Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Because it's 275 minutes of exposure I was expecting to see it spin via an animated gif - but that's silly isn't it? How long would it take to see the spin in a galaxy - hundreds of years?

What's the big bright star in the upper left?

Beautiful shot! It's great to know that astronomy is not necessarily reserved for people with giant mountaintop telescopes.

That's quite impressive. Do you have any more pics like this?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

>> ^Ornthoron:
Beautiful shot! It's great to know that astronomy is not necessarily reserved for people with giant mountaintop telescopes.


Have you seen his rig? I think "giant mountaintop telescope" describes it pretty well.

That's beautiful. We, too, are a barred galaxy, if I'm not mistaken; living in a little cul de sac out in one of the arms.



I did a little Google math - 2.75876539 × 10²⁰ miles away. Or so.

I'm going to hazard a guess on the star to the upper left: Gamma Ursae Majoris.

^showoff..

^ I just find this stuff fascinating.

We Americans can train a camera on a galaxy light-years away, and yet we still can't brew a decent tasting beer.

* * < if its like the milky way galaxy, you would need a 100,000 year exposure to capture one revolution > * *

I use two telescopes to make these images. One scope watches a single "guide star" and uses a very cheap camera and free software to track the position of the star. It works hard to keep the star exactly the same place in the pictures from the camera. By doing so, it keeps the big scope pointed at the galaxy very precisely.

This is the little scope riding on the big scope:
http://www.pbase.com/mclemens1969/image/96998645

The big bright star is actually way too faint to see, but with this much exposure it really burns out the star.