<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Paranormally pretty Paranal pix</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/05/05/paranormally-pretty-paranal-pix/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/05/05/paranormally-pretty-paranal-pix/</link>
	<description>I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:54:42 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Calli Arcale</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/05/05/paranormally-pretty-paranal-pix/comment-page-1/#comment-86288</link>
		<dc:creator>Calli Arcale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 20:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/05/05/paranormally-pretty-paranal-pix/#comment-86288</guid>
		<description>That picture is indeed a long-duration exposure.  But if you get into a really good dark sky, you will be AMAZED at how much you can see!  The easiest galaxy to see is, of course, the Milky Way.  The view towards the galactic center is truly awe-inspiring.  If you go to the southern hemisphere, you will be treated to the sight of the Magellanic Clouds, which are satellites of our own galaxy.  And I believe you can see Andromeda with the naked eye, assuming a sufficiently dark sky, although I&#039;ve never seen it myself.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That picture is indeed a long-duration exposure.  But if you get into a really good dark sky, you will be AMAZED at how much you can see!  The easiest galaxy to see is, of course, the Milky Way.  The view towards the galactic center is truly awe-inspiring.  If you go to the southern hemisphere, you will be treated to the sight of the Magellanic Clouds, which are satellites of our own galaxy.  And I believe you can see Andromeda with the naked eye, assuming a sufficiently dark sky, although I&#8217;ve never seen it myself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ExtraBitterStoat</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/05/05/paranormally-pretty-paranal-pix/comment-page-1/#comment-86287</link>
		<dc:creator>ExtraBitterStoat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 15:54:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/05/05/paranormally-pretty-paranal-pix/#comment-86287</guid>
		<description>In reference to the gegenschein picture...

Okay, I&#039;m a neophyte when it comes to astronomy.  If you were at a really dark site, could you see that many stars with the naked eye, or is it just due to a long exposure time with a good camera?  Can you actually see galaxies without the aid of binoculars or a telescope? Unfortunately for me, I live in Colorado Springs which has to have some of the worst light pollution ever.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reference to the gegenschein picture&#8230;</p>
<p>Okay, I&#8217;m a neophyte when it comes to astronomy.  If you were at a really dark site, could you see that many stars with the naked eye, or is it just due to a long exposure time with a good camera?  Can you actually see galaxies without the aid of binoculars or a telescope? Unfortunately for me, I live in Colorado Springs which has to have some of the worst light pollution ever.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ColoRambler</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/05/05/paranormally-pretty-paranal-pix/comment-page-1/#comment-86286</link>
		<dc:creator>ColoRambler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 14:35:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/05/05/paranormally-pretty-paranal-pix/#comment-86286</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;I’ve never seen that before, even at Mauna Kea. Is it even possible to see it with the naked eye, i.e. without a long exposure image from a camera?&lt;/blockquote&gt;

You can.  The zodiacal light is brightest close to the Sun, and from a dark site the bright parts are actually not too hard to see shortly after it gets genuinely dark.  It&#039;s much bigger than most people realize -- it looks a little like a large wedge of twilight sticking up into the sky along the ecliptic -- so it can be hard to recognize for what it really is.

The light rapidly gets fainter farther from the Sun, and soon becomes invisible or at best very faint.  The photo in BA&#039;s article shows the &quot;gegenschein&quot;, which is a slight brightening of the zodiacal light directly opposite the Sun.  It&#039;s very faint indeed and you won&#039;t see it unless it&#039;s very dark (no Moon, no nearby city lights).  Even bright constellations in the area can interfere.  I&#039;ve had my best luck in early fall and late winter (northern hemisphere) when the anti-solar point is fairly high up, and the background sky is pretty empty.

