1.4 Billion Pixel Camera To Watch For Asteroids

SpaceSlug writes "The world's largest digital camera is to be used to keep an eye out for asteroids heading towards Earth. The Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response System (Pan-STARRS) has been built by researchers at MIT's Lincoln Lab. At its heart is a 1.4 billion pixel (or 1400 megapixel) camera that will scan the night sky looking for rogue near-Earth objects from atop Mount Haleakala in Maui Island, Hawaii. The system uses something called an orthogonal transfer CCD to remove atmospheric blur from images."

Comments

So how many ..

[OzPeter]

Gigapixels is that???

Re:So how many ..

[Kagura]

1.41 jiggapixels, panning at 88 arcseconds per hour.

Re:So how many ..

[AioKits]

When this baby hits 88 arcseconds per hour, you're going to see some serious shit.

Re:So how many ..

[Rayban]

One point four jiggapixels? One point four jiggapixels?? Great scott!

Re:So how many ..

[owlnation]

Gigapixels is that???

...and in Libraries of Congress???

Re:So how many ..

[koalapeck]

What I really want to know is how much data that is, but please reference the amount of data in relation to library's of Congress.

Re:So how many ..

[Sethumme]

1.21
one point twenty one

No DeLorean for you!

Re:So how many ..

[Kagura]

Yeah, but I decided to keep the joke closer with the actual story. Also, you're not going to be keeping up 88 arcseconds of panning per hour against the sky, considering the speed that the earth rotates.

Re:So how many ..

[techno-vampire]

...and in Libraries of Congress???

I'd be more interested in learning how much that is in Britney Spears or Paris Hiltons.

Re:So how many ..

[meringuoid]

Gigapixels is that???

1.4 gigapixes, although since this is digital data I'm sure someone will come along shortly to insist it's more like 1.304.

To fully fund the project year round

[deft]

You just need to point her down at the beaches of Hawaii a few times a year and capture some of the scenery.

can you say gigapixelboobs.com?

Re:To fully fund the project year round

[mcgrew]

It's looking for asteroids. If it was a British telescope it would be looking for arseteroids.

Re:To fully fund the project year round

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a sidelong view of the nipple. I'd link to a photo of the whole boob, but it'd melt your video card.

Re:To fully fund the project year round

[Falkkin]

http://gigapan.org/viewGigapan.php?id=5322

5.3 gigapixel image of Hanauma Bay in Hawaii.

Re:To fully fund the project year round

[Extremus]

It looks like a VERY old nipple, I should say.

Re:To fully fund the project year round

[UNKN]

Video card? The whole boob would light my router on fire.

Re:To fully fund the project year round

[Anonymous Coward]

http://gigapan.org/viewGigapan.php?id=5322

5.3 gigapixel image of Hanauma Bay in Hawaii.

Wow, the image of Hanauma Bay caught images of ghost walking up and down the steps to the right, headless body and bodyless heads floating, hehehehe.

Re:To fully fund the project year round

[Anonymous Coward]

http://gigapan.org/viewGigapan.php?id=5322

5.3 gigapixel image of Hanauma Bay in Hawaii.

Fantastic! I have made four observations:

• While this appeals to my voyeur side, I find the lack of attractive women disturbing.
• There appears to be a man with very attractive female-looking legs and a third arm growing out of his hip near the lower right edge of the sandy beach area.
• Look near the second guard station and the pavilion, photographic proof that we can detach our upper bodies from our legs. Interestingly enough, his shadow is in one piece.
• I have the same stroller as the woman near the third guard station, Graco Quattro Travel System, the style named Bermuda. We like it.

Re:To fully fund the project year round

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm buying that domain, pronto

Re:To fully fund the project year round

[Anonymous Coward]

They cut that poor man in half.

Re:To fully fund the project year round

[glittalogik]

The world's first terapixel image, was in fact of a boob. A cancerous one, but still, on the right track.

link (SFW, as far as I can tell)

1.4...

[Anonymous Coward]

One point four jigga-pixels! Great scott!

Singularity

[Sybert42]

You have to remember that the Singularity will happen soon. Any calculations of risk must be compared with the time to Singularity. Any asteroid hit must only be compared to the effect on progress to the Singularity.

Re:Singularity

[Anonymous Coward]

Aaaannnd... that's the story of why I removed the karma "Subscriber Bonus +1"

Re:Singularity

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, singularity, you mean your existence??

Re:Singularity

[Sybert42]

Not at all. It's the point where intelligence can improve itself.

Pending Doom

[tripdizzle]

So now we will be able to see asteroids that could slam into our planet and possibly end life, but then what? Hit it with a missile or go Armageddon style on it?

