Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Monday's Planet Views Best Until 2036 49

Posted by timothy from the hey-we've-all-got-naked-eyes dept.
An anonymous reader writes "NASA is reporting that Monday night, March 22nd, offers a rare, naked-eye glimpse of our five prominent astronomical neighbors--Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, and the Moon--in close proximity in the night sky, near to the familiar Orion constellation. This contrasts with the picture of the 'Fab Five' shot by Voyager looking back on the inner solar system. Monday's aligned view is not likely to appear in this configuration again until 2036."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Monday's Planet Views Best Until 2036 More

Monday's Planet Views Best Until 2036

Comments Filter:

  • "Not likely?" (Score:5, Funny)

    by notsoclever ( 748131 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @08:49PM (#8630127) Journal
    I'd say it's pretty much certain that we won't see that configuration again until 2036, unless Jupiter is knocked out of orbit or something...

  • Been looking forward to this (Score:5, Interesting)

    by shadowbearer ( 554144 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @08:56PM (#8630170) Homepage Journal
    The 35mm camera and the 28mm widefield lens are ready. :) Wish my digital could do longer exposures...

    Get outside and take a look at the sky during the next couple weeks. It's worth it. Having this many planets in this small a section of sky doesn't happen very often. Take your kids out there too, and explain to them what they are seeing (it's a good time to demonstrate to them that planets really don't twinkle like stars do, and why - they can see the evidence with their own eyes.)

    Oh, and there will almost certainly be a lot of good pix on alt.binaries.pictures.astro after the 22nd.

    Clear skies everyone.

    SB

    • Re:Been looking forward to this (Score:4, Informative)

      by CheshireCatCO ( 185193 ) on Monday March 22, 2004 @12:08AM (#8631231) Homepage
      You'll probably need a fish-eye lens more than a wide-field. The spread is 135 degrees, which I'm not sure really counts as a small section of sky.

      I'd say that it's less a chance for astrophotography and more for a chance to go outside and view the 5 nake-eye planets with your own two eyes. Not many people have seen all 5 of them, particularly Mercury.
      • Well, relatively small. I plan on doing several exposures staggered at about 30-60 degrees; as Brahmastra below notes, I'll need a seperate one for the moon anyway. Actually with the long twilights where I live, I'll probably go thru 2 different rolls of film trying different settings and overlaps :)

        What I hate about fisheye lenses is the loss of definition and the distortion. Really good ones minimize that but they're expensive.

        Anyway, looks like clear skies tonite... :)

        SB

      • Re:Been looking forward to this (Score:4, Funny)

        by jefft ( 13574 ) on Monday March 22, 2004 @03:06PM (#8636716)
        The spread is 135 degrees, which I'm not sure really counts as a small section of sky.

        No problem you just need to back up a little.

    • I hate the fact that I live in a big-ass city, wtih no means of getting far enough away from it to actually see stars at night again.
    • (it's a good time to demonstrate to them that planets really don't twinkle like stars do, and why - they can see the evidence with their own eyes.)



      Erm...I have no idea why...Could you explain?

      • Stars are so far away that they're effectively points... zero radius, zero area. So when a little disturbance in the atmosphere distorts the light coming from them, you see the effect as a twinkle. A planet is much closer and shows a disc (radius something larger than zero) even if it's too small to see with the naked eye. Now the same atmospheric disturbances average over the area of the disc and the effect tends to cancel... a little dimming in one area this moment, a similar dimming in another area ne
    • If the moon is close to the planets, the planets are unlikely to show up because the moon is way brighter. Your best bet is to take one picture exposed for the moon, one exposed for the planets and then merge them in photoshop

  • Stellarium for finding them (Score:5, Interesting)

    by isn't my name ( 514234 ) <slash.threenorth@com> on Sunday March 21, 2004 @09:01PM (#8630204)
    And if you need help identifying which is which, or exactly where they are, Stellarium [stellarium.free.fr] is a great GPL'd product available for Linux, Win and Mac.

