It’s a good few years since I took a photograph through a telescope, so I thought I’d share my latest pics.
The moon’s been presenting itself as a nice late evening target in our Westerly outlook this week, so that’s where I’m starting. These two are the best of the bunch from the last couple of nights (click for bigger pictures):
And in this video clip taken by eyepiece projection, there’s quite a bit of detail visible in the Mare Criseum (Sea-of-Crises) at top left:
I’m particularly pleased with how the videos came out, capturing the fleeting moments of still air you need to look out for when observing live by eye.
The rig is built around an ultra-compact Meade ETX-90 telescope, picked up when I moved to London 10 years ago as a more suitable replacement for my 6 inch reflector. All I’ve added is a connecting tube and T-mount to get the camera hitched up.
Strictly speaking, you don’t need a telescope for astrophotography. Here’s the Plough (Big Dipper) taken with a tripod-mounted standard lens:
And these shots of an Earthlit Moon and Venus are two of my favourites:
I’ve also had some luck in the middle ground using telephoto lenses, where the results have been surprisingly good: like these pics of a lunar eclipse, the International Space Station (ISS), and Jupiter with its moons; all taken with a 400mm lens – in the case of the ISS, hand-held:
18 megapixels of digital zoom helps resolve the ISS into something other than an unrecognisable blob.
But to resolve surface detail in objects like Jupiter, a true astronomical telescope is called for.
I started by simply holding my smartphone to the eyepiece. Not a disaster, but I lost fine detail and the moon took on a weird pinkish bloom.
Attaching a digital SLR directly to the telescope gave better results, with the camera’s CCD (Charge Coupled Device) sensor at the prime focus. I also experimented with an old Logitech webcam with the lens removed, but the background noise was too high and the small sensor size made for a very narrow field of view.
The Canon 7D gives a much nicer image, and can be operated totally remotely via the computer. Live images are fed to the laptop screen for easy focus and exposure control.
With the still pictures, I want to get to grips with the various image processing techniques for stacking multiple images.
Of course, none of this competes with the Hubble Space Telescope, but amateur astrophotography for me is more about the satisfaction of seeing what a particular instrument can do, and learning along the way more about the various objects I’m photographing.
After the moon, my next target is Saturn, with the goal of resolving the Cassini division in the rings; and Jupiter, where I’ll be happy if I can resolve the Great Red Spot.
I’m also planning to take some guided wide-field photos of deep sky objects like the Orion Nebula. But that requires dark skys and the telescope’s drives being sufficiently accurate and strong enough to support a ‘piggy-backed’ camera and lens. All for another day.
The immediate issue, as the videos show, is just how bad the ‘seeing’ can be when observing at dusk from a building that’s been baking in the sun all day. I need to find more open skys.
But for now, with the telescope’s motors whirring away on the balcony, I literally am the armchair astrophotographer.
There were literally a few seconds at sunrise this morning when the clouds stayed off long enough for me to catch this partial eclipse of the sun by the moon from a hilltop in Leicester, UK, at around 8.30.
It clouded over completely within ten minutes – and is now snowing. Fewer clouds would have been nice, but I consider myself lucky all the same. The limb of the moon is clearly visible. Following pics in chronological order.
SEE ALSO MY POST ON THE 20 May 2012 Annular Solar EclipseHERE
Leicester University got a similar view: see here.
And some really nice pics from further afield in the Telegraph here.
Mark Edwards, near Rugby, had similar conditions to mine: here via BBC
With snow now everywhere in the UK, it’s chilly enough to forget some of winter’s less obvious compensations – like the magnificent sunset I snapped this afternoon.
Under these sort of cloud conditions, the intensity of the sun’s light is reduced but its image remains sharp. It may even be possible to see large sunspot groups – if they’re there – with the naked eye. I wasn’t able to see anything with my naked eye on this occasion, but there is a small speck visible in the top left of the disk in the picture above. Through a 400mm lens, that speck looks like this:
The two parts of the spot, the umbra and penumbra at different temperatures, are clearly visible. There are actually a couple more very small sunspots visible on the full disk: click the picture below for a larger image:
All in all, not a bad afternoon’s improvised astronomy.
