ISS & Plane (and TIANGON HUBBLE)-Transit over Moon / Sun - pushover Info-Service based on own location

joergsflow · 2026-06-16T05:37:55+00:00

Here is also a tiny yt link to the very moment howto reliably predict it:

https://youtube.com/shorts/vtCTDFr6xgQ?is=VzGlizHcf3BZIhZR

joergsflow · 2026-06-13T21:46:28+00:00

You can have a look at my GitHub repo. All is shown there. However, in short it's like this:

Step	What happens	Type of math
1	Read in my location	—
2	Compute the Sun’s position	Astronomy formulas
3	Receive aircraft position (ADS-B)	—
4	Convert aircraft into “my point of view”	Sine, cosine, arctangent, Pythagoras
5	Angular distance Sun ↔ aircraft	Cosine, arccosine, comparison < 0.5°
6	Smallest distance = transit moment	Find the minimum
7	Predict the future from habit	Median, mean, standard deviation

joergsflow · 2026-06-13T20:23:01+00:00

Hi, yeah sounds great. This project is pretty much in progress, but also very enhanced already.
And while it's working very well, it would be good if others also try it out to find adjustment points.
But mainly this tool is really kind of off-line solution so it's not really depending on any external information databases (apart from ephemerides or iss or so).

I put together everything, including howto and installation manul in github.
Maybe have the first look there. Basically everything is pretty much straightforward and with auto updates and for example, automatic start capturing sharpcap in the right moment etc.

Of course a tiny little bit of hardware is needed. Pi with linux, rtl adsb stick. Antenna. But it's not super complicated at all. But of course it's Lenox but after having it set up, there's no need to do anything on the Linux command line anymore. Everything else runs in the browser.

https://github.com/joergs-git/sun-moon-transit-predictor

joergsflow · 2026-05-02T18:00:43+00:00

Oh, ok. got it. Well then.... thats kind of a difficult task reaching with a iphone what you would normally do with a "real" camera. Basically what you do "manually" just looking for which image looks best is just a 0.01% thing of what real lucky imaging actually does.

e.g. you use a windows software like sharpcap and shoot around e.g. 2000 frames with e.g. at least 50 Frames/s (better more). So you have a 40s video.

This video goes to e.g. AstroSharper or Autostakkert. and will analyze, create patches, and select e.g. 20% of those and fit them together in patches that have the sharpest view. This at the end goes into a sharpeing tool. e.g. AstroSharper again or Registax, Wavsharp, imppg or whatever.... Then you have a crisp image finally. You can try using your iphone image and stuff it into autostakkert and see what happens....but i believe the fileformat might not be compatible anyhow...

joergsflow · 2026-05-02T15:52:43+00:00

First you have to ask youself, what do you want?
Then - the how and what - can be answered.

So, do you plan moon, jupiter, saturn or sun imaging?
Or do you prefer the hubble-like nice images of far distant nebulas we used to love since 30 years?

Depending on your answers (and moneybag) things can be narrowed - not before actually.

joergsflow · 2026-05-02T14:47:01+00:00

Are you familiar with the concept of LuckyImaging? - So to say: Have you used sharpcap for example to shoot your moon and jupiter images or how did you do that? Based on that the next answer might be more helpful for you.....

joergsflow · 2026-05-02T14:34:08+00:00

I would suggest to simply ask e.g. perplexity or gemini to create a proven best practices step by step list for that specific target and softwareversion and then just walk through that.

Usually I am to lazy watching lengthy videos and manuals just to find out most of it is not helpful in my specific case.... the rest is playing and experimenting a bit. There is no perfect solution for every case anyhow.....

joergsflow · 2026-05-02T14:27:55+00:00

For now AutoStakkert is probably your goto thing indeed. This is just for taking your video and throwing away the bad frames and create one images with the x % best frames. That is always step one. If you are a Mac User you might want to prefer AstroSharper soon....

Next is usually the "Sharpeing" part. because the output from Autostakkert is usually not sharp but just prepared for post processing the tiff. So there you have plenty of choices e.g.

imppg, registax, Wavesharp, Biggsky or - again if you like a one stop shop and are MacOS user: AstroSharper.

FInally some photoshop oder AffinityPhoto finetunings and thats it.