    Sourceforge page [sourceforge.net]

  • Astrology is finally losing ground... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by no longer myself ( 741142 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @09:05PM (#8630220)
    I can remember a decade or two ago, people actually believed that such cosmic alignments would result in earthquakes, floods, and other supernatural disasters. Trying to rationally explain the effects of gravity to them didn't help much either.

    It's nice to regularly see stories like this without having the dreaded doomsday angle.

    Of course there's always a catch to these stories: You won't see anything like this until (insert far-off date here). With so many fascinating things in astronomy, you'll have plenty of opportunities to see an amazing show on any given clear night.

    • I saw a story concerning this (well, the title of the article in the mag anyway) on the front page of a tabloid at a supermarket while I was waiting in line. This was, oh, a few weeks ago; I forget which tabloid it was. Basic doomsday stuff. Thought nothing of it...

      You're right tho; it seems like stories of that nature have been declining in recent years. Good! Maybe with Hubble and the internet contributing to more astronomy education, the tabloid publishers are losing their "market share" *grin* Not t
    • I'm not sure that we're really improved. Less than 4 years ago, the kinda-sorta-alignment on 5 May 2000 generated a lot of doomsday nonsense. This one may have just slipped in under the radar, so to speak. (Maybe all of the doomsday folks are still chagrined that we're all still alive depsite their predictions that we'd die when the 12th planet swung by last May?)
    • just because nobody specifically mentioned it doesn't mean the sky's not going to start on fire tomorrow night a 9:23e/8:16c, just as nostrodamus predicted, oh yeah, and divide tomorrows date by the square route of pi times your mothers birthday, i think you'll find something interesting...
    • Planets? Clustering?

      The end is near! Back up your files, because I predict a monumental worm that will destroy every computer that uses Windows!

  • get out your telescope! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by OneOver137 ( 674481 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @10:16PM (#8630600) Journal
    If you have access to one, that is. Unfortunately, with the exception of Jupiter and Saturn, don't expect too much. Mars is 6 months past opposition, and very small in a scope, even at high power. Venus won't show much more than a featureless gibbous disk. Jupiter and Saturn will show a wealth of detail, however. Saturn is in the constellation Gemini, and Jupiter is in Leo. The best time for both is when they are up highest in the sky, which for Saturn is as soon as you can see it, and Jupiter hits the zenith about midnight. Check out Clear Sky Clocks [cleardarksky.com] for your area and pay close attention to the "Seeing" forecast if you are using a scope. Happy observing! Oh yeah, don't forget to check out the Moon. It will set early, and won't show much "face" to check out telescopically. A cool thing to show your non-astronomical significant other is to draw line through the ecliptic with your finger and then tell them to think how we are between Venus and Mars. Most people will be impressed.
    • saturn, though, has its rings perpendicular to us right now, making it one of the most spectacular views for another 50 years or so. venus is still incredibly close, this past august it was the closest it's been for 60,000 years.

  • And the weather is bad :( (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bluGill ( 862 ) on Sunday March 21, 2004 @10:23PM (#8630648)

    I saw the story and got excited: I better go outside now! Bundle (just below freezing up, and I see fog. :( Two bright objects in the sky, I'm guessing one is Venus, the other Mars, or maybe Jupiter. (You can see how much an astronomer I am from that) After a few minutes I could see a few stars, but it was clear that there is little chance of seeing much more, and nothing would be clear.

    I know, the problem astronomers everywhere face. Still wish it hadn't happened tonight. Lession to everyone: go out every night and look, since the first night isn't until tomorrow and I have 8-10 days of really good viewing I have a chance to see something. Don't blow your chance, if tonight is the only clear night in a while you will kick yourself for not spending a least a few minutes outside looking.

    I live in the country, but still my neighbor across the street with his one light on was enough to annoy my viewing. Went the the backyard and discovered that a monitor makes a very good light to see by. I'll have to do something about that in the morning when I try again.

