Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Rare Astronomical Event Will See Triple Moon Shadows On Jupiter

Posted by Soulskill on from the pretty-pictures dept.

hypnosec writes Stargazers are in for a treat: they will be able to witness a rare astronomical event early tomorrow morning (January 24, 2015) where shadows of three of Jupiter's largest moons — Io, Europa, and Callisto — will fall upon Jupiter simultaneously. Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles will provide a live online broadcast on its Livestream channel. It will begin on January 24 at 0430 GMT (January 23 at 11:30 PM EST, 8:30 PM PST) and end at 0700 GMT (2:00 AM EST, 11:00 PM PST). They've also posted a short animated video of how the event will appear.

53 comments

  1. Just be honest. by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    Not counting me, how many of you clicked on the short animated video?

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Just be honest. by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      I did.....mostly because I probably won't watch it live. While neat from a rarity stance, it doesn't have much scientific relevance that I can think of. Cool, but the video is good enough for me.

    2. Re:Just be honest. by Amigo+Van+Helical · · Score: 1

      I hadn't yet. Now I can't decide whether I should or not. Indecision over trivia... sheesh.

  2. Rare Astronomical Event by Nutria · · Score: 1

    Quick, alert the YouTube idiots: the Anunnaki are returning on Planet Nibiru!!!!

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  3. Re:"Stargazers..." by stjobe · · Score: 2

    Thank you Captain Obvious.

    Although you should perhaps note that the term "stargazer" is often used as a description of "an observational astronomer, particularly an amateur".

    --
    "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
  4. You're being followed by a Moonshadow by c0d3g33k · · Score: 2, Funny

    Apparently several.

    Moonshadow (song)

    1. Re:You're being followed by a Moonshadow by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      Leapin' and hoppin' on a moon shadow, at two and a half times Earth surface gravity...

  5. Re:"Stargazers..." by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

    Although I agree they are different things, there are quite a few similarities between gas giants (like Jupiter), brown dwarfs, and stars

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  6. Re:"Stargazers..." by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    Not yet.

    They're only five years behind schedule on that one.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  7. Re:"Stargazers..." by RevWaldo · · Score: 1

    Not yet.

    .

    --
    Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
  8. Article a bit on the vague side by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The event is slated to being [sic] on January 24, 2015 at 4:30 AM GMT and should end by 7:00 am GMT.

    Slated to begin? Should end?

    What kind of delays are they expecting? I know they sometimes push the news back if X Factor overruns, but this is ridiculous.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Article a bit on the vague side by rossdee · · Score: 1

      "What kind of delays are they expecting?"

      There is a delay between the event and the observation of the event due to the speed of light.

    2. Re:Article a bit on the vague side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not *expecting* a delay, but there could be one. For example, it's possible that a rogue blackhole would disturb the moons before the event. You should never state predictions about the future as facts.

    3. Re:Article a bit on the vague side by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      That's why real astronomers use ludicrous speed.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    4. Re:Article a bit on the vague side by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Why do you imply there is a delay expected? (Cursive usage of "slated")?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:Article a bit on the vague side by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      The article implies that the schedule is flexible (probably by choosing to refer to both the transit and the live feed as "the event"), when it's anything but. I was just pointing out the ridiculousness of the idea for comedic effect.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    6. Re:Article a bit on the vague side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd think so, but no. Going to plaid tends to interfere with precise observations.

  9. Cat Stevens is getting paranoid by boristdog · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now he's being followed by three moon shadows.

    1. Re:Cat Stevens is getting paranoid by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      Anyone now named Yusuf Islam would be worried anyway in this day and age.

  10. Re:"Stargazers..." by rgbatduke · · Score: 2

    Really? Don't say that so loud, you'll hurt its feelings. Besides, I thought it was a rare star type called a "black dwarf", sort of the theoretical limit of a brown dwarf with its teensy but measurable gravitational heating...

    Well, maybe not so rare...;-)

    rgb

    (And I'm just kidding, yeah, black dwarfs are dark white dwarfs and brown dwarfs may or may not have had to undergo fusion at some point yadda yadda, but the point is that Jupiter is on the spectrum that includes brown dwarfs emitting only from gravitational collapse and so in some sense is an extremely boring star too small to have ever ignited or just large enough to have barely and briefly ignited -- like all of the other visible or invisible brown dwarfs out there in the Universe. And Pluto is not a planet and shares its name with a Disney dog, and it's feeling bad about that, too.)