Re:Pending Doom

[Kagura]

Our response depends on how soon it'll impact our planet.

Re:Pending Doom

[Last_Available_Usern]

The problem with illiciting action is proving risk. No ones going to mitigate a one in a million possibility. However, if you find some near-Earth objects that you can show have a 25% chance of hitting the Earth in the next 50 years, you might see a lot more development in the way of mitigation (or disaster planning at least).

Re:Pending Doom

[evanbd]

For starters, it's worth worrying about asteroids that would merely destroy a city rather than end life as we know it. And, if you spot them early, there are a number of techniques that could deflect them. With plenty of time to work, small changes in velocity can cause large changes in position years in the future -- turning an impact into a near miss. This is especially true if there is a close approach to another body before the impact, as small changes in position at the approach turn into larger changes in velocity.

If you only need a tiny course correction, there are plenty of options. A gravitational tug, for example (put a spacecraft near the asteroid, use ion engines to maintain position, and let gravitational forces pull the asteroid toward the ship, and vice versa). That lets you use an ion engine to nudge the asteroid without solving the problems of landing on it or grabbing it. If you can get away with even less total impulse, you can simply paint a large portion of it white and let light pressure from the Sun do the work for you.

Things like large rocket engines and nuclear blasts are crude, blunt instruments; if you have warning, a more subtle approach is appropriate.

Re:Pending Doom

[HarvardAce]

With plenty of time to work, small changes in velocity can cause large changes in position years in the future -- turning an impact into a near miss.

Or, given the fact that even the most advanced prediction algorithms still have to cut some corners (therefore leading to some uncertainty), it could turn a near miss into an impact.

Re:Pending Doom

[east coast]

Hit it with a missile or go Armageddon style on it?

As long as it gets rid of Bruce Willis it's a win-win situation.

Re:Pending Doom

[tripdizzle]

As long as it gets rid of Bruce Willis it's a win-win situation. And keeps Liv Tyler, and I become her for a day, and go jogging all day holding a mirror in front of me.

Re:Pending Doom

[Falkkin]

The book "Death from the Skies" by Phil Plait has a lengthy chapter devoted specifically to asteroid impacts and how we might consider avoiding them. The missile idea is a bad one, as the individual fragments will still hit Earth and quite possibly do more damage than the original asteroid due to immediately affecting an even wider area. A couple more promising ideas are gravitational deflection (park some other massive object nearby and allow the new object's gravity to slowly move the asteroid off a collision course) or putting a rocket on the asteroid and giving it some thrust in a harmless direction. Of course, the best strategy depends on how far ahead of time we know about the possible impact, and of course the sooner we know about it the "easier" it should be to avoid it. So building huge cameras like this is one of the more significant things we can do to prevent a possible Death from the Skies.

Re:Pending Doom

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't nearly missing the same as impacting? If it misses it should be called a near hit. Apologies to George Carlin. :)

Re:Pending Doom

[Kleen13]

Both. Good motivation for the drill team. Just don't tell them why their uniforms are redshirts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshirt_(character)

Re:Pending Doom

[nasor]

The usual point of the "missile idea" isn't to destroy the asteroid, but merely to alter its course. A 1 megaton bomb detonated 1 km from an asteroid will impart about 300 megajoules/square meter of asteroid. That should be more than enough to vaporize a layer along the outer surface, which will dramatically later its course. In terms of simplicity, nothing competes with nuking the asteroid. A gravity tug is clever and all, but it assumes that you can match velocities with the asteroid and then maintain your position relative to it. That's a lot more complicated than simply getting your asteroid-diverting probe "within a km or so". Actually landing some sort of engine on it would be even more difficult.

Re:Pending Doom

[kj_kabaje]

not to quibble too much, but isn't a near miss a hit?

Re:Pending Doom

[dkleinsc]

Liv Tyler? You must be new here: the celebrity that is kept has to be Natalie Portman (petrified in hot grits).

Re:Pending Doom

[Anonymous Coward]

you can simply paint a large portion of it white and let light pressure from the Sun do the work for you.

Heresy! I see an asteroid and I wanted it painted white?!!! NO!!! Obviously it needs to be painted black!

Re:Pending Doom

[tripdizzle]

The celeb thing in these posts started with the movie Armageddon, which is why I referred to Liv Tyler.

Re:Pending Doom

[the_other_chewey]

...turning an impact into a near miss.

I'd rather prefer it would nearly hit than nearly miss...