WARNING: As always with the sun, you should never look at it directly with any kind of optical instrument, and even staring directly at the sun with just your eyes can be dangerous. I took these pictures by pre-focusing to infinity and pointing the camera without looking directly at the sun’s disk, which was low in the sky at sunset and behind cloud. The safest way to view the sun and sunspots is to use a telescope to project their image onto a piece of paper.
JPL, the NASA funded laboratory operated by Caltech, hold an annual public open day in May. What’s less well known I think is that they also run 2 hour (free) tours twice a week for anyone who can book ahead and has appropriate photo i.d. (you’ll probably need to book a month or more in advance).
Hopefully these pics give a flavour of the visit which, thanks to JPL engineer Randy Wesson, was quite excellent.
Truth be known, I’ve been impressed with JPL’s communications since the late 1970s, when they mailed to me in the UK a substantial pack of planet and probe photos. Ah, the things that went on before the internet!
Well worth planning ahead and booking a visit if you’re going to be in the Los Angeles area.
In the museum, full-size models of some familiar probes including Voyager, Cassini, and Galileo were on display.
JPL’s Martian programs were in evidence, including the Mars Exploration Rovers Spirit and Opportunity, and the Mars Science Laboratory Rover due to launch in 2011. Spirit has over-performed against design expectations but is now stuck in the Martian surface: one of the laboratory shots above shows the simulation rig being used to test possible escape strategies.
Good luck I say to anyone setting out to write a popular science book on particle physics. The concepts are weird, the math is hard; and on publishing timescales there’s not a whole lot of new stuff worth talking about.
Anchoring the core physics around a theme is helpful: whether it’s Brian Greene on string theory or Paul Davies on the search for extra terrestrial life or, as in Halpern’s case, the physics, technology and people that have advanced our understanding of the subatomic world.
Collider is a story of impressive people building big machines to smash small particles together to reveal big truths. With CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) limbering up under the Franco-Swiss countryside, the timing couldn’t be better.
At 232 pages before the notes, Collider is manageable without being superficial, and has sufficient pace and variety to engage even those for whom memories of high-school science induce a cold sweat (and for whom leptons is just another brand of tea).
Tracts of quantum weirdness interspersed with biographical vignettes and discussions on collider engineering should ensure a broad spectrum of readers stay the distance. Those led out of their depth, however gently, will find delightful pangs of (at least partial) understanding along the way. Personally, the engineer in me found particular joy in the mix of ethereal concept and enabling technology that particle physics, perhaps more than any other field, embodies. Halpern as a physicist clearly enjoys and respects all aspects of the endeavour. Indeed, Collider stylistically is quite polymathic, even poetic in a Saganish sort of way:
“Alas, summer’s heat sometimes shapes cruel mirages. After modifying its equipment and retesting its data, the HPWF team’s findings vanished amid the desert sands of statistical insignificance. Skeptics wondered if electroweak unity was simply a beautiful illusion.”
Poetry aside, the physics kicks in early with unification, theories of everything (TOE), and the limitations of an incomplete Standard Model.
The better known particles are introduced via their discoverers’ stories: Thompson’s electron, Roentgen’s X-Rays, Becquerel and the decomposition products of uranium, Rutherford’s proton, and Chadwick’s neutron.
By describing relatively simple experiments from the early era, like the measurement of alpha and beta particle size, Halpern gives his subject a tangibility, a graspable air that prepares the mental ground for later complexities.
Following the evolution of particle sources, accelerators, and detectors, Collider takes us through a chronology starting with unaccelerated decay products striking stationary targets, to linear accelerators, to the various circular synchrotron variants like Ernest Lawrence’s Bevatron and Cosmotron, ending with the contra-rotating particle streams and super-cooled magnets of the LHC.
As beam energies increased, detectors became more complex, sensitive, and selective, allowing the existence of myriad new particles to be confirmed or discovered. Cloud and bubble chambers joined hand-held scintillation detectors and Geiger counters in the particle physicists’ armory, and as the forerunners of the giant counters, traps and calorimeters stacked up today in CERN’s ATLAS and ALICE experiments.