    --
    Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
  11. already raining here by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    and predicted to continue until Sunday. boo-hoo.

    1. Re:already raining here by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      No triple moonshadow for you, then, but you might get a double rainbow!

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    2. Re:already raining here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and predicted to continue until Sunday. boo-hoo.

      Overcast and staying that way by me. At least it saves the trouble of setting up the scope in the 10 F wind chill.

  12. Not that easy to see by Lucas123 · · Score: 3, Informative

    For three years, I've been using a reflector telescope with 4.5" diameter mirror lens. It's not a cheap telescope, but as far as viewing planets, it's a bit like looking at a grain of rice. You get the general shape (with Saturn you can see rings clearly), but you don't get any great detail. So when I see sentences like "Stargazers are in for a treat..." I can't help but think this only applies to people who've either spent thousands on astrological equipment -- or perhaps just people who like looking at NASA's image pages.

    1. Re:Not that easy to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How fast is your telescope? Fast telescopes suck at planetary observing.... and what power do you normally view at? The size of the scope means relatively little when it comes down to seeing the planet since they're normally very bright (Jupiter obviously is). A light bucket like my 12" dob isn't going to get that much better of an image than a 6" dob at the same focal length ratio and power.

    2. Re:Not that easy to see by langelgjm · · Score: 1

      I have a run-of-the-mill Tasco telescope and was able to make out the Galilean moons, as well as two cloud bands on Jupiter, and of course Saturn's rings. The big challenge I had was damping vibration - any touch of the telescope or the stand would make the image blurry. You can even make out the Galilean moons with binoculars.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    3. Re:Not that easy to see by popoutman · · Score: 2
      Then your 12" dob has some pretty crappy optics. There's absolutely no optical reason why a low f/ratio reflecting telescope will perform more poorly than an equivalent diameter longer focal length scope. Yes, you may require the use of a Paracorr II to minimise coma, but that doesn't affect the area subtended by a planet's surface in the eyepiece. If you have a short focal length scope then you are of course well advised to use decent quality eyepieces that can handle a wide incoming light cone, eyepieces such as the Ethos and Delos range from TeleVue. There's no substitute for clean optics, decent eyepieces, and a quality well-figured mirror. A 12" should outperform a 6" in absolutely every way, and I've seen this proven with my own scopes.

      I recently upgraded from a 200mm Newtonian with a .977 Strehl f6 mirror to a Skywatcher 12" f4.9 dob. I've since been able to resolve features on the disks of the Galilean moons, and I've been able to see the Pup (Sirius B). I've found that I still see more detail on the planets than I used to see with the 8" even when using the 12" in bad seeing. A good 12" scope will outperform *every* 6" scope, top end refractors included, on the planets when set up and built and used correctly.

      As for the OP's point, you'll still be well able to see the three shadows, and Ganymede in silhouette against the cloudtops, and you'll be well able to see Io when it's in eclipse again silhouetted against the cloud tops. I've been able to see shadow transits very easily with my 70mm and 80mm ED refractors, so you should have no problem with your 110mm scope. It'll be small for sure, but still visible

      I've been an observational astronomer for about 30 years at this stage, and I'm saving to get myself a nice 28" f2.7 Webster scope as my perfect scope, both for planetary and deep sky observations.

      --
      - This sig deliberately left blank. Nothing to see, move along.
    4. Re:Not that easy to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless your scope really is cheaper than your think, it should be pretty easy to see the shadows with a 4+" reflector. You might need a different or better eyepiece though. I remember the 4" scope I got as a kid, and it matched your description of being like looking at a grain of rice with the planets. But that was because at first I just had the eyepiece that came with the scope, which was well suited for looking at a full view of the Moon. A new eyepiece, and I was able to see a lot more detail with the closer planets.

    5. Re:Not that easy to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A 12" should outperform a 6" in absolutely every way, and I've seen this proven with my own scopes.
       
      Cite a single optical phenomenon that would make this true outside of a slight increase of light gather by an already bright object given that the focal length ratio and the power at the end of the eyepiece is the same.

    6. Re:Not that easy to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/astrological/astronomical

    7. Re:Not that easy to see by Lucas123 · · Score: 1

      Dude, you're talking about eyepieces that cost $340+ each. I'm an amateur and I'm not shelling out hundreds of dollars for just an eyepiece.

