It’s amazing that amateur folks can provide this much insight these days. I worked at JPL 10 years ago and setup a pipeline for amateur Jupiter astronomers to get their images to JPL/NASA. Basically JPL figured out that these people were consistently producing such high quality data, that NASA could take advantage of it for the Juno mission. Glad to see this in the news :).
It makes sense seeing that NASA/JPL only have so many instruments pointing at Jupiter at any time. That number is dwarfed by the number of amateurs looking at it on any night. It also helps that it's one of the easiest things to view.
What does one need to look at Jupiter, visible light or not? And how much would it cost to have a setup that I can feed some sky coordinates and enjoy the feed/s on a screen.
Any useful software that also happens to be free and/or open source? I just realized I don't know anything about this fascinating stuff
To capture material similar to TFA, a 5" diameter (127 mm) telescope would do (here perhaps a larger one was used, but in bad seeing conditions [1]), e.g. a cheap $100-$200 Newtonian. Add a reasonable mount (~$400) and a camera (one can start with a converted webcam, or get a dedicated model - typically sporting higher FPS, better sensors, also mono, etc.; those start at $150-$200). A lot of popular software for mount control, video acquisition, image processing is free (and often open-source). The best source of knowledge are astronomy forums, e.g. [2], [3], [4], and country-specific ones.
To see what's possible with amateur-grade equipment, go to AstroBin.com; e.g., Jupiter with 14" telescope:
There's lots of really good options available now at some very affordable prices. There's quite a few reflectors in the 6"-8" size that are very small and easy to set up. Because the planets are so much brighter, especially the moon, than deep sky objects, all of the tracking and image stacking software is not necessary to start. There are scopes now that come with a mobile app and a built in camera.
Because I don't have hands on experience with anything other than my gear, I can't really recommend specific models. Celestron would be a good safe starting point. The magazine/sites from places like Sky&Telescope or BBC Sky at Night, will publish reviews of new gear ranging from "baby's first scope" to as much money as you have.
Probably the best starting scope is a plain Newtonian such as from Skywatcher. They're the cheapest way to get a good large aperture and therefore good resolving power, and you can do a lot with one. If you go enthusiast then it's worth looking at what the advantages of other telescope types are, but I'd advise playing with a Newtonian for a year or two before even thinking about that.
Celestron sell some incredible scopes at incredible prices. But I would be very wary of their lower-end stuff. There's a reason why "Don't buy a powerseeker" is a phrase repeated over and over again to people starting out in this hobby.
I was only 12 when Shoemaker-Levy banged into Jupiter in 1994, so wiser minds or those with better memories may correct me.
At the time, the leading theory for what killed the dinosaurs was still quite terrestrial - volcanos and climate change.
There was increasing evidence for the meteorite impact theory, but a big block was “Space is big, outside the early formation of the Solar System comets and asteroids don’t just slam into planets”.
Then comet Shoemaker-Levy showed us that they actually do, perhaps still quite frequently, with Jupiter playing an imperfect shield for Earth. It was one of the last roadblocks to the now-widely accepted impact theory (still not ‘solved’ of course, and perhaps only part of the extinction puzzle).
Dinosaurs were back in the zeitgeist thanks to Jurassic Park (1993), but Shoemaker-Levy and the impact theory gave us the 1998 twin movies Armageddon and (the better of the two, imho) Deep Impact.
Was that really the leading theory you were taught? If you were 12, I'm <10 years older, and even then I distinctly remember the asteroid theory being taught as what wiped out the dinosaurs. Climate change is kind of given after that, but the asteroid was taught as the cause.
There's been a few "big one" theories I've heard about. The impending California earthquake is a popular one, but I'm familiar with super volcanoes and asteroids too from childhood.
My experience as well. Sometimes education can lag well beyond scientific theory. The Scopes Monkey Trial happened in 1925, and evolution still isn’t being taught in many American schools.
Alvarez et al., 1980 [1] was the paper that convinced most geologists that the extinction was caused by an asteroid impact [source, PhD in Earth Science]. They found a layer of clay with very high iridium concentration at the K-T boundary in multiple locations. Some asteroids have high iridium concentrations relative to the Earth's crust so an impact of a large one would leave this signal all over the Earth.
Wikipedia has an interesting timeline of theories for the K-T extinction (now called the K-P which is not as cool a name), but strangely does has a link to this paper[1].