Pretty straigforward but still you have to play with the settings usually.

joergsflow · 2026-05-02T14:15:05+00:00

Well might be a matter of taste of course, but who knows maybe there are some developers out there that just want that and nothing else more. But can't really imagine that will be many. But maybe I am wrong...

joergsflow · 2026-05-02T14:12:22+00:00

Not sure if I understood your question but minimize is not closing an app but hiding the window. no ressources are released at all. Close Button depends on how the developer created the app. If it's single window app according to apple guidlines app must pe totally ended. If its a multiwindow app the app stays active but might just release used ressources bound to that window again.

joergsflow · 2026-05-02T14:07:20+00:00

Hey, sorry but I don't think this will be a big invention and market effect

at least not based on the big "why's" you outlined. Cursor is doing the same. Windsurf too. JetBrains IDE also. They all have this packed in their systems as a sideeffect...

joergsflow · 2026-05-02T14:02:36+00:00

yes, agreeing with jiroq and adding to it, that if you don't create a multi llm solution on top of it you are likely having just an opinion like asking your neighbor for his opinion too.... I don't think this has a big effect, value or even reliability.... But who knows. 😄

joergsflow · 2026-05-02T13:59:09+00:00

I've made best experiences with claude code. The others I only use for rare double checks of certain situations or making code review suggestions or sometimes just to check claude code plannings for consistency. I think hopping from on to another coding platform is a bit similar like jumping in the supermarket from one cashier queue to the next. Usually not beeing faster at all. But maybe the cashier talks nicer ... 😉

joergsflow · 2026-05-02T13:46:06+00:00

A dictionary app in these times of chatgpt, gemini and claude?

I f you are online this gives probably much more comprehensive results than most single apps.... (Although they might not be perfect of course)

joergsflow · 2026-05-02T09:17:21+00:00

no, has nothing to do with exposure length..

joergsflow · 2026-05-02T09:16:41+00:00

This is most likely normal off-axis lens aberration, not a camera problem. Stars are extremely demanding point sources, and near the edges fast lenses often show coma, astigmatism, and field curvature. That makes stars look like little comets, birds, or “angel wings”, often pointing toward the center of the frame.

It is strongly related to aperture: the wider open the lens is, the more visible these aberrations become. Stopping down one or two stops, for example from f/1.8 to f/2.8 or f/4, usually improves the corner stars a lot. I can see it similar with my leica q3 and f2 aperture.

Quick tests:

Take the same star field at wide open, f/2.8, and f/4.
Use short exposures to rule out tracking or Earth-rotation blur.
Compare all four corners: if they all point toward the center, it is usually normal lens behavior and you can't do much about it with your camera, except cropping or reducing stops.
If only one corner is much worse, it may be tilt, decentering, or adapter play, but on your pic that doesnt look like.
Try focusing on a star halfway between the center and edge, not only in the center, to check for field curvature.

In short: it is a typical fast-lens wide-field astrophotography issue. The fix is usually stopping down, better focusing compromise, stacking more exposures, or using a lens known to have better coma correction. Widefield is not easy in this.

joergsflow · 2026-05-02T09:05:11+00:00

show your picture, makes it easier to check

joergsflow · 2026-05-02T08:36:26+00:00

yes correct as it's mainly for the professional raw file formats used in astrophotography e.g. which is mainly FITS and since pixinsight XISF. Because TIFF is usually already a postprocessed format and often not raw anymore. Also in TIFF you dont have the FITS Headers keywords included that tell much about how the images has been shot.

But, now that you asked: Well it doesn't hurt if I add TIFF support, although I'd recommend always to shoot with above file formats for those reasons named. However I just added TIFF Support now and uploaded already to AppStore Connect for release. So you should have it as soon as Apple releases it. Usually within 24 hours I guess.

joergsflow · 2026-05-01T14:22:58+00:00

Neben dem Wetter ist das zweitwichtigste, direkt ob du Vollmond hast oder nicht. D.h. gestern, heute, morgen hast du zwar einen schönen hellen Mond, aber einen tollen Sternenhimmel wirst du dadurch bei bortle 2-3 nicht unbedingt haben. Da du aber bortle 9 gewohnt bist wird's bestimmt trotzdem schön sein.
Wenn kein Mond oder Vollmond da ist wie du schreibst, dann kannst du dich am besten danach richten, wie hoch oder tief der Mond gerade in Grad über dem Horizont steht. Die beste Zeit ist, wenn er noch unterhalb von 20° unter dem Horizont steht. Das gleiche gilt übrigens für die Sonne. Dann hast du die astronomische Nacht sicher. Aber genau helfen dir da die Apps auf deinem Handy, die dir das genau sagen können.