Re:Pending Doom

[Tablizer]

Or, given the fact that even the most advanced prediction algorithms still have to cut some corners (therefore leading to some uncertainty)

Cut corners? You mean along the lines of using type Float instead of Double? More likely the errors are due to natural issues such as sun-light reflecting off the surface of the roid in unknown ways giving it a slight push or imprecise knowledge about Jupiter's gravity profile at given distances. When a roid passes close to a planet, small differences in path can be greatly magnified. Thus any small error turns into a larger error when forecasting past the rendezvous point.

Re:Pending Doom

[pseudochaos]

Pretty clever, sir/madam, but wouldn't your ions that you're propelling toward the asteroid (or what have you) to keep the ship and asteroid from colliding also hit said object, putting it back in its original vector? I'd say just nuke it to be sure, but I'm a sucker for fireworks.

Re:Pending Doom

[evanbd]

You use 2-3 ion engines, so that the net thrust is along the axis between the two bodies, but none of the engines are aimed directly at the asteroid. The loss in efficiency is minimal, even if you're fairly close to the asteroid. For example, aiming 5 degrees off axis results in less than 0.5% efficiency penalty.

Re:Pending Doom

[theshowmecanuck]

So now we will be able to see asteroids that could slam into our planet and possibly end life

No, we will be able to see asteroids that could slam into our planet and possibly end life in the northern hemisphere. And then we can send a bomb up or something to move it away. Who cares about the southern hemisphere. :D

Re:Pending Doom

[robbak]

This device is all about finding them. Once you have found something that has an orbit that brings it close to the earth, hundreds of telescopes will be pointed at it, leading to many highly accurate measurements that will specify its location and orbit to a nice precision.
This device will find asteroids with a 1 on 1000 chance of impacting. Withing a few days, we'll know to 1 in 100. Give it a week, month or year, and we'll know what street to paint an X on.

Re:Pending Doom

[robbak]

Um, no. You have been watching too many movies.

An explosion in space does - practically nothing. An explosion on earth pushes the air away in a big shock wave that does the damage. An explosion in space dissipates immediately with little effect except to the item that exploded. (related phenomenon: Why the lunar landers produced so little dust, and no crater.)
For an explosive device to do much, it would have to be embedded into the asteroid and blow a chunk off the side. Then conservation of momentum would mean that the asteroid would change path.
A gravity tug is still the best option. Slow and steady, needs a few years, but it would work.

Re:Pending Doom

[HarvardAce]

The point I was trying to make is that there are a lot of forces acting on an asteroid while it is in orbit. As others have said, there are things like spin, close encounters with other unknown asteroids, the exact gravity profile of the planets, etc. Location and current velocity are just two of the many variables that affect the trajectory of an asteroid. Current projections can estimate the amount of error that each of these factors can cause, but they cannot, with today's technology, accurately account for them.

There was a recent study (which I think was highlighted on Slashdot, but I cannot find a link) that tried to quantify all these variables and determine how much each unknown could affect the overall trajectory of an asteroid. I'm sure someone else will be able to find it.

Re:Pending Doom

[HarvardAce]

More likely the errors are due to natural issues such as sun-light reflecting off the surface of the roid in unknown ways giving it a slight push or imprecise knowledge about Jupiter's gravity profile at given distances.

This is exactly what I meant by "cut corners." Probably not the best way to describe it, but there are, at the roughest level, three different items that lead to error in predicting trajectories. The first is errors/inprecision in measurements, which this camera will help reduce. The second is us not knowing exactly how certain forces will affect a particular asteroid. The last is the inability to accurately simulate the forces that we do know, due to computational complexity. It is here where things are simplified (i.e. corners are cut) in order to be able to run a simulation at all. I suppose "cutting corners" has a connotation of laziness as opposed to necessity -- in this case, it is not because astronomers are lazy -- it is just that we do not have the technology or computational horsepower to be able to accurately simulate every known force on a particular asteroid (let alone the unknown forces that we don't know about).

The best we can do is attempt to determine the upper limits on the errors that all these unknowns/simplifications can cause on a particular trajectory. By doing this, if we have a potential impact, no matter how small, we may be able to adjust the trajectory enough to ensure that the projected trajectory, along with all potential error, still leaves the object safely out of harm's way.

Re:Pending Doom

[Free the Cowards]

All this means is that your trajectory change ought to be done with serious overkill so as to definitively push it outside of the entire error basket. If caught years in advance this will still men an absolutely miniscule impulse.

Re:Pending Doom

[Amazing Proton Boy]

Um,no. You have missed the point.

It has nothing to do with a shock wave. The theory is that the detonation will heat the surface of the asteroid causing a thin layer to vaporize and move away from the body thus imparting a small thrust and altering the trajectory.

Re:Pending Doom

[Anonymous Coward]

Goggle creates Asteroid View, world saved.

