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

  • Thread starter Thread starter sderamus
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Higher elevation generally offers better stargazing conditions due to reduced atmospheric absorption, but light pollution significantly impacts visibility. Observers at sea level in isolated areas may benefit from lower light pollution despite the elevation disadvantage. The discussion highlights that atmospheric effects become more pronounced at elevations above 50,000 feet, making lower elevations with minimal light pollution potentially preferable. Ultimately, the choice between a sea level site with low light pollution and a higher elevation site with nearby towns depends on the balance between atmospheric clarity and light interference. For optimal stargazing, minimizing light pollution is crucial.
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.
 
Publication: Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars Article: NASA Says Mars Rover Discovered Potential Biosignature Last Year Press conference The ~100 authors don't find a good way this could have formed without life, but also can't rule it out. Now that they have shared their findings with the larger community someone else might find an explanation - or maybe it was actually made by life.
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...

Similar threads

Back
Top