Take Astrophotos With Your iPhone Using the AstroClip-Maybe

With your help, the iPhone 4 can be an astrophotographic tool.

In a rather interesting story I just bumped into on Universe Today, Matthew Geyster is seeking to launch a project that will allow iPhone 4 users to couple their phones onto any 1.25” telescope eyepiece in order to take simple astrophotos through the eyepiece itself.

Unfortunately, there's just one problem: money.

Getting things patented and then produced is a rather expensive process that is beyond the scope of most individuals, including Geyster. As a result of this financial problem, Geyster has pitched his AstroClip on the website Kickstarter, which allows cash-strapped inventors to pitch ideas to the public and visitors to contribute money towards a project in amounts ranging from $1 to over $500.

So far (on 7/29/2011) there are 36 days in the cash drive left, but over $12,000 more needs to be collected in order to make this cool idea become a reality. Want to help? Go here and kick in some cash!

The full story:
Universe Today

The AstroClip:
Official Website



 

Humble requests:

If you found this informative (or at least entertaining), help me pay my bills and check out my Examiner pages for space news, cleveland photography, national photography, and astronomy for more great stuff.

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Camera Lenses 101: Macros (With a Complete List for Every Manufacturer)

Tokina's 100 f2.8 ATX-PRO Macro is an excellent choice for both digital and FF/film shooters.

When looking at extreme close up (macro) photos, two reactions are quite common: “that's cool!” and “how can I do that?” Well, macro photography is undeniably cool (but challenging) and as for how to do it, the answer is simple: buy a macro lens.

Okay great, what is a macro lens?

Technically speaking, macro lenses are lenses that can focus to extremely close distances, so close that they will reproduce the subject on the film/sensor at its true life size. In photographer jargon, being able to do this gives a lens either a 1:1 reproduction ration or a 1.0x life size magnification, both of which mean the same exact thing. To put it in a visual term, if you shot a macro shot of a penny on a film camera, Lincoln's head would be the same size on the negative that it is in real life.

As for what types of macro lenses are out there, there are two common sizes: the 100mm f2.8s and the 200ish f3.5s, though there are other focal lengths on the market, too, some as short as 35mm. The good news about buying a macro lens is that, because of the demanding nature of macro photography, one would be hard pressed to find an optically bad macro. Generally speaking, macro lenses are sharp to diamond dust saw sharp from widest aperture across the entire frame and virtually free of distortion. The bad news: because macro lenses are such precision optics, their price reflects the workmanship. A macro lens will typically sell for at least $400 (the 200mm f4 Micro Nikkor is nearly $1,800 new).

With a macro lens, the minimum focusing distance is something that needs to be considered. As with all lenses, minimum focus distance is measured from the film/sensor plane to the subject, not end of lens to subject. So, if you have a 100mm macro lens with a minimum focus distance of 11 inches, the subject will actually be about only 6 inches from the front of your lens. Needless to say, longer is better because, the closer you get, the more of your own light you block (and the more timid insects you scare away). While there is no fix for scaring subjects, the light situation can be remedied not with expensive macro lighting rigs, but with white paper used to reflect light onto your subject.

Unfortunately, there are a lot more “macro” lenses than the 1:1 variety.

Whether you choose to call it a marketing tool or deceptive advertising, manufacturers in all industries often like to stretch the capabilities of their products to the breaking point. Photographic companies are no exception. One of the biggest stretches comes in the area lenses and specifically, their close-up capabilities.

To put it simply, unless the lens can do a 1:1 reproduction ratio or a 1.0x magnification factor, it is not a macro, sorry. Unfortunately, this traditional definition of macro seems to be disregarded most of the time today.

Even in the old days, manufacturers were willing to stretch the definition of “macro” to its limit. To find proof of this, look on KEH's website for manual focus/early AF macro lenses. Chances are that a lot of them will only give 1:2 reproduction or .5x magnification (half life size), you pick your terminology. Why the macro designation? Simple, with a dedicated extension tube, all such lenses are capable of true macro photography. The reason such lenses were sold was to appeal to the poor macro shooter. A 1:2 “macro” plus extension tube was cheaper than a true macro.