Re:Pending Doom

[nasor]

Re-read my post. The "shockwave" doesn't have anything to do with it. Nuclear bombs throw out a HUGE amount of energy in the form of xrays and hard UV, easily enough to vaporize the outer surface of the asteroid and radically change its course. I even included some exact numbers on how much energy would be deposited on the asteroid based on a certain bomb size detonating at a certain distance, which of course you ignored.

A gravity tug is MUCH more complicated than simply nuking the asteroid, because it requires you to match velocities with the asteroid and then maintain your position for months or years. So not only are you having to perform a much more complicated set of navigational maneuvers, but your probe now has to continue to function properly for YEARS longer without breaking down. Additionally, with a nuke you get immediate results and can immediately determine whether or not you successfully diverted the asteroid. With a gravity tug it could take you months or years for any errors to become apparent, which will leave you with less time to correct your mistake.

Simply getting a nuclear bomb reasonably close to the asteroid and then detonating it is much simpler.

Re:Pending Doom

[robbak]

Thank you: You are, of course, completely correct. I do not know how I managed to so badly mis-read your comment.

Again, sorry and thank you.

Common Nomenclature

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that a 1.4 Bigapixel camera?

Damn

[MightyMartian]

Damn, now it means that when my brother-in-law sets his next camera to maximum resolution (as he always does), I'm going to get 50gb image files.

Re:Damn

[qwertphobia]

Martin? Bro? Is that you? I have a question for you:

why does the internet get slow every time i send you pictures?

What? The're in space?

[zappepcs]

Last time I looked, Asteroids was at the local bowling alley. Do I win a prize? Do these youngster space explorer types need any more investigative help? All the comets they need are under my kitchen sink! there! ba da bing! Oh, my neighbor guy has Saturn in his driveway! But if you guys need help or a camera to find Uranus... damn, I'm out!

Blah...

[rodrigoandrade]

Wake me up when Apple puts it in the next iPhone.

Kodak moment

[girlintraining]

Well, it's almost as good as what the NSA uses to spy on you with. Aren't you glad we have our priorities straight in this country?

Re:Kodak moment

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently girls can have paranoid delusions too.

Re:Kodak moment

[Anonymous Coward]

O shit, NSA, NaSA, they are in kahootz!! Time to revolt!!!!!!!

Re:Kodak moment

[mcgrew]

He's not a girl, he's in training to be a girl. (s)he does have a valid point, though. It's only flamebait if you're NSA or a rabid neocon. It is, in fact, pretty much how spy satellites work -- just take a Hubble, change the focus, and point it down.

Re:Kodak moment

[SlashSnot]

Pretty sure your priorites are straight. As is your tin foil hat across your brow.

Re:Kodak moment

[girlintraining]

Umm, I am a girl... and yes that is how spy satellites work, except that they are a lot smaller because they don't need to capture as much light to get an exposure.

Re:Kodak moment

[Anonymous Coward]

Careful what you say. The NSA might mod you down

Re:Kodak moment

[mcgrew]

I kid. Sorry. I wasn't kidding about the moderation though, your comment was by no means flamebait.

When you complete your training you'll have to change you slashdot ID!

Re:Kodak moment

[mcgrew]

Or Pudge ;)

Re:Kodak moment

[girlintraining]

Yeah, I've thought about that. I usually pretend to be a boy on most forums because it makes life so much easier, but my friends convinced me that I was just giving in to sexism by doing that. I work with computers, and most of my female friends are either lesbians or bi, so you can imagine how it is with them. I'm "in training" because I'm a tomboy... grew up in the country, moved to the city and got taken in by lesbians and tomboys. :) I'm trying to be more femme, hence the nick.

Re:Kodak moment

[UncleTogie]

I've always wondered how they train those lady-types. I wonder, are there formal courses? I can jus' picture it:

"How to Confuse Your Significant Other 101"
"Bathroom Herd Instinct" {this one explains how and why women across any venue can detect ONE lady whispering "I have to go to the bathroom" in a voice quieter than a mouse fart, how they pack 20 women into a two-stall bathroom, and what to talk about.}
"Cattiness for Profit"
"Instant Headache Summoning 101"

Did I miss any?

Re:Kodak moment

[mcgrew]

That makes sense. I think your friends are right.

Are you trying to learn to be more feminine to attract men? Because if you are, you're hanging around with the wrong ladies. They're not going to have a clue about femininity. It would be like me having a gay man try and teach me how to be "butch" and attract women.

I happen to like tomboys.

Re:Kodak moment

[girlintraining]

No, I'm not doing it for men. ;)

Re:Kodak moment

[hierophanta]

seeing you tell people that you are actually a girl makes me laugh-- every week.

