[HN Gopher] Photo captures space station crossing the moon
___________________________________________________________________
Photo captures space station crossing the moon
Author : monkeydust
Score : 187 points
Date : 2022-03-14 12:57 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (mashable.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (mashable.com)
| npteljes wrote:
| Link to the original tweet by the photographer:
|
| https://twitter.com/ThierryLegault/status/149514029055385600...
|
| (alternatively
| https://nitter.net/thierrylegault/status/1495140290553856001)
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Jaw-dropping is an understatement -- that's a stunning
| composition. How did he convince the moon and space station to
| perfectly pose together and the sun to light them so sharply like
| that?
|
| I've never seen a photo that reveals the roughness of the moon in
| profile like the high contrast craters and mountains along the
| edge.
| deltarholamda wrote:
| > How did he convince the moon and space station to perfectly
| pose together
|
| The negotiations were tense, but in the end, the Space Station
| agreed to stop calling the Moon "crater face," and the Moon
| agreed to stop talking about Flat Earth Theory.
| nayuki wrote:
| https://xkcd.com/2463/
| fnsa wrote:
| If anyone would like to buy the print:
| https://www.galleryastro.fr/-/galleries/auteurs/thierry-lega...
|
| Just ordered one for my kids!
| belter wrote:
| The photo is amazing. This one from the same author, with a Solar
| crossing and the Shuttle Atlantis getting close to the ISS, is
| stunning...
|
| http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_atlantis_2010.jpg
|
| "ISS distance to observer: 391 km. Speed in orbit: 7.4km/s (26500
| km/h or 16500 mph)."
| raxxorrax wrote:
| That is indeed a stunning photo. Especially considering that the
| ISS orbits at around 400km and the moon at ~380,000km. It looks
| like it would be in a dangerously low orbit around the moon.
| seba_dos1 wrote:
| Yeah, it all looks kinda Little Prince-esque.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| The "Tiny Planet" / "Little Planet" effect!
|
| https://wiki.panotools.org/Unusual_remappings
|
| >Little planet
|
| >Fisheye little planet remapping result (c) Erik Krause
|
| >Stereographic little planet remapping result (c) Erik Krause
| This is a remapping already used by Helmut Dersch as a
| thumbnail for his virtual Marburg tour on [2], where he
| remapped an equirectangular full spherical panorama to a 360
| degree fisheye image with the nadir in the center and the
| zenith at the circle border. This is the same projection as
| used in the first example.
|
| >Nowadays most GUI front-ends feature stereographic and
| fisheye output projection directly. Stereographic is far
| better for Little Planets since the outer regions are less
| compressed and hence keep their natural proportions. The
| stereographic example here has a smaller Field of View
| (250deg) although the apparent size of the planet is
| approximately the same like the fisheye one.
|
| >Some Panorama Viewers like f.e. KRPano or DevalVR also
| feature stereographic projection or even "Little Planet"
| directly.
|
| How to create high resolution (hi-res) "Tiny Planet" images
| with your drone and DJI Go 4
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tATZmiKKaMw
|
| Dyson Sphere Project seems to distort and exaggerate the
| field of view to produce that same effect. Or maybe it's just
| that its planets are actually tiny! But you feel quite
| gigantic walking around them.
|
| GIANT ROBOT; SMALL PLANET | #1 | Dyson Sphere Program | Lets
| Play/Guide/Walkthrough:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tTU97bAMM4&t=2m28s
|
| Another interesting perspective:
|
| What If The Moon Were As Close As The ISS? (VIDEO)
|
| https://www.huffpost.com/entry/moon-as-close-as-iss-
| video_n_...
|
| The nice green field, blue sky, and fluffy clouds in the
| video would probably be a smoking bubbling magma hell-scape
| thanks to the intense tidal forces, though.
| jcims wrote:
| Thierry Legault does some of the best solar system
| astrophotography I'm aware of (or at least the stuff I'm most
| interested in). Many amazing images of ISS and other spacecraft,
| images of the surface of the sun, lunar images, lunar occultation
| of other planets, etc etc. This is just another example of his
| excellent work.
|
| More examples here: http://www.astrophoto.fr/
|
| Edit: That said there are some _amazing_ amateur
| astrophotographers quietly going about their art.
| https://astrobin.com is their Flickr.
