Why not
check out other great stuff about photography,
astronomy,
and associated
gear? Think others would find this useful (or at least entertaining)? Share with the buttons below!
President Obama addresses a joint session of Congress, and the American people, in the State of the Union Address.
Last night marked the annual State of the Union Address, during which the president, acting as the face of the country, opines on the current state of America and proposes new ideas to take the country into the future. Facing a divided Congress and a highly skeptical nation, President Obama called for unity and self-betterment to maker America a global leader in technology again.
In doing do, he harkened back top the space race.
Speaking on the need to step up efforts to become globally competitive, Obama stated that “half a century ago, when the Soviets beat us into space with the launch of a satellite called Sputnik, we had no idea how we'd beat them to the moon."The science wasn't there yet. NASA didn't even exist. But after investing in better research and education, we didn't just surpass the Soviets; we unleashed a wave of innovation that created new industries and millions of new jobs.”
Fast forwarding to the present, Obama called the present time “our generation's Sputnik moment."
Unfortunately, rather than calling for advances in space exploration as America's future in space flounders amid the imminent retirement of the space shuttle fleet and a lack of a long-term vision, the President called for investments in biomedical research, information and clean energy technology, a major let-down to the millions of space exploration enthusiasts, myself among them, who were hoping for a renewed effort on expanding into the Final Frontier.
However, NASA does fit into one area of the President's speech: jobs.
Right now, NASA operates nearly two dozen facilities all across the nation, all of which provide a lot of jobs to the local communities in which they reside and the closing of any NASA center as a way to cut budget would be bad news to the economy of any given city.
Of course, the NASA employees, the rocket scientists if you will, get all the limelight. However, there are undoubtedly a large number of non-science jobs at the NASA centers across the nation. First off, if you operate a building, maintenance workers will be needed, the bigger the building, the more people will be needed to keep the facilities in top running order. Next, with any endeavor involving high technology, there is a need for technicians to keep the computers working. With any workplace, there is always a need for record keepers, accountants, and secretaries to ensure that the flow of information goes smoothly and that the person-to-person meetings can be organized. Of course, a NASA center being a government building housing expensive equipment, a security force is an absolute must. As a last note, there are always the outside consultants who, while it need not be their principal job, nonetheless work for NASA on an as-needed basis for think-tank purposes. Now, to cover myself, there are probably even more occupations at any given NASA site that I didn't mention but that are still vital to the center's daily functioning.
Now, as you can see, there is a lot more to a NASA center than rocket scientists. In the past, NASA centers have been targeted for layoffs. If a NASA center were to close, it could take hundreds of American jobs with it, an especially devastating loss given the economy's current, precarious state, not to mention putting another blow to America's teetering, once grand space agency.
However, it will remain up to the new House of Representatives to decide NASA's future as it is the House alone that crafts the budget-related legislation. In the end, only time will tell what will come to pass, but it is the hope of space exploration advocates that Congress can spare some cash and invest in the future of America in space as, in time, the survival of our species will depend on our ability to journey to the stars.
Humble requests:
If you found this informative (or at least entertaining), help me pay my bills and check out my Examiner pages for photography and astronomy for more great stuff.
Yes, I haven't forgot about reviewing my “new” Nikon D700, but ever since I've got it, there's not been anything really worth shooting. Basically, Northeast Ohio has been stuck in a rut of ugly winter days characterized by clouds and old, no longer white show that isn't worth venturing out in the 20 degree temperatures for. Nights? Well, they've been cloud-outs through and through.
However, I got lucky yesterday with some momentarily clear skies that allowed for a few minutes of playing around in the dark. Result: if you have a fast lens (as in 50 f1.4 fast) and don't mind cranking up the ISO to 6400, you can leave the tripod inside for astrophotography! Yes, that's right, forget the tripod! Sure, the images when viewed in full won't be as pretty as ISO 100 shots but, for small web files like the ones below, it won't matter much.
The D700 truly does open new photographic possibilities that were unimaginable was the last generation of cameras.
Big Dipper, 1/4 second hand-held with D700 and 50 f1.4 D wide open
Cloud shrouded Moon, 1/25th second hand-held with D700 and 50 f1.4 D wide open
Humble requests:
If you found this informative (or at least entertaining), help me pay my bills and check out my Examiner pages forphotographyand astronomy for more great stuff.
M13: the Great Hercules cluster. With a little know-how (and not a ton of cash), you can take photos just like this one!
For anyone who was visiting this website from its early days, it was obvious that I started this whole online endeavor as merely a way to backup all of my astrophotos should my computer crash. Since then, I've expanded into other things photography and astronomy, but have kept up with the monthly astrophoto galleries. So, as the photos keep coming online, you may be asking yourself: what does he use to take those pictures?
Answer: surprisingly little. In fact, you may only need 4 things to do it: a dSLR, a telescope mount with a R.A. Drive, a T-ring, and a universal T-adapter. Depending on your camera, you may or may not need a programmable remote, too.
So, exactly what does he use and how much does it cost?
The Canon 30D (with Tokina 28-70 f2.8): an oldie, but a goody
Camera: Canon EOS 30D
Launched way back in February, 2006, the Canon 30D is a digital dinosaur by today's standards in terms of feature set. However, in image quality, though, only the current generation of dSLRs can clearly beat it. Unlike most of today's digital cameras, it uses the big CF cards. Want one? Expect to pay around $400, give or take $50 based on condition, for one. Too expensive? The EOS 20D from fall, 2004, essentially the same thing but with a smaller LCD screen, can be had for about $100 less.
