Astronomy / Space Telescope from a computer

[Surfinjo]

Starting small is what I'm thinking as well. The bottom line is that it must actually work. I'd really like to be able to get the best at the beginning but frankly, with little or no experience of actually using anything it might end up being rather more disappointing than interesting.

But the minimum I'm looking at is something I can remotely operate. That is, motorised positioning, ( I think it's called GOTO or is that a trade name, appreciate any confirmation on that) and CCTV pickup.

I am seriously thinking about mounting the rig on my roof. I have two pitches, one running N/S, the other E/W. The advantage of using those is reduced light pollution, better line of sight to the sky, (considerably) and less chance that my equipment might be attacked by some of the neighbourhood cats.

But in the short term, the garden will be the first choice.

Below is an image of the e/w roof, taken in daylight and night. Though it was an overcast night, the image does show that there is not a great deal of light pollution. There is a street light SE. It isn't too bad and naturally quite low in the field of view. I'm hoping this can be overcome.

 

[Gut Rumble]

A scope on the roof is a bad idea ,the thermals from the house will make anything you look at shimmer like mad.
.
Please visit that site I gave you ,it has everything you could possibly need to know about anything to do with Astronomy ,goto scopes ,types of scopes ,mounts ,cameras ,absolutely everything just give it a try
You might also find a local club to join.

 

[Surfinjo]

A scope on the roof is a bad idea ,the thermals from the house will make anything you look at shimmer like mad.
.
Please visit that site I gave you ,it has everything you could possibly need to know about anything to do with Astronomy ,goto scopes ,types of scopes ,mounts ,cameras ,absolutely everything just give it a try
You might also find a local club to join.

Appreciate the link and it is an interesting resource.

But this is an Astronomy forum and while references to outside forums and sites are important, the discussion is here. Since you know about many of these terms it will, I'm sure, be welcomed by many, if you would elaborate and explain them here.

Thanks. Are you saying that if you convert the FWHM into arcsecs that is the seeing or is it not that simple?
http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/258663-how-can-you-measure-the-seeing-in-arc-seconds/

I understand the points about roof based sites but I live in a city where my options are limited.

This is a sketch of my available line of site of the sky, the top is for the roof area the bottom is the small garden I have.



But your point about thermals is well made and I thank you for it.

Is there any way to get around this? Perhaps by positioning a raised platform. How long would the thermal effects continue through the night?

 

[EponymousCowherd]

There is another problem with having your scope on the roof, too. Vibration. You'd be surprised just how important a solid base for your 'scope is. The difference between putting mine on the concrete path and the wooden decking is huge, having the scope on a wooden floor will make it almost unusable for imaging, and someone merely slamming a door somewhere in the building will set up a vibration that will last for tens of seconds.

I would suggest you look at a portable kit that you can put in the car and drive somewhere dark. That's what I do.

As for the equipment, for anything other than planetary imaging you will need, as an absolute minimum, a motorised equatorial mount. You can get away with planetary imaging with an alt-az mount, but the results aren't so good.

It is worth understanding what you are trying to do when you image an astronomical object. You are on the surface of a planet which is rotating on its axis, while orbiting its star trying to take a long exposure picture of something that isn't moving. It's a bit like taking a picture of someone standing by the roadside as you drive past in your car while going around a bend. Unless the tracking is spot-on perfect the image will be poor. When even Jupiter, at opposition (its closest to Earth) has an angular diameter of only 1 arc-minute (1/21600th of a circle) you can understand how the slightest knock or vibration and really mess things up.

Personally I'd forget about astro-imaging to start with. Get yourself a cheap, but good quality starter scope. A 130mm Newtonian on a manual, but motorised (i.e. not goto, but does track once aligned) Look to pay around £200. Something like one of the Skywatcher Explorer range, or the Celestron Astromaster range.

If you absolutely must have a fully goto imaging rig, then you will be looking at a minimum of something like the Celestron Advance VX and look to pay around £900+, and then another £200+ for the imager (or you can use your own SLR, if you have one) One reasonably cheap imaging solution is the PD Colour Camera Its is a video camera rather than a "webcam", but does come with a capture device. It is strictly 4:3 standard resolution but is hugely sensitive. I have one myself, and it is very good indeed.

 

[metatheurgist]

I would suggest you look at a portable kit that you can put in the car and drive somewhere dark.

