The thread for space cadets!

[hobbsyoyo]

NASA and SLS did alright in the latest round of budget negotiations and the SLS program is still 'on track'.

Virgin Galactic had another gliding drop-test following a power ascent last week. They seem to be inching toward beginning service slowly but steadily. I could see suborbital hops being commercially successful, but I have my doubts. I'm also not sure that kind of service will lead to orbital flights for paying passengers, which would really get the industry moving.

Orbital Sciences made their first commercial cargo delivery to the ISS (a mission that was delayed due to the heat-pump failure on the ISS in December).

SpaceX also had their second successful GEO commercial launch. At least I think it was a GEO launch, I can't find a link...

Industry analysts have been saying that the recent descent stage for the Chinese lunar rover is much too big for the job that it performed and have speculated that it in fact had a dual purpose: to land the rover and serve as a testbed for a manned lander. Here are some side-by-side comparison photos. Unfortunately, I don't know how big the Chinese landing platform actually is so it's hard to tell if it is the same scale as the Apollo LM, but they do look similar.

Spoiler :

Of course, form follows function so the similar designs could be purely coincidental much like how the Soviet Buran Shuttle and US Space Shuttles looked very similar. IIRC, there was a Congressional inquiry into Soviet spying at NASA after the Buran was unveiled, however it was found that they looked alike essentially because they did the same thing and there is only so many optimal ways to do the same type of high-performance aerodynamic job.

Here is an article on the Chinese lunar lander and rover.

And here is an article on the development history of the US LM. I haven't read it yet but it looks interesting. It has tidbits on the alternatives that were considered as well as the Soviet N1/L3 lunar lander.

 

[Ghpstage]

Wakey wakey, Rosetta! Rosetta probe awaking to meet comet

Their streaming the wait for a signal live
Link

 

[hobbsyoyo]

^Oh god, that sounds more boring than NASA TV!

 

[Ghpstage]

^Oh god, that sounds more boring than NASA TV!

More or less what I thought, but I haven't seen NASA TV so cricket came to mind .

 

[Winner]

Well, Rosetta has been out in space since 2004. That's 10 years and only now the primary mission is to begin! These guys need to have nerves of steel, I couldn't work like this, knowing that there may be some idiotic software error or a random dust speckle which could kill the probe at any moment.

Hopefully it will work and we'll land on the comet

 

[bhsup]

Supernova spotted by London students

An exploding star has been spotted in the night sky - the closest supernova to Earth that has been seen in decades.

The dramatic event happened 12 million light years away in Messier 82 - known as the cigar galaxy for its shape.

It was discovered by undergraduates during a telescope class at the University of London Observatory.

"One minute we're eating pizza then five minutes later we've helped to discover a supernova. I couldn't believe it," said student Tom Wright.

...

Scientists says it could grow even brighter over the coming weeks.

Astronomers in the northern hemisphere may be able to spot it with binoculars, by looking between the Great Bear and the Little Bear.

For those that are not aware, the big dipper makes up part of Ursa Major (great bear) and the little dipper is Ursa Minor (little bear.) If you're familiar with the Big Dipper, you can easily find the little dipper as the two stars that make up the far end of the pan of the Big Dipper point straight to the North Star, which makes up the tail end of the Little Dipper. That star at the tail end, btw, is the North Star, Polaris. Might be a useful tip to keep in your brain in case you're ever lost in the woods someday since the North Star is stationary in the sky (relatively speaking... it'll shift over the course of centuries.)

Now having blathered on about my limited astronomy knowledge, bear in mind that the Big Dipper is, as I said, only PART of the constellation. I am not sure where between the two this thing fired off, but it should still give a general place to look. Anyway, the bears...

 

[LamaGT]

It takes a lot of imagination to see a bear in those stars...

 

[bhsup]

That's the case with most of the constellations, imho. Orion the Hunter, though, is a bang on easy one to see. Huh, odd though. The image I snagged seems to show a shield and club, but the stars to the right I've always thought were a bow with the one in the upper left being a hand drawing arrow from a quiver.

