Are software like Celestia and Stellarium accurate

Hi, sorry if this is the wrong place to post but I couldn't find an astronomy forum. I was just wondering if solar-system mapping programs such as these are accurate. Does anyone have any experience with them?
Also, are they safe to install and run? I downloaded celestia but didn't install it because a warning message came up saying it was an unknown publisher or something, and could harm my computer. Is this just my laptop being paranoid?

Thanks

reply to post by HexagonSun


Hey dude,

Yeah windows can be a little paranoid. Basically, companies that produce software have to pay Microsoft to be recognized as a 'safe/legit' publisher. A lot of places don't do this and it's prfectly safe to install stellarium (which i use) and celestia (which i've not used, but ahve heard loads of others using). I think it's just another way for microsoft to steer people towards software they get paid to look safe.

You can't trust every publisher so just use common sense. If it's a big program that you know others use safely then go ahead.

Hope this answers your question and have fun stargazing

First - Thundersmurf is right on the mark. The two apps mentioned are freeware, so there is no way the various authors are going to pay Microsoft a load of money to get 'approval'.

In general, many free apss will show the installation warning, and also Windows flags stuff downloaded for warnings as well. Many of these apps have a separate 'README' file that warns about it.

My rule is that if a package is well known, and often praised, as these two are, then I am happy to ignore the warnings.

I have used both of the packages, but I am more familiar with Stellarium. I take photos of the night sky, both with and without a telescope. I find that Stellarium is amazingly accurate, such that I can match up the Stellarium display, and my photos, very well.

Regards,

reply to post by Darkstar2


I'm so jealous; I've always wanted telescope. The night sky fascinates me, but I've moved city to city so it'd be almost impossible to see anything. One day i'll get a nice setup. I saw a guy online who had a remote controlled one in his attic looking through a skylight which he had hooked up to an HD projector in his living room. That looked pretty sweet.

Originally posted by Thundersmurf
reply to post by Darkstar2

 

I'm so jealous; I've always wanted telescope. The night sky fascinates me, but I've moved city to city so it'd be almost impossible to see anything. One day i'll get a nice setup. I saw a guy online who had a remote controlled one in his attic looking through a skylight which he had hooked up to an HD projector in his living room. That looked pretty sweet.

Get a pair of 25x100 binos and a tripod with spring loaded shoe, drive out to the country
I recommend Helios Quantum 4's and not big names such as Celestron as the Helios are fully broadband coated and waterproof, Celestrons are not and I have read bad reports.
Get a APS-C (Canon EOS 1100D has a low noise sensor for long exposures) and its the cheapest Canon EOS APS-C DSLR out there and do long exposures on the tripod.

I dont know why people always overlook using Binoculars as their first astronomy tool.

it is pitch black where I live (up a mountain lol) and I can see the milky way with my own eyes, not many in the city can do that lol, I plan to take a long exposure of it this winter.

Alternatively, join an Astronomy club and go out with them on nights.

Good advice from the above posters OP.

Also as to the accuracy of it, each item in celestia is based on NASA and subsidiaries. For example if you want to add Elenin into Stellarium you'd get the coordinates and data from JPL and it would appear within the software. I think the last version added Elenin but there's lots of comets and so you can embellish the installation as well. I use Stellarium regularly, I think it is possible one of the greatest pieces of software that has been written, when you consider this information was forbidden to common people just a few centuries ago, I'd say Stellarium represents a massive win for humanity, and loss for the PTB. It makes sense that we'd spend our time examining the sky, it's a delight and a wonder is it not?

OK thanks a lot for the replies. I'll try both of them.

One more question...
I saw a youtube video of someone using Celestia, showing where planet-x would be in 2012. Why is planet-x in the software? That is why I was questioning the accuracy of these programs.

Originally posted by HexagonSun
OK thanks a lot for the replies. I'll try both of them.

One more question...
I saw a youtube video of someone using Celestia, showing where planet-x would be in 2012. Why is planet-x in the software? That is why I was questioning the accuracy of these programs.

They could have added it themselves. I added Elenin to my copy of Stellerium.

Here is the data for it. astroblogger.blogspot.com...

It is fairly easy to add objects to both packages. So if somebody worked out an orbit for a new 'planet' it could be added.