Unfortunately, come 2011, things have gotten far, far worse. Now, manufacturers are willing to label anything around a 1:3 reproduction or a 0.3x magnification power as a macro. Yes, while a lens of these lesser closeup powers can be somewhat useful, they pale in comparison to dedicated macro lenses. On top of that, most of these “macro” lenses are zooms, which means that, unlike a dedicated macro prime, that can be optimized for a single focal length, they will often be soft and anything but sharp across the entire frame, even when stopped down. On top of this, there are all kinds of thread-on “macro filters” out there, none of which can both turn your standard lens into a true macro while retaining dedicated macro lens quality. Below, you'll find a list of true 1:1 Macro Lenses.

Third-Party:

Tokina 35 f2.8
Tokina 100 f2.8
Tamron 60 f2 VC (crop only)
Tamron 90 f2.8
Tamron 180 f3.5

Sigma 70 f2.8

Sigma 105 f2.8

Sigma 105 f2.8 OS
Sigma 150 f2.8
Sigma 150 f2.8 OS
Sigma 180 f3.5

Manufacturer:
Canon 60 f2.8 (Crop only)
Canon 100 f2.8
Canon 100 f2.8L IS
Canon 180 f3.5L

Nikon 40 f2.8 (crop-only)

Nikon 60 f2.8
Nikon 85 f3.5 VR (crop only)
Nikon 105 f2.8
Nikon 105 f2.8 VR

Nikon 200 f4

Olympus Zuiko 50 f2 (crop-only)

Olympus Zuiko 35 f3.5 (crop-only)

Panasonic-Leica 45 f2.8 Macro Elmarit (crop-only)

Pentax smc DA 100 f2.8 WR
Pentax smc DA 100 f2.8

Pentax smc DA 50 f2.8

Pentax smc DA Limited 35 f2.8

Sony 100 f2.8 Macro SAL

Sony 30 f2.8 DT Macro SAL SAM (crop-only)

Sony 50 f2.8 Macro SAL

Sony 30 f3.5 SEL (E-Mount, crop-only)

Moral of the story: be sure to read the fine print, not just the key features when buying a lens as, more often than not, macro is no longer macro today.


For more info:Macro Photography Primer

Humble requests:

If you found this informative (or at least entertaining), help me pay my bills and check out my Examiner pages for space news, cleveland photography, national photography, and astronomy for more great stuff.

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Examiner for Week of 7/17

A little bit late but, considering nothing new's gone up this week, it's time for an Examiner roundup.

Space news:Parade Magazine looks at America' future in space
Dawn 'exceeds wildest expectations'
John Glenn turns 90
Atlantis lands, space shuttle program ends

Cleveland photography news:
SLR Gear tests Olympus 12mm f2
Local wolf caught on camera?
Pictures and Moon hoax theories
 

National photography news:
Man survives 15,000 foot plunge, all caught on camera
Teen claims to ride bike on water
Undeniable photographic proof we went to the Moon
'Bottomless pit' sinkhole beneath bed
D300s vs. D7000: which is better?

 

Cleveland astro news:

Featured sight for week of 7/17: Mercury
Last chance to see Venus is now
John Glenn at 90
See the Sea of Tranquility



 Humble requests:

If you found this informative (or at least entertaining), help me pay my bills and check out my Examiner pages for space news, cleveland photography, national photography, and astronomy for more great stuff.

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

The Shuttle Era is Over, Now What?

Atlantis touches down, thus ending the space shuttle program on July 21, 2011.

It has been just over a day since space shuttle Atlantis touched down for the final time, thus ending its 33-flight career and NASA's space shuttle program as a whole. So, as NASA prepares to strip down its final shuttle in preparation for turning it into a museum exhibit while beginning the process of handing out the pink slips, what does America's future in space hold?

The simple answer: a trip to an asteroid by 2025 and to Mars by 2030. The complex answer: no one really knows for sure.