Halpern devotes the last three chapters to a discussion of dark matter, dark energy and the possibility of higher dimensions in the context of string, brane and M-theory, where he underlines the mutuality of physics and cosmology in understanding the bang, whimper, crunch or (somewhat depressing) rip possibilities of an uncertain multiverse.
Looking to the future, Halpern suggests the fate of particle physics itself is less certain than current LHC excitement might lead us to believe. If the Higgs Boson, higher dimensions, or mini-blackholes show up, then fine; but if they don’t – where do we go next?’. Larger machines might be an answer, but with costs that were never pocket money now truly enormous, stakeholders, including the physics community, will need to look to their priorities. And as if to say ‘don’t say it will never happen’, Halpern dedicates a whole chapter to the last, some would say terminal, back-step in American particle physics: the 1992 cancellation of the Reagan era Superconducting Super Collider (SSC).
Something Collider really brought home for me is how the nature of particle physics as a discipline and a career has changed. Individual pioneers have been replaced by research groups working on projects staffed by thousands. As Halpern says, if the Higgs were discovered, they’d be no obvious single candidate for the inevitable Nobel prize (except Higgs himself of course). Data filtration and computation as disciplines have become as important as the collider itself: the LHC is served by a global network of computers. That creates the opportunity for remote distributed working and facilitates multi-national involvement, but also means young researchers need to think about the kind of experience, and resume, they’re building. At PhD level already, Halpern says the slow pace of fundamental revelations has required a force-put change in the definition of what qualifies for the degree in particle physics [we can’t all split the atom for the first time, right?].
I’ve one critical note on the history, and maybe I’ve just been reading too many Cold War biographies of late, but I felt Halpern’s analysis underplayed the military motivation and sponsorship behind the adolescent years of particle physics. Given that the topic’s already well covered in works like Gregg Herken’s Brotherhood of the Bomb, and that I walked away from Collider feeling inspired rather than cynical, it’s a choice of emphasis I’m inclined to forgive.
So quibbles aside, Collider is a bit of a page turner – which by the timbre of my opening statements isn’t a bad endorsement. By presenting the obscure realities of particle physics in the context of the machines and people that revealed them, Halpern has for sure made an unfamiliar pill easier to swallow.
What do aurora, noctilucent clouds, sun-dogs, and green flash have in common ? Answer: they’re all examples of rare and interesting visual atmospheric phenomena I’ve totally failed to observe this summer.
Conditions have often been right, even optimal. I’ve made repeated observations with sophisticated equipment: my eyes and a camera, but no joy. The only solace for standing in a field staring at the twilight horizon for nights on end has been the proximity of the local hostelry. On reflection not such a bad deal.
I’ve had better luck in the past, but more so with the moon than the sun. Take the example above of a lunar corona in the Swiss mountains. Snapped between avalanches from an improvised snow-hole during my ascent of the Eiger from the window of the Beau Rivage Hotel in Interlaken.
Lunar coronae are in no way attached to the moon, but are an earthbound visual effect caused by moonlight passing through clouds of small particles. As it’s a diffraction effect rather than a refraction effect, it works even with particles that don’t transmit light, like pollen grains for instance. In this case the effect is most likely caused by water droplets in clouds. The same thing happens with the sun sometimes, the visual ‘corona’ in that case not to be confused with the physical corona that is attached to the sun – so to speak.
Talking of confusion, lunar coronae, or moonbows, are not the same thing as Moon Rings. I made that mistake when I started writing this piece and subsequently had to change the title. A Moon Ring is just a name, but it’s a name specifically reserved for a ring of light caused by the refraction of moonlight through high altitude ice crystals. Because ice crystals are hexagonal in shape, they all refract light at the same angle, which from an observer’s viewpoint produces a ring concentric with the moon at a fixed radius of 22 degrees (for fuller explanation see here). Measured across the sky, that looks like 44 moons put next to each other (the moon takes up roughly half a degree of the 180 degrees of the sky we can see at any time). The ring in my picture is at most ten moon diameters from the moon’s disc, or five degrees. So it ain’t a Moon Ring.