    8. Re:Not that easy to see by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      Eh, a 4.5" Newtonian is not that well-suited for planets if it is fast (e.g. around f/5) - it is not about price. That said, the OTA of a modern decent quality 4.5" Newtonian costs around $100-$200, so it is one of the cheapest you can get - most people pay several times that for their phone. Now, if you want to see Jupiter in some detail and stay within budget you can go for a 5" Mak at around $200-$300 (for the OTA, or $400 for the full package with a computerized goto mount and tripod) and for example when coupled with a $10 webcam it will give you an image of Saturn like this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/r2vh... (note that Jupiter is quite larger than Saturn so it is an easier target to get surface detail). So that's a very cheap telescope (still less than a smartphone) that would give you a good view of the event. If you want to spend more money but not too much, you can look into used scopes. E.g. I recently grabbed an 8" Celestron SCT for $400 which gives even greater planetary views.

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    9. Re:Not that easy to see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The post you replied to only names one eyepiece, and it was not a suggestion for you to buy for your scope. If you want a new eyepiece to make planet viewing much better than a "grain of rice" you should be able to easily do that for ~$50, with something pretty decent closer to $100. If those are too expensive, than I either question your original statement that your scope is not cheap, or you alternatively budgeted to much for the scope and not enough for the other parts you need to make it useful for what you want.

      That said, as an amateur myself, spending $300 on a couple eyepieces (you don't need many, even one can be enough if you have specific interests, and I only typically use 3 eyepieces) is pretty reasonable compared to other hobbies. A couple thousand dollars on a hobby for parts that will last decades is cheap in the long run, compared to consumables that I could go through on simple woodworking projects, electronics, or even building a gaming computer. Heck, putting off purchase of a game console for a year or skipping a game would cover the difference. But it is up to your priorities, and there is no need to get top of the line or even non-economy stuff. But there are people still well under the amateur umbrella out there spending 10-100 times that for their hobby, especially with larger scopes and those that travel with them.

    10. Re:Not that easy to see by ClarkMills · · Score: 1

      > "people who've either spent thousands on *astrological* equipment"

      Well I suppose he's right:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Watch the video from the start when you're done, it's a great little video.

    11. Re:Not that easy to see by Bruce+Dawson · · Score: 1

      > who've either spent thousands on astrological equipment

      Well there's your problem -- you should have been focusing on telescopes instead of the Zodiac.

      I've got a 6" Dobsonian telescope -- not terrifically expensive, under $1,000 I'm sure -- and I've enjoyed Jupiter moon transits before. It's no Hubble, but I enjoy it.

    12. Re:Not that easy to see by popoutman · · Score: 1
      I'll bite.. It's worth noting that your rebuttal statement is not consistent, plus it sets up a little strawman that I will now proceed to take down.

      You can have either a doubling of aperture and have the power the same, or you can have double the aperture and double the power and have the f/ratio the same.

      If you have a doubling of aperture and maintaining the magnification the same, your diffraction disks (Airy disks) are half the width, and the image has 4 times the light coming through. In itself at low magnifications you may not be able to see any more detail as such, but because you now have that much more light to play with you can up the magnification and see more detail, and more contrasted details with the 12" than the 6". You'll note that I did not specify at the same magnification, only that the 12" will outperform the 6" in every way. Having 4 times the light is already performing better by one metric. Having twice the resolving capability is another metric, better utilised with more magnification.

      Can you instead show a situation where a 6" scope of any type optically outperforms a well built well cooled 12"?

      --
      - This sig deliberately left blank. Nothing to see, move along.
  13. Moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was expecting to see a shadow of the moon (earth's satellite) because of a poorly written headline("Rare Astronomical Event Will See Triple Moon Shadows On Jupiter"). If they are referring to satellites of Jupiter, the headline show be "Rare Astronomical Event Will See Triple Satellite Shadows On Jupiter".

    Without getting into an argument about media stupidity, "moon" and "Luna" should always refer to Earth's largest natural satellite.

    1. Re:Moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A moon is any natural satellite. The Moon is Earth's natural satellite. This isn't an instance of media stupidity - they used the correct term.

  14. Front row seats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Triple moon shadow? The colonists on Ganymede should be in for a treat tonight...