Back in 2004, President Bush introduced the Constellation Program, which was designed to return Americans to the Moon with the ultimate goal of establishing permanent bases on the Moon, which could later serve as launching platforms into deep space. With this new vision in mind, NASA set to work, spending billions and billions of dollars in developing the technology that would not only take Americans back to the Moon, but help them stay there for the long-term.

Unfortunately, unlike in the past, new presidents today often mean complete overhauls of policy, space exploration being no exception.

Within a year of coming into office, President Obama decided to kill Constellation, focusing on a more ambitious goal of sending astronauts to Asteroid and then to Mars. Result: all of the money, time, and effort spent on Constellation might as well have been wasted. However, this sudden cancellation did not sit well with some politicians, who managed to resurrect some parts of Constellation, namely the heavy-lift rocket, which is now set to be utilized for the Obama space plan.

The reason for going to the Moon was more about Earth politics than anything else.

However, come 2012 or 2016 after Obama leaves office, who's to say that the entire focus for America's future in space may not be shifted again?.Between 1961 when John F. Kennedy declared that Americans would go to the Moon and 1969 with the Apollo 11 landing, there were 3 presidents, yet one singular focus for NASA: going to the Moon. Now, though, without a Cold War rivalry and the public fascination with all things space (and not to mention today's serious financial problems), space exploration is often seen as a waste of money, never mind the fact that our survival as a species depends on traveling into space and colonizing the universe.

Apparently, some people just can't think in the long-term, which brings us to our current dilemma: not having any way to get Americans into space for the foreseeable future.

One day, the Sun will devour Earth, so, unless we want to go extinct, we must travel far into space to find a new home.

Yes, there are avenues to get into space, namely spacecraft built by private companies. Unfortunately, despite the vast knowledge to be found in these aerospace firms, the resources simply aren't there in order to get us back into space in the near future. Evidence: it has been nearly 7 years since the inaugural X-Prize for the creation of the first privately-owned space vehicle was claimed, yet commercial spaceflights are anything but routine. As of now, the best-case scenarios are for regular commercial spaceflights by 2016 at the earliest, which does not bode well for America's future in space.

As for NASA, its focus is on deep space exploration (the plan is for the private sector to take over the low-Earth orbit missions) and NASA is supposedly in the process of finalizing plans for a heavy-lift rocket, which should, if all goes as planned, be flying by 2016. However, as already addressed, budget woes are a huge concern when it comes to government-backed spaceflight. If anyone high up in the government is reading this, here's a suggestion: how about cutting off all monetary aid to America-hating nations and giving that money to NASA instead? Unfortunately, such a move is doubtful.

Bottom line: America has no clear picture of its future in space. Yes, there was another huge lapse in NASA's manned spaceflight program that lasted from 1975 (Apollo-Soyuz) to 1981 (Columbia's first flight, but there was a coherent plan in 1975 to build the space shuttle. Now? Well, if past events are any indication of the future, NASA's goals seem to get changed with every occupant of the White House. Obviously, if America is to become the dominant player in space one again, NASA needs a coherent, long-lasting vision, which should be going to Mars by 2030.

Humble requests:

If you found this informative (or at least entertaining), help me pay my bills and check out my Examiner pages for space news, cleveland photography, national photography, and astronomy for more great stuff.

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

The Sorry State of NASA 42 Years After the Apollo 11 Moon Landing

Neil Armstrong about to take his first step on the Moon.

It was exactly 42 years ago today that man accomplished his greatest feat of exploration: landing a man on another world, the Moon. Since Neil Armstrong's “giant leap for mankind,” 11 other men would set foot on the Moon before the U.S. government decided to pull the plug on the Apollo Program, and thus man's greatest adventure.

Now, 42 years later, NASA finds itself unable to even launch astronauts into orbit, much less to the Moon. So, where did things go wrong?

Answer: Earth politics.