| MisterTea wrote:
| Thank you for pointing this out. After reading the opening line
| of "Thierry Legault pointed his camera up at the night sky..."
| I thought to myself "Man, that must be some camera." Turns out
| he very much does this professionally and a telescope is also
| involved.
| jcims wrote:
| Some details on his equipment here:
| http://www.astrophoto.fr/info.html. For reference, the first
| tube and mount he lists:
|
| Celestron C14 Edge HD - The telescope 'tube' alone (aka OTA)
| ~$8k USD
|
| Takahashi EM400 - Equatorial mount, ~$9kUSD
|
| This doesn't include any additional optics, filters, cameras,
| etc.
|
| Solar imaging is technically challenging and gets
| ridiculously expensive very quickly because of the contrast
| benefits of extremely narrowband filtering. He references
| using a Takahashi FSQ-106 (~$7k), Coronado double stack (also
| ~$7k) and a .5 angstrom Daystar filter (~$4k).
|
| Massive massive investment in equipment. Hard to say if he
| has everything he lists but easily $100k total, probably
| closer to $200k. I would hazard that if you tried to start
| today, you couldn't find _any_ of the above in stock. You 're
| going to be scrounging the used market (which is fortunately
| quite active) and/or waiting 2-3 years for order fulfillment.
| I started into this hobby last fall and it is quite
| frustrating just getting your hands on what you want.
| mikeInAlaska wrote:
| Alternatively, you could use a $2000 - $4000 (used price)
| C14 telescope on a $4000 AP900 (used price) mount, with a
| $1000 planetary camera. Still a chunk of change.
|
| The only thing you can't buy used is the apparently killer
| atmospheric conditions he enjoys wherever he shoots.
| jcims wrote:
| Totally agree. I've got the CPC1100 version of the C11
| sitting behind me that I bought minus the tripod through
| an Amazon pallet liquidation. Had to buy the tripod for a
| total outlay of ~$2k for basically a new scope.
|
| I can easily get Tycho in that same field of view, but
| the contrast is going to suck and relative clarity be
| pretty laughable. The fun part is there's a lot to learn,
| the sucky part is there's a lot to learn :)
| FpUser wrote:
| Thanks for mentioning the site. I just checked his HR Moon.
| Incredible.
| playcache wrote:
| Reminds me a little of this beauty (keep watching until the end)
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjNssEVlB6M
| potamic wrote:
| It's cool. But much clickbait with the title?
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| What definition of clickbait are you using here? In my head,
| clickbait is still "You won't BELIEVE this ONE CLEVER TRICK!
| Astrophotographers HATE him!", or something like that. I'm
| guessing you don't like the emotional wording in "jaw-
| dropping"?
| monkeydust wrote:
| OP here - think I followed guidelines here.
|
| "Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is
| misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."
| lmilcin wrote:
| No, the title is not a clickbait. This is best photo of ISS
| transiting Moon I have seen, by a large margin.
| nuccy wrote:
| Indeed. There are also pretty stunning transits of the Sun
| (with Canadarm and Crew Dragon resolved) on the
| photographer's website [1]. But Moon transits are likely much
| more challenging since it is much fainter as a background
| than the Sun.
|
| 1. http://www.astrophoto.fr/iss_transits_june2020.html
| mikeInAlaska wrote:
| I would guess the Moon is actually much brighter once you
| filter the Sun to safe levels.
| web007 wrote:
| I read the title and was surprised to find the article isn't
| about AJamesMcCarthy - he has an amazing ISS-moon transit picture
| from a few months back.
|
| Turns out he (of course) saw this one, and thinks it's better
| than his own:
| https://twitter.com/AJamesMcCarthy/status/149619122880292454...
| jcims wrote:
| Huge fan of him as well. Extremely creative, eg. this
| exaggerated height image of the moon -
| https://www.instagram.com/p/CVvktGkP8sL/
| gadders wrote:
| >> "I did it, so it can be done," Legault replied. "Anyway, will
| a million dollar racket will (sic) make you defeat Federer or
| Nadal?"
|
| My wife is a not-bad-for-an-amateur photographer of family events
| etc and any time she takes a good photo people ask "What camera
| did you use?"
|
| I wonder if people used to go up to Shakespeare and say "Great
| play. What quill did you use?" Not that I'm comparing my wife to
| Shakespeare, but I could thrash around with an expensive DSLR for
| ages and not get a photo as good as a pro with an iphone 7. It's
| not the camera that makes a good photo.