Re:Kodak moment

[mcgrew]

I suspected that from the description of your friends =)

Re:Kodak moment

[mcgrew]

"Hiding Hubbie's Stuff" (Well look for it!)

I've found you don't even have to be married for them to do this. Hell, I've had woman move my shit around the first day we meet, the first time she's in my house.

In need of perspective?

[Assassin bug]

Not sure if there is much "blue shift" that can be detected from a near-earth object, such as an asteroid. So, maybe we should put two up there to add a little perspective, sensu Grover.

Re:In need of perspective?

[boris111]

I'm no astronomer, but I believe you can triangulate objects based on the earth's position around the sun.

Re:In need of perspective?

[Darth_brooks]

Asteroid hunting doesn't really have anything to do with blue or red shifting. You're not looking to see whether a distant object is moving towards or away form you. More likely, they're looking at dots. Specifically, which dots in picture A moved in comparison to picture B and which one didn't.

Think of it this way: Step out at night and look at the stars and whatever planet happens to be in view. Now, step out the next night at precisely the same time (ok, to be fair, a couple minutes later) and look again. The stars are in the same spot, but the planet has moved.

With high-res digital cameras you can take very precise pictures, then let software pick out which of the faint dots are distant stars, and which maybe be asteroids. It's a pretty standard way of discovering and plotting the course of the various odds and ends floating around our solar system.

Re:In need of perspective?

[wjh31]

yes, but to do that you have to wait for the earth to move to the other side first

Re:In need of perspective?

[Assassin bug]

Upon further reflection, and with your succinct description, I think I understand. Obviously, stereoscopic view isn't needed to track orbits, most telescopes are monocular. One just needs to see something moving (e.g., a tool-bag in orbit). I guess for some reason the impression of an object heading straight at the lens came to mind, which is clearly, well silly.

Re:In need of perspective?

[JayAitch]

Maybe for very far objects outside the solar system, but for these objects the earth moves a significant distance within a day. Backyard astronomers do this all the time.

Re:In need of perspective?

[hierophanta]

all the way to the other side? that seems a bit far fetched, why couldnt they just wait till it moves 1* - that would be about a day. and you'd still have 3 points to make a triangle ;)

Re:In need of perspective?

[Kentari]

Think of it this way: Step out at night and look at the stars and whatever planet happens to be in view. Now, step out the next night at precisely the same time (ok, to be fair, a couple minutes later) and look again. The stars are in the same spot, but the planet has moved.

About four minutes earlier each day in fact: A sidereal day is: 23h56m4.090530833s. You can easily verify this now. The easily recognizable Orion constellation is now rising around 10pm, look for it in a month at 8pm and you'll find it at the same spot.

So how many...?

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

So just how many near Earth objects come from atop Haleakala?

Re:So how many...?

[45mm]

My guess is that's what they're trying to find out? Having recently been there I can tell you that at its 10000+ ft summit, the clouds are "below" you, leaving unfettered access to the sky.

Can it capture UFO license plate numbers?

[Anonymous Coward]

I gots to know

Re:Can it capture UFO license plate numbers?

[mcgrew]

UFOs by definition don't have visible license plates. If it had a license plate it wouldn't be unidentified, now would it?

Re:Can it capture UFO license plate numbers?

[Anonymous Coward]

The space police will love this if it can.

Those damn aliens going faster than the speed of light, totally breaking the law.

What happens if they crashed into a planet?
WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE PLANETS?!

Re:Can it capture UFO license plate numbers?

[mschuyler]

Except if you can't read the plate, it remains unidentifed. Hence the need for this camera.

Re:Can it capture UFO license plate numbers?

[Anonymous Coward]

But the whole point of the fucking UFO is to remain unidentified, so why would it put a license plate on itself that you are not meant to read? Just to be an ass? Those aliens must have some real issues. Either that or they're brits.

It's a bird! It's a plane!

[yogibaer]

No, it's a lost toolbag! So many practical applications for things lost in space.

Re:It's a bird! It's a plane!

[tripdizzle]

LOL, i could have imagined her screaming, "Oh noes, a $100,000 bag of tools is floating away from me at a snail's pace, wtf do I do!!!!!!!"

Re:It's a bird! It's a plane!

[SaDan]

Clearly they need harpoon guns in space.

Re:It's a bird! It's a plane!

[MaxwellEdison]

Anyyone aboard the ISS who goes "Oh noes" should immediately be sent out of the airlock, sans suit.

Astronomy Magazine

[Neuropol]

I think i just read some thing about this in Astronomy Magazine from earlier this year. The sensitivity and rapid ability to shoot large areas in a short amount of time will allow for this telescope to scan and record the entire Hawaiian skies every 3 days in search of Asteroids, Supernovae, and other phenomenon.

