'Amateur' Astronomer Snaps Pic of Planet-Forming Disk

The Bad Astronomer writes "Rolf Olsen, an 'amateur' astronomer in New Zealand, took an amazing photo of a disk of material around the star Beta Pictoris, the first time this has been seen outside of professional observatories. Incredibly, he snagged it with just a 25 cm (10") telescope! A comparison with an earlier pic from a much larger observatory indicates he nailed it, making this a milestone for amateur astronomy."

Comments

Why the quotes around amateur?

[Anonymous Coward]

Either he's a professional astronomer, or he's not. Or is this like an 'amateur' porn star?

Re:Why the quotes around amateur?

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of people seem to think amateur astronomers who have even middling-decent astrophotography equipment must not really be amateurs. They should read the CCD imaging forum on www.cloudynights.com, and see what kinds of stuff people really use, and the results they get. Amateur astronomers aren't necessarily pros, or rich, but they invest their money differently. For the price of a good stereo, or home theater, or at the higher end a used car, you can get a really good set of astrophotography equipment.

In my mind, it's sort of a bias of perception against scientific hobbyists, whether they go for astronomy, or robotics, etc.

Re:Why the quotes around amateur?

[Randle_Revar]

Anyway what is wrong with amateur? Herschel was an amateur astronomer for many years.

Re:Why the quotes around amateur?

[History's Coming To]

I got a shot of Jupiter and three of the moons using a £120 telescope with a camera-phone held against the eyepiece. Most of the investment goes into time though...setting up a mid-range telescope with a webcam and stacking software can be done for ~£500 including the computer and (FOSS) software, but it's going to take tens or (more likely) hundreds of hours to get really good results. "Amateur" in this context simply refers whether anyone is paying you for those hours.

Re:Why the quotes around amateur?

[Ogi_UnixNut]

Nice! As someone who would really like to get into Astrophotography, you got any recommendations where to start? I already do photography (so I have a DSLR I can use) but not sure what would be a good starter telescope, and what else I'd need (what stacking software do you use? Is it OSS?).

Re:Why the quotes around amateur?

[Anonymous Coward]

Both astronomer and porn star? What are the odds?

Re:Why the quotes around amateur?

[osu-neko]

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that putting quotes around a word indicates negation, rather than quotation.

I probably read too much BBC News. BBC News headlines are quite funny if you pretend they're using quotation marks the way Americans tend to abuse them.

Re:Why the quotes around amateur?

[theweatherelectric]

Both astronomer and porn star? What are the odds?

Astronomical.

Re:Why the quotes around amateur?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you already have a strong telephoto in your kit, try that first. A 300mm zoom lens used with a DSLR actually has enough power to resolve Jupiter's moons. I tried it just for giggles. (Also because I heard typical off-the-shelf binoculars were powerful enough. So why not my zoom lens?) My results were fuzzy as hell (and over-exposed if anything), but it worked. Jupiter and two of its larger moons were distinctively separate objects. (Moving and repositioning the camera and lens between shots ruled out artifacts and noise. Jupiter and the moons were consistent between shots.) I could likely get even better results if I had a steadier tripod and spent a bit more time adjusting the exposure. I'll probably never a crisp picture this way, but this is pushing the limits of what the gear is intended for and there's also atmospheric distortion. (Still it's enough to make out the planetary disk and little dots of moons, and with a bit more dedication - work out their orbital periods. I'd consider the quality comparable to what Galileo was working with back in the Renaissance era.)

With a DSLR you might not need the stacking software either. Camera phones tend to have a limited exposure range and ISO equivalency, as where your DSLR can go high ISO and use multi-second exposures or even bulb mode. (But high ISO settings usually tend to get hot and noisy fast, just stick with longer exposures.)

If you want more than that, of course you'll need better (and dedicated) gear. But the point is to not overlook what you may have already if you're just starting out.

Re:Why the quotes around amateur?

[mapkinase]

"it's sort of a bias of perception against scientific hobbyists"

The bias exists only because the only way hobbyists are getting exposure of their work to wider audience is word of general public. Trust me, perfectly professional scientists who promote their work via newspapers are derided in scientific community as well..

As Austin Powers Says

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn’t have thought it was possible, especially with only a 25 cm (10 inch) telescope!

It's not the size: It's how you use it, Baby!

How about some more quotes

[slaad]

"Rolf Olsen, an 'amateur' astronomer in 'New' Zealand, took an amazing 'photo' of a 'disk' of material around the 'star' Beta Pictoris, the first time this has been seen outside of 'professional' observatories. Incredibly, he snagged it with just a 25 'cm' (10") telescope! A comparison with an earlier 'pic' from a much larger 'observatory' indicates he nailed it, making this a 'milestone' for 'amateur' astronomy."

Why is 'amateur' in quotes?

