Veil Nebula 31 May 08

Ok lets play devila advocate for a bit. Lets assume there is an object of interest. I've done some work and produced the following orbital elements and ephemeris with some serious caveats!!!

1: The June 2nd image is not timed. Worse than that it was only uploaded on June 2nd, there is nothing to state that thats when it was actually taken.

2: So we assume June 2nd at 0hUT (Big assumption).

3: The following is a vaisala orbit which should be good considering this would be a relatively slow mover. For a faster mover the solution would be invalid much more quickly. If its there this should be good enough to recover it. So what you waiting for its clear outside!!!

4: Co-ordinates given are J2000 and are for 0hUT

"Pseudo-MPEC" for JOM0001

Astrometry:
JOM0001 C2009 05 31.02222 20 44 19.82 +30 31 41.1 500
JOM0001 C2009 06 02.00000 20 44 26.03 +30 31 29.2 500

Station data:
(500) Geocentric.

Orbital elements:
JOM0001
Perihelion 2009 Mar 10.195473 TT = 4:41:28 (JD 2454900.695473)
Epoch 2009 Jun 2.0 TT = JDT 2454984.5 Earth MOID: 0.3146 Ju: 0.9874
M 13.97612 (2000.0) P Q
n 0.16677054 Peri. 48.48567 -0.84071667 0.51193950
a 3.26881106 Node 160.14721 -0.50036009 -0.85901696
e 0.6396793 Incl. 31.29188 0.20696675 0.00279400
P 5.91 q 1.17782026 Q 5.35980186
From 2 observations 2009 May 31-June 2; RMS error 0.001 arcseconds

Residuals in arcseconds:
090531 500 .00 .00 090602 500 .00 .00

Ephemerides (For W 6.1811, N 53.3806):
Date (UT) RA Dec delta r elong mag '/hr PA
---- -- --

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

2009 06 23 20 35 27.839 +28 41 14.07 0.9974 1.7150 116.8 0.64 226.8
2009 06 24 20 34 38.054 +28 30 19.12 0.9975 1.7228 117.6 0.66 226.3
2009 06 25 20 33 46.538 +28 18 49.84 0.9978 1.7306 118.4 0.69 225.8
2009 06 26 20 32 53.376 +28 06 46.02 0.9981 1.7384 119.3 0.72 225.3
2009 06 27 20 31 58.655 +27 54 07.49 0.9985 1.7462 120.1 0.75 224.8
2009 06 28 20 31 02.466 +27 40 54.17 0.9989 1.7540 121.0 0.78 224.3
2009 06 29 20 30 04.899 +27 27 06.01 0.9995 1.7618 121.8 0.80 223.8
2009 06 30 20 29 06.046 +27 12 43.02 1.0002 1.7696 122.7 0.83 223.3
2009 07 01 20 28 05.998 +26 57 45.28 1.0010 1.7775 123.5 0.86 222.7
2009 07 02 20 27 04.848 +26 42 12.90 1.0019 1.7853 124.4 0.88 222.2
2009 07 03 20 26 02.689 +26 26 06.03 1.0029 1.7932 125.2 0.91 221.7
2009 07 04 20 24 59.616 +26 09 24.91 1.0040 1.8011 126.1 0.93 221.2
2009 07 05 20 23 55.722 +25 52 09.79 1.0053 1.8089 126.9 0.96 220.6
2009 07 06 20 22 51.102 +25 34 21.00 1.0066 1.8168 127.8 0.98 220.1
2009 07 07 20 21 45.851 +25 15 58.91 1.0082 1.8247 128.6 1.00 219.5
2009 07 08 20 20 40.065 +24 57 03.95 1.0099 1.8326 129.5 1.02 219.0
2009 07 09 20 19 33.838 +24 37 36.59 1.0117 1.8405 130.3 1.04 218.5
2009 07 10 20 18 27.266 +24 17 37.38 1.0137 1.8484 131.1 1.06 217.9
2009 07 11 20 17 20.445 +23 57 06.90 1.0158 1.8563 131.9 1.08 217.4
2009 07 12 20 16 13.470 +23 36 05.81 1.0182 1.8642 132.7 1.10 216.8
2009 07 13 20 15 06.435 +23 14 34.81 1.0207 1.8721 133.5 1.12 216.3
2009 07 14 20 13 59.436 +22 52 34.65 1.0233 1.8800 134.3 1.14 215.7
2009 07 15 20 12 52.567 +22 30 06.16 1.0262 1.8879 135.1 1.15 215.1
2009 07 16 20 11 45.922 +22 07 10.22 1.0292 1.8958 135.9 1.17 214.6
2009 07 17 20 10 39.595 +21 43 47.73 1.0325 1.9037 136.6 1.18 214.0
2009 07 18 20 09 33.677 +21 19 59.70 1.0359 1.9116 137.3 1.20 213.4
2009 07 19 20 08 28.262 +20 55 47.17 1.0396 1.9196 138.0 1.21 212.8
2009 07 20 20 07 23.441 +20 31 11.22 1.0435 1.9275 138.7 1.22 212.3
2009 07 21 20 06 19.307 +20 06 13.04 1.0476 1.9354 139.4 1.23 211.7
2009 07 22 20 05 15.948 +19 40 53.83 1.0519 1.9433 140.0 1.24 211.1