This is the other astronomical fantasy I have. Specifically building an observatory into an SUV (or something) and then using it as a camping vehicle. If only I was ridiculously wealthy.

 

[Surfinjo]

I wasn't really thinking of including a car in my budget.

 

[EponymousCowherd]

This is the other astronomical fantasy I have. Specifically building an observatory into an SUV (or something) and then using it as a camping vehicle. If only I was ridiculously wealthy.

Again, the problem is vibration, not to mention the way a vehicle tilts when you move about inside it. You'd need to jack it off the road, rather like large mobile cranes do.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I wasn't really thinking of including a car in my budget.

To do the kind of thing you want, a car would be one of the lower priced items.

 

[yyy]

I am an amateur astronomer and have my own observatory (computer controlled but not automated). The type of setup you are looking for costs thousands of pounds to do properly. Its far better you familiarise yourself with the night sky with naked eye observation and a pair of good quality 5x70 binoculars. Use a deck chair and have something solid to lean on. Thats all. If you want to take pictures they take hours of patience. Astrophotography is not a cheap hobby. PM me and we can discuss in more detail.

 

[Nick87]

You had some good suggestions here, and of course there are many different options that you can go for. Firstly, let's put things in some order, shall we ?

1) You said you want a fully automated setup that you can control remotely from your computer and will allow you to view the images you take on it. Sounds good, but my question to you is what kind of images do you want to record ? There's a big difference in how you go about capturing planet images compared to deep stellar images.

In the first case, you need a telescope with a relatively big aperture (at least 6" in diameter) so you can take crisp and detailed pictures while using high magnifications (sometimes above 450 X). The upside of planet imaging though, is that it requires relatively inexpensive equipment and the post processing is pretty straightforward. Essentially, you use a cam like DMK 618 (even regular web ones would work) to video record your object. Then, you bring the hundreds of different frames that you took into a freeware software like Registax and stack them all together to produce a final clean and noise free frame. Note that the environment you're in plays a big role too, as atmospheric turbulence can greatly affect your efforts. Also, having an equatorial mount that follows the movement of the sky is mandatory, as you need to always have your target in sight.

Deep stellar imaging on the other hand is a whole different story. Unlike planet imaging, you work with wider fields as nebulae and star fields take more space. The approach is similar in that you also combine different frames together, but you do so by taking long exposures of the target first. A light sensitive CCD camera is needed for that in conjunction with narrowband filters that let in specific wavelengths of the light your object emits (Ha, OIII, SII etc). The tracking of your target has to be optimum due
to the long hours you'll be shooting and the post processing is a bit more technical, requiring at times more sophisticated or paid software.

2) You're adamant about having a scope that will autofocus, point and track by itself. That's doable too, but different piece of equipment and software comes into place for all that to work properly.

Autofocusing can be achieved by using a DC focus motor that connects to your desktop or laptop via USB and uses a software like Sequence generator pro to give you full control. Automated pointing requires a GoTo upgrade kit that lets your mount align your scope with the desired object. Finally, tracking which I already mentioned, can make or break your photography. You could get away with a rough polar alignment for regular stargazing, but serious astrophotography demands near perfect tracking, which in turn means bigger mounts and possibly a seperate guidescope.

3) Lastly, you expressed your intention of potentially housing it all under a mini observatory on your roof.

As it was mentioned by two other posters, there are practical difficulties when going down that road. An alternative solution though would be to set it up outside.

If you have a look around in some astronomy shops, there are portable domes available that can be permanently stationed somewhere. They're made of light materials and are very resistant to bad weather conditions. They do cost however, and safeguarding all of your expensive equipment inside, could be a bit tricky.

On a final note, you should Know that no matter how automated you make your whole system, you'll still need to be physically present at times to make sure everything is working fine, or for maintenance purposes.

Here are some further links to point you in the right direction :

http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/SCOPES.HTM

http://www.telescopes.com/blogs/helpful-information/18961348-polar-alignment

http://paulbourke.net/miscellaneous/lens/

https://starizona.com/acb/ccd/advimnarrow.aspx

http://www.skyshedpod.com/

Sadly, Amateur astronomy/astrophotography is an expensive hobby, but what can you do

 

[EponymousCowherd]

Actually, amateur astronomy can be a relatively cheap hobby. As yyy says, you can get a lot of enjoyment from nothing more than a pair of binoculars, or just your unaided eye. A decent 130mm reflector will cost £200 or less.

