Special Aircraft Service

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Stars  (Read 4948 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Michkov

  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
Re: Stars
« Reply #12 on: January 19, 2019, 03:57:30 PM »

As far as stars go you can throw away thing apparent magnitude below 6.5, 7 if you like round numbers. Keep in mind with magnitudes it's lower value brighter objects (a full moon is -12, the brightest stars -1) and it's non linear in real brightness due to how our eyes work.

In good approximation stars are black bodies, for any divergence you'd really need to look at the spectrum. So look for the effective temperature (could be just temperature) listed with the star and plug that into a black body color calculator. You should be able to compute this once and keep it static, star color doesn't change over such short timescales we are using here.
Logged

Stainless

  • moderator
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1534
Re: Stars
« Reply #13 on: January 20, 2019, 05:00:59 AM »

Yes and that is what confuses me.

Sirius has an apparent visual magnitude of -1.46, yet the LOWEST value I have in this catalogue is 0.46.

That's just wrong. It implies that all the really bright stars, the one's we really want for navigation, are missing from the database. Sigh.

So I have found a new database, I am going to have to parse that and see what that looks like.
Logged

Michkov

  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18
Re: Stars
« Reply #14 on: January 21, 2019, 09:45:57 AM »

Have you got an id next to the 0.46mag star it strikes me as a odd that the brightest ones are not in the database.

This one here lets you query various catalogues. I set the link to the Harvard you've been using thus far and checked Sirius is in there with a V_mag of -1.46 which matches the accepted literature value for it.
http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/VizieR-3?-source=V/50/catalog&-out.max=unlimited&-out.form=HTML%20Table&-out.add=_r&-out.add=_RAJ,_DEJ&-sort=_r&-oc.form=sexa

Sadly the Harvard catalogue has no effective temperature column. I'd list the spectral classification and match the various classes to temperature thus apparent colour.

EDIT: I think I figured out where you get the -0.46 from. There are only 3 instances of the number in the catalogue and the only one near magnitude is in the B-V column. The B-V, similar U-V are magnitude differences for magnitudes measured in different wavelength. This gives two classification parameters for astronomers, not really relevant for what you want. You want V_mag and SpType(there only the Capital letter numeral part), plus the coordinates ofc.
Logged

Stainless

  • moderator
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1534
Re: Stars
« Reply #15 on: January 23, 2019, 09:53:27 AM »

I figured it out.

I looked in an online database for Sirius and got it's Henry Draper catalogue number.

I then looked in my data for that star, and sure enough it was there with an apparent visual magnitude of -1.4.

I noticed that it is marked as an IR source, I was assuming IR sources are not visible, wrong assumption.
Logged

WxTech

  • Modder
  • member
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 6017
Re: Stars
« Reply #16 on: January 26, 2020, 02:48:10 PM »

For star color, use the B-V index. This is the difference in magnitude as measured in the blue and visual photometric wavebands. Spectral type is not a reliable indicator of color for two main reasons: The heavy element composition of a star alters the color, such that greater 'metallicity' makes for a redder color; and interstellar dust on the line of sight induces reddening.

The B-V index is a far better indicator of color. The larger this value, the redder the star. Zero is very slightly bluish. -0.34 is about as blue as it gets, but still not *obvious* blue; just bluish. Our Sun, at 0.62, is yellow. 1 is getting to a golden-orange. 2 is orange. The reddest carbon stars (or those heavily reddened by much dust) get to around 5 or so, which is not stoplight red, but a lovely orange-red.

A simple algorithm could be constructed by which to differentially alter RBG values. Or a lookup table could suffice. Differentiating to no more than 8 discrete color values is *amply* sufficient.

As to star brightness, as you likely know each magnitude change is a briggtness difference of 2.512. This was derived so that 5 magnitudes is a 100-fold brightness difference, which corresponds well with the logarithmic response of vision.

As noted up-thread, a magnitude limit of about 6.5 is good for wider FoVs. However, when zooming in, the result will feel intuitively odd if the stars remain at a fixed limit and of fixed size. I feel that altering the star numbers, brightness limit and hence dot size will pay dividends. Rather like what happens when using optical aid, such as a binocular. A small bino, e.g., a common enough military 6X30, will reveal stars some 2.5 magnitudes fainter than will one's eyes alone. And note that said instrument has an FoV of about 10 degrees. A complete 9th magnitude star database would serve nicely for expanding on a wide FoV limit of about 6.5, increasing to 9 when zooming in to 10 degrees.

When considering adopting a dark sky naked eye limit of 6.5, this admits the potential for inclusion of the milky way. Particularly in the northern summer season (southern winter), for the bright central portion of our Galaxy is on display, and is so easily seen on dark nights even well before one is fully dark adapted. From a darkened cockpit at altitude, it's one of nature's grand spectacles.

I would recommend a low resolution bitmap, with pixels no larger than 0.1 degree. This would be a strip chart (360 x 60 degrees) of 3600 x 600 pixels. Why such comparatively poor resolution? Because at such low image surface brightness our visual system operates at *tens* of times worse resolving power than under daytime light levels. Better to simulate that than to present an image of unrealistic photographic sharpness. As any amateur astronomer like myself (decades of experience) will amply confirm.

Furthermore, the milky white ay is too dim to elicit a color response. And so no fancy coloring like a photo will reveal. Make it a monochromatic pale bluish, said cool color tone suggesting nocturnal dimness. And of course the color must blend with that of the sky. Suggesting that the same general cool hue be adopted for a dark sky itself.

And about the night sky. It's never truly black, even in space. Sunlight scattered by interplanetary dust (from comets and bashing asteroidal bodies over the aeons) actually adds a little to night sky illumination. And the Earth's airglow layer, at about 100km up, adds even more light than that for us down below. The darkest sky, by *far*, is under heavy cloud cover. All in the absence of artificial lighting, of course. ;)
Logged
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people. - Hyman Rickover (but probably predating his use.)
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.04 seconds with 26 queries.