Ultimate Webcam: Rent Time On A CCD Telescope 77
leighklotz writes "I saw an ad for this in Science News and visited the site: http://www.arnierosner.com offers CCD-based telescopes that you control, from his mountaintop in Arizona. $50 for an hour's tiem gets you started. Too bad I hadn't read this last week when Saturn's rings were at their peak." I bet this gives some entrepreneurial ideas ...
This will revolutionize... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:This will revolutionize... (Score:2)
xplanet.sourceforge.net [sourceforge.net]
Other targets (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Other targets (Score:2, Informative)
Through a telescope?
Maybe if he set up some wide angle lenses or something.
Re:Other targets (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Other targets (Score:2)
Lenoid shower? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Lenoid shower? (Score:1)
Re:Lenoid shower? (Score:2)
Groovy pics (Score:1)
Re:Groovy pics (Score:1)
or mutant earthbound scientists?
sorry had to bait
hmm (Score:3, Funny)
Re:hmm (Score:1)
Re:hmm (Score:2)
Here's an example [astrosurf.com].
Now *that's* remote control ... 8^} (Score:2)
"http://www.arnierosner.com offers CCD-based telescopes that you control, from his mountaintop in Arizona."
It would suck to have to travel to his remote mountaintop just to control the thing though
It will eventually stop working... (Score:1, Funny)
check the photo here [arnierosner.com]
Re:It will eventually stop working... (Score:2)
entrepreneurial ideas? (Score:2, Offtopic)
in related news... (Score:3, Funny)
I wasted 50 bucks!!! (Score:1, Funny)
just kidding
Saturn's Rings (Score:5, Interesting)
It's okay, they took the pictures for you... http://www.arnierosner.com/ccd/wallpaper/saturn/ [arnierosner.com] (Actually those are older, sometime before Oct. 11, but they're still sweet.)
Look an awful lot like Hubble's version (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Look an awful lot like Hubble's version (Score:1)
Re:Saturn's Rings (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep, those do look kinda familiar.
Saturn was at opposition last week, and thus as close as it can get to Earth. However, the view will be favourable until well in to the new year (it starts to deteriorate in April).
The rings will remain at about their maximum tilt for a couple of years yet. It's far from the all-or-nothing-one-night-in-a-lifetime spectacle the science news folks would have you believe. Try JPL's Solar System Simulator [nasa.gov] to see how slowly the rings change. Saturn's 29.5 year orbit, y'know.
I had an excellent view last night while testing a new telescope, and saw four moons while I was at it. I expect to see the rings well until 2007 or so.
...laura
Re:Saturn's Rings (Score:1)
Not so big (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not so big (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.buytelescopes.com/product.asp?t=&pid
No comment on braving the cold.
-Dubby
Re:Not so big (Score:1)
Taka's are about as much as you can spend on a scope of a given aperture.
Re:Not so big (Score:2, Interesting)
Where is he? (Score:2)
I'm curious because I live in Flagstaff.
Re:Where is he? (Score:1)
Re:Where is he? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Where is he? (Score:4, Informative)
map [mappoint.net].
Re:Where is he? (Score:1)
Ultimate Webcam? (Score:2)
Ultimate is not here yet.
"Score 0-Offtopic"
Re:Ultimate Webcam? (Score:2)
It seems the big difference is that you can control where the telescope points. As far as I know, NASA doesn't let you do that. ;-)
Re:Ultimate Webcam? (Score:2)
whitehouse.com or whitehouse.gov? I suspect $50 may be a bit much for a 'dog cam', but who knows?
Amazing how much pay for pr0n these days..
Why Bother? (Score:1, Insightful)
why bother posting on slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
There are plenty of astronomical phenomena which you cannot get pictures (at least not good ones) available for free. If you're a serious amateur astronomer (as this caters to), and are interested in investigating a particular area of space in detail, you need some damn good photos.
Damn good photos are not available to public, and they are not cheap. Professional astronomers pay hundreds of dollars for a few shots of an eclipsing binary system they may be studying. If you're an amateur who wants this kind of thing, its simply not available.
