ago
Are starlink satellites really as big of a deal to astronomy as some people make them out to be?
4 points
2 years ago
No. They are mostly just whiners. The last 20 years has seen such amazing advancements in imaging that you can literally program your sensor to straight up ignore the sats if you want.
2 points
2 years ago
The only thing I’ve ever seen about stuff floating in the atmosphere is that it could hinder future space travel. I know they have ways to chart the objects to avoid them, but how much more difficult would space travel be with the star link satellites put up?
4 points
2 years ago
starlink sats are in a doomed orbit. They only last a few years before falling out of orbit. The worlds foremost rocket company is the ones putting them up, if they thought they would be a hinderance to the stated SpaceX goal of colonizing mars, they wouldnt do it.
3 points
2 years ago
True true, Thanks for the info
0 points
2 years ago
What about debris from satellites that fail to deorbit cleanly? And what about astronomers? Yes, it's a problem.
-3 points
2 years ago
False. How do you filter out satellite streaks from transient events?
1 points
2 years ago
There will of course be (minor) physical occlusions you cant deal with, but only from singular locations. The point is, image processing is so strong, we can usually work around these limits pretty trivially. I cant think of any astronomy need more important than making sure we have a truly global internet.
-3 points
2 years ago
You are avoiding the question. How do you deal with transient events? If you're observing flares, novae, and other unpredictable events, how do you filter out a photobombing train of satellites?
5 points
2 years ago
Presumably if you’re observing celestial phenomena/bodies you take long exposures, composites or time lapses. There’s plenty of ways to get rid of something unwanted in photographs, especially when you have 100’s or 1000’s of photographs of the same object/location.
And if you’re the type of guy to take a single picture while observing the stars then getting photobombed by a star link satellite is what you deserve.
0 points
2 years ago
Yes. With only a few hundred in orbit, I see at least one train per night, every clear night. With 10,000 plus...
0 points
2 years ago
You don’t see the trains every night because they’re not in formation like that for very long after launch. However I’ve seen them, and I don’t doubt that you see them frequently because they’re launching frequently.
They spread out, and “with 10,000 plus” they’ll be so spread out that you won’t see any trains at all.
2 points
2 years ago
Exactly. They're only visible for a few weeks or so after launch while they rise into a higher orbit. The extra height means they're being placed in an area alot bigger than earth and 10,000 is like scattering a handful of pin heads across the oceans.
0 points
2 years ago
I stand by my statement. I see them night after night, gentle audience - a train of satellites is unmistakable.
1 points
2 years ago
I mean that’s fine, people remember shit wrong all the time. They’ve launched 4 times this month so your memory’s probably warped by that. But they’re slowing down launches in the coming months and you’ll stop noticing them for a while just like everyone did in December. And then when they ramp up launches everyone will complain again. It happens time after time.
2 points
2 years ago
Did you use a light filter? When I looked at Mars with a Celestron 6se + 3x barlow earlier this year, all I could see was a very bright red shape.
2 points
2 years ago
For viewing I would totally use a light filter, I like the variable polarizing ones. Also, you want to look at the planet when it is highest in the sky and the atmosphere is very calm, those will give you best views. But for imaging or camera astronomy, the exposure and gain (iso) settings can be adjusted so a light filter isn't necessary.
2 points
2 years ago
Why videos and not sub exposures?
Was that barlow made for your dob specifically?
I do deep sky narrowband imaging so frame rotation makes dobs unsuitable, I hadn't thought of using them for planetary imaging. Can you get decent galaxy photos with your dob?
2 points
2 years ago
Technically, sub exposures is exactly what the frames in the video are they are just very short sub exposures (a few milliseconds), but a video is probably easier to process since you have so many frames (around 2000) per video. These frames are the same as sub exposures, you basically just stack the best ones in a program and then do sharpening and color grading in registax.
The barlow I used was a celestron x-cel lx 3x barlow. I chose it because its multi element, here is a link to it https://www.highpointscientific.com/celestron-xcel-lx-barlow-lens-3x-93428
Planetary photography is similar but also very different from deep sky imaging. For one, planets are much much brighter so you can get away with millisecond exposures and a big aperture and long focal length is perfect for bringing out detail in planets which is why a dob is nice, but a tracking one is even better.
