|
Post by Dragon Man on Jan 27, 2015 12:50:56 GMT
Space will never stop surprising and entertaining us!!! Only a couple of days ago we were visited by Asteroid 2004 BL86. BL86 is only very small at 1,100 feet (325 meters) across and it came as close as 3.1 times the distance to the Moon, so it wasn't too close. BUT!!!!! the surprise is that even though BL86 is only 1,100 feet (325 meters) across, it has its own 230 feet (70 meters) Moon!!!! solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/display.cfm?News_ID=48702Got to love Space!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 20:55:30 GMT
That is surprising Ken, although apparently not unusual. Still, at 70 metres across, it is a huge chunk of rock.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2015 17:33:58 GMT
OK, so here's my question, in theory one can use dithering techniques when multiple exposures are available to sharpen the view. I'm wondering if that's possible to do with this sequence of images? It seems to be rotating at a good pace, so maybe only a fraction of the surface will be improved. Anyone with Regisatx (or maybe DSS or other software) skills willing to give it a try?
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Man on Jan 29, 2015 3:17:13 GMT
It won't work Curtis.
To stack images the object needs to be completely still, not spinning. A spinning object would turn into a blur. Programs like Registax can follow an object moving around the screen by using a Centroid algorithm, but it can't un-spin a spinning object.
Planetary imagers know the problem well when attempting to stack Jupiter. Because Jupiter rotates so fast, the imager only has a window of about 90 seconds before the rotation starts to show in a stack, creating a blurred planet. The only way to stack this Asteroid would be to pick out the frames where the same side is facing you in each rotation, and that is assuming the the rotation isn't eneven.
|
|
|
Post by Rick in NWArk on Feb 5, 2015 22:31:47 GMT
I'm surprised that moon is still there with as close as it got to our gravity well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2015 17:50:16 GMT
I see Ken. I was thinking along the lines of this post: www.autostakkert.com/wp/enhance/With consideration that only part of the object is in the Fov Due to rotation. Also was thinking that rotation could be taken into account.
|
|