It is when you get into astrophotography that the costs start spiralling. That side of the hobby is a huge money pit.

 

[Porina]

Like most things, you can spend as little or as much as you like. A lot of things can be done with enough effort, not necessarily cost.

There is one thing to consider about the "sit at home looking at a screen" part. Why not just download other images? Well, at least for deep sky subjects, which for practical purposes don't change much. The exception would be solar system targets. You can see the moon phase change, and different parts light up depending on the angle of the sun. Mars, Jupiter and Saturn will visibly change. In the case of Jupiter, due to its fast rotation you can see real time changes even over a period of minutes. For a bit extra, you can get a dedicated solar scope and look at our own sun too. Obligatory safety warning: if you want to see the sun, do research carefully as eye damage is a real possibility if anything isn't right.

 

[EponymousCowherd]

There is one thing that always gets me about visual astronomy. When you look at, say Bode's Nebula (M81), the light that is being concentrated by the telescope and is hitting the retina in your eye has been travelling for (in the case of M81) for 12 million years.

There is just something kind of wow about that.

 

[Porina]

Closer to home, I've found myself feeling insignificant even looking at our planetary neighbours. Even having seen it many times before online or in books, there is something that connects to you when you see it with your own eyes. Problem with the more distant objects is that they're simply not visible by eye in a light polluted area. The biggest upgrade I could make is to move away from lights. Imaging can help work around that to a degree.

For example, I've captured images of Andromeda. Here's one from a few years ago:



What do I see if I try to directly look at it? A very faint, barely perceptible fuzzy blob where the core is.

 

[Surfinjo]

Sadly, Amateur astronomy/astrophotography is an expensive hobby, but what can you do

Thanks for your pointers. All useful and well taken.

The more I think about this, the more I realise that the housing has to be the first essential.

The roof is idea for a number of reasons. It's stable, free from most types of interference, animals, children and such, and it's relatively free from random vibration from people walking past. Plus, of course the line of site is better.

So, the first thing to consider is the housing. It will need to be automated and while big enough to house the telescope, quite small to be able to fit onto my roof. I've seen some that are designed to be big enough for a Telecope and a human observer. That of course is not what I need at all.

This is a rough sketch as a starter. It creates a 1M square platform on which to site the housing and equipment, with a skylight beside for access.

I'm about 1.65M tall so will fit quite nicely.



Starting from that, I'mm need some sort of housing that can fold up and raise automatically.

Any ideas?

I could increase the size of the platform, but too large and I will need a second skylight on the other side for overall access.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Closer to home, I've found myself feeling insignificant even looking at our planetary neighbours. Even having seen it many times before online or in books, there is something that connects to you when you see it with your own eyes. Problem with the more distant objects is that they're simply not visible by eye in a light polluted area. The biggest upgrade I could make is to move away from lights. Imaging can help work around that to a degree.

For example, I've captured images of Andromeda. Here's one from a few years ago:

[url]http://stargazerslounge.com/uploads/gallery/album_1943/gallery_22006_1943_263868.jpg[/URL]

What do I see if I try to directly look at it? A very faint, barely perceptible fuzzy blob where the core is.

That is incredible. Perhaps one day. For now I can always look at yours.

 

[EponymousCowherd]

You really need to understand that building an observatory into the roof of a traditionally built house ( i.e not a purpose built building) is a poor idea. You need to understand that merely moving around the instrument, gusts of wind, traffic driving past, will deflect it by several arc-seconds. That may not seem much, but I assure you it will make any kind of astro imaging impractical. You may not think that your floor moves about that much, but I can assure you that it does!

 

[HailVectron]

You really need to understand that building an observatory into the roof of a traditionally built house ( i.e not a purpose built building) is a poor idea. You need to understand that merely moving around the instrument, gusts of wind, traffic driving past, will deflect it by several arc-seconds. That may not seem much, but I assure you it will make any kind of astro imaging impractical. You may not think that your floor moves about that much, but I can assure you that it does!

This - if you've got a timber framed house, this just wouldn't work. I did see a project years ago where someone did something similar - but it involved building a reinforced concrete pier from the foundations of the house, through holes cut into floors and ceilings, but not actually touching them, into a roof based dome. So you could walk around the pillar on a suspended floor, but since it wasn't touching the pillar, it didn't affect the scope at all.

