Re: Problems with J002E3 elements

From: Ed Davies (
Date: Sun Mar 30 2003 - 16:46:50 EST

  • Next message: Bram Dorreman: "Re: GRACE 1 and 2"

    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.
    To unsubscribe from SeeSat-L, send a message with 'unsubscribe'
    in the SUBJECT to
    List archived at

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Mar 30 2003 - 16:54:05 EST