Blurred summary

[mcgrew]

The system uses something called an orthogonal transfer CCD to remove atmospheric blur from images.

Shoddy. "Something called?" Come on, guys, this is supposed to be "news for nerds". If you can't find it on wikipedia, use google.

orthogonal transfer CCD (OTCCD)

We have designed and built a new type of CCD that we call an orthogonal transfer CCD (OTCCD), which permits parallel clocking horizontally as well as vertically. The device has been used successfully to remove image motion caused by atmospheric turbulence at rates up to 100 Hz, and promises to be a better, cheaper way to carry out image motion correction for imaging than by using fast tip/tilt mirrors. We report on the device characteristics, and find that the large number of transfers needed to track image motion does not significantly degrade the image either because of charge transfer inefficiency or because of charge traps. For example, after 100 sec of tracking at 100 Hz approximately 3% of the charge would diffuse into a skirt around the point spread function. Four nights of data at the Michigan-Dartmouth-MIT (MDM) 2.4-m telescope also indicate that the atmosphere is surprisingly benign, in terms of both the speed and coherence angle of image motion. Image motion compensation improved image sharpness by about 0.5'' in quadrature with no degradation over a field of at least 3 arcminutes. (SECTION: Astronomical Instrumentation)

And I'll just bet..

[Channard]

... the manufacturers only included a 16mb SD card.

A 1.4-gigapixel camera to detect asteroids

[rpiquepa]

You also should read a story published 4 days ago about this camera by ZDNet. Here is a link to this article, which contains several pictures not included in the Technology Review article.

Re:A 1.4-gigapixel camera to detect asteroids

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm tired of your whoring pig pile. Quit submitting articles that just spam your own sites, and quit trying to generate cash out of slashdot. It was a nice site before you came along and tried to shit in the casserole.

This could put pr0n to shame, having 1.4 BILLION

[davidsyes]

pieces of ass, umm, fully-feeling, umm, screen-fulfilling asTEROIDS on display at one time... Talk about "getting your rocks off"....

Dead pixel

[jbeaupre]

Watch them still miss the asteroid because it was never detected due to a dead pixel. If Hollywood has taught me anything, the impossible will always happen. I'm not worried though, because it also taught me that the problem will only last a few hours and everything will be solved in the last few minutes.

Re:Dead pixel

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch them still miss the asteroid because it was never detected due to a dead pixel.

Or maybe a dead pixel is used to cloak a planet.

Lost a planet, Obi Wan has. How embarrassing. How... em... barrassing.

Haha Roland Piquepaille Failed

[Anonymous Coward]

He links to his own articles in comments because noone wants to see them on the front page anymore.

Don't be fooled by his claim about 'several pictures'; really, there's only two, one of which is a generic photo of a galaxy. The TR article also has a generic picture of an astronomical object.

The only picture Rolly is really offering is at
http://www.blogsforcompanies.com/TTimages/pan_starrs_gigapixel_camera.jpg

What kind of lenses?

[qwertphobia]

I bet it has no practical depth of field, even when stopped down to f/64. Wonder what the pixel density is...

Re:What kind of lenses?

[Overzeetop]

It is an interesting question, though I'm not going to rtfa to see if they have an overall sensor size. Luckily, when imaging most celestial opbjects the DOF should be pretty insignificant. On the bright side, if an asteroid does come out blurry due to a depth of field issue, we're probably not going to be around long enough to worry about it!

Re:What kind of lenses?

[Anonymous Coward]

At the risk of suggesting something crazy, have you considered that the moon, at 400,000 km, is at infinity for all practical purposes? I'd say that if the asteroids are closer than that, we've already failed to detect them.

Re:What kind of lenses?

[michaelwv]

It's essentially focused to infinity, which amounts to everything more than perhaps a few hundred miles away (I'm making that last number up a bit; it might be closer). It has 10 micron pixels that cover the focal plane at 0.25 arcseconds per pixel for a total field of view of over 7 square degrees.

Re:What kind of lenses?

[avandesande]

There is absolutely no need to stop down a lens like this- everything is infinity focused.

Re:What kind of lenses?

[robbak]

I've always thought that, if a lens is set to infinity, then everything is blurred to the size of the aperture.
Suffice to say, when you are looking at any astronomical object, a blur of 2 or 3 metres is not of concern. (Side point: a photographer rarely uses an infinity focus. They use the closest focal length that leaves the most distant object adequately focused. This gives the best depth of field.)
Of course, more advanced optical theory,the sort that deals with interference and diffraction, limit resolution to the right number of arc-seconds, which renders all of this moot.

