5.49
#...
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
Hello, I joined AstroBin only yesterday, so this is my first post  Last September, I took a series of 257 images of the Helix Nebula. It was only my 4th attempt at astrophotography, so I was amazed to get any images at all that were worth looking at. After processing the images I was pretty happy with the result - not bad for a beginner who didn't really know what he was doing Then I noticed a 'Mystery Object' in the image - which you can see here, along with more detail in the Description.  NGC-7293 = Helix Nebula + Mystery Object I'm hoping someone else took an image of this area of the sky on the same night, to corroborate that it is a 'real' object. Clear skies, Gary (Sydney, Australia) PS - thanks to Salvatore for creating such an amazing site - and providing equally amazing support. |
11.14
#... |
|---|
|
Hello, This is probably a calibration/processing artifact. Probably a hot pixel which left its trail after registration. You have several other similar vertical line segments in your image, again probably from hot pixels not properly reduced during calibration. It is hard to guess because your image is severely clipped. |
|
5.49
#... |
|---|
|
Hello Many thanks for your speedy reply ... Yes, image artifact was the first thing I thought of too. I quickly eliminated that as an option for the reasons outlined in the description below the linked image. There are no vertical line segments in the original images. I admit, at only 2.1MB the image is clipped and not terribly good clarity, that was my best effort to upload an image that was a reasonable compromise between size and quality. However, the MO is clearly visible in each of the original FITs as well as the stack, as you can see here.  ----- I would certainly welcome any other ideas. Best regards, Gary |
3.61
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
Tiny shooting star? Never mind, read your description now  |
|
5.49
#... |
|---|
|
Re-bonjour Frédéric I will use English now because I'm much better at it that I am at French Yes, we wondered about shooting stars and re-entry objects - the thing is that the Mystery Object barely moved during 2.5 hours of imaging. Here is a little movie I made to show what I mean ... It consists of 6 frames, each frame is a stack made from images captured during 6 sequential imaging sessions, where I experimented with binning and exposure settings - this explains the change in quality from one frame to the next. Mystery Object Displacement.mov As you can see, it did move enough to suggest the object was not too far from Earth, and the movement was due to parallax. Here is another movie I made using unregistered subs - this shows that the MO moved across the sensor, so its not a sensor artifact. Mystery Object Oscillation Unaligned - 120s exposures.mov I welcome any other ideas Regards, Gary |
|
11.14
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Hello Gary, I was probably wrong. Anyway, your individual cropped images are much, much better in terms of clipping ! Maybe then it is the glare from a satellite. Since you have an accurate timestamp, you may want to simulate the sky at that point of space-time using Stellarium. It has the capability to show satellites as they move across the night sky. I did a crude run using your time/date and coordinates and a candidate is Globalstar M054 with an approximate magnitude of 8.5, but it passes at approximately 22:16. If you are familiar with Stellarium, you will probably solve the mystery!
|
1.91
#...
·
2
likes
|
|---|
| The oscilation movie left me with an impression, that it could be an internal reflection/flare/difraction within your optical train.... it does appear to be just slightly curved as well. Perhaps there's a "foreign object" or a particularly large dust particle somewhere inside? Or even a defect in antireflection coating of the OTA walls? |
1.51
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
David Nozadze: I was thinking of this as well. Might be an external light somewhere in the right angle (as it doesn't show up in other images). |
|
5.49
#... |
|---|
|
Thanks Hans and David, Yes, a reflection artefact was my first suspect too, but I eliminated that for the reasons described in my other post here … NCG-7293 = Helix Nebula + Mystery Object The main piece of evidence is the fact that the brightness of the MO increased to the same extent as did the background start as high-level clouds crossed the imaging field. I suspect that the motion is due to parallax because the object is much closer than the distant stars, probably << 1LD. Also, the image moves slowly across the sensor as the telescope tracks the MO - probably due to imperfect polar alignment - which eliminates sensor artefact. So - I’m pretty confident it is a ‘real’ object. Any further thoughts are very welcome. Gary |
5.02
#... |
|---|
|
Hi Gary, there are some galaxies within the field and in that area. Your pic is not platesolved yet, but it might be LEDA92749 near NGC7256. Best Mike |
22.40
#...