[pongo000]

I mean, if he really isn't an 'amateur,' then maybe he should have been referred to as a 'professional' astronomer (sans quotes)?

Oh wait...the Bad Astronomer makes an error that's common to the rest of the population: He believes 'amateur' means "one lacking in experience and competence in an art or science ." In fact, in this context 'amateur' means "not compensated," "not for hire," or "one who engages in a pursuit, study, science, or sport as a pastime rather than as a profession."

Perhaps the /. editors could help fight this common misunderstanding by dropping the superfluous quotes. It's too bad the grandeur of Rolf's contribution to science is sullied by other's ignorance. How many of you all thought to yourselves "Why the hell is 'amateur' in quotes?" C'mon...I know you did.

Re:Why is 'amateur' in quotes?

[NixieBunny]

Really. Amateur means that he does something else for a living, right? It's amateur, with no quotes. My coworker does amateur astronomy also, and he managed to shoot a *video* of the asteroid that passed close to us a couple weeks ago, something that seemed at the time to be considered the realm of the professional. But all he used was a typical 16 inch scope and a mid-priced non-cooled CCD camera. It's amazing what you can achieve in your hobby if you put a few $$$ and hours into a project.

Re:Why is 'amateur' in quotes?

[LoverOfJoy]

Perhaps the /. "editors" could help fight this common misunderstanding by dropping the superfluous quotes.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Why is 'amateur' in quotes?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's in quotes because the /. editors didn't remove the quote marks. Bad Astronomer copied the term from TFA, which is where the quotes started. It seems from the original that the author used "amateur" as a compliment, rather than a dig. He's essentially saying, "folks call this guy an "amateur," but he scooped the "pros" on this one."

Re:Why is 'amateur' in quotes?

[gstoddart]

He believes 'amateur' means "one lacking in experience and competence in an art or science ." In fact, in this context 'amateur' means "not compensated," "not for hire," or "one who engages in a pursuit, study, science, or sport as a pastime rather than as a profession."

Actually, I think in this case it's more along the lines he's been doing it so long, he's hardly some noob with a new telescope, but he's not a 'professional' either.

If you look here, that man has some pretty serious astro-photography creds.

I don't think the article means to imply he's some hack who got lucky, but that he is, technically, an 'amateur'. There's no snark in calling him an amateur ... in fact, the last paragraph of TFA says:

My sincere and hearty congratulations to Rolf Olsen for achieving this (and you should look through his gallery of astrophotographs; they're beautiful and some are astonishing). I think it's a milestone in 'amateur' astronomy, and it goes to show you that sometimes, the sky is not the limit.

Seriously, read the article again ... this man is an 'amateur' in only the sense that you describe, and the article isn't saying anything else. He's certainly a competent astronomer (and one with the pleasure of living in an area that affords him some awesome viewing).

He's not an academic, but he is an 'amateur' -- the quotes seem to belittle the word amateur more than the man being discussed. I think you're mistaken to say " the grandeur of Rolf's contribution to science is sullied by other's ignorance" ... TFA is holding him in the highest esteem.

Re:Why is 'amateur' in quotes?

[Zadaz]

How about "citizen astronomer"?
http://citizenscientistsleague.com/

Can this technique be used with BIG scopes?

[wisebabo]

I guess what made this amazing photo possible was that rather than using an occluding disk or filter, he found a very similar star (the article says getting the same color was critical) and subtracted it (digitally?) from the image.

Can this be used by much bigger telescopes? Considering that they have hundreds of times more light gathering capabilities and, I would imagine, vastly more sophisticated sensors, we could be finding exo-earths by the bucketful. Maybe we could even be seeing the lights from alien civilizations on the night side of those worlds! (It would help if they used lamps that had some sort of unusual spectral characteristic).

Re:Can this technique be used with BIG scopes?

[imsabbel]

Of course, and it has been done for (relative) ages.
All the directly imaged exoplanets were detected by that exact principle.

The news part is not the method, but that an amateur did it.

Quoth the "raven"

[The Bad Astronomer]

The reason I use quotation marks for "amateur" is that a lot of people think amateur means beginner, or not very good at what they're doing. In astronomy the meaning is harder to pin down; a lot of amateurs are doing amazing work. David Levy (of Shoemaker Levy 9) is sometimes referred to as an amateur, meaning not professional. But even then, what does it mean? Unpaid? He gets paid. Untrained? That's silly; he's a great astronomer. So I put the word in quotation marks as a way to poke gentle fun at the way people perceive the word.

Extra quotation marks do add interest...

[willworkforbeer]

"Rolf Olsen" an "amateur" "astronomer" in "New Zealand" took an "amazing" photo of a "disk" of material around the "star" Beta Pictoris... making this a "milestone" for amateur "astronomy."