In 1961, president John F. Kennedy famously declared that America would land a man on the Moon and return him to Earth before the end of the decade. While that may have been just talk in another time, before or after, in the 1960s, it was serious business as the Cold War was on the verge of becoming a hot one. While coming about with neutral aims, rocketry quickly became a military science. By the 1950s and the advent of nuclear weapons, the capabilities of a given nation's rockets was a symbol of that country's power. The longer the rockets could fly, the greater the capability of delivering atomic death over vast distances. When the USSR launched Sputnik into orbit in 1957, it was obvious that Soviet rocketry was ahead of American capabilities. Theoretically, with rockets capable of launching payloads into orbit, the Soviets could rain death from the heavens of any city in the world. So, in order to keep the balance of power eve, American scientists had to work fast to equal their Soviet rivals. And they did. However, after the end of the Space Race, which America won by landing Apollo 11 on the Moon, the desire to compete subsided to the point that going to the Moon for the sake of science was seen as a waste of money. By the mid 70s, Americans and Russians would cooperate on the first international space mission.

Oh, yes, then there's the question of money.

In 1961 when President Kennedy made his famous pledge, the economy was on the upswing, a trend that would continue through 1966. . However, even as the first Apollo rockets were lifting off into space, there was trouble below. By the late 60s, the cost of President Johnson's Great Society welfare programs and the Vietnam War were combining to overburden even America's economy,. By the end of the decade, America was into a recession that would last, with small rises but many more plunges, into the 1980s. Simply put, the money as well as the public's appetite for space exploration (remember, we won the Space race with Apollo 11) dried up. In fact, in 1966, the first year there were signs of sputtering in the economy, NASA's total budget share of 5.5% of the total federal budget was achieved. By the mid 70s, it would be less than 1%, where it remains today.

Atlantis lifts off for the final shuttle mission. How long will we have to wait to see Ameicans fly into space again?

So, as space shuttle Atlantis prepares to land after the final space shuttle mission as I am writing this, so goes America's status as the dominant power in space. Yes, there will still be launches to compliment the myriad of satellites we already have up in space, there is an undeniable loss of prestige at the inability to send humans into orbit. Even worse, there is no successor to the space shuttle in the near future, either. President Obama already said that he wants to have humans on Mars by 2030 but, at the rate we're going with partisan politics and budget woes, not to mention a possible default, America's long-held dominance of space is becoming a thing of the past and, with every passing day without an all-American manned mission, will be even harder to reassert in the future.

Humble requests:

If you found this informative (or at least entertaining), help me pay my bills and check out my Examiner pages for space news, cleveland photography, national photography, and astronomy for more great stuff.

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Examiner for Week of 7/10

Another week done, another Examiner roundup arrived.


 

Space news:

Nibiru and 2012
The billion Mp camera
Comet melts near Sun
No Harry Potter for astronauts
Dawn begins to orbit Vesta

National photography:Fan nearly falls out pf stands at Home Run Derby
See your favorite All Stars in high school
Father-son picture 30 years in the making
Rhode Island anti-sexting law a bad idea
Facebook photos diagnose deadly disease

Cleveland photography:Cleveland-area cougar caught on camera?
More from inside Anthony Sowell's house
Use SLR lenses on your iPhone
SLR Gear reviews Olympus 12mm f2
Nikon announces 40mm micro 




Cleveland astronomy:
Featured sight for week of 7/10: Mercury rising
Happy birthday, Neptune
Stargazing weather for July
Dawn probe set to orbit Vesta tonight
Dawn probe successfully enters into Vestal orbit

Humble requests:

If you found this informative (or at least entertaining), help me pay my bills and check out my Examiner pages for space news, cleveland photography, national photography, and astronomy for more great stuff.

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Camera Lenses 101: Ultrawides

The Tokina 17mm f3.5 ATX-PRO (review coming soon!). with a 105 degree field on film/FF, this more than qualifies as an ultrawide optic. 

 

For some people, standard range lenses just don't give enough wiggle room when it comes to making pictures. After all, you can only move forward or back up so much, and this is only for close subjects. For people wanting to capture wide-open vistas of land, there is only one route to go: ultrawide avenue.