| londons_explore wrote:
| I had the reverse experience... I borrowed a friends super
| fancy camera, and used it on all the 'auto' modes, and it gave
| amazing results, despite me having no real photography skill.
| gadders wrote:
| The camera will make the picture bright, in focus etc but it
| won't help you with composition and capturing the right
| moment.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Oh but it does... The 'burst' ability lets me take 50
| photos in a few seconds and choose the best. And the high
| res sensor lets me crop afterwards to get much improved
| composition. No skill required.
| mirkules wrote:
| I would like to know the camera too, because he takes the shot
| at 1/6000. What kind of camera lets in enough light at that
| shutter speed in the night sky to get that kind of photo at an
| apparently-low ISO (not a lot of grain apparent in the photo)?
| mikeInAlaska wrote:
| Probably using a ZWO ASI camera. He has used the 183 pro in
| the past I know.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| No grain; he's using a digital sensor, not silver nitrate
| emulsion.
| bagels wrote:
| Moon is bright, and the telescope has a much larger aperture
| than your typical camera lens.
| mnw21cam wrote:
| The moon is bright. It's directly lit by the sun.
| martopix wrote:
| In terms of technical difficulty and required equipment, there
| is a significant difference between "family events" and
| astrophotography.
| throw0101a wrote:
| If anyone wants a regular dose of astrophotography see Astronomy
| Picture of the Day:
|
| * https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html
|
| An RSS feed is available.
| gattr wrote:
| In a similar vein, a high-res ISS image by Alessandro Bianconi
| showing a damaged radiator:
|
| https://www.astrobin.com/375799/?nc=all
|
| (Taken with a 14" telescope. Good "astronomical seeing"
| conditions and necessary post-processing notwithstanding, the
| smallest resolvable details depend linearly on telescope's
| aperture (i.e., the primary optical element's diameter).)
|
| EDIT: I also like this animation a lot, ISS crossing the sky
| (9.25" telescope):
|
| https://astropolis.pl/topic/79691-przelot-iss-z-ogniskowej-2...
| nullc wrote:
| Nice thing about the moon and ISS is that there are lots of
| opportunities to photograph them. To get an actual transit like
| that you may have to travel some distance or wait a long time:
| https://transit-finder.com/
|
| Obligatory "here is the moon photo I took two days ago":
| https://litter.catbox.moe/5zj2s5.jpg
| amne wrote:
| Anyone know what are the chances of this happening again in the
| future? Except the "take the photo" part. I'm talking about: -
| it's night - clear sky - right geo coordinates - ISS passing
| between the moon and said right geo coordinates
|
| Just thinking of these and then add on top that you have 0.5s to
| take the photo. This was truly a "right moment, right place,
| right person" kind of thing.
| sva_ wrote:
| > _Anyone know what are the chances of this happening again in
| the future?_
|
| After ~2031, when the ISS is scheduled to be crashed into the
| ocean, the chances will tend to zero.
| stavros wrote:
| Why are they scrapping it? Isn't it useful?
| simion314 wrote:
| From my reading it will no longer be safe to use it,
| basically the warranty of the materials expires, it will be
| risky to continue using it.
| stavros wrote:
| Ah hmm, that's interesting, thank you.
| lmilcin wrote:
| There is a lot of occasions for observations if you are into
| it.
|
| This photo is not a happy accident, though. It took careful
| preparation.
|
| Let's see... it looks that at a distance of 400km we can see
| features of size roughly 1m (or even better). This points to
| resolution of 0.01 arcsecond which is fenomenal for an amateur
| setup.
| elboru wrote:
| A few months ago the ISS passed through my city during
| sunset, while me and my family were hanging out outside. It
| was an amazing experience. I saw it first, it was reflecting
| the sun so it looked like a shooting star but it was too slow
| for a shooting star and too fast for a plane. It was too
| bright for it to be satellite? So I googled ISS position and
| it matched! We were able too see it for a while.
| gliptic wrote:
| That's not quite right. 1 meter at 400 km distance is ~0.51
| arcseconds, which is on the edge of doable with good seeing.
| 0.01 arcseconds would never be possible within the
| atmosphere.
