Tony Beresford wrote in a private message: > As it explains at the bottom, the apparent position takes account > of precession , aberration and nutation and a few other smaller ( < 1 arc second) > effects. Oops, you're right - should have read the small print. Had a happy half hour web browsing about stella aberration this afternoon. And in a public reply: > I suspect your friend with the webcam will have too much noise in the > exposure long enough to get faint enough to image J002E3 We discussed this. He wrote: > It should be possible by imaging although I don't think there is > much hope visually. The Asteroid was about 12.5 and barely visible. > Going to 14th is quite a step. > > However using the webcam should be quite hopeful, in the attached > image of M82 the 4th brightest star is 14.25. The dimmer stars are > unknown, they are not in the GSC. This was a composite of 16 second > exposures. The "Asteroid" he references was one involved in an occultation which we discussed a few days ago. He meant a composite of multiple exposures, each of 16 seconds. With the speed this object is moving and the time taken to get a number of exposures it would be interesting to see what the effects of composing the images by tracking the stars or the object would be. Ed. ----------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from SeeSat-L, send a message with 'unsubscribe' in the SUBJECT to SeeSat-L-request@satobs.org List archived at http://www.satobs.org/seesat/seesatindex.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 30 2003 - 16:54:05 EST