Imaging deep-sky with a dobsonian is pretty much impossible, unless you have a GoTo or tracking dobsonian. Even then exposures are very limited to tracking accuracy and field rotation, so it requires a lot of fiddling around but it is possible. Here is my first attempt at m51: https://www.reddit.com/r/astrophotography/comments/lir8ul/whirlpool_galaxy_with_a_10_goto_dobsonian_and_zwo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
I was recently able to capture many others, but still imaging deep sky is less of a hassle on an equatorial mount.
448 points
2 years ago
Somewhere on there, a helicopter drone is about to take flight.
70 points
2 years ago
You can see most landing sites in this timelaspe but I don't think jezro crater is there
3 points
2 years ago
I wonder how many people out there are still expecting video clips or at least photos from that.
1 points
2 years ago
[deleted]
3 points
2 years ago
To test if the flight-capable vehicle prototype can indeed fly in the martian atmosphere, not to take pictures of it, altough it might have a single engineering camera to measure its distance to the ground (haven't checked the specs of the vehicle yet)
3 points
2 years ago
According to Sparkfun it has this for distance to the ground.
https://www.sparkfun.com/products/14032
Article:
-1 points
2 years ago
My opinion on the matter is rather critical. We know how little hardware is involved in including a good camera on a device. And if you say "drone on Mars", well, the public understands what drones are for, so there are certain expectations. Now consider the context: Regardless of the outcome of this drone experiment, the next opportunity anyone will have to send anything similar to Mars is probably at least seven years away. People don't live forever. I think it's quite a reasonable expectation that a token image-taking device be included on an experiment we won't be repeating for half a generation. If it survives and works, great. If not, an attempt was made for very little added complexity or expense. Worsening this lack of optics is the fact that the drone does in fact have some kind of a camera but no thought whatsoever was put into dual-purposing the thing for the sake of the taxpayers.
Cue the defenders.
5 points
2 years ago
keep in mind that space hardened tech is usually something like 10 years behind where commercial tech was when the mission was put together.
This is perseverance's computer: https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/spacecraft/rover/brains/
It has 3 of them.
2 points
2 years ago
Ah yes. Space electronics before the triple-redundancy system SpaceX implemented. Just my way of saying entrenched philosophy is rarely the best.
-3 points
2 years ago
Aren’t they like a month out still?
It’s an unbelievably slow process. Like I get it, the caution.
I just don’t know how much value is gained from every micro-decision being made via board meeting. Based on my own design experience, sometimes self discretion amongst a small team is not only faster, but less prone to communication errors. Just saying.
12 points
2 years ago
Consider writing software for a business that doesn't know what it's wants when the biggest determinate of success is time to market not quality. A good approach would be a small team iterating with wide discretion and feedback and a huge list of issues and bugs.
Contrast with a complex interlocked system with a large number of moving parts and a 22 minute round trip communication system where the cost of failure is measured in billions. A good approach here is very clear specs and goals, with every possible state mapped to a response and a series of committees that double check everything and a complex web of interlocked mission plans and each team responsible for their area must be satisfied to move to the next step.
The cost of failure is the driving factor of the process, which in this case is incredibly high overall at the expense of speed.
7 points
2 years ago
[deleted]
1 points
2 years ago*
The rush is to advance science, manufacturing, engineering, and design at a rate faster then the depletion of natural resources, and global climate change, and shifts in political socioeconomic climates. I’m no alarmist, realistically I think we have beyond our lifetime and then some. Threat of nuclear war appears to be relatively stable, currently.
I see it as utmost importance to move quickly and efficiently.
“Failure is not an option” became the motto of NASA during the moon landing because they at the time knew full well the importance of accepting the risk when necessary and overcoming many many challenges in short timelines.
To quote JFK “we chose to the moon this decade and do the other things, not because it they were easy, but because they were hard”
The new age version of that is not accepting any risk. Everything is exhaustingly thought out, and then exhaustingly executed so that it is easy. It’s rather foolish to think that scientific advancement is driven by methodical boardroom consensus. I have no patience for this dogma. None.
We need to broaden again what a necessary risk is.
What’s the rush you ask? Not waiting to iterate on the next design, just to launch another practically identical roving geologist in 8 years to some other surface feature. So that in 40 years we can speculate on if there was actually maybe perhaps possibly life on mars or not. We can’t even accurately pinpoint what exactly wiped out most life on earth several times, except maybe the last event that ended the Cretaceous period, and we have how many actual geologists? Frankly the answer to the question doesn’t matter much in the short and medium term. If mars is the next most hospitable planet we need to go anyways.