Paper's Abstract
Platinum metals are depleted in the earth's crust relative to their cosmic abundance; concentrations of these elements in deep-sea sediments may thus indicate influxes of extraterrestrial material. Deep-sea limestones exposed in Italy, Denmark, and New Zealand show iridium increases of about 30, 160, and 20 times, respectively, above the background level at precisely the time of the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinctions, 65 million years ago. Reasons are given to indicate that this iridium is of extraterrestrial origin, but did not come from a nearby supernova. A hypothesis is suggested which accounts for the extinctions and the iridium observations. Impact of a large earth-crossing asteroid would inject about 60 times the object's mass into the atmosphere as pulverized rock; a fraction of this dust would stay in the stratosphere for several years and be distributed worldwide. The resulting darkness would suppress photosynthesis, and the expected biological consequences match quite closely the extinctions observed in the paleontological record. One prediction of this hypothesis has been verified: the chemical composition of the boundary clay, which is thought to come from the stratospheric dust, is markedly different from that of clay mixed with the Cretaceous and Tertiary limestones, which are chemically similar to each other. Four different independent estimates of the diameter of the asteroid give values that lie in the range 10 ± 4 kilometers.
Thinking back, I remember my dad talking about the asteroid killing the dinosaurs. However, my dad had not been in school for a long time by 1980. He didn't have a subscription to any science type magazines, and clearly no internet. So I'm now curious how he kept up. My dad wasn't one to read the paper at home, and he didn't have an office job affording him time to read at work. Obviously people talk at work, but it now has me thinking.
I'm guessing the killer asteroid was a theory for some time, and this 1980 paper was just the thing like you said.
A single event like the Shoemaker-Levy 9 impact does not tell us much about frequencies on its own. Besides, the original width of Shoemaker-Levy 9 was estimated to have been between 1.5 to 2 km.[1] The Chicxulub meteorite was estimated to have been between 10 and 80 km wide.[2] And it happened around 65 million years ago. So frequencies then and frequencies now might be quite different. That meteorite impacts happen from time to time on earth was nothing controversial. The question was, whether there had been a (very rare) hugh impact, large enough at the time of the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event and whether this was the only cause for all those extinctions. This is a very complex scenario and several of its details are still debated today.[3]
The most important evidence that an impact was the main cause of the extinction event was provided by the discovery of the Chicxulub crater in 1990/91. However, the investigation of this and other evidence is still ongoing. Contrary to popular belief, scientific debates of this magnitude are not resolved by a single ingenious theory or observation. It is the hard work of many, many people over years and decades that gradually changes and refines the web of belief of a scientific community.
The widely believed claim, repeated in the first paragraph— that the gas giants are “protecting inner solar system worlds” is not necessarily true.
Though heavier planets are more likely to be hit they also serve to attract more matter into the region — some of which hits other planets.
Some well regarded models show that it’s approximately break-even… the losses and the wins cancel each other out. And in some runs of the simulation, if we’re unlucky, the losses greatly outweigh the wins.
I provide no reference to these claims, as I’m typing this from memory, with patchy internet, and leave it to y’all.
Yes this makes more sense to me. Jupiter would only intervene with a small number of impacts. The rest of the time it’s gravity well would redirect matter from a far-off-course trajectory to one closer to Jupiter and maybe us too
Is it reasonable to assume that Jupiter, being the largest body in the solar system besides the sun, can be expected to have the most frequent impacts, if only due to the laws of gravity?
It seems fairly frequent that amateurs observe large impacts on Jupiter. Presumably they would be devastating impacts if they hit Earth. Is the reason we don't get them frequently on Earth because of the size difference (11X smaller than Jupiter) or we're somehow protected by location?
that was the most interesting part in the last paragraph to me:
> The gas giant is considered to play a big role in protecting the inner solar system from asteroids and comets by attracting and absorbing impacts or flinging potentially dangerous objects further out into the solar system
It's fascinating to think how many factors have come together to make life on earth so particularly viable. Even with this "protection" we've had major catastrophic events that nearly wiped out all advanced forms of life.
I once heard that Jupiter protects us because it’s so massive that it catches rocks that would otherwise come towards us. No idea if that’s true, but it makes for a nice story about the silent gassy protector.
Jupiter has a lot of magnetism and the baroque clockwork ballet of its moons in the solar wind and on its stormy poles never fail to sing their eternal opera. My grandfather, Hein Hvatum, thought this might be the case and happened to be the first to point a radio telescope at Jupiter and write a paper about it.
Would there be any interesting science to be had if we sent something to orbit Jupiter that could wait for, detect, and get us closer readings/views of such impacts?
so you're saying we're not allowed to look at the rest of the universe so that we can solely focus on the low frequency of times an object collides with Jupiter? that seems like not a good use of all of the observation ability we have
The Search for Terrestrial Intelligence scores a positive signal.