| jcims wrote:
| The most depressing statistic here (for me anyway) is that
| to directly image the nearest exoplanet at 1km per pixel
| we're going to need a telescope with ~.000000005 arcseconds
| of resolution.
|
| Someone check my math but that would be like imaging the
| ISS at the nanometer scale from the surface of the earth.
| lmilcin wrote:
| Believe or not, that project is already underway and will
| use our Sun as a gravitational lens.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_gravitational_lens
|
| I predict in couple decades we will learn to build swarms
| of drone craft that we will send to the right location
| and they will be able to image nearby planets (one per
| swarm...) with at least ~10-40km per pixel if not better.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| "Underway " is a little strong. Putting something at 500
| AU is still not really feasible within a reasonable
| timeframe.
|
| But I think there are exciting things to come up in the
| next decades for sure.
| krisoft wrote:
| I heard about this fascinating idea of using the
| gravitational lensing of our own sun to image the surface
| of exoplanets:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQFqDKRAROI
|
| It wouldn't look like any telescope you might have ever
| seen. Once we have a candidate exoplanet we want to take
| a picture of we would launch a flock of free-flying
| solar-sail propelled satellites in such an orbit that
| they get yeeted away from the sun on a trajectory
| opposite of the target exoplanet. They would travel to
| the "focal plane" of the sun's gravitational lens where
| the exoplanet's light is smeared to a ring around the sun
| which they collaboratively capture. Probably one such a
| pass wouldn't be enough, so we would need to send such
| flocks multiple times, like waves following on each
| other.
|
| What I love about the plan is that it is both super
| scifi, yet we already have all the components to make it
| happen if we want to.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| 1km would be fantastic but I think 1000km would already
| give us a ton of information.
| rocqua wrote:
| Now compute what kind of virtual aperture size it takes
| to get this resolution without being diffraction limited.
|
| Edit: I did it, about 25000km (for light with a
| wavelength of 500nm), or twice the radius of the earth.
| That actually suggests it could be doable with a
| constellation of telescopes in high orbit.
| nullc wrote:
| Or a gigantic obstruction:
| https://www.nasa.gov/content/the-aragoscope-ultra-high-
| resol...
|
| Sadly the occulder has to be smooth at sub wavelength
| scales, or solar system bodies could be used.
| rocqua wrote:
| I couldn't find a quick summary to this question. But
| what size aragascope do you need to achieve the
| equivalent of an x meter aperture?
|
| My gut says probably the same size, but the claims
| suggest the aragascope can actually be smaller. My gut
| can also imagine it depends on the distance between the
| aragascope and the telescope.
| nullc wrote:
| > the claims suggest the aragascope can actually be
| smaller.
|
| This may be because of the shape of the PSF is different
| from the normal airy disk one.
|
| Here is a random google result showing the spot of arago,
| https://www.lighttrans.com/use-
| cases/application/observation... -- which looks to me
| like it would have poor contrast but good resolution.
| Though I'm out of my depth so it could be nonsense. :P
|
| Edit: Ah, yeah the graph at figure 9 in the report linked
| on the linked page shows something like that.
| gliptic wrote:
| The synopsis on the site suggests the same size as the
| disk. But I guess it doesn't say it scales the same as
| with mirror size.
|
| > can be used to achieve the diffraction limit based on
| the size of the low cost disk, rather than the high cost
| telescope mirror
| JaimeThompson wrote:
| This will help you find ISS and other transits https://transit-
| finder.com/
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| There are quite a few calculators that give you exact transit
| times for a location. You need a precise clock on your phone
| and then you can start shooting bursts half a second before
| transit until your buffer is full. It's very anxiety inducing
| because you can't see anything but so far it has worked out
| every time. I only have a 400mm lens so the quality is not that
| great but you can see the solar panels and the outline of the
| station.
|
| I have also done it in front of the moon but that's way harder
| because you have less light and get slower shutter speeds
| resulting in motion blur.
| carl_dr wrote:
| It's actually quite common. I have a photo of a transit of the
| Moon taken from my backyard, and another from a couple of miles
| down the road. I also took one ISS transit of the Sun in my
| parent's backyard the day before Atlantis undocked on the last
| ever Shuttle flight. So I really haven't had to go out of my
| way to capture them.
|
| Those photos were within a couple of years of each other,
| obviously some time ago now.
| globular-toast wrote:
| How long until we can photograph the moon landings from Earth?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-14 23:02 UTC)