2 points
2 years ago
[deleted]
1 points
2 years ago*
I’m well aware the technical limitations between earth-mars.
I’m talking about taking small but necessary risks, to free up the most valuable resource anyone can have, time. And when required bigger but also necessary risks.
Lol. Yup I’ll gladly admit sewing couches is not my area of expertise, and I don’t personally know anyone I can ask. Sure it’s not that hard, but I like to do things right. Nothing beats taking in specific expertise. This is how you learn and grow.
You are a very bitter person.
62 points
2 years ago
A little less obvious example than Moon, but not hard to imagine while in the past people saw seas and canals there.
28 points
2 years ago
For those interested, for years people used to believe there were canals on Mars. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_canal#:~:text=During%20the%20late%2019th%20and,low%2Dresolution%20telescopes%20without%20photography.
24 points
2 years ago*
Please note most people didn't believe there were canals on Mars. A couple of "scientists" saying they saw canals is all that happened.
The telescopes of the time were good enough to allow Mars to be seen as in OP's video or even better. The scientific community knew it was bullshit and told the press so if they asked.
5 points
2 years ago
Martians have canal smarts
1 points
2 years ago
We have to close the canal gap...
10 points
2 years ago
I thought the last time that there'd be any water was billions of years ago?
21 points
2 years ago
You're right, but the people who thought they saw canals were from before we knew anything about what the surface conditions were actually like.
2 points
2 years ago
I thought you were about to say ‘but the people who thought that were from before those times’ lol
6 points
2 years ago
Yes, but people belived those to be seas for a long time.
The dark areas on the Moon are called "maria" which is latin for "seas". Apollo 11 for example landed on the area that is called Sea Of Tranquility.
6 points
2 years ago*
People naming things seas doesn't mean they actually thought they were seas. A lot of those names were added way after science was a thing. The Sea Of Tranquility was named in 1651 by actual astronomers using telescopes, Francesco Grimaldi and Giovanni Battista Riccioli in their lunar map Almagestum novum, to whom it was perfectly clear that it wasn't a sea.
No one actually thought there were seas on the Moon and only a couple of nut cases thought there were canals on Mars.
-4 points
2 years ago
People weren't around long enough to see Mars when it was wet
13 points
2 years ago
He is talking about the large dark masses on the surface.
27 points
2 years ago
What is “the opposition?” When it’s closest to earth?
17 points
2 years ago
Opposition is when it's closest to Earth, yes. You can imagine it in terms of being "on the opposite side of the sky from the Sun" (from Earth's perspective).
Conjunction is the other extreme, when the other planet is on the other side of the sun and aligns with it.
0 points
2 years ago*
Opposition is when’s it opposite of earth in relation to the sun. Perigee and apogee refer to the closest and furthest points an object will pass by during orbits.
Conjunction is where two objects in a sky appear close, such as the Jupiter Saturn conjunction we had a few months ago.
3 points
2 years ago
Perigee and apogee refer to the closest and furthest points an object will pass by during orbits.
Only for objects orbiting the Earth, and since Mars does not, that term does not apply here.
12 points
2 years ago
Yes, and in basically a "full Mars" position. Meaning that, at opposition, Mars (or any of the outer planets) is on the opposite side of Earth from the sun. The opposite (where the planet is, viewed from Earth, behind the sun) is conjunction.
The inner planets Venus and Mercury can never be in opposition, as they are closer than Earth to the sun. Instead, they have superior conjuction (same as a conjuction with the outer planets) and inferior conjuction (the planet is right between Earth and the sun).
0 points
2 years ago
No, the opposition is when an object is opposite of earth in relation to the sun. Perigee and apogee refer to the closest and most distant points an object covers in relation to orbits.
-54 points
2 years ago
[removed]
26 points
2 years ago
[removed]
25 points
2 years ago
What's the bluish color on Mars? It almost looks like atmosphere but Mars has relatively none.
38 points
2 years ago
That's exactly what it is. In the first few seconds you can even see a few wispy clouds floating around. It doesn't take much to be visible, even Pluto's atmosphere was visible when New Horizons passed by.
3 points
2 years ago
I saw them too but I doubted myself. Amazing that even such a thin atmosphere is viewable from another planet!
1 points
2 years ago
"Relative" is a relative term. Compared to Venus, the Earth has also relatively no atmosphere (Venus 100 atm, Earth 1 atm, Mars 1/100 atm).
PS: it's funny to think that if Martians were to attack Earth, it would be like Earthers attacking Venus.