Adding one further factor to your list: there's all but certainly a direct correlation between major Jupiter strikes and Earth strikes. Refining estimates of the former will help in establishing values of the latter.
Though existing known power-law relations of meteor(ite) impacts on Earth of size vs. time are fairly well established as well, I suppose.
>>No, he’s saying one singular (small) telescope could be pointed at Jupiter at all times.
> The Search for Terrestrial Intelligence scores a positive signal.
For a singular telescope to be viewing Jupiter, it would only be able to see one side of Jupiter. What happens if an object collides on the backside? Going to throw off your metrics that you seem to think is a worth while effort to investigate.
So I guess terrestrial intelligence didn't score much after all
Impact location is randomly distributed. Curiously enough, extrapolation from observations based on half the surface are should be reasonably possible, though some may find the maths involved challenging.
Jupiter's rotational period is ~10 hours. Atmospheric scars from sufficiently sizeable impacts will be visible on average within half that period. (See the Shoemaker-Levy instance for how farside impact atmospheric scars appear.)
It's sad it has to be this way. I have a telescope with a smaller telescope for tracking. I have the motorized equatorial mount. I have the gear to connect the mount and smaller scope with a camera to my laptop. I have the software to control them for precise tracking. I have the camera to attach to the main telescope. I have the stacking software. I don't have the luck of being free when the seeing is great, and have the unfortunate luck of always being available when the seeing is for shite.
Edit: my "old man" plans are to buy some property well outside of light pollution. that way i can just do my hobby any night there's clear skies
Edit2: there's a site in New Mexico[0] where a group has purchased some land strategically where they are at a bit of altitude, and have more nights than not of clear skies. They've it up so that you can CoLo your astro gear there, and they provided a remote connection so you can do everything remotely. For a small nominal monthly fee of course. This is my "pre-old man" plan B to research, but I feel my stuff my be too amateurish for this
A good place to consider for your property purchase is the area around Crestone, CO. It was recently designated a Dark Sky Sanctuary. It's near some great hiking, Sand Dunes National Park and good skiing. Also, it has the only legal funeral pyre in the USA. [1]
As for the remote sites in New Mexico, I've looked into renting telescope time or remotely locating my astrophotography gear but I just feel like I'd be losing something from the hobby if it didn't require me to be hands on with the gear and outside.
There's a group about 4 hours from Dallas called 3 Rivers Foundation (www.3rf.org) that has been buying up land in the county. The last time I was there, they were trying to get their campus (700+ acres at that time) designated as a dark sky location too. They are also attempting to increase their acreage to help keep it that way. There's a state park Copper Breaks that has the darkest skies of any state park (caveat being Big Bend is a national park) in the same area.
>I just feel like I'd be losing something
Spend enough cold nights outside, and you'll get really fuzzy to the remote concept! There have been nights where it was so cold, that once the rig was running, everyone just hangs out inside where it's warm with a periodic jaunts outside just to check on things.
Edit: I had to look up some details. At one of the post facilities I once worked, I met John Davis of Jimmy Neutron fame. He's a big astrophotography buff as well. While we were in the color session waiting for some renders to finish, he showed me his remote setup. He can log in and view some cameras to ensure it is safe to open up for observing. He can tell it what to observe in a set it and forget it manner. At the end, it is scripted to process the images and email it to him for review. That's exactly how I'd spend my Hollywood earnings too if I ever had any. I can't remember if he was the person I learned about 3rf from or if it was another client. But yeah, it's a pick your mouth up from the floor and wipe the drool off your face before you look like a fool. He said that's not the first time it's happened to him. Very cool cat.
> Edit: my "old man" plans are to buy some property well outside of light pollution.
I've always wonder how feasible it was to do astronomy by boat? That way you can chase clear skies. And I'd suspect there is almost no light pollution out in the deep blue sea.
The problem is that there is twice as much atmosphere between you and space at sea level than if you in Denver, Colorado. That can mean more distortion as the light passes through more dust and more thermally different layers before it reaches you.
That's a vast exaggeration. At Denver's altitude, 1608m, there's about 85% as much atmosphere as at sea level. To get down to 50% atmosphere, you'd need to climb to around 5500m which is higher than Mount Elbert.
it definitely gets dark out there, but you'd need a lot of stabilization to counter the motion of the waves if wanting to do imaging. For just viewing, it might be acceptable on a really large boat like a cruise ship. I've seen some footage from large container vessels that were not very long exposures that give an idea. humidity could also be an issue