Rolly's borrowed photo, and more!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://pan-starrs.ifa.hawaii.edu/public/design-features/camera-small.htm

which is two clicks away from one of the links in the story, has lots of photos of the camera, including the one ol' Rolly is using to bring saps to his weblog

Awesome pics

[raind]

I don't know about anyone else but I find stuff like this to be really inspiring. Why is that astronomy in general doesn't get more mainstream media coverage?

Re:Awesome pics

[edremy]

You want my take? Light pollution. 100+ years ago you could look up at the sky at night and actually see the stars. Today? Bah- you're lucky if you live in an area that you can see magnitude 3-4 stars where a decent dark adapted eye can see down to 6 easily, and the difference is stunning. City dwellers have it even worse.

Go camping in Yosemite or the high western desert some day and backpack away from other people. Let your eyes adapt at night for a while and then look up. Compare that to what you see in your neighborhood- you can't care about what you can't see.

Oops, we missed one...

[jimbudncl]

The system uses something called an orthogonal transfer CCD to remove atmospheric blur from images.

Hopefully they've performed some real-world testing to ensure this technology doesn't also remove, you know, ASTEROIDS.

You know..

[SnarfQuest]

They really just want this camera for porn.

Isn't that overkill?

[Voyager529]

...if an asteroid is big enough to end life as we know it on earth, are 1.4 gigapixels really necessary?

Re:Isn't that overkill?

[trongey]

640k pixels is enough for anyone.

Sorry, but nobody else had done it yet.

Re:Isn't that overkill?

[belthize]

      Kind of depends on how far away it is.

Belthize

Re:Isn't that overkill?

[avandesande]

I think the intent here is more about surveying a large amount of the sky than magnification.

anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

whoa! this seems very interesting

-cam (http://www.camsdcute.com)

Okay, but is it high-resolution enough to...

[NinthAgendaDotCom]

...see a deep-core drilling team on the asteroid's surface?

Re:Okay, but is it high-resolution enough to...

[Tablizer]

...see a deep-core drilling team on the asteroid's surface?

Only when there's flashes from smashing each other in the face with drilling poles.
         

Why not standard OIS?

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Reading this my question would be why they don't use the movement technology used in optical image stabilization for digital cameras (video and still) which has been around for quite a long time... some techniques move a lens, which is the last element before the sensor, up and down while others move the sensor up and down (which still counts as OIS it seems). I would assume that in order to achieve its goal OIS is capable of movements accurate to a pixel width or less but perhaps it isn't that good? Or are there other reasons that doesn't work?

Re:Why not standard OIS?

[the_other_chewey]

No mechanical parts. It's probably more reliable, and surely needs less maintenance.
Also, it might be tricky to move a 40cm x 40cm detector array around at 100Hz without
introducing jitter or tilt.

Not impressed

[Whiteox]

Imagine that you somehow get to stand on Mars let's say...
What do you see? Well, we don't really know do we? Because ALL OF THE DAMN CAMERAS that Nasa or whomever send up there in the firmament, to the heavenly bodies or the moons are not designed for human vision.
No. The imaging data sent back to terrafirma has to be 'processed' with 'algorithms' before we can see a representation of human vision!
This 'representation' is not accurate, as captions often state that the image in question is made up of various data representing different wavelengths of light that are assembled to create it!
Well I'm not afraid!
I, publicly state, here on Slashdot, that I am extremely disappointed that we don't get human vision of planetary surfaces and cosmic phenomenon.
I for one would very much like to see any asteroid that will obliterate the Earth in full glorious colo(u)r.

There. I said it.
Now I will lie down somewhere.....

MIT built the chips... Hawaii IfA built Pan-STARRS

[Anonymous Coward]

Correcting a slight mistatement in the blurb... Lincoln Labs is supplying the orthoganal transfer array CCDs for Pan-STARRS (nutshell: move charge around on the chip to help adjust for "wobbly" atmosphere. Keep all the electrons produced by a single object together, instead of smeared out.) The system as a whole is being built by the Institute for Astronomy, U. Hawaii.

When I read the blurb, I thought, "Surely Lincoln Labs isn't claiming credit for the project..." That would ruffle a few feathers! And I was right... first paragraph of the article on the Lincoln Labs page correctly attributes IfA.

http://www.ll.mit.edu/news/panstarrs.html

And while Pan-STARRS' high cadence (it will image any particular region of the sky multiple times over several weeks or months) will be great for detecting transient phenomena (asteroids, supernovae, extrasolar planet transits) it will also produce a deep, multi-band all-sky (ok, sky visible from Hawaii) catalog of great use for the rest of astronomy, as well. It's now becoming possible to have a career in astronomy built on data-mining large surveys like this. Sort through a few billion objects to find a few dozen objects for spectroscopic followup...