A lunar corona can be more spectacular though, and if the conditions are right, a whole rainbow of colours can spread out from the inner ring, going from red to blue.
On a different tack now….
Apart from the moonbow, this scene includes an almost text-book perfect example of a mountain weather phenomenon known as Mountain Waves and Lenticular Cloud formation.
When air is forced to rise by flowing up the side of a mountain, it can cool down sufficiently, to the dewpoint temperature, where water vapour condenses to form clouds. (That is adiabatic cooling and cloud formation as first explained by Erasmus Darwin. Just sayin’.) When the air descends on the other side of the mountain, it warms up to above the dewpoint and the cloud disappears, the water drops vapourising again. The isolated cap left on top of the mountain is a lenticular cloud.
That said, what I think we’re seeing in the photo here is a special circumstance for lenticular cloud formation that I first came across as a trainee private pilot. In this case, air flowing over the mountains is trapped under a higher layer of stable air, causing standing waves to be set up, with lenticular clouds peeling off the cusps.
The same conditions generate a series of turbulent rotating eddies lower down on the lee side of the mountain which can cause so-called ‘rotor clouds’ or ‘roll clouds’ to form. It’s best not to fly anywhere near areas of rotating turbulence, so these clouds are good visual warnings for pilots to take special care (although as the mountain wave effect can extend 30 or forty miles downwind of a large range, you’re just as likely to feel the warning).
For a close-up view of a lenticular cloud, here is a lenticular altocumulus I snapped this summer floating off the leeward side of the San Gabriel Mountains in California. The bulges are caused by rotating air under the cloud.
That then about wraps it up for mountains and moonbows. Just to leave you in the true spirit of transparent open-book research and a view of the laboratory where the Swiss studies were made, complete with proof of location. And flowers.
Update November 2011 – Here’s another lunar corona; this time with Jupiter and taken from Kingston upon Thames:
I’ve been amusing myself this evening scanning old black & white negatives and colour slides into the computer: strips of film that have languished in negative files on top of cupboards for years. It’s a boring process, but punctuated with the reward of finding something I thought was lost, or a negative that was never printed.
Some of the pictures go back to 1973, and are an unwelcome reminder of my antediluvian origins. But they’re also revealing of the state of technology at the time, and what I was doing with it. All the black and white pictures in this post are from the archive.
The photographic process itself is a prime example: the relative time and cost of developing and printing my own films being one reason many pictures haven’t been properly seen until now.
Things sure have moved on. I asked my 15 year old nephew if he’d ever used film, and after clarifying I didn’t mean video tape, he confirmed he’d never touched the stuff. Silly of me to ask really.
Regrettably, some of the more fun, not to say embarrassing, pictures from the archive are not suitable for public display. But I’m happy to inflict the sci-tech oriented discoveries – starting today with these pics of my first serious astronomical telescope.
The main components were bought in 1977, and this photo of the telescope in its observatory is probably from 1979. The instrument is a classic Newtonian reflector of a design that hasn’t changed in hundreds of years. It has a 6″ primary mirror, and was built by Fullerscopes of London, the same company that made Patrick Moore’s fork-mounted 15″. The mount is a Fullerscopes Mk III German Type equatorial. The ancillaries: motor drives, plinth, finder, camera attachments, and the observatory itself are home built.
To be accurate, this was my second telescope, the first being an entirely home-built open-tube reflector in an altazimuth type cradle. Constructed almost entirely from sturdy aluminium bar stock – largely because that’s what I had – it all proved a little unwieldy. No photos survive – probably for the best.
The 6″ was mainly used for visual observations. I later added an improved synchronous motor drive to the Right Ascension (RA) axis to make the instrument more suited to astrophotography, but as that happened in 1980, just before I left home for university and ever on, that feature was little used.