When it comes to market share, the ultrawide segment is quickly becoming a crowded arena, especially with all of the third-party optics horning in on the name brand manufacturers. Now more than ever before, there is ample choice of ultrawide optics (at least ultrawide zooms) to satisfy various photographic needs and photographer preferences. Unfortunately, though, one feature not seen in ultrawide lenses is a small price tag. Expect to pay at least $400 for a crop-only ultrawide and even more for a FF/film-capable one.

So, if you're not put-off yet, read on.

When buying an ultrawide lens, three main factors come into mind: how wide do I want to go, do I mind a bulbous front element, how much range do you want, and does aperture matter? Being a rapidly maturing, diverse market, the ultrawides offer all of these options. Want a stabilizer? Forget it, unless your camera has in-body stabilization, ultrawides don't offer this feature. Classes defined, let's see what we have in the ultrawide market.

First up: the slow lenses. Normally the same aperture as the kit lens (f3.6-5.6) or even slower at the wide end, the slow ultrawides are the “bargain” models, though by no means inexpensive. The cheapest crop offerings here typically run around $450, by no means a cheap investment, especially when you consider the often very limited (max 2x zoom ratio at most) range of such a lens. More than anything else, it is this limited usability that keeps many people from buying an ultrawide.

Next up: the optical design. The widest of the wide lenses typically employ bulbous front elements, which is very bothersome to some people for two reasons: lack of ability to use a protective filter and the high tendency to flare thanks to the exposed front element. While a deterrant to buying at first, these problems can be overcome simply by being careful and watching where the light sources are when you frame photos. If one can learn to live with this optical design, one can get the widest of the wides, namely the FF Sigma 12-24 and crop-only 8-16.

For those craving fast aperture at wide angle, Tokina is the lens maker for you as it produces a crop-frame 11-16 f2.8 and a FF-capable 16-28 f2.8. If budget is not a concern, then go for manufacturer optics (at least with FF as no other manufacture besides Tokina makes a f2.8 ultrawide for crop). Of course, with aperture, one pays a price premium but, if indoor architecture or nightscapes are your thing, there is simply no other way to go.

Now onto primes.

Looking at manufacturer lineups, it's funny that there is always a bulbous 14mm f2.8 prime in every major manufacturer's lineup. When it comes to these lenses, the problem of an unprotected front element comes into play once again but, thanks to it being a prime, the cost is lower than it would be for a f2.8 zoom. On top of the lower cost, with the exception of the Sigma 12-24 and Nikon 14-24, 14mm is wider than all the other wide zooms can go. The down side? Most of these lenses, save the Canon 14L II, are of rather old designs. Basically, fast ultrawide primes aren't seen as that cool anymore thanks to the advent of the zoom, which means that the zooms is where manufacturers focus their R&D resources.

In short, if you are an indoor architecture shooter or a landscape fanatic, an ultrawide lens is just your thing, never mind the price!

Note: for all of their cost, one area where most ultrawide lenses perform rather poorly is with distortion. Basically, getting a lens to focus in just over 1 cm and produce straight lines is a true test for opticians, one that can rarely be achieved with perfection. So, if you buy an ultrawide lens, be sure to try and avoid getting straight lines near the periphery of your picture as, if they look slightly bowed out, you're not seeing things, it's the lens. The good news is that such distortion can usually be fixed quite easily in post-processing.

 

Humble requests:

If you found this informative (or at least entertaining), help me pay my bills and check out my Examiner pages for space news, cleveland photography, national photography, and astronomy for more great stuff.

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Examiner for Weeks of 6/28, 7/3

Two weeks have passed without an Examiner roundup, so I'm making up for it this week. Enjoy.