Crux Australis:  Congratulations!  Zodiacal light actually goes all the way around the ecliptic, but it&#039;s so faint that most people never see it like that.   I&#039;ve only seen it once, and I&#039;ve been to plenty of dark sites.  If you are ever fortunate enough to see the whole thing, not just the bits closest to the Sun, it&#039;s pretty amazing:  very faint, but similar in width to the Milky Way, and spanning the entire sky.  It&#039;s one of the largest distinct &quot;objects&quot; you can see, in fact.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>I’ve never seen that before, even at Mauna Kea. Is it even possible to see it with the naked eye, i.e. without a long exposure image from a camera?</p></blockquote>
<p>You can.  The zodiacal light is brightest close to the Sun, and from a dark site the bright parts are actually not too hard to see shortly after it gets genuinely dark.  It&#8217;s much bigger than most people realize &#8212; it looks a little like a large wedge of twilight sticking up into the sky along the ecliptic &#8212; so it can be hard to recognize for what it really is.</p>
<p>The light rapidly gets fainter farther from the Sun, and soon becomes invisible or at best very faint.  The photo in BA&#8217;s article shows the &#8220;gegenschein&#8221;, which is a slight brightening of the zodiacal light directly opposite the Sun.  It&#8217;s very faint indeed and you won&#8217;t see it unless it&#8217;s very dark (no Moon, no nearby city lights).  Even bright constellations in the area can interfere.  I&#8217;ve had my best luck in early fall and late winter (northern hemisphere) when the anti-solar point is fairly high up, and the background sky is pretty empty.</p>
<p>Crux Australis:  Congratulations!  Zodiacal light actually goes all the way around the ecliptic, but it&#8217;s so faint that most people never see it like that.   I&#8217;ve only seen it once, and I&#8217;ve been to plenty of dark sites.  If you are ever fortunate enough to see the whole thing, not just the bits closest to the Sun, it&#8217;s pretty amazing:  very faint, but similar in width to the Milky Way, and spanning the entire sky.  It&#8217;s one of the largest distinct &#8220;objects&#8221; you can see, in fact.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Regner Trampedach</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/05/05/paranormally-pretty-paranal-pix/comment-page-1/#comment-86285</link>
		<dc:creator>Regner Trampedach</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 01:58:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/05/05/paranormally-pretty-paranal-pix/#comment-86285</guid>
		<description>Phil, you wrote &lt;i&gt;the location of the very large Very Large Telescope telescope*, an 8-meter monster that is one of the largest in the world.&lt;/i&gt;
There are actually 4 of those 8.2m monsters + 4 smaller 1.8m telescopes. So far, they can be joined in twos or threes to make interferometric observations with a base-line of up to 200m. That is what makes it the &quot;Very Large Telescope&quot;.
Check-out  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.eso.org/public/astronomy/teles-instr/paranal.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ESO&#039;s Paranal observatory&lt;/a&gt;
At least it is not called the Superconducting Super Scope....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Phil, you wrote <i>the location of the very large Very Large Telescope telescope*, an 8-meter monster that is one of the largest in the world.</i><br />
There are actually 4 of those 8.2m monsters + 4 smaller 1.8m telescopes. So far, they can be joined in twos or threes to make interferometric observations with a base-line of up to 200m. That is what makes it the &#8220;Very Large Telescope&#8221;.<br />
Check-out  <a href="http://www.eso.org/public/astronomy/teles-instr/paranal.html" rel="nofollow">ESO&#8217;s Paranal observatory</a><br />
At least it is not called the Superconducting Super Scope&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thanny</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/05/05/paranormally-pretty-paranal-pix/comment-page-1/#comment-86284</link>
		<dc:creator>Thanny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2008 22:50:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/05/05/paranormally-pretty-paranal-pix/#comment-86284</guid>
		<description>Hubble&#039;s primary is neither myopic nor hyperopic.  It&#039;s perfectly in focus with the instruments.  It just has the most exquisite spherical aberration that money can buy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hubble&#8217;s primary is neither myopic nor hyperopic.  It&#8217;s perfectly in focus with the instruments.  It just has the most exquisite spherical aberration that money can buy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/05/05/paranormally-pretty-paranal-pix/comment-page-1/#comment-86283</link>
		<dc:creator>Rob</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2008 22:24:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/05/05/paranormally-pretty-paranal-pix/#comment-86283</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the heads-up on these releases Phil. I was very fortunate to spend a couple of days at Paranal last year. Just before sunset many of the astronomers and engineers came up out of the control building on to the observation deck beside the telescope for a 15 minute break to watch the Sun set over the Pacific. What a sight. Alas no green (or blue) flash that evening but still truly memorable.

These pictures have inspired me to dig out those I took and put them up on my blog tonight.

This was matched a few hours later by going back up on to the deck to view the night sky - stunning. They had the laser running for the adaptive optics on one of the VLT units which added to the effect. A wonderful night of naked eye observing.

By the way the next James Bond film has just finished shooting some scenes at Paranal, not of the telescope units but of the Residence. It appears as the archetypal Bond baddie lair. Can&#039;t wait to see what it looks like on the big screen.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the heads-up on these releases Phil. I was very fortunate to spend a couple of days at Paranal last year. Just before sunset many of the astronomers and engineers came up out of the control building on to the observation deck beside the telescope for a 15 minute break to watch the Sun set over the Pacific. What a sight. Alas no green (or blue) flash that evening but still truly memorable.</p>
<p>These pictures have inspired me to dig out those I took and put them up on my blog tonight.</p>
<p>This was matched a few hours later by going back up on to the deck to view the night sky &#8211; stunning. They had the laser running for the adaptive optics on one of the VLT units which added to the effect. A wonderful night of naked eye observing.</p>
<p>By the way the next James Bond film has just finished shooting some scenes at Paranal, not of the telescope units but of the Residence. It appears as the archetypal Bond baddie lair. Can&#8217;t wait to see what it looks like on the big screen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jack Hagerty</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/05/05/paranormally-pretty-paranal-pix/comment-page-1/#comment-86282</link>
		<dc:creator>Jack Hagerty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2008 20:41:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/05/05/paranormally-pretty-paranal-pix/#comment-86282</guid>
		<description>overstroming says: &quot;Also going on in Chile is an amazing volcanic eruption. Saw this stunning picture linked from Fark&quot;

Wow! They must have had Peter Jackson do the effects for this eruption!

- Jack</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>overstroming says: &#8220;Also going on in Chile is an amazing volcanic eruption. Saw this stunning picture linked from Fark&#8221;</p>
<p>Wow! They must have had Peter Jackson do the effects for this eruption!</p>
<p>- Jack</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