Warning – Telescope building aficionados, engineers, (and all other interested readers….!) only
Assembling, augmenting, or building a telescope from scratch is an excellent engineering, as well as scientific, training. To save money, I purchased only the RA axis worm drive from Fullerscopes, with a view to reverse engineering it and building a copy for the declination axis. Operations to do that included aluminium casting, worm screw cutting, and making my own integrated roller ball-bearings on the worm shaft (to remove any trace of play, and hence instrument movement). Thankfully, my brother was building a model steam engine at the time, so a good selection of machine tools were available around the home.
I realise now that some of these operations were quite sophisticated engineering tasks, particularly for a 15 year old – probably why things didn’t always turn out as planned. I struggled to reproduce the 4.5″ phosphor bronze worm wheel (although the trick for cutting a worm wheel, by winding a tool-post mounted wheel into a spinning tap mounted between lathe centres, I find fascinating and elegant), and instead adapted an ex-military gun-sight for the declination axis. That said, the worm unit I’d made was better than the original, and eventually replaced it.
The RA motor connected to the drive worm via a gearbox, also homemade using mecano gears mounted in a solid block of steel, the centre of which had been milled out on the lathe and fitted with individually turned and reamed phosphor-bronze bushes. The whole drive assembly was bolted to the plinth and linked to the final worm gear on a universal joint. This all worked fine, unless the telescope was incorrectly counter-balanced, when teeth would expensively shear off the little mecano gear wheels.
Despite these set-backs, or perhaps because of them, it’s my firm belief that this activity set me up well to tackle life’s later challenges: like building my own research equipment and mending the car.
The telescope’s plinth and observatory have their own stories. I’d read somewhere that telescopes need a rock-solid mount, and that plinths mounted in concrete are superior to tripods. In the photo, you can just see the top of a 5ft x 5″ x 1/4″ steel tube, 2 ft of which is buried in a 3ft square cube of concrete. The base of the observatory is covered in paving stones laid on sand, with a gap around the central concrete block to prevent footstep vibrations reaching the plinth. The plinth was capped by a 7″ square x 3/8″ thick oxy-acetylene welded plate. I remember this well, as the welder had to commission an unusually large nozzle for the job. This was of course total overkill for a 6″ reflector; but I suspect I harbored secret fantasies of some day owning a more substantial instrument.
The observatory was made from resin bonded plywood on a pine frame. Originally designed as a run-off shed, I switched to the fold-off roof idea when the weight of the structure dictated a need for major railroad-type work adjacent to the observing area – effectively doubling the project’s footprint. In practice, a south-facing aspect and relatively low observatory walls meant the compromise solution made little impact on sky visibility. A telescope mounted permanently out of doors is always ready for action – an important consideration with UK weather – with no need to wait for thermal stabilisation of the optics or to spend time aligning the equatorial mount. It goes without saying that, like all the world’s great observatories, it was painted white.
I keep saying ‘was’, because Mount Tim was decommissioned in the early nineties, such that you’d never know the paved area had ever been anything other than a regular garden patio. Amusingly, the plinth proved immovable, save for the use of explosives, so was instead ceremoniously tipped on its side in a shallow grave. I sometimes wonder what a future Tony Robinson might make of it.
Coming back to Fullerscopes. Buying a telescope in 1976 was not like popping down the road to Curry’s and carrying it home under your arm. When my father and I first visited Telescope House on the Farringdon Road, we were greeted by Dudley Fuller in person. He’d formed the company a few years earlier by buying out the historic but failing maker of optical instruments – Broadhurst & Clarkson Ltd.
We talked about my telescope-making efforts to date, and what I needed from Fullerscopes. He was wary of my plans to attach one of his diagonal mirrors to my homemade spider using glue (EvoStick No.2 – if I must!), but we agreed a package – including a Fullerscopes spider – and placed the order. (The spider sits in the top of the telescope tube and holds a diagonally placed mirror that diverts light into the eye-piece.) A month later, I returned to man-handle this tribute to Sir Isaac through the streets of London and back to Leicester – by train.
