Rare Astronomical Event Will See Triple Moon Shadows On Jupiter

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.

Just be honest.

[rmdingler]

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

Re:

[SQLGuru]

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.

Re:

[Amigo Van Helical]

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

Re:

[stjobe]

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".

Re:

[rgbatduke]

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 gravit

Re:

[CastrTroy]

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

Re:

[wonkey_monkey]

Not yet.

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

Re:

[jfdavis668]

All these worlds are yours...

Re:

[RevWaldo]

Not yet.

.

Rare Astronomical Event

[Nutria]

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

You're being followed by a Moonshadow

[c0d3g33k]

Apparently several.

Moonshadow (song) [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[jfdavis668]

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

Article a bit on the vague side

[wonkey_monkey]

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.

Re:

[rossdee]

"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.

Re:

[ArcadeMan]

That's why real astronomers use ludicrous speed.

Re:

[angel'o'sphere]

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

Re:

[wonkey_monkey]

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.

Cat Stevens is getting paranoid

[boristdog]

Now he's being followed by three moon shadows.

Re:

[jfdavis668]

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

Re:

[SQLGuru]

(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).

already raining here

[turkeydance]

and predicted to continue until Sunday. boo-hoo.

Re:

[wonkey_monkey]

No triple moonshadow for you, then, but you might get a double rainbow! [youtube.com]

Not that easy to see

[Lucas123]

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.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:

[popoutman]

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

Re:

[popoutman]

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

Re:

[Lucas123]

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.

Re:

[langelgjm]

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.

Re:

[Ecuador]

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 wh

Re:

[ClarkMills]

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

Well I suppose he's right:

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

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

Re:

[Bruce Dawson]

> 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.

And if I were on Jupitor, I still wouldn't care

[eepok]

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?

Re:

[thegarbz]

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 peo

Re:And if I were on Jupiter, I still wouldn't care

[eepok]

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 (11/1

Snow storm

[jfdavis668]

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