 

[illram]

I just moved and my apartment has a nice view and lots and lots of big windows. I want to put a telescope in our living room for looking at the city view and maybe the moon and whatever planet happens to wander past my living room window. I have done a lot of research, all of which says that looking at the sky through a telescope in your window is stupid and isn't worth it for a multitude of reasons. However I still want to try and I figure it is worth it for the city views and maybe looking at the moon alone, even if Jupiter is nothing more than a tiny brown blob waving in the heat exiting through my window. I also would like to have something I can maybe take out into the country now and then once my daughter is older and (hopefully) interested in this stuff. Ergo I don't want to buy something that will suck even if I do take it somewhere sensible to use.

I am looking at sub $300 refractors, ideally with one of the handy dandy automatic computer things that point the telescope at what you want to look at, because I am lazy. It looks like Meade and Celestron make these. Any recommendations?

 

[peter grimes]

The coolest thing about the Great Bear constellation is that it's shared among disparate groups. Meaning, there is a cultural connection to this image between people separated by thousands of miles and years.

It is present in both the old world and the new - it's possible that the group of humans that split, leading to the founding population(s) of the Americas had this constellation. In other words, the Great Bear might be tens of thousands of years old.

@illram: my impression is that Meade is generally lower consumer quality - sort of like Black & Decker. I have no way of confirming that, though.

It's possible to rig up a diy tracker, which means you can put more money into better optics. That's what is do, personally. Also, if you're thinking of lugging your kit out of town, bear in mind the portability and stability of the tripod. Cassegrains are good for this because they provide a wide aperture in a compact package which requires a less robust tripod = easier transport.

Bhphotovideo.com is a good place to start research.

 

[illram]

What would making a DIY tracker entail?

 

[peter grimes]

http://m.adorama.com/newui/search.aspx?sku=MDSN102AS

http://m.bhphotovideo.com/mobile/de...0SLT Computerized Telescope&itemcode=CEN90SLT

http://m.bhphotovideo.com/mobile/de... Refractor Telescope Kit&itemcode=MEETX80ATTC

http://m.bhphotovideo.com/mobile/de...90LCM Computerized Telescope&itemcode=CELCM90

http://m.adorama.com/newui/search.aspx?sku=BSG90MCC


Sorry for the sloppy post, I'm on mobile on my lunch break

Here are several scopes that all have tripods & tracking. Focal length is just like camera lenses - 70mm is about human vision, 100 is mild zoom, 200mm is a bit, 300 is wild-life photography/sports range, etc. My uncle has a ~$2500 scope (schmidt-cassegrain) which is just over 2000mm. I'll post a couple photos from that to show you what not to expect from yours

The key things about telescopes are the amount of light they can capture (aperture) and focal length. The small the diameter of the lens(es) the more time it will take to resolve an object. Don't expect to see nebulae or galaxies. Planets will appear as a tiny disk. You WILL see the galilean moons and the Rings of Saturn!

I'll post later about a diy tracker. It requires some minor machining, electronics, computer programming, and about $50 or so. Works best if you have a solid structural mount instead of a tripod. Speaking of which, a tripod is only as good as the surface it's standing on. My uncle's deck floats like a trampoline, so astrophotography is not an option in that setup.

 

[illram]

Thanks, some of those are among the ones I have been looking at, e.g. the Meade and Celestron ones. Do you know how they make that ETX refractor so much shorter than the other long tube refractors?

Is cassegrain a reflector? One reason I like refractor is according to what I read, you basically do not have to do anything to maintain the scope other than not break it. I also hear that refractors are better for planets, reflectors are better for nebulae and so on, which is fine with me.

 

[uppi]

I have done a lot of research, all of which says that looking at the sky through a telescope in your window is stupid and isn't worth it for a multitude of reasons.

That would seem to be a market opportunity: Indoor telescopes!

 

[hobbsyoyo]

That would seem to be a market opportunity: Indoor telescopes!

Disclaimer: Box does not include hot neighbors to spy on.

Sorry illram, I have nothing better to add about telescopes. I don't have one and don't know anything about them. But Dr. Thomas Peter Grimes is the man in the know, as is PlutoniumEmpire.



I read in Space News this last week that the House of Reps passed a bill that simultaneously funds major NASA projects (SLS, Orion, ISS, JWST). So that's good news. On the other hand, the bill also de-authorizes NASA from cancelling anything related to those projects.