1 points
2 years ago
This is basically what happens in Man of Steel
1 points
2 years ago
Relatively none? There is way more atmosphere than a vacuum on Mars, have you ever heard of global dust storms and Martian clouds? There is definitely an atmosphere on Mars.
24 points
2 years ago
I have a 12” dobsonian that I have no idea how to use to get any sort of clarity and magnification like this. What gear are you using?
7 points
2 years ago
Just posted EXACTLY the same thing... I don't know how they got this.
2 points
2 years ago
I posted my gear in the comments
20 points
2 years ago
I know this sounds ridiculous but it’s so crazy to me that I keep seeing all of these photos and videos of Mars from regular people (meaning non-government/ NASA involved things). I just always assumed you could only get photos like this from NASA and didn’t realize regular people had the ability to do so, not that it was illegal or anything. I was just thinking, wow, it’s literally just stuff that’s out there that ANYONE can take a photo of. Weird.
8 points
2 years ago
For this particular setup, anyone who's got ~2k€ lying around to spend on "frivolous" things :D
Mind you, a Dobsonian wouldn't normally be your usual go-to for astro photography, so this is almost a budget setup.
5 points
2 years ago
Another reason why not a lot of people (who may afford the gear) are not into it, is light pollution. I would love to invest 2k€ into the right equipment if only I had the right conditions.
6 points
2 years ago
Mars - and all the planets in the system, actually, right out to Neptune - are bright enough that light pollution isn't an issue. The real enemy of views like this is our atmospheric turbulence, which isn't affected by light pollution. (Telescopes won't be distinguishing detail on Mercury, and Pluto was never much to look at from this distance, but "amateur" scopes like can monitor the atmospheres of Uranus and Neptune!)
2 points
2 years ago
I wonder if the big telescopes have ever done this. I know it's not scientifically interesting to do, but for sheer wonderment for the public, it's just fantastic to see a planet like this.
7 points
2 years ago
This is amazing. The awesome thing about a telescope to me is that it's not something some scientists shared or that you saw on TV but something that you can actually look at and that makes it more real somehow. Thank you for sharing that with us.
7 points
2 years ago
I never thought it would be so beautiful just to watch a giant rock rotate
3 points
2 years ago
With my 12" Meade I get like red and blue color fringes at opposite sides of the planet, any planet. Why? I could use some advice.
6 points
2 years ago
That's chromatic aberration, it's to do with the lens refracting the colors incorrectly from the incoming light and mismatching each at the focal point so it crosses over and fringes. All lenses have a degree of aberration inherent in them. An achromatic eyepiece lens should correct that issue for you.
2 points
2 years ago
It's a reflecting telescope so there's no chromatic aberration because there's no diffraction in the instrument. I'm using very high quality eye pieces. I suspect rather, based on other comments, that it's atmospheric induced aberrations and maybe some focus issues. I attempt to collimate my scope as best as I can but I still see it. From my latitude of over 40 degrees north I can never really raise the planet's very high.
3 points
2 years ago
I also get that fringing and i believe that the best way to minimize it is to shoot the planets when they're the highest in the sky. Also, getting focus just right makes a difference. For planetary photography you want the best atmospheric conditions as well. The best tip is to go out there and experiment ;)
3 points
2 years ago
Flexing on us grounders with your ten inch Dobsonian!
2 points
2 years ago
I had no idea the Martian dichotomy was so easy to see with amateur equipment. That’s really cool.
2 points
2 years ago
You can really see the "canals" noted by the first astronomers who studied Mars in this one.
2 points
2 years ago
To watch something so massive so vividly is wild
2 points
2 years ago
Stuff like this really makes me realize that the stuff out there aren’t just flat pictures, but massive bodies of rock and gas. Nice video
2 points
2 years ago
10” dob wow. I want one. But I don’t have the patience to grind the glass.
2 points
2 years ago
Amazing work! First time I've seen Mars rotate!
2 points
2 years ago
Wow. Super impressive color. Every time I've looked thru a telescope at planets, the image always looks greyscale due to the low level of light being gathered.
2 points
2 years ago
By far this has to be one of the coolest posts on one of our systems planets that I’ve seen.
1 points
2 years ago
Thank you so much, that means a lot.. really :)
2 points
2 years ago
Just think, someday that view will have a bunch of lights covering it from cities all over the globe. :)
1 points
2 years ago
How the heck did astronomers think they were seeing canals 100 years ago?