 

[Surfinjo]

You really need to understand that building an observatory into the roof of a traditionally built house ( i.e not a purpose built building) is a poor idea. You need to understand that merely moving around the instrument, gusts of wind, traffic driving past, will deflect it by several arc-seconds. That may not seem much, but I assure you it will make any kind of astro imaging impractical. You may not think that your floor moves about that much, but I can assure you that it does!

As I said, there isn't a lot of choice.

My house is about 115 years old, brick and based upon a design, (originally called 2 up 2 down, but in the 1960s called back to back for pejorative reasons), that is almost 200 years old. It is built on ground that has been repeatedly built upon and numerous wars fought on, including a pounding by our dear German cousins during the blitz and marched over by millions for over 5000 years.

It is on the South Coast of England. and I have been repeatedly assured that god has a special place in his heart for England so that must count for something.

The entire area is residential, there are no near by major roads or water courses. Other than a single access road, almost all the roads, including the one I live in, are cul-de-sacs.

The major wall in the images is a fire wall, built with engineering bricks.

I might also add that before I retired I had about 20 odd years experience in building. Though surveying was not my speciality I did observe a lot of it and can assure you that a single person walking past measuring equipment on the ground will make a significant difference to any measurements.



You clearly have a lot of background knowledge. I ask you to share that. I'm sure that many here will appreciate your input. Indeed I'm sure than many here would love to hear your input, sharing the curiosity and interest in the subject and like me, hoping to eventually find a way to observe the skies themselves.

 

[EponymousCowherd]

I might also add that before I retired I had about 20 odd years experience in building. Though surveying was not my speciality I did observe a lot of it and can assure you that a single person walking past measuring equipment on the ground will make a significant difference to any measurements.



You clearly have a lot of background knowledge. I ask you to share that. I'm sure that many here will appreciate your input. Indeed I'm sure than many here would love to hear your input, sharing the curiosity and interest in the subject and like me, hoping to eventually find a way to observe the skies themselves.

If you mean a theodolite, then you should understand where I'm coming from. Now imagine that, instead of trying to keep a fix on a man holding a stick a couple of hundred metres away, you are trying to track a moving (to you) target millions of miles away. Moving around a telescope placed on a concrete path does, indeed, cause some deflection. If you place that same instrument on a wooden floor the effect will be 1000 times worse.

I'm not trying to be difficult here, I just don't want you spending time and money on on something that just won't work. You will probably be OK for visual observing as you can wait for the vibrations to die down and it doesn't matter if the target deflects a bit (as long as it remains in the field of view), but for astro-imaging, not a chance, I'm afraid.

You might like to consider a portable "backpackable" scope like the SkyWatcher Startravel 80 you can buy a Right Ascension motor drive for it, so you could even give astrophotography a go.

 

[Surfinjo]

If you mean a theodolite, then you should understand where I'm coming from. Now imagine that, instead of trying to keep a fix on a man holding a stick a couple of hundred metres away, you are trying to track a moving (to you) target millions of miles away. Moving around a telescope placed on a concrete path does, indeed, cause some deflection. If you place that same instrument on a wooden floor the effect will be 1000 times worse.

I'm not trying to be difficult here, I just don't want you spending time and money on on something that just won't work. You will probably be OK for visual observing as you can wait for the vibrations to die down and it doesn't matter if the target deflects a bit (as long as it remains in the field of view), but for astro-imaging, not a chance, I'm afraid.

You might like to consider a portable "backpackable" scope like the SkyWatcher Startravel 80 you can buy a Right Ascension motor drive for it, so you could even give astrophotography a go.

I understand your point, but perhaps you could be a little more positive, perhaps trying to find ways to achieving instead of reasons not to try.

The ground is not an option for reasons given. I'm sure that many are in a similar position to me in this regard.

Equally, neither is portable since by implication that means I actually have to go somewhere. Again, I am certain I share this requirement with others.

The subject is a set up, controlled from and observed using, a computer.

 

[EponymousCowherd]

You may as well be asking for advice on how to get your moped to win the world superbike championship. What you are asking for is of that order of difficulty.

I'm sorry if that isn't what you want to hear, but that is the way it is.

Good advice has been given. I am sorry that it is not suitable for you.