For more space news:
Asteroid to give Earth a close shave
How to see the close encounter asteroid
Comet PANSTARRS could be spectacular
Space junk gives ISS crew a scare
Solar eclipse today40% chance of Northern Lights tonight
Tonight's sky features mini solar eclipse
Fireworks and the cosmos
Earth reaches aphelion
New study: Sun to blame for climate change
NASA sues astronaut over Moon camera
Final shuttle launch set for Friday
Atlantis blasts off for the final time
See the space shuttle from your house

National Photography
Meet the world's ugliest dog
Billy the Kid photo sells for $2.3 million
Shark jumps surfer
'Mother ship' over London
China embarrassed by Photoshop
Newsweek Princess Diana cover creates controversy
Photographing fireworks
More photographing fireworks
Dust Storm Engulfs Phoenix
The royals come to the U.S., paparazzi under scrutiny
Monkey steals camera, takes self portraits
Photograph a space shuttle flyby

Cleveland Photography:Tokina announces FF-capable 17-35 f4
Inside Anthony Sowell's house
Sigma's newest 105 macro to hit stores soon
Photographing July 4 fireworks, part 1
Photographing July 4 fireworks, part 2
Fuji hints at interchangeable lens camera
Traffic cam tickets wrong driver
Watch last shuttle launch on live video feeds
How to photograph the space shuttle

Cleveland Astronomy
Solar Eclipse Today
The July Sky
Featured sight for week of 7/3: fireworks and the cosmos
The Sun at its farthest
Naked eye astronomy for July
July stargazing weather
Final shuttle launch set for today
See the shuttle from your backyard


 

Humble requests:

If you found this informative (or at least entertaining), help me pay my bills and check out my Examiner pages for space news, cleveland photography, national photography, and astronomy for more great stuff.

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

The Beginning of the End for NASA

The last shuttle launch was yesterday, and thus goes America's ability to launch astronauts into space. 

Well, it's official: the United States will no longer be capable of launching astronauts into orbit for the foreseeable future, thus ending half a century of U.S. manned spaceflight and 42 years of U.S. space dominance, which began following the Apollo 11 landing on the Moon. So, now that space shuttle Atlantis is on its way into orbit, what does America's future in space hold?

Answer: no one really knows.

Right now, the state of NASA is not a good one. For the first time in the space agency's 50+ year existence, it finds itself without a clear direction for manned missions. When organized in 1958, NASA's main aim was to get America into space as soon as possible. In 1961, the focus, thanks to President John F. Kennedy, became landing men on the Moon and returning them to Earth. With the conclusion of the Space Race with Apollo 11, public interest in the final frontier began to wane. However, even as Apollo was winding down, NASA had simultaneous plans on the drawing board for the coming decades. First to become reality was Skylab, which pushed the concept of long-term spaceflight to the limit. Also on the drawing board was the successor of Skylab, the space shuttle, which was to become America's longest-lasting manned spaceflight program.

Now, come 2011 and the end of the shuttle program, America is, for the first time since 1961, an Earth-bound nation.

After the shuttles retire, Americans will have no avenue with which to enter space. Yes, there is probably no good reason why an existing rocket cannot be modified to carry an astronaut(s) into space but the fact remains that no one ever thought about a shuttle replacement with enough foresight to guarantee an overlap in programs. End result: America will have to rely on, of all nations, Russia, to get us into space. Talk about irony.

Why? The harmony of space (imagine if all nations could get along on Earth as the astronauts of different nationalities do on the ISS) is being threatened by discord on Earth.

Right now, NASA is in a state of limbo. In 2010, President Obama signed the NASA Authorization Act, which laid out the blueprint for NASA's future objectives, chief among them, an asteroid mission that will serve as a stepping stone to a manned Mars landing. Unfortunately, the Authorization Act means nothing without the money that can only be provided through an appropriations bill, which has to, by law, start in the House of Representatives. Problem: last year, the Democratically-controlled Federal Government never passed such a bill Now, with budget hawk Republicans in control of the House, more pressure than ever is being placed on the president and the Democrats to rein in spending.

Needless to say, NASA may be on the chopping block not only in terms of space exploration, but for science projects, too, most notably the James Webb Telescope. In addition, hundreds of Americans could lose their jobs if one of NASA's nearly two dozen centers were to close or have its programs cut.

So, what can be done?

First, consistency in policy needs to be developed. In the time between President Kennedy's pledge to go to the Moon and the Apollo 11 landing, America had 3 presidents, yet the goal for space exploration remained unchanged: go to the Moon. Now, that is not the case as the Bush 43-Obama transition has already proved (Constellation and a return to the Moon was dumped in favor of asteroid-hopping to Mars).