The above is better formatted and thus easier to read here;

www.webtreatz.com/jommpc.html

Forgot to add. If you do manage to find anything you MUST time the start of the exposure to the nearest second. A good source of accurate time are internet time servers. Just synch your PC clock using the 'Internet Time' feature.

Fair play to you Dave G for coming up with the co-ordinates for the object, with a clear sky tonight maybe someone will check these positions.

Dave McD, one thing that I cant explain outside the reflection theory is why on the very zoomed in image below do all the stars appear to have the exact same tracking error while the objects tracking looks like a rotated version of the tracking error of the stars, this cant be explained by a comets/asteroids movement. Compare the objects shape to some of the fainter stars in the image.
It looks like a star including its tracking error + a rotation of about 70 degrees clockwise, the exact rotation angle however I cant explain. I dont see how anyting but a reflection can cause this.

farm4.static.flickr.com/3364/3647644068_47af37f4ed_o.jpg

gosh, I really do wish this was a comet, but the apparent rotation of the objects tracking error just doesnt sit well with me.

Dave_Lillis wrote:

Dave McD, one thing that I cant explain outside the reflection theory is why on the very zoomed in image below do all the stars appear to have the exact same tracking error while the objects tracking looks like a rotated version of the tracking error of the stars, this cant be explained by a comets/asteroids movement. Compare the objects shape to some of the fainter stars in the image.
It looks like a star including its tracking error + a rotation of about 70 degrees clockwise, the exact rotation angle however I cant explain. I dont see how anyting but a reflection can cause this.

I think I see what you mean about the core of the object *possibly* looking like a mirror image of adjacent stars - but I'm not convinced But I *do* see what you mean.

In fairness, the image quality isn't the best (sorry John :blush: ) but it seems to me that the main egginess of the stars across the image is field rotation - not tracking. Tracking may have had a small part to play and contribute but rotation seems to far outweigh that contribution. But that doesn;t add much to either argument really

Nonetheless, Dave G has provided some info that might (long shot) recover the assumed object - if it is an object. Or alternatively, John could shoot some images of bright stars and try and reproduce the reflection. The second option would be helpful and probably a whole lot easier than option 1 ...

Unfortunately, J65 is out of action pending the return of a repaired focuser from the USA next week

Dunno about ye lot, but this is good fun, interesting and I'm sure learning a lot!

I dunno if this is significant but using AIP4WIN I was examining the RGB values for the "object" and notice that there's very little red. I know one can tell by looking at it that its quite - I think teal in colour however - it is really starved of red. (R=2.5, G=173.5 and B=150 - I dont know how it scales that) strikes me as being a little artificial.

Now interference filters reflect most of the light that is not passed through - so do we know if the CLS has a very high pass-thru for red and if so do we have a signature for a reflection?

This could be nonsense but I put it on the table for any comments.

Mark