'Out of the box' there won't be things like Planet-X or Nibiru in either app.

Regards

I use Stellarium to help set-up my Meade 10" LX200 and it hasn't failed me yet. Anyone that has tried to set up a Meade using the Autostar alignment will tell you it requires a lot of patience and some reliable alternative method for identifying the stars you're using for alignment.

Looking forward to delivery (delayed yet again) of a LS-8SC, no more silly alignment

Originally posted by PW229
I use Stellarium to help set-up my Meade 10" LX200 and it hasn't failed me yet. Anyone that has tried to set up a Meade using the Autostar alignment will tell you it requires a lot of patience and some reliable alternative method for identifying the stars you're using for alignment.

Looking forward to delivery (delayed yet again) of a LS-8SC, no more silly alignment

cant it use GPS?

reply to post by HexagonSun


Where is planet X then? (or where somebody put it), oh, never mind.

reply to post by HexagonSun


The programs, themselves, are accurate. The information users run with them may not be. Like anything else, they take input and turn it into a fancy graphic output. However, there's a common saying in programming: garbage in, garbage out. Or, in this case: Planet X in, Planet X out. All a user has to do is write up an ephemeris file for some imaginary planet or other object, input it into the program, and voila...it will show up.

If Planet X shows up in either of these programs, it's because some 34-year-old living in his parents' basement, whose only job experience is filling Boston Cream donuts from his beanbag chair at home, has nothing better to do than to pull out some random ephemeris data and scare a whole bunch of people by claiming they found Nibiru on Stellarium.

There is a GPS module available but I never bought it having heard the new LS series would have it built in. I believe the newer Autostar units have GPS built in but when I purchased, GPS was a (very) expensive option.

Originally posted by JennaDarling

Originally posted by HexagonSun
OK thanks a lot for the replies. I'll try both of them.

One more question...
I saw a youtube video of someone using Celestia, showing where planet-x would be in 2012. Why is planet-x in the software? That is why I was questioning the accuracy of these programs.

They could have added it themselves. I added Elenin to my copy of Stellerium.

Here is the data for it. astroblogger.blogspot.com...

Ok but where would they have got the orbit from? Is it possible to just make one up?
Here is the video I was talking about...

Originally posted by HexagonSun

Ok but where would they have got the orbit from? Is it possible to just make one up?

It certainly is. Anyone with a working knowledge of orbital parameters can whip up an ephemeris file without even breaking a finger sweat.

A pretty good clue is the word 'fiction' in the titles!

And the YouTube poster has said that he didn't create the orbit - he downloaded it from Celestia Motherlode.

Looking at it it doesn't seem to fit any of the usual dates posted by Nibiru posters. I suspect that it is almost impossible to create an orbit to fit the supposed info!

And I've just noticed that the video was uploaded to YouTube over two years ago!

Regards

reply to post by HexagonSun


That outer orbit is Saturn, (I checked in HD to read the captions), and it's convenient this particular Youtuber doesn't show the entire X orbit, but I don't think he really has to, because from the looks of the arc, there is no way it would take that orbit 3,600 years! Think about it, the orbit of Jupiter would look like the orbit of Mercury in comparison and we know Pluto will orbit the sun in just 248 years to complete it's highly elliptical orbit, way out from Neptune which is 3 times further from the sun as Saturn is.

reply to post by CLPrime

Grunt. Oof. Eeh. Oh. Phew. Did it.



Proper credit is due. ATS member Saint Exupery did the work

Originally posted by Darkstar2
A pretty good clue is the word 'fiction' in the titles!

And the YouTube poster has said that he didn't create the orbit - he downloaded it from Celestia Motherlode.

Oh yeah, I noticed that after I posted the video.

But there's something quite scary about the positions of the "fictional" Planet-X and Jupiter on 7th December 2011 at 14:00. Which is the exact time the Illuminati timer runs out...
www.illuminati.org (press ctrl+A to highlight/select the whole screen)

This picture shows the location of both planets at 14:51, which is as close/accurate as I could get to 14:00 s955.photobucket.com...
Look how close Planet-X is to Jupiter.
Whoever created the fictional orbit must also know about this timer. There's something very weird going on.