Second, motivation. In the 60s, national pride was on the line with the Space Race, which gripped the public's imagination. Now, science, which many people are ambivalent or even hostile toward, is the goal. While science is good in itself, many people just cannot grip how astronauts in space can impact life here on Earth. Well, here's a very practical goal: self-preservation. In time, whether through an expanding Sun or through man-made catastrophe, Earth will eventually become uninhabitable, thus necessitating that we find a home elsewhere. Yes, colonizing other planets and building cities in space is a long way off, but we all have to start somewhere.

Third, an and to partisan politics. Overall, the public approval of government is at an all-time low. However, while many governmental agencies and leaders are viewed quite negatively, NASA is still viewed in a very positive light by most Americans. So, with the opinion of NASA being one of the few things Americans can seem to agree upon, why not channel resources to this bright spot in government? Yes, by expanding NASA funding, there will always be those who insist that investing in space exploration, science, spin-off technology, and the future of the human race is a waste of money but, as a whole, exploring space and discovering our universe is a much more worthwhile pursuit that the majority of people believe is a worthwhile expense.

So, as America is about to be an Earth-bound nation for the first time in 50 years, the ultimate goal needs to be the future and the first step in getting back into space is setting clear goals, sticking to them despite whatever difficulties arise, and not changing them from president to president.

Humble requests:

If you found this informative (or at least entertaining), help me pay my bills and check out my Examiner pages for space news, cleveland photography, national photography, and astronomy for more great stuff.

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

The Dog Days Have Arrived

The re-emergence of Sirius, alpha Canis Major, is why we have the Dog Days.

Are you feeling the heat yet? Well, if you live in the Northern Hemisphere, you probably are as we have now officially entered the Dog Days of Summer, the traditional 40-day sizzle that lasts from July 3 to August 11 an that, more often than not, marks the warmest time of the year. So, while we all know that it's hot. Where did the 'Dog Days' moniker come from?

Thank the Ancient Egyptians.

For the Egyptians, the Star Sirius was very important, so much so that it eventually became identified with the goddess Isis, who brought her husband, Osiris, back from the dead after he was killed by his jealous twin brother, Seth. So why associate a star with a goddess identified with the triumph of life over death? Easy: every year at the same time in early July, Sirius would rise just ahead of the Sun in an event called the helical rising of Sirius. Shortly thereafter, like clockwork, the Nile would flood, depositing a layer of nutrient-rich, good for farming Nle mud over the landscape, thus ensuring a good harvest for the next growing season.

Okay, back to astronomy.

In the time frame from early July to mid August, Sirius was visible very close to the Sun after having disappeared into the twilight glare a few weeks previously. The re-emergence of Sirius as a morning star so close to the Sun led the Egyptians to believe that the bright star lent its heat to the sun in the period from early July to mid August, the hottest time of year.

Of course, we now know that this is all a convenient coincidence and that Sirius has nothing to do with our weather here on Earth thanks to its distance of roughly 8.6 light years. However, for people who love their history and/or trivia, this is why we have the Dog Days. For people who really like to think, consider this: thanks to precession, the Dog Days should fall much later in the year as, unlike in 2500 B.C., Sirius is lost in the glare of the Sun until early August, a full month after it reappeared to the Ancient Egyptians all those centuries ago . . .

 

Humble requests:

If you found this informative (or at least entertaining), help me pay my bills and check out my Examiner pages for space news, cleveland photography, national photography, and astronomy for more great stuff.

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

Happy Aphelion

The Sun is at its farthest in July.

Did you know that today (or actually yesterday to be specific), the Earth was at its farthest point from the Sun, a distance of 94,555,000 miles? Well, now you do, and this fact should go a long way in busting the commonly-held myth that the earth's distance from the sun goes into determining how hot it is at any given time of year, too.