·
2
likes
|
|---|
|
You've asked this question on your image page and here on the forums so it's a bit confusing about where you expect to see an answer. Since you are new to AB, keep this in mind for the next time: It is best to ask a question in only one place! The black point in your image is set to clip the low data so it's hard to get a really good look at the light smear you are wondering about. I first checked that region in other images and I don't see anything so it's probably not a distant galaxy, although plate-solving the image should be used to confirm that conclusion. It could be some transient object but it could also be a stray from a grazing path within your optical system. That sometimes occurs when a bright star fall in just the right place to create a bit of stray light that makes it to the sensor. My C14 has a problem when a bright star falls in just the right place in the field and light gets scattered all over the place from some unblocked edge (probably in the baffle system.) Small refractors are usually a bit more immune from this problem but it's not unheard of. A stray beam from an inside curved surface will often produce a little splash of light very similar to what you see in your image and I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that possibility. Such strays can be very sensitive to the position of the source, which makes them appear to move or change a bit when you dither or when there are tracking errors. The fact that it changed brightens with cloud cover may be due to the fact that the star causing the problem was being covered by the clouds. You can easily test the "stray" vs "real object" question by pointing your scope directly at that position in the sky and taking a few more long exposures. If it's an object, you'll see it in the middle of the field; on the other hand if it's a stray, it will likely disappear. John |
2.11
#... |
|---|
|
Hi Gary I had exactly the same shaped MO on an image i took of a different object. I'll have to see if i still have the subs, but it is definitely an issue with your setup. Either an internal reflection, spacing, seeing conditions (eg. dew), or tracking. It is not a real object. |
|
5.49
#... |
|---|
|
Hi John & Steve, Many thanks for your suggestions. And apologies for posting this question in 2 places ... I thought the discussion would get more traction in the forum, so I posted it here long after I posted my original image. Luckily, that seems to have worked Yes, the image on my public page was not the best - I have already uploaded a revision to improve the tonal range. But - in the thread above, you can see unadjusted crops from an original FIT as well as the stack, which show the MO clearly and in 'original' detail. I've already eliminated DSOs and SSOs for the reasons explained previously. The object has an apparent motion with respect to the background stars, so it's not a DSO. It's too long-lasting to be a meteorite, satellite, or re-entry object. I've been unable to find any other SSOs that might be suspects (although 2020-SO was an interesting candidate). During the 2.5 hours of imaging, my OTA tracked across about 36° of sky, so it can't be a reflection from a terrestrial object. The tracking on my setup is not perfect, so the star field moves up and down just a bit from frame to frame. The interesting thing is that as the star field moves UP, the MO moves down - which can be explained by parallax, assuming the MO is <<1 LD. Also, the entire field, including the MO, drifts very slightly to the left over the course of the 2.5 hours, probably due to imperfect polar alignment. Together, these eliminate hot pixels or any sort of sensor artefact as the cause. These apparent movements can be seen in the movie here, which was composed from unaligned frames - ie, they show the same pixels from frame to frame. Mystery Object Oscillation Unaligned - 120s exposures.mov The MO also has a distinct colour gradient, from a white centre through orange to red progressing outwards, which suggests a hot object. This very evident in the contrast-enhanced image on my Public Gallery. In terms of the brightness variation with high-altitude clouds, yes you could be right, but I've never seen anything like this in any other of the thousands of other images I've taken which contain much brighter stars, or of images taken in the same region of the sky on the same night. I assume the MO was a transient object, so imagine that re-photographing that area of the sky probably won't tell us much. I'm happy to give it a try, although the absence of the object will only confirm that it's not there now. What I'm really looking for is an image of that region of the sky taken by someone else at the same time Regards, Gary |
 #... |
|---|
Gary JONES: This link shows you the Helix nebulae with at least one acquisition date on Septeber 11th, 12th, and 13th, 2020. |
|
5.49
#... |
|---|
|
Hi Salvatore, Thank you very much for those images ... Ive taken a very close look at them, unfortunately only 2 have a field of view wide enough to include the area of sky near UCAC4 342-198675 ... And both of those are my images - haha !! I will message the authors of each of the other images to see whether they have an un-cropped version of the image they posted, which might have a wider FoV. Thanks again for your help - it's very much appreciated. Gary |
1.20
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
 hello Gary, here is a zoom on NGC7000 picture (17/07/2021). This is not the firts time Ican see that on my pictures . My setup was not OK (Backfocus etc..) so i have change few rings and it did not appairs on last pictures I took (this artefact here was depending on "optical" and "rings"). It "looks like" your image but "no movement" of this artefact between "light images" (and a good guiding with phd2 ) . Your research is interresting, thank you for sharing it (I wonder if an artefcat could "move" - or give this illusion- as you have shown in your video "in case of " bad guiding and hour it could be possible ) . Sorry for english, hoping it is understandable. Clear Skies |
|
22.40
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
I suggested an easy experiment to determine if it’s a stray. Have you tried that? The folks at LIGO spent months eliminating every possible source of false signals (including a bad actor injecting false data) before announcing their first discovery of a black hole collision. That’s how this business works. It would be extraordinary to discover a new bright object with a small telescope in a field that is commonly imaged. It’s not impossible but it’s also not very likely. It’s best to start with the low hanging fruit to understand where this odd signal came from. Stray light is very common so it’s important to test for that possibility FIRST before going to anything less likely. John |
2.41
#...
