'Amateur' Astronomer Snaps Pic of Planet-Forming Disk 59
The Bad Astronomer writes "Rolf Olsen, an 'amateur' astronomer in New Zealand, took an amazing photo of a disk of material around the star Beta Pictoris, the first time this has been seen outside of professional observatories. Incredibly, he snagged it with just a 25 cm (10") telescope! A comparison with an earlier pic from a much larger observatory indicates he nailed it, making this a milestone for amateur astronomy."
Why is 'amateur' in quotes? (Score:4, Informative)
I mean, if he really isn't an 'amateur,' then maybe he should have been referred to as a 'professional' astronomer (sans quotes)?
Oh wait...the Bad Astronomer makes an error that's common to the rest of the population: He believes 'amateur' means "one lacking in experience and competence in an art or science ." In fact, in this context 'amateur' means "not compensated," "not for hire," or "one who engages in a pursuit, study, science, or sport as a pastime rather than as a profession."
Perhaps the /. editors could help fight this common misunderstanding by dropping the superfluous quotes. It's too bad the grandeur of Rolf's contribution to science is sullied by other's ignorance. How many of you all thought to yourselves "Why the hell is 'amateur' in quotes?" C'mon...I know you did.
Re:Why the quotes around amateur? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why is 'amateur' in quotes? (Score:3, Informative)
It's in quotes because the /. editors didn't remove the quote marks. Bad Astronomer copied the term from TFA, which is where the quotes started. It seems from the original that the author used "amateur" as a compliment, rather than a dig. He's essentially saying, "folks call this guy an "amateur," but he scooped the "pros" on this one."
Re:Why the quotes around amateur? (Score:3, Informative)
If you already have a strong telephoto in your kit, try that first. A 300mm zoom lens used with a DSLR actually has enough power to resolve Jupiter's moons. I tried it just for giggles. (Also because I heard typical off-the-shelf binoculars were powerful enough. So why not my zoom lens?) My results were fuzzy as hell (and over-exposed if anything), but it worked. Jupiter and two of its larger moons were distinctively separate objects. (Moving and repositioning the camera and lens between shots ruled out artifacts and noise. Jupiter and the moons were consistent between shots.) I could likely get even better results if I had a steadier tripod and spent a bit more time adjusting the exposure. I'll probably never a crisp picture this way, but this is pushing the limits of what the gear is intended for and there's also atmospheric distortion. (Still it's enough to make out the planetary disk and little dots of moons, and with a bit more dedication - work out their orbital periods. I'd consider the quality comparable to what Galileo was working with back in the Renaissance era.)
With a DSLR you might not need the stacking software either. Camera phones tend to have a limited exposure range and ISO equivalency, as where your DSLR can go high ISO and use multi-second exposures or even bulb mode. (But high ISO settings usually tend to get hot and noisy fast, just stick with longer exposures.)
If you want more than that, of course you'll need better (and dedicated) gear. But the point is to not overlook what you may have already if you're just starting out.
Quoth the "raven" (Score:5, Informative)