    P.S. If you are in the Twin Cities are you are welcome to attempt a viewing from my yard. Better than the city, though not nearly as good as heading way out would be.


    • Being a former minnesotan, the only way I know of to find decent dark skies from the TC is to head NE into Wisconsin. Way past Eau Claire.

      It's been a while, but I know that even back in the mid 90s the skyglow around the TC and outer suburbs/inner rural was atrocious.

      Of course I'm more of a deep-sky type rather than planetary conjunctions :)

      Enjoy, friend. Nice to know one can still at least see the planets from "rural" Twin Cities (Fifty million backyard 500w halogen security lights and counting)

      • Yeah, my skies aren't that dark. When I look southeast I see a large glow. However I own an acre of land, and my closest neighbor's don't leave many lights on. I went out again latter to clear Skies, but the neighbor across the street had one light on (I'm guessing 60 watts), 150 feet away, and it was very bright in my front yard. Behind the house it was better, but that limited my views to the south.

        The darkest Skies I've seen are in North Dakota where the nearest neighbor is a mile away (Somewhat


        • Yeah, North Dakota is good. Wyoming is even better; the best I've ever seen was the Four Corners area (Utah, AZ, NM, CO); what people? *grin* but it's quite a lot of driving, even from here.

          I live in a small town, so the skies aren't super dark, but they're not too bad. Then again it's only 15 miles to the Wyo border and really dark skies. Pretty decent weather (compared to MN) even in January, which is a plus.

          Cheers
          SB

  • Correction (Score:2, Informative)

    by Mr. Ophidian Jones ( 653797 )
    Just a quick correction: the five objects visible include Mercury, not necessarily the moon. See the article for details.

  • Sigh (Score:2, Funny)

    by Sprinkels ( 41102 )
    Well, I think it is really romantic. ;-)

  • Grammar: No such thing as "close proximity" (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Since the phrase "far proximity" makes no logical sense, then is not the phrase "near proximity" equally nonsense?

    Things are in proximity, or they are not.
  • Ok, best view until 32 years. And it's god damn snowing. No chance in he** of seeing a star :-(

  • Belt of Orion viewed from mars (Score:4, Interesting)

    by polyp2000 ( 444682 ) on Monday March 22, 2004 @10:10AM (#8633500) Homepage Journal
    Thats pretty cool, but a little further down the page I found this...

    Orions Belt Viewed From Mars [astrobio.net]

    Thats pretty cool! I used celestia some while ago to find out what orion looked like from Mars and this shows just how accurate that program is.

    nick ...
    • If you could tell the difference between "Orion's Belt from Earth" and "Orion's Belt from Mars" on your computer screen, I'd like to buy your monitor. Because the difference is way, way, way, way, way, way , WAY below one pixel's size on your screen.

      You want to change the starfield to any degree, you need to travel lightyears, not a few piddly million miles.
      • Chuckle, ;) I dont think i mentioned there being any major differences.

        I am not an astrophysicist by any long shot, and using celestia I was able to see orion from mars, albeit in a simulated environment. I was suprised to learn that Orion looked the same from Mars , as on Earth, as i kinda expected the stars to be in different positions. As you correctly identify, they are not noticably different. Its still a cool picture though.

        nick ...

  • comets coming, inept editing (Score:3, Informative)

    by linoleo ( 718385 ) on Monday March 22, 2004 @04:36PM (#8637588) Journal
    From the article:

    In April and May of this year, two naked-eye comets [astrobio.net], C/2001 Q4 and C/2002 T7, will grace the twilight skies. To spot the cosmic balls of dust and ice look to the west at dusk or dawn.

    Look to the west at dusk *or* dawn? Yeah right. Probably got shortened by an overzealous editor from the correct "to the west at dusk or the east at dawn". Amazingly inept editing for an astrobiology site. The linked article has more (and correct) information.

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close