I have mixed feelings on that: On the one hand, it's a show of support and virtually a guarantee that the Congress backs these programs and will continue backing them. OTOH, it means NASA has no ability to reign in over-budget, behind-schedule contractors. Of course, NASA admins are deadest against any loss of authority but in this case, I'm not sure it really changes anything. It is not like NASA is ever going to cancel one of their flagship programs and they have all seen massive budget overruns and schedule lapses in the past. I just don't know what to think.

 

[peter grimes]

Illram - here are two photos taken with the same camera - Nikon D3200. The first "wide angle" shot is actually taken at 55mm focal length, which is very close to human vision for that camera.

Spoiler :

The second shot is taken through the telescope 2 minutes later. It's a 2002mm focal length. You'll notice that the image is a little blurry - that's because we apparently never collimated the damn thing after buying it! All these years we've been looking through a scope that has misaligned optics

Spoiler :

That's one thing to consider - the Schmidt-Cassegrains are great for a home setup, but I suspect they are a little tweaky for traveling with. Collimating is actually a very simple procedure if you've got a tracker. We have one, but we've never once gotten it to work properly for some reason.

The scope we have:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...X90_ACF_8_0_203mm_Catadioptric_Telescope.html

Here's a really great barn door tracker:
http://petapixel.com/2013/08/10/bui...ing-mount-for-long-exposure-astrophotography/

The basic principle is that the camera (or telescope) is mounted to one flap of a hinge, the other flap is mounted to the tripod, your roof rack, deck railing, whatever. The axis of the barrel of the hinge should be pointed at the celestial north pole. Then a screw rotates slowly such that the hinge opens - and this keeps the scope aligned with the target.

 

[dutchfire]

I just moved and my apartment has a nice view and lots and lots of big windows. I want to put a telescope in our living room for looking at the city view and maybe the moon and whatever planet happens to wander past my living room window. I have done a lot of research, all of which says that looking at the sky through a telescope in your window is stupid and isn't worth it for a multitude of reasons. However I still want to try and I figure it is worth it for the city views and maybe looking at the moon alone, even if Jupiter is nothing more than a tiny brown blob waving in the heat exiting through my window. I also would like to have something I can maybe take out into the country now and then once my daughter is older and (hopefully) interested in this stuff. Ergo I don't want to buy something that will suck even if I do take it somewhere sensible to use.

I am looking at sub $300 refractors, ideally with one of the handy dandy automatic computer things that point the telescope at what you want to look at, because I am lazy. It looks like Meade and Celestron make these. Any recommendations?

In a city, light pollution will be pretty terrible, and there's little you can do about that. I wouldn't spend too much on a good telescope, because your end result will still be pretty limited.
Our local university regularly has sky gazing evenings for interested people, you might want to look if something similar exists where you are. It'll give you a chance to see something with nice equipment.

For going out into the country, binoculars are probably sufficient, unless you're a real astronomy geek.

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

Thats what sucks about where I'm living now; I'm right on the edge of the suburban/rural transition, and the Minneapolis suburbs are rapidly exploding around me. Pretty soon, I will no longer be able to see my favorite star with just my eyes, since it is close to fifth magnitude.

 

[Crezth]

It takes a lot of imagination to see a bear in those stars...

In between checking Facebook and updating their Twitter, ancient people had very little to do.

 

[peter grimes]

In a city, light pollution will be pretty terrible, and there's little you can do about that. I wouldn't spend too much on a good telescope, because your end result will still be pretty limited.

Light pollution sucks, no doubt about it. But I think people sometimes assume they won't be able to see anything at all, and that's simply not true.

From the sidewalk in front of my building here in New York City I have viewed Venus, Mars, Jupiter + Galilean moons, Saturn + rings (barely), earthshine illuminated crescent moon, transit of Venus (my avatar). That's all in the last 3 years.

Just some 7x50 binoculars.

I can also see both Ursae, Orion, Pleiades (not all, of course!), casseiopeia, and likely a few others if I knew my constellations better.

Light pollution drowns out the dimmer features of the night sky. As long as you enjoy the close bright stuff you're fine. You're not going to image a nebula from the city, or Andromeda. But even in the best viewing you'd need a tracker at least for that level.

@ plutonium: you have a favorite star? What about it makes it your favorite?