Slashdot Mirror
Astronomer Photographs Meteor Through Telescope
Matt Rogers writes "Amateur astronomer Mike Hankey may be the first person on earth to take a picture of a fireball meteor through a telescope. The picture has been confirmed authentic by numerous professional astronomers and asteroid hunters. This picture could possibly be the first of its kind. Taking a picture of a meteor is a very difficult thing to do, taking a picture of a meteor through a telescope is near impossible. The hunt is on in southern PA for the meteorites that broke away from this space rock. Using Hankey's picture, as well as security tape, meteorite hunters have been able to narrow down the crash site to a smaller area. Even with the trajectory roughly determined, professional meteorite hunters think finding these meteorites may be near impossible. However if they are found they will be immensely valuable and could be very large."
I'll bet that when you look through Mr Hankey's telescope you get a brown ring around your eye.
I have photographed a truly marvelous picture of a meteor, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
This has to be the most pointless post I have ever read. Everyone knows what amateur astronomer means. What the hell are you complaining about? What do you suggest we call him? An amateur telescope user?
I think, given the first post to this story, he should be entitled to it.
Sometimes PhDs seem a little bit arrogant when they demand to be called "Doctor" rather than "Mister"...
Of course, when your surname is Hankey you probably want to be called something other than "Mister" regardless of your education.
Blank until
Add your hobby would seem to be trolling. Keep working at it and with perseverance one far off day you might rise to the the level of amateur troll.
Whoa! I just photographed a m
Here is another picture of a meteor, this one is much clearer and you can easily see what the meteor is made of:
http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/1/3008/3861/7519430001_large.jpg
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
I can tell from reading his blog post that Mike is very excited to be wrapped up in this whirlwind affair of being the first person in the world to ever catch a meteorite through a telescope, the guy is absolutely giddy in his writing and awe of the world wide attention. It has a sort of innocence about it that is rather charming. It absolutely comes through in his writing, reading it makes me smile from how genuine it comes across. He's in for some fun and exhausting times for the next few days. he must be having a hard time sleeping and all that, how exciting for him, way to go mike!
Meteors get images in astronomical photo's all of the time - they do, after all, tend to be time exposure, frequently quiet long. There
have been lots of these.
It looks, from this image, that this was possibly a bolide and that there were pieces coming off. (It also could have been a re-entering satellite.) I don't see what that tells you about the orbit of the meteor, except that it passed through a patch of sky. Meteor patrols, such as the Prairie Network and the one at Ondrejov Observatory in the former Czechoslovakia, used wide-angle cameras with rotating fans in front of the telescope, so you can determine the velocity of the bolide from the breaks in the streak. So, I doubt this picture helps to determine the orbit of the meteor much. Survellience camera images would be much more useful - it is fairly routine now-a-days for local imagery to determine the orbit of meteorites well enough to find falls.
Also, while it is true that some meteorites are very expensive, that is precisely because they are rare. The chances of this body, assuming it reached the ground, being rare are also rare.
If anyone reading this does find pieces, try not to touch them and use tongs or a shovel etc. to put them into a baggy or baggies. If they are fresh, seal these and put them in the freezer. That will reduce contamination and this enhance their scientific usefulness. Pictures of the pieces on the ground before they are moved would also be good.
It's common for amateur astronomers to do meteor photography but they do not use telescopes. Instead they use wide angle lenses on a camera to improve their chances of a meteor being caught on film (digital or otherwise). The reason it hasn't been done before is that it would be very frustrating and you'd need to take a lot of pictures before statistically expecting to capture one meteor. Despite that I'm very surprised it hasn't been done before (and I have a degree in Astronomy, though I must admit meteors were never one of my principle interests).
Clearly it's exciting because if you can get a closer look at something you can learn more about it. As for it being just a streak, I doubt there's a camera on Earth that'll catch anything more than a streak using current techniques. Meteors are both faint and very fast moving. Either one you can compensate for but both...that's a challenge.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Comet Hale-Bopp was discovered independently by Alan Hale, a professional astronomer, and Thomas Bopp, a construction worker. At the time, Hale ran something called the Southwest Institute for Space Research, which referred to Bopp as an "amateur astronomer".
It has always been my personal belief that everyone should own a telescope so that they can look at the vastness and complexity of our universe in awe when they see it with their own eyes. You probably won't be able to replicate this photo, but I just got my Galileoscope, a simple backyard 50mm achromatic refractor which the International Astronomer's Union is selling for $12.95. It's not the greatest telescope in the world, but for an amateur stargazer, it's perfect... and it's thirteen dollars. Plus, the whole thing is non-profit. https://www.galileoscope.org/gs/
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
"The hunt is on in southern PA"
Where on earth is that? Port Arthur? Burkina Faso? :-)
It it hard enough to keep up with computer acronyms, so I don't really want to learn all the world's postcodes.