The Meade LXD-55: plenty good for "short" exposures and small scopes
Mount: Meade LXD-55
Another out of production item that serves me perfectly well, the LXD-55 has long-since been replaced in Meade's lineup by the often considered superior LXD-75 thanks to its steel 2” tubular legs and a reportedly better drive motors. However, when it comes to short exposure (30-60 sec) photography with a short focal length telescope (400-600mm), the LXD-55 serves its purpose perfectly well. Fully assembled with the ED80 on top, the whole rig weighs about 50 lbs. Looking to pick up a LXD-55? Well, price can vary, but they typically go in the $400 range.
Except for having a sleep mode rather than on/off, a knock-off remote is just as good as the manufacturer version, but at a fraction of the cost.
Canon Remote: Knock-Off Canon TC80-N3 Unfortunately, no Canon dSLRs, not even the $7,000 1Ds Mark III, have a programmable remote function built in the camera, which means you need to buy an external one and plug it into the camera should you wish to make life really easy on yourself. Fortunately, instead of dumping $200 on the Canon version, you can be like me and snag a knock-off that does the exact same thing for $30! Catch: you're buying on Ebay from Hong Kong. Want to stay USA? Well, there are domestically-sold third-party versions out there for around $75.
Camera-SpecificT-Ring
The first step to get your camera onto your scope is to get a camera manufacturer specific T-ring, which will lock into the mount just like a lens. With something like this, don't go for nice, buy used or a second and save yourself some money, hopefully keeping the cost under $10.
Universal T-Adapter
You have your ring, but now you need the adapter that the ring threads onto in order to attach the camera to the scope. Unlike with the ring, the adapter is universal in that any ring, whether Canon, Nikon, or any other brand will thread on to the rear of it. Ring/adapter together, stick the whole thing into the back of the scope to turn it into a giant lens. Like with the ring, buy used or a second to try and stay below the $10 mark.
Thread the T-adapter and ring together, attach like a lens, then stick the camera into the scope's focuser.
So, there they are, the five (or four if your camera has a built in programmable remote function) things money can buy that you need to be an astrophotographer. Unfortunately, no amount of cash can buy skill and dedication required to start catching the stars. That you'll need to learn on your own.
Space shuttle Discovery on the launch pad, a perfect symbol for America's wayward space agency.
It is the year 2011 and, when it comes to space exploration, NASA is in some serious trouble as the government wrangles over how to both fund the space agency and then how to apply the money to future missions. In short, with the surging government debt, it seems more and more likely that space missions in the grand styles of the twin Mars rovers, Cassini, and Deep Impact may soon be a thing of the past as we Earthlings, despite our capability to explore space and perhaps even colonize other worlds.
Just think of it: in the span of 12 years, humans went from being an Earth-bound species to explorers on another world, our Moon. Now, in the 42 years since Apollo 11 and Neil Armstrong's "giant leap for mankind," what have we done when it comes to human spaceflight? Answer: not much. Sure, we've launched three major space stations, (Skylab, Mir, and the ISS) and made spaceflight an almost routine event via the space shuttles, but have we gone anywhere? No. Why not? Politics.
The space race was a product of the Cold War, during which America and the USSR fought a series of battles in many areas but not in actual combat. First, there was the race to build atomic bombs, then the race for space, which was, in reality, a glorified way to test weapon delivery systems. It was no coincidence that many Americans went into a state of panic upon the launch of Sputnik, not because of the little satellite itself, but of the implication that the Soviets could fill Earth's orbit with nuclear weapons and then dive them onto America in a technological rain of fire and brimstone. Well, if the Soviets could launch satellites into orbit, America had to answer, and it did in short order. After that, both nations focused on developing bigger and bigger rockets capable of launching ever larger nuclear warheads.
Then came 1961.
With the dawning of a new decade, newly-elected president John F. Kennedy laid the gauntlet: America was going to the Moon by decade's end. Determined to fulfill the president's pledge and one-up the Soviets, American science set to work to develop all the technology needed to land men on the Moon and return them to Earth. Finally, after a decade of mostly triumphs but a few tragedies, Americans won the space race when Apollo 11's Eagle landed on the lunar surface. America had won the space race, so what was left to do?
Answer according to the politicians: cut back on space exploration. By the early 1970s, the obsession of going to the Moon that had gripped the public's imagination just a few years ago was seen as a waste of money and, after Apollo 17, given the ax in what is probably the darkest day for space exploration.
With the money cut off, the somewhat 'routine' lunar landings were a thing of the past. When America was in
a perfect position to colonize another world, we turned our backs on on the science and desire to explore that took us to the Moon in the first place, a self-prescribed lobotomy if you will, one that has set us back several steps in technological development. Now, ironically, we in 2011 find ourselves unable to do what we did over 40 years ago. Think of it: if we had stayed on our course towards rapid advancement of the space sciences, where would we be today? Moon bases? Our first colonies on Mars? Cities in floating in space? If you ask me, the answer is 'probably.'
Of all people associated with space exploration in the 20th century, the late Carl Sagan stands out among the rest for his ability to reach out to the public, explain things that would ordinarily be incomprehensible in a manner that anyone could understand, and his great concern for our world, Earth, and the direction it was going. In the below video by Michael Marantz, Sagan himself reads from one of his final books, Pale Blue Dot, the narration speaking volumes about humanity's unique nature, endless potential for exploration, and avenues for self-betterment, which are under great threat by the unwillingness of politicians to put the proper emphasis on space exploration.
After all, nothing, not even the Earth, is forever and if we are to survive as a species, we must journey back to the stars from which we came.
Humble requests:
If you found this informative (or at least entertaining), help me pay my bills and check out my Examiner pages forphotographyand astronomy for more great stuff.
I missed a week, but I'm making up for it here with two weeks worth of links to my most recent Examiner articles. So, if you missed anything, here you go.
Posts