Re:What is "tiem?" (Score:2, Funny)
Basically, "an hour's TIEM" means that the FBI will turn off their surveillance of you for one hour.
This is a great way for the government to make a little extra money, and for us to maintain a little privacy in the post-9/11 world. There's "time" and then there's "TIEM" (cute little marketing gimmick there).
For instance, for only $150, I've got a 3-hour block of TIEM set up later tonight for when my girlfriend's over. I really don't want the spooks peeking in when we're hitting it freaky-style, you know what I mean?
Old news (Score:5, Informative)
He's in a great spot (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:He's in a great spot (Score:1)
Re:He's in a great spot (Score:2)
That's a very useful and valid observation.
A good way to reduce energy costs, and cut light pollution would be to put streetlights on more or less randomized cycles so that they are only on for 1/8 or less of the time at night. Most of the time, they waste no energy and contribute nothing to light pollution. They still deter crime since they could come on at any time without much warning. Experimentation could determine the most optimal average duty cycle. Motion detectors could further refine the system so that the light never comes on uselessly.
We are told time and again that lights should be turned off when nobody's in a room while miles of empty roads and sidewalks are uselessly lit all night long.
Years ago, the sky was dark and full of stars where I live. Now, it rarely goes much darker than late twilight.
At the same time, car headlights could easily be designed to be more effective and less light polluting by narrowing the low beam. driver at night should be looking forward and not upwards or at the roadside anyway.
Re:He's in a great spot (Score:2)
What a super idea. Why we do this all over the United States? It would be nice to get some of our night sky back.
Re:He's in a great spot (Score:3, Informative)
Re:He's in a great spot (Score:1)
Re:He's in a great spot (Score:2)
Doug
Re:decisions, decisions (Score:1)
What if it's Slashdotted? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Can I get pictures of the "moon landing" sites? (Score:5, Informative)
The Dawes Limit gives the maximum amount of detail that can possibly be seen with a particular aperture (size) of telescope.
If you want to to calculate Dawes Limit for yourself you can use this simple formula: R' = 4.56/D. In this formula, D is the diameter of the main lens (aperture) measured in inches and R' is the Dawes limit given in arc-seconds.
Let's see... I'm guessing the lander is maybe 5m across. The moon is 384,400,000 meters away. That gives an angular size of 0.003 arc seconds. So in order to resolve it we need a diameter of 4.56/0.003=1520 inches = 126 feet. Currently our biggest telescope is 10 meters.
If you happen to find and get time on a 126 foot diameter scope, and your time is on a perfect night on the top of a mountain with no moisture and totally steady skies, you'll be able to resolve the lander as one single pixel. If you want to be able to image it as something recognizable you'd better look for a 500 foot diameter mirror.
And if we did manage to image it and convince the goofs that it wasn't a fake image, they'd say "OK, fine, you got a craft there but we don't believe it was really manned."
This is why people ignore the conspiracy theorists. It's like banging your head against the wall; unless you invent a time machine and put them on the rocket in 1969 they won't believe it.
If anyone does put them on the rocket, I suggest putting them on the outside.
Re:Can I get pictures of the "moon landing" sites? (Score:3, Interesting)
There might be other difficulties though with it... possibly the reflecting light of the moon in general swamping what little shading might come off a lander. Interferometry will give you the arc resolution you need, but not necessarily the luminous.
You can rent scopes here to (Score:1)
You can pay to use serveral this scopes here as well . It looks like the scopes here are better!
Super astro imaging system (Score:5, Informative)
coolness (Score:2, Insightful)
From a strictly scientific perspective, it's probably not cost-effective to run a research project from a site like this. First of all, most astromonomical research requires some amount of spectroscopy. Of course, looking at a spectrum isn't as visually stunning (to some of us) as an awesome Hubble photo.
But, we must keep in mind that important science can be done from the ground. Ever found a supernova, asteroid, or comet? There are several unmanned, robotic telescopes around the world that are constantly searching the skies for just these types of object. This is the sort of thing that a hacker with a few bucks to spare (for equipment) could get into.
$50? (Score:1)
Can you just imagine the coolness of a hi rez orbiting telescope you could control over the net?
*Whips out PDA*