Wow.

[kramulous]

They just don't have one of these cameras, they have four. Each pixel will be 2 bytes therefore 11.2GB per shot. Exposure times will be 30 seconds, so that is 1.3TB of data generated per hour.

That is going to be some serious number crunching when you need to compare at least two images. You want to finish all that comparison work (possible alignment work as well) before the following night (14hrs?). The data is going to be stored with Microsoft SQL Server. Storing and retrieving images sure, but when it comes to serving for analysis and storing/collating results, it would be a little too slow? How much can you tune a closed source solution on a tight budget as opposed going for one that you can tinker with to gain performance?

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

the data are not stored with SQL Server; the data are stored on a large linux cluster (2500TB by the end of the survey). the *results* are stored on a SQL server.

Re:Wow.

[Shag]

They just don't have one of these cameras, they have four.

Uh, no. They have one telescope with one camera on it. The system on Haleakala is the prototype, called PS-1.

The original plan was to build a final system with 4 scopes and 4 cameras, PS-4. Probably on Mauna Kea. Probably where the UH 2.2-meter (which I operate) is now. But they have to go through permitting and everything.

Re:Wow.

[kramulous]

You lucky bastard.

Does your role cover the hardware maintenance/upkeep (telescope, compute machines, storage), or the software implementation/number crunching? Or both?

Re:Wow.

[Shag]

Hardware and software upkeep? Uh, a tiny bit, but really mostly dealing with wetware. I'm operating the telescope, and as a former sysadmin, rather prefer to not have root on the boxen (sudo, where needed, will suffice). Server users usually don't (although they should!) question whether your racks are properly aligned with the stars.

Re:Wow.

[kramulous]

Hey,

    By strange coincidence the guys at the local planetarium have said that I can feel free to use their skydome system (within reason, but I think they are also interested in the visualisation work I do). The trade off is that I have to help the local Astronomy club get their datasets into the existing software - fair trade. But it only handles basic geometry, so I want to port some of my codes to the projection system. The parallel rendering (8 machines, each a single projector) will be interesting.

    What I'm asking you is whether you know of any free astro data repositories that I can use to test my software? I'd prefer something along the lines of millions (billions, trillions, etc. even better) of stars/galaxies in R3 with high res images of the same regions (so I can approximate some textures). Know of anything?

    I wouldn't mind using this opportunity to leap frog onto the Square Kilometre Array (if it ends up in Western Australia).

1 of 5 stars - Digital Camera

[flahwho]

Pros: it weighs in at a mere 3.3 tons, might be small enough to fit in your pocket. No plastic lens cap to lose.

Cons: Very expensive, doesn't have a flash, no rechargable batteries. takes awful close-ups, and the battery door latch breaks after a couple uses. The software is impossible to figure out. So i decided to return it. Wal-mart does not have a return policy for this item. I stood in line for thiry minutes only to argue with the lady in customer service. Now I have a useless camera sitting in my living room. Don't Waste your time.

Russell's Teapot

[Paiev]

At last, we'll finally be able to find Russell's teapot!

Found One!

[Tablizer]

There's one!

Oh wait, that's just a /. CSS flaw. Never mind.
     

More & Better Measurements == Better Predictio

[cmholm]

At issue with many of our current NEO detections is that it takes astronomers time to take enough measurements to calculate an accurate orbit. PanSTARRS will be taking those measurements nightly, or at worst every other day, which will speed the process of drawing the curves considerably.

Re:More & Better Measurements == Better Predic

[HarvardAce]

Accurately predicting an asteroid's orbit is much more than simply knowing the current position and the current velocity. Even if you knew them, exactly, there are many more variables that affect the trajectory of an asteroid. Current prediction models still have trouble with simple things like gravity (most models only take into account the sun, planets, satellites of the planets, and a few of the larger astroids/minor planets, and all but the most advanced models treat them as point masses which they obviously aren't). There are a lot of more complex forces that can act on an asteroid that don't have nearly the impact that gravity has, but even the smallest of forces, over periods of years, can be the difference between a hit or a miss by many Earth radii.

The biggest problem is that the longer the time before the potential impact, the more that these small unknowns can affect the trajectory. If you're looking at an asteroid, and the potential time until impact is days or even probably months, then the standard models will probably be enough to determine if the asteroid will strike or not. In that case, however, it doesn't give us much time to react. When you look at much longer-term impacts (tens or hundreds of years away), we have much more time to react, but we also are much less accurate with our predictions.