Which is Better for Stargazing: Sea Level or High Elevation?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter sderamus
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the comparison of stargazing at sea level versus high elevation, specifically at 3,400 feet. Participants highlight that while elevation can enhance visibility, the impact of light pollution from nearby towns at higher elevations may negate these benefits. Sterling emphasizes that atmospheric absorption is less significant than light pollution, suggesting that a remote sea level site with minimal light interference may provide a better stargazing experience.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of light pollution and its effects on astronomical observations
  • Familiarity with elevation and its impact on atmospheric conditions
  • Knowledge of the North American Light Pollution Map
  • Basic concepts of astronomical magnitude and visibility
NEXT STEPS
  • Research light pollution mitigation techniques for stargazing
  • Explore the effects of elevation on astronomical observations
  • Learn about atmospheric absorption and its relevance to stargazing
  • Investigate remote observing sites with minimal light pollution
USEFUL FOR

Astronomy enthusiasts, stargazers, and anyone evaluating optimal locations for astronomical observations.

sderamus
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Does anyone have a table or formula one can use to calculate the effect of one's elevation above sea level on observing stars? I recall seeing something once upon a time showing how much of an increase in magnitude one gets the higher one goes. But then I recently read that the atmospheric effect is minimal until one gets up above like 50,000 feet or something.

The reason I ask is that I have a choice of observing sites - one is at sea level, but fairly isolated from light pollution. The other is on top of a mountain approximately 3,400 feet above sea level, but there are towns in the valley that add to light pollution (it is green on the North American Light Pollution Map for those of you familiar with that). Which would be a better observing site?

Thanks!

Sterling
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
The loss due to atmospheric absorption is less of an issue than light pollution.
 

Similar threads

Potential Energy Problem -- GPE of a person at 5334m above sea level
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
42% of Sea Level rise due to human water use?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
Writing: Input Wanted What Makes Great Lakes Earth So Geographically Unique?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
How Does Great Lakes Earth's Geography Differ from Our Own?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Undergrad A busy and interesting night sky in Mackinaw City
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Writing: Read Only What Does Great Lakes Earth Look Like from Space?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
US Forest Service, National Forests, and The Big Burn (1910)
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Graduate Seeing a laser pointer from 16km away
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Australia's drought and bushfires, a personal view
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
9K
How High Above Earth is Gravity 10% of Sea Level?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K