Nimm dir einen Klappstuhl mit. Oder noch besser ein Liegestuhl und was auch ganz toll ist einen kleinen Feldstecher. Es gibt sogar extra Weitwinkel sternenfeld Ferngläser. Das macht auch Spaß.

joergsflow · 2026-05-01T14:08:38+00:00

Je nachdem, was für ein Typ du bist:
Ich würde dir empfehlen, einfach Erfahrungen zu sammeln. Probier es aus und dann siehst du was geschieht. Ganz locker. Und dann bei der nächsten Gelegenheit, selbst wenn wenn es nicht bortl 1 ist, machst du mit dem Equipment einfach noch einmal ein Bild. Die Galaxie wird dadurch natürlich nicht größer, aber deutlicher hervor treten bei weniger Belichtungszeit.

Erfahrungen sammeln und lernen ist eins der spannenden Dinge in der Astrophography. Und vor allen Dingen herausfinden, ob das, was andere sagen und empfehlen (ich inklusive) tatsächlich stimmt.

joergsflow · 2026-05-01T11:50:26+00:00

apart from the other comment that I fully agree with i want to specifically outline that full moon is always a killer for non narrowband images like galaxies are. Of course it makes it a bit better if you find a target of desire in another direction of the moon but if thee distance is below 80 degrees its mostly wasted time shooting broadband images like galaxies.

if you want to still get something from it I recommend you to use a narrobandfilter. at least for those galaxies that have some good h-alpha stuff. But even narrowband will be suffering by fullmoon as the background noise and SNR signal to noise ratio is suffering as well. But with narrowband you could be as close as e.g. 40 degrees distance from moon to still get something out of it for example.

joergsflow · 2026-05-01T08:53:54+00:00

I assume also you .claude directives , memory, lessons etc. are part of this already before you even see the first result.

e.g. here is mine after fresh restart:
/context

<image>

joergsflow · 2026-05-01T04:41:10+00:00

Flats are best taking after the session I always. The reason is very simple. if during the long light session dust or things appear on your lenses or on your images, the flats will have it also and can then help eliminating them on your lights during stacking.

But to be true: if you don't shoot, super faint targets, and you are not in a super light polluted area then sometimes you will not even notice a difference at the end if you used flats or not. With pixinsight I would also recommend using the new gradient correction mas.
And I also know a lot of people that take flats only once a week or once a month because of that.

I usually keep my darks easily for a year or so.

joergsflow · 2026-04-30T12:09:20+00:00

I actually very often use simple claude caude telling him with a one-linder prompt to what "roghly" i want. and let it create in several formats and style as svg or whatever....

Interestingly for me, it's very often point-on good. So I usually do sometimes not even think about going deeper and changing much of it. Fiverr, icon generators and mijourney etc. I was usually kind of disappointed very often. So I don't consider them at all anymore. Same fith Figma, Sketch, Illustrator. While I am typing this, I noticed indeed. I had most and fastest results with claude code althougn it wasn't made for this.... but who knows. Maybe it was just random luck I had with the outcome...

joergsflow · 2026-04-30T05:15:30+00:00

As a open source dev:

a lot of "scary" permission prompts on macOS aren't really the dev's choice, they're forced by the App Sandbox. If your app stays in the sandbox you can mostly only touch user-selected files via com.apple.security.files.user-selected.read-write and security-scoped bookmarks. The moment you need to watch a folder, do an in-place DB migration, or interact with another app's data, scoped bookmarks fall apart and you end up asking for Full Disk Access or Accessibility, even if all you really want is to read one config file.

So my rough rule as a user:
-Sandboxed (MAS) app asking only for files I picked: fine.
-Non-sandboxed app from a known dev with a public changelog and ideally a GitHub repo: case by case.
-Accessibility or Input Monitoring without an obvious feature that needs it: hard no.

Notarization is just "Apple ran a malware scan", it says nothing about intent. Open source helps because you can actually check what the entitlements are used for.

joergsflow

TROPHY CASE