  15. And if I were on Jupitor, I still wouldn't care by eepok · · Score: 2

    Seriously-- rarity in and of itself isn't worth noting. It's particularly not worth noting if something doesn't really happen "to" anyone. And (ignoring the harm to all life as we know it) even if you were on Jupitor, you wouldn't be able to see all the moon shadows because Jupitor's so freaking huge.

    Is this something for birder-type people? People that just want to check something off the list?

    1. Re:And if I were on Jupitor, I still wouldn't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for informing us. And thank everyone voting this up to 3.

    2. Re:And if I were on Jupitor, I still wouldn't care by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      I feel sorry for you. Rarity is something definitely worth noting, especially if it's something you have a mild interest in (and while you clearly don't care a lot of us news for nerds type are into space stuff).

      You clearly have never had the joy of seeing something incredible, like another planet travel across the surface of the sun. Have you ever even seen an eclipse? Many humans live their life by the mantra of "I was there", or "I saw that". If something is rare that in itself is note worthy for the people who want to experience it.

      Speaking of, where were you when neil armstrong landed on the moon? Where were you when venus transited the sun? If you missed either of these events, well you'll never see them. For those of us who did witness them they have left a lasting impression which for many of us we'll never forget.

  16. A better headline... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rare Gastronomical Even Will See Triple Moon Shadows On Uranus

  17. Re:WELL HOW RARE IS IT by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

    (per the video description) From Los Angeles, you'd next see it in 2023. Which to me means that it isn't as rare as implied (unless it's like primes where there are some close ones and some far ones and the next next one would be hundreds of years later).

  18. Scale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not rare on a universal scale. These moons have been orbiting Jupiter for a long time. It has happened millions of times before, and will happen millions of time more in the future.

  19. Re:And if I were on Jupiter, I still wouldn't care by eepok · · Score: 1

    Some people are just different and have vastly different concepts of importance.

    For the VAST majority most people, rarity in and of itself has no importance. Three black dots appearing on an orange blob that themselves have no effects on the lives, health, or entertainment of people on Earth will get almost no coverage. If it shows up on the local news, they'll focus on the people who gathered at the local observatory (Check out these nerds, eh?) and not the event itself.

    Even rare silly calendar dates (11/11/11) have more significance because people impose major importance (however irrational) on those rare, tangible events (http://goo.gl/Wg1Q23).

    I wasn't yet born when Neil et al. first tread on the moon, but I've seen the video. I've seen video of people watching it live. I understood the awe because of the example it served a marvel of achievement. I'll probably be shown an image of the 3 black dots on Jupiter. And like Venus' transit of the sun, it's "neat" at best, but will not affect people.

    How about some more appropriate context.

    Mars Spirit Rover Landing: "Remember when the first Mars Rover landed and started sending images back from Mars? It was SO AMAZING to see photographs from another planet!" (http://youtu.be/MWk-umZm86U?t=7m38s)

    Jupiter Gets Beat Up: "Remember when Shoemaker-Levy crashed into Jupiter? That was a really big boom!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiLNxZbpP20)

    Jupiter is Temporarily and Slightly Shadowed: "Remember when three of Jupiter's moon all cast a visible shadow on Jupiter at the same time? Ya. It happened."

  20. Snow storm by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    And of course, a major snow storm is scheduled for that very time. Who do I go to to complain about this scheduling conflict?

  21. Re:And if I were on Jupiter, I still wouldn't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the VAST majority most people, rarity in and of itself has no importance.

    Besides the main issue with this being that Slashdot doesn't necessarily cater to the vast majority of people, with some articles being for specific nerdy niches, and that a lot of amateur astronomers are rather interested in transits, whether for observation or just the chance to get a cool photo of things together without photoshop... I think you're way underestimating the impact rarity has on a large number of people. About the only time I see non-science types talking about astronomy, outside of some sci-fi context, is when they got interested in news about some rare event, often more so than news of new discoveries or cool new images from observatories.

    And just because events vary in memorability doesn't mean noteworthiness is binary, with landing on another body as some sort of threshold. That said, I still see people at telescope parties telling stories of awesome transit photos they got.

  22. Re:"Stargazers..." by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    All these worlds are yours...

  23. Just hope the prophecy doesn't come true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "And hence on the night under the shadow of the triple moon the brown noise shall sound out and all who hear it shall violently crap their pants".