So why do we have seasons? Answer: it's all about the tilt of the Earth relative to the Sun. Right now in the Northern hemisphere, we're tilted toward the Sun, which makes for the Sun taking a long path across the sky, giving it more time to heat up the planet. This is also why seasons are flip flopped in the two hemispheres, wit the Southern Hemisphere just having entered winter.

Okay, since Earth is farthest from the Sun now, when is it nearest? Answer: January 3 wen we are 92,955,807 miles from the Sun. One last point, that 93,000,000 mile statistic that you learned in grade school is just a rounded, average distance.

Humble requests:

If you found this informative (or at least entertaining), help me pay my bills and check out my Examiner pages for space news, cleveland photography, national photography, and astronomy for more great stuff.

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.

The D700 Does Astro, and Rules!

Best friends: the D700 and the ED80

Well, can't believe it, but I just got using my D700 for astrophotography for the first time over the course of 2 of the past 3 nights. Yes, that's right, after nearly 6 months, clear, moonless nights finally fell on my nights off from work. So, after a pair of nights shooting with the D700 under the stars, I can feel pretty safe in offering some commentary on its under the stars capabilities.

Three words: the D700 rules!

1. To start with, for anyone who does AP and doesn't have a live view dSLR, consider dumping your current camera and getting one. On my old Canon 30D, I focused on bright stars through the viewfinder and then started taking short focus test pictures to dial in exact focus. To do this, I would take a picture, blow it up all the way on the LCD and, if it looked a little out of focus, would then turn the knob on the scope, shoot, and check again, comparing the current to the last picture to look for a change. I'd do this again and again until the stars were at their smallest. Sure it worked, but it was quite a pain in the neck. The D700? Just go into live view mode, zoom in all the way on a 2^nd to 3^rd magnitude star (brighter ones glare and are harder to focus on) and just turn the dial until the star is at its smallest and, presto, perfect focus all night.

Try doing this at 600mm with an APC-C cam!

2. More forgiving polar alignment. With the D700 and its monster FX sensor, one loses a lot of magnification power as your scope essentially shrinks by a third compared to when it's used on an APS-C camera (My Orion ED80 goes from “900mm” to a true 600mm focal length). However, on the plus side, with that loss of power, one doesn't need to be as precise in polar alignment, which is another time saver as less time spend fiddling and measuring your mount, taking test shots, and adjusting means more time for photographing deep sky wonders.

3. No cords. Coming from camp Canon, not a single Canon dSLR offers a built-in intervalometer function, not even the top of the line 1D models. Nikon? You can get this all-important for astro feature with the $1,300 D7000. Why does this matter? Simple, cords are a pain in the neck. In addition to providing more things to mess around with, a wired remote can, unless you have a way of attaching it to your mount, fall off from the spreader and pull itself out of the camera just enough to not make it work. The D700? Just dive into the menu, go to the 'timed shooting' function, set yourself up, press the 'ok' button and forget it, you're shooting all night without any stupid wires to worry about.

4. Battery life. The D700 is like the Energizer Bunny, it just keeps going and going and going . . .

A test shot of M22 for 8 seconds at ISO 6400
5. Noise (or lack thereof). After playing with a D7000 and owning the D700, I can honestly say that the 4 year old FX sensor is still at least a stop better than the best current APS-C chip. So, if skyglow is not a problem, feel free to crank it up to even ISO1600 in order to maximize the photons you capture in your RAW (or NEF in Nikon lingo) files.

Now, not all is rosy . . .

There's no way around it, that big FX sensor has drawbacks, namely vignetting with less than perfect glass. In the case of the ED80, there's no denying that the scope doesn't fully cover the sensor. However, with your scope, this may be different. So far, my 120mm f8.3 achro doesn't seem to have any of these problems. However, when shooting through the little apo, the flat frames will be a must!


Author's note:
Please excuse my hasty processing, once I do it the right way with a hundred light frames (plus all the rest), the results should be truly spectacular.

 

Humble requests:

If you found this informative (or at least entertaining), help me pay my bills and check out my Examiner pages for space news, cleveland photography, national photography, and astronomy for more great stuff.

If you think this was cool, why not tell a friend?

For something even better, follow this blog.