Jul 30 2005
Prev/Next Posts: « New objects found: bigger than Pluto? || What 50 AU looks like »
2003 EL61
In the entry before this one, I talked about the two newly-discovered objects out past Pluto. When I heard that one of them was at 18th magnitude, I wondered if it could be detected with a telescope my group has set up (by my group, I mean the education and public group of which I am a member).
18th magnitude is pretty faint, about 1/60000th as bright as the faintest star you can see with your unaided eye. But we have a decent setup, so I went for it last night with a co-worker, Logan. Today, I took the images, cleaned them up a bit (just a bit; I didn’t want to spend more time making them pretty– I just wanted to see if we could see the object!) and added them all together. Here is the result.
2003 EL61 is arrowed (click on the image for a bigger version). At least, I think that’s it. I have an image of that region taken many years ago, and the bright stars in Logan’s and my image are there, all except for that one. So I suspect that’s it. We can’t be sure until we get more images and see if that object moves. Unfortunately, our images from last night weren’t all that hot; the guiding on the ’scope was off. We’ll try again tonight. If it comes out better I’ll post the images.
A funny note: I had an interview on Coast to Coast AM about this object and UB313, the other giant iceball. These observations were being made while I was on the radio! GORT, our telescope, is remotely controlled. So Logan and I were connected to the telescope control computer (Logan at his house, me at mine) while he controlled the ’scope, and I was IMing him with comments. What an odd way to do science!
Aha, the BA goes iceball hunting! Pretty neat to be able to image it yourself! Even more to be able to control it remotely… But aah, myself, I prefer being beind the eyepiece directly. It’s so fun to cuss about dropping your flashlight when it’s off (And have a real happy time to find it.) or give a bloody look at that guy with his headlights on in your driveway… It’s sorta part of the magic for me.
You miss some of it when you’re behind a screen.
I wish I had a bigger telescope… *eyes her 4 inch*
Astronomers and the IAU are going to have to give these discoveries catchier names if they ever want astrologers to start accounting for them.
“What sign are you?”
“2003 EL61?”
Nah . . . just doesn’t have the same ring!
GORT, nice reference
Presumably 2003 EL61 will get catchier name at some point? As this object has now entered the realm of popularity, I can’t see people referencing it as “2003 EL61″ all the time? Am I wrong?
Turns out the object pointed out is indeed El61. We took observations Saturday night, and it moved! I’ll post the image when I get a chance.
“The Bad Astronomer wrote:
July 31st, 2005 at 11:02 am
Turns out the object pointed out is indeed El61. We took observations Saturday night, and it moved! I’ll post the image when I get a chance.”
Way to go! Nice catch!!
Any suggestions for a real name for 2003 EL61? The largest asteroids have names (Ceres, Pallas, Vesta, Juno). I think most major bodies in our Solar System are named after Roman gods (and a few Shakespearean characters).
All these objects will be named after underworld deities.
BTW, the third bright KBO announced Friday, 2005 FY9, should be slightly brighter (some 0.3 magnitudes) than 2003 EL61.
I get the sense that this object could have been discovered decades ago. How many 18th magnitude objects are there? I imagine its 44 degree inclination wrt the ecliptic may have had something to do with the delay in its discovery.
“What kind of pictures can you get of the moon with that telescope? …. ”
I dunno if that would be possible- It would be too bright for the CCD camera’s….
I don’t think taking quick exposers would work either…
Why do you ask?
Why did you ask 3 times?
I am wondering if there are any high powered telescopes here on earth that could see the moon landing sites, could see anything left behind by the astronauts, like the flag planted in the surface of the moon or see anything left behind by the astronauts.
It seems to me that if we have telescopes here on earth that can see all this great detail billions of miles out on asteroids and far planets and stuff that it would be a simple thing to see the United States flag on the moon.
Are there any telesopes here on earth that can see the United States flag on the surface of the moon?
(admittedly off-topic, but I’ll answer anyway) Even if they could, why would the hoax-believers be convinced by their images? They already distrust anything NASA does, never mind people who bounce lasers off the mirrors left on the moon; they’d just say “Those big observatories are clearly part of the conspiracy as well.” I mean, we’re talking about people who disagree with basic photographic principles; I’m not sure a small speck in an image would suddendly change their minds.
Did you hear they may name it Xena? { A kick-ass female name!}
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1539933,00.html
Are there any telesopes that can see the United States flag on the surface of the moon?
Doug Kenline, the answer is no. Go to my bulletin board and search for “hubble moon”. You’ll get your answer… and please don’t simply repeat your question here. If no one answers, then, well, no one answers. Other resources are available!
Can’t find anything at the bulletin board when search for “hubble moon”.
It seems to me that if we have telescopes here on earth that can see all this great detail billions of miles out on asteroids and far planets and stuff that it would be a simple thing to see the United States flag on the moon.
I wonder why it is that no telescopes can see the flag on the moon.
G’day Doug
No, no telescopes on Earth or in orbit can see any human remains on the Moon. The smallest objects that they can see are about 90 metres across. A telescope which could see them from Earth or Earth orbit would have to be at least 10 times bigger than what we have now.
Why can’t our telescopes see the flag on the Moon when they can see stuff way out in the universe? Because the flag is small. A flag is, what, 1 metre long. A galaxy is around 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 metres across (I think the maths is right). It’s the same way that you can see a building that’s 10 kilometres away, but you can’t see a pin that’s 10 metres away.
By the way, many other people have asked this question on the Bulletin Board. If you got no answer, you might be having the same problem as me - for some reason I can’t get the search facility to work, even if I get it to search for words I *know* are on the board.
So, as an alternative, you might like to join the Bulletin Board and post your questions. Your questions will definitely be answered.
10-4 thank you very much peter b.
i don’t like bulletin boards i like blogs.
Just adding:
It’s not no much a matter of size that makes theese faint objects visible- but of how bright they are- the big telescopes can image reallly faint things not really small things. If you see what I mean?
You say you couldn’t find anything Doug? Did you actually search? Try the following link:
http://badastronomy.com/phpBB/search.php?mode=results&sid=1a7e0bf8cf3640c1c1714bc45a841a5c
You say you couldn’t find anything Doug? Did you actually search? Try the following link:
http://badastronomy.com/phpBB/search.php?mode=results&sid=1a7e0bf8cf3640c1c1714bc45a841a5c
Satellites can take pictures of cars here on earth. I’ve even heard that some spy satellites could be used to count the hairs on the back of your head. It seems kind of unbelievable to me that there is no way to take a picture of the space junk on the moon. I think they left the little jeep there eh?
Randall - link brings up no information.
Eventually a sattelite in lunar orbit will do it but looking for Apollo relics isn’t a good enough reason to send one.
Doug, estimated abilities of spy satellites put them in the range of maybe reading a car license plate, if the angle is right. A far cry from counting hairs.
Also note that spy satellites are a LOT closer to the Earth than any satellite we have is to the moon. Most are not geosynch, but what is called a Keyhole satellite. They travel in very elliptical orbits, so the high point might be near geosynch, but the low point drops almost into the atmosphere. This puts their low point only a couple hundred miles above the Earth’s surface, which is where the resolution is best.
Contrast that with the moon where these observation satellites never get closer than 220,000 miles. Do you see why there’s a difference yet?
I say name it Pan-Horus, I know I’ll lose points for this, but I’m an astrologer &, though it’s not round, it’s still somewhat the 10th planet from the Sun & it would be nice for Taurus to have a higher ruler than Venus.
2003 el61 has oval truth.