Please use English translation in the summary where possible. That also applies to "thru"(sic)
"its basically almost impossible to do. especially a meteor like this."
I don't understand why it's nearly impossible, is it JUST because "you'd need to take a lot of pictures before statistically expecting to capture one meteor" as one commenter said? Nor do I understand how/why he was able to do it.
Could someone please explain?
How about "He got lucky because a meteor happened to pass through his time lapse exposure of Andromeda." Does that explain it better?
Nowhere did the article say he was explicitly trying to photograph a meteor. He was just photographing some sky near Andromeda when the meteor accidentally passed his scope. If you were to try to photograph a meteor, you'd be spending a lot of time outside.
For fun, let's do the math and figure out how hard it would really be to photograph a meteor. First, just suppose his telescope and camera setup could gather light from about 1 arc minute of sky. (Crap, I'm lousy at this math, so I'll post it anyway and let someone correct me.) There are about 3,437 arc minutes in a radian, squared that would be about 11,812,969 arc minutes in a steradian. There are 4 pi steradians in a sphere; given that you can only see half the sky, that leaves 2 pi steradians of sky in which to point your telescope.
Assuming you have a night where you are guaranteed to see one meteor, but you don't know where it will be in the sky, you have a roughly one in 75 million chance that your telescope will be pointing in the right direction when it blasts by. Since meteors are extremely quick little buggers, you'd have no time to aim or even click the shutter upon its arrival. That means you'd have to reduce your chances even further by the time you are NOT spending taking pictures (setting up, between shots, changing batteries, etc.)
Statistically, you have a better chance of winning the lottery than you do of photographing a meteor through a telescope. "Nearly impossible" is pretty accurate.
John
First, just suppose his telescope and camera setup could gather light from about 1 arc minute of sky. (Crap, I'm lousy at this math, so I'll post it anyway and let someone correct me.)
Most astronomical telescopes have a light-gathering cone covering about a degree of sky (so-called widefield scopes manage a few degrees). The amount visible through an eyepiece is less than this, by a factor which depending on many parameters. The amount captured in focal plane photography is also less, then the whole field, but typically not greatly less.
Meteors are common enough - you'll see several per hour in a dark site with clear skies. Fireball meteors are rare, however; I've only seen two, and I'm an amateur astronomer. One was in the mid 1980s and was visible in broad daylight and took several seconds to cross about a quarter of the sky (probably burned out at high altitude). The other was at night in the late 1990s and was truly spectacular - it crossed the entire sky in little more than a second, with a flaming trail covering at least 20 degrees.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
You're overlooking the fact that there is no reason an amateur can't be more skilled than a professional. While the average amateur is less skilled, there certainly are amateurs in nearly every field that put most professionals to shame.
Amateur means self taught. It has absolutely NO bearing on skill. The arrogance of those who claim that the several years they wasted in an academic institution gives them some claim to a high IQ means nothing in the long run. (not even to an increase in measurable IQ!)
... unlike an "amateur".
It should be noted that attendance of an institute of "higher learning" is meant to teach one how to teach oneself. I have met many self taught people who have a better grasp in their chosen subjects than many of the so called professionals in their own fields! (Ask many people why they are are in a specific profession and almost invariably the reply is "it pays the bills", not that they have any inherent interest in what they are doing
http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/07/20/0114250/Something-May-Have-Just-Hit-Jupiter
Just because I need this for my Boy Scout "Pedant" badge, an amateur is someone who pursues something for the love of it, and without pay. I don't think it has anything to do with being self-taught or not.
What rubbish. A good chuck of amateur astronomers are very "professional" in both training and practice. The professionals, ie the ones that get paid to do it full time, also work with the amateurs (often university graduate level education, its just not their day job) and do not feel minimized in any way.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
Note that 'amateur' comes from the French for "lover" and has a primary meaning someone who loves what they are doing, someone who is not paid being a secondary meeting. I would say that almost all astronomers are amateur. Some are even paid for doing it as well.
Argh, no! The English definition of Amateur (from Dictionary.com) is the following:
1. a person who engages in a study, sport, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons. Compare professional.
2. an athlete who has never competed for payment or for a monetary prize.
3. a person inexperienced or unskilled in a particular activity: Hunting lions is not for amateurs.
4. a person who admires something; devotee; fan: an amateur of the cinema.
Your definition is the fourth down, under three definitions that state either lack of skill or lack of pay. Are you telling me that 1 through 3 are only "secondary definitions?" Because I think it's the other way around. Please do not confuse etymology with definition, either unintentionally or (as I see so often) as a rhetorical trick. The former is somewhat interesting, but only useful in this context if we happen to be posting on a French version of Slashdot.
"amateurs" are mostly hobbyists
Yes
Amateur implies a certain level of skill on par or slightly below professionals
It implies, depending on field, a lack of resources and tools that professionals may have available. It does not imply a lack of skill or effort.