Telescope building was still being done in a traditional way. Fuller explained that all the brass tube-work on his telescopes was hand made using Broadhurst & Clarkson’s original equipment. That meant the brass sheet was rolled on an antique mill by hand, then soldered along the seam. On my telescope, the solder seam is visible on the brass focusing mount and Barlow lens adapter tube. The economics of this, particularly on parts destined for smaller instruments like my 6″, and at a time when Japan was starting to export mass-produced alternatives, must have been unsupportable. I’m guessing that’s the reason the Farringdon road shop closed down in 2005 and Telescope House moved out of town. It looks like they’re still trading though, with Patrick Moore’s endorsement into the bargain. (Telescope House website). But they don’t seem to be making their own instruments any more – please correct me if you know different.
There’s a related and slightly surreal twist to the story here, concerning my move to London in 2000. Needing a more portable telescope for out of city viewing, I visited Fullerscopes, now the UK agent for Meade Instruments Corp. of the USA, makers of the compact Cassegrain-Maksutov telescope I was after. The odd thing was, when I got chatting to the guy who handed over the box, it turned out he had personally been involved in making the brass-work for my 6 inch reflector 24 years earlier! It’s a nice story.
Anyhow, I hope that wasn’t completely boring and self-absorbed. If nothing else, it may have given you an insight into what I was getting up to in my formative years. You know, when I should have been out doing drugs, smashing up cars, and getting my underage girlfriend pregnant – like a normal teenager 🙂
Don’t forget to check back for the next exciting edition of Out Of The Archives……
Having unaccountably failed to spot comet McNaught on its recent visit, I was compensated last week by a meeting with this artificial comet created at the Griffith Observatory .
Demonstrator Grace is holding the tangible product of last Friday’s ‘Let’s Make A Comet’ event, held in the Griffith’s Leonard Nimoy Event Horizon Theatre. And I have to say, it was one of the best half hour’s worth of science communication I’ve seen.
I think the shear fun value had a lot to do with it. And although the show was geared to a young audience, there was no dumbing down of the science or talking down to the kids. Presentation style and jokes were witty rather than silly, patronising, or childish; and references to popular culture, like Harry Potter and the Transformers movie, were entertaining but topic-related. The professionalism of the two demonstrators / presenters really made the show, and it’s taking nothing away from the scientific knowledge and skills these guys have, to say they were genuine entertainers.
The comet was made by mixing together common substances containing the elements found in real comets. So that meant shaking up water, sand, carbon, and cleaning fluid (ammonia) together with dry-ice, or frozen CO2, in a plastic bag; the details are here on Griffith’s Teacher Resources page.
I liked the hidden plan to pull an audience in on the promise of seeing a comet being made, then to educate them on broader themes and related topics; the practical demonstration happening only at the end of the session. There was nothing sinister in that though, and it all went down well with the bulk of the show taken up with a mix of talk, slides, videos and Q&A breaks. A lot of ground was covered, ranging from the chemical and physical requirements for life, to how the solar system is thought to have formed, and a pretty good introduction to astrobiology – including a discussion of extremophile life-forms.
Lecture theatre events are inevitably going to be a little one-way, but there was good engagement through the Q&As and frequent questions back to the audience. And it’s not like this was a public consultation on the risks of nanotechnology, the material being relatively uncontroversial.
Having the finished item available for inspection after the show was a big plus, and I’m sure the memory of it will for many people be a lasting anchor for the science they picked up.
Here are the three pictures I got early this morning before cloud set in.
The last in the series was taken at 10:35 UTC, about an hour before greatest eclipse at 11:38 UTC – when more than 50% of the moon was in eclipse. Location – Los Angeles. I suspect the colour fringing in the last shot is a camera artifact, rather than an atmospheric refraction effect, as the frame is exposure enhanced (to counter a rapidly misting sky). :
Here’s a nice sequence of exposures showing the International Space Station passing in front of the moon. As seen from Los Angeles, 21.16 hrs on 23/06/10.
There’s no fixed interval between frames – just as fast as I could click, which is about 1 per second. Canon 30D 100-400 L zoom at 100mm. 0.6 seconds, f 7.1. 800 ASA.
Here’s an enhanced pic, just to bring out the stars in Scorpio, including red supergiant Antares at lower left. M4 and M80 are invisible in the flare there somewhere.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.