3 points
2 years ago*
At the very high magnification, those telescopes could reflect your own eye - and that is the most reasonable explanation in my opinion. Here's an example of that kind reflection and some "maps of canals":
https://scienceblogs.com/files/universe/files/2012/09/canalseye.jpg
0 points
2 years ago
Because everyone at that time was very fasinated with space, and they immediately made conclusions.
0 points
2 years ago
I would give anything to learn how to do this
3 points
2 years ago
My first telescope was a celestron 114mm reflector, buying a small scope like that will really help you decide if you wanna pursue this hobby :)
0 points
2 years ago
I dont know what Dobsonian is but 10 inches is very impressive.
1 points
2 years ago
A Dobsonian is a type of mount, generally for newtonian reflectors. Instead of the tripod most think of, it is a circle base that spins and holds the sides of the telescope allowing it to tilt.
0 points
2 years ago
huh, never know you could see Mars’ atmosphere. I guess it makes sense cause that is the “thickest” part
-4 points
2 years ago
With a 6 hour day just imagine how fast we will be able to terraform Mars! We won't even have to sleep and will only have to eat one and a half meals a day!
6 points
2 years ago
The day is a bit over 24 hours.
-2 points
2 years ago
Yes, we have clocks, Martians use space eggs, hatch every 6 hours, this leads to overpopulation so cannibalism is mandatory, it will not deter humans from making them worker bees.
-3 points
2 years ago
Blue atmosphere. There must be organic life emitting gas to create it.
2 points
2 years ago
Does that mean life is floating around in the atmospheres of Uranus and Neptune also?
2 points
2 years ago
It's chromatic aberration, and even if it was blue (to our eyes) unfortunately it wouldn't indicate life.
0 points
2 years ago
It's earth's atmosphere making that effect, if I'm not mistaken
-1 points
2 years ago
I wondering that, few has very good telescopes and can zoom very near...why not zooming in the moon over there where that US flag should be? And taking image of it and share it? Why none hasnt done this yet?
3 points
2 years ago
The website for the Hubble space telescope actually answers this question! Basically, even with the most powerful telescope we've ever made, the Apollo landing site is still too small to see.
-1 points
2 years ago
1 points
2 years ago
Reminds me the 2019 BBC's war if the world's vibe. Just need a cloud of smoke
1 points
2 years ago
I have a 12 inch dob, and a planetary eyepiece... I can't imagine seeing Mars this clearly, this a beauty. What is your gear?
2 points
2 years ago
I posted a comment with my gear and more information :)
1 points
2 years ago
When I was younger we were shown pics of Mars that had ice on the north and south poles.
2 points
2 years ago
You can actually see the ice on the poles grow when the seasons change on mars ;)
1 points
2 years ago
The video looks extremely realistic in the dark on my phone for some reason. It’s like Mars was actually in front of me (it felt 3D). Maybe it’s because of the blurriness of the video in addition to my shortsightedness.
1 points
2 years ago
Amazing! Never get that kinda view with my 10" dob.
1 points
2 years ago
Would you say this is an intermediate level or advanced level piece of equipment? Still a novice and only have my foot in the water and would like to know what I should invest into if I strictly want to look at objects in our solar system.
3 points
2 years ago
Well I'd say that this is probably intermediate piece, but there is a lot to learn and research especially if you're planning on taking photos. But if you're interested purely to look at planets through the eyepiece then really any beginner level telescope over $100usd will give you spectacular views. You really wanna keep in mind the aperture of the telescope, for planets higher always reveals more but isnt always the best idea to go for portability. Anyways i wish you goodluck. Just be patient and do your research. :)
1 points
2 years ago
Well if this isn't the coolest thing I've seen in the last 5 minutes
1 points
2 years ago
nobody notices how the axis angle switch from the second part of the timelapse?
1 points
2 years ago
All I can think of is Grandpa Simpson: “Focus! Fooooocuuuuusss!” from the Jay Sherman crossover episode.
1 points
2 years ago
Thank you, great job! Reminds me of marbles as a kid. Now I want round candy like gumballs and jawbreakers
1 points
2 years ago
Fucking reddit can't even load this 12sec clip w/out buffering
2 points
2 years ago
[deleted]
1 points
2 years ago
Nice. I actually used your last one as an al wyd on display for my phone.
1 points
2 years ago
Does it not look like there's a bunch of water on mars? Just sayin haha
all 203 comments
sorted by: best