·
5
likes
|
|---|
Simple look at the DSS images shows at least two bright stars of the spectral class K lying directly outside the FOV in the direction of the speck: |
|
5.49
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
hello Gary, here is a zoom on NGC7000 picture (17/07/2021). This is not the firts time I Bonjour Joël, Merci beaucoup d'avoir partagé votre image et votre expérience - il m'a fallu beaucoup de temps pour régler mon back-focus aussi Ai-je raison de dire que cet artefact est apparu au même endroit dans toutes vos images - en d'autres termes, sur les mêmes pixels du capteur dans chaque image ? Ou est-il apparu au même endroit par rapport aux étoiles du fond et s'est-il déplacé par rapport au capteur ? Je suis sûr que ton anglais est meilleur que mon français Ciel clair, Gary |
|
5.49
#... |
|---|
John Hayes: Hi John, Many thanks for your reply ... No, I haven't tried re-imaging that area of the sky as yet. Unfortunately, good viewing conditions here have not aligned well with my availability over the last few months. I did try replicating my imaging setup as exactly as possible to see whether I could reproduce an artefact. I have markers in the paving where I set up my rig, I set to the same RA and DEC,I even tried hanging spiders webs in front of the telescope to see whether I could create some sort of weird reflection. Nothing unusual in any images. There is nothing even remotely similar in any of the thousands of images I've taken, either on the same night or before or since, 90% of which were taken from exactly the same place and under the same conditions as far as I can tell, including images with very bright stars. I'm not suggesting for a second that this is a 'new' discovery. As you can see from the thread above, the first things I eliminated were the possibility of it being a known object, DSO, SSO, NEO, MMO, REO etc. So far, the evidence supports the hypothesis that it is a real object, with the Kuaizhou 1A rocket being the best candidate :- - its not a sensor artefact because it moves across the sensor along with the image - its not a DSO because it moves with respect to the background stars - its not a SSO or MMO because it doesnt move far enough - its not a REO or meteorite because it is too long-lived - its brightness was modulated in a similar way to that of the background stars as high-level clouds moved across the field - its motion with respect to the background stars and imperfect tracking/alignment is consistent with parallax for an object << 1LD - it has a colour gradient consistent with a hot object - I've been unable to find a known object that matches that time and location in any reference source - the timing is consistent with the destruction of the Kuaizhou 1A rocket From a scientific standpoint, everything sort of lines up to support the hypothesis, but I'd be very happy if there was something compelling to prove it wrong. What I'm searching for now is :- - information on the trajectory of the Chinese Kuaizhou 1A rocket - an image of that area of the sky taken at the same time, preferably from the Southern Hemisphere and somewhere near my location. If you have any suggestions there, that would be enormously helpful. Regards, Gary |
|
5.49
#... |
|---|
Nikita Misiura: Hi Nikita, Many thanks for your post - and for going to all the effort to do that research and line my image up with a reference image. Yes, I did look at the possibility that a local star might have some effect - including UCAC4-343-206330, UCAC4 343-206409 and UCAC4-343-206445, also UCAC4 341-204494, UCAC4 340-203628 and a few others. I couldn't think of a reason to explain why UCAC4-343-206330 or UCAC4 343-206409 would affect the image when UCAC4-343-206445, UCAC4 341-204494, UCAC4 340-203628 didn't - even though they are of similar magnitude - but I admit I didn't look specifically at the spectral classes. Any further thoughts would be very welcome Gary |
1.20
#... |
|---|
| Most likely the failed Kuaizhou 1A rocket if this was taken shortly after 0502 GMT. Or Astra’s Rocket 3.1 that also failed shortly after 03:20 UTC on September 12, 2020. |
|
5.49
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Hi KuriousGeorge, Thanks for your post ... If you have any ideas about how to find the trajectory of either rocket, or where they were then they 'failed', that would be very helpful Regards, Gary |
|
1.20
#... |
|---|
Gary JONES: I think you'd need to contact the agencies for those details. Do either launch times fall near your observation time? |
|
5.49
#...
·
1
like
|
|---|
|
Thanks again, Yes, I've tried NASA and several other authorities, no luck so far. The timing of the Chinese rocket is just right ... It was launched at 1pm Beijing time and was reported 'lost' 5 hours later, which makes it about 11am GMT or about 20:00 pm Sydney time. I took my first image at 22:07 pm - and it was still there at 00:33 am the next morning - so that's perfect timing, I just don't have any info to support the location. I did actually look at the Astra rocket ... It's first stage burn never completed, so it didnt reach orbit and returned to Earth in an impressive fireball after less than 2 minutes. Astra’s first attempt to reach orbit ends early after rocket fails mid-flight But thanks for the suggestion - any other ideas always welcome. Gary |
