Bones Astronomy

Affordable CCD Cameras: Amateur Astronomy’s Weakest Link?

2011-03-06T07:18:00.000-08:00

Given that quite a number of amateur astronomers now use “affordable” CCD cameras to capture what their telescope sees for posting on the web, does ultimate CCD camera performance still matters?

By: Ringo Bones

Once upon a time – or at least back in the 1970s and very early 1990s from my perspective – amateur astronomers used to rely on their handy film-based cameras with selectable exposure times to capture wonderful photos of what their home-based astronomy telescope set-up had seen. Then, digital Charged-Coupled Device cameras (CCD cameras) became low enough in retail price to pose serious competition to the humble film-based camera with selectable exposure times. As of late, given that CCD cameras capture what they “see” in digital form – as in format – quite a number of amateur astronomers had been busy posting / uploading what their astronomical telescope had seen on the web and / or their respective social network accounts – i.e. Facebook. But does the ultimate quality of your “affordable” CCD camera currently connected to you backyard telescope really matters?

The plain truth is, the quality of your imaging system – i.e. your backyard astronomical telescope and affordable CCD camera set-up – is fundamental to the quality of your results. Since the proliferation of back-illuminated grade one CCD cameras on the market aimed at amateur astronomers, the issue of quantum efficiency has more than ever became the selling point in the entry-level price point of CCD cameras for astronomical telescope use. But why is quantum efficiency so important by the way?

Quantum efficiency or QE is a measure of how much light gathered – typically by the front-end optics of your astronomical telescope – actually gets converted to charge in a typical CCD chip of a CCD camera. If your CCD camera has a rated peak QE of 85%, then it means that 85 out of every 100 photons striking the CCD get counted.

In practice, typical front-illuminated CCD cameras have a much lesser quantum efficiency than back-illuminated CCD cameras. Front-illuminated CCD cameras have a typical quantum efficiency of around 25% to 45%. And front-illuminated CCD cameras are also quite inefficient in the blue end of the visible spectrum where their quantum efficiency falls to a mere 5%, while a typical back-illuminated CCD camera only falls off to 70%.

During the latter half of the 1980s, mechanical sophistication – i.e. the expensive bits of your backyard astronomical telescope set up like optics and the related support systems – can already be replaced by relatively low-cost electronics, thus bringing enormous cost savings resulting in reduced exposure times brought about by a CCD camera with much higher quantum efficiency can be a boon for the amateur astronomer on a budget.

A shorter exposure time means lesser reliance on your astronomical telescope’s rather expensive mechanical systems – i.e. low-cost telescopes usually use low-cost mechanical systems. Better sensitivity via use of CCD cameras with higher QE means a smaller aperture can now accomplish what a larger – and pricier – telescope would before. Using a CCD camera with higher quantum efficiencies also allows you to image fainter objects in a shorter time, allowing you to image more objects per night using the backyard astronomy telescope set-up that you currently have. So buy the best-performing CCD camera for your astronomical telescope that you can comfortably afford to attain amateur astronomy bliss.

Phobos: Fermi Paradox Buster?

2010-09-16T07:36:00.000-07:00

Its “strange” orbit had been intriguing astronomers for 133 years since its discovery, but is there a chance that the Martian moon Phobos is a product of an alien civilization?

By: Ringo Bones

Anyone in the know will readily admit that there is something strange with the Martian moon called Phobos. Inexplicably, everything strange about the planet Mars was discovered in 1877. From the “discovery” of straight, geometrically patterned channels – or canali – by the Italian astronomer named Giovanni Schiaparelli to the two tiny satellites – called Phobos and Deimos - discovered by the American astronomer named Asaph Hall. The first generation of robotic spacecraft launched to explore Mars during the 1960s has since proved that Sciaparelli’s “canals” as nothing more than an optical illusion, but the “mystery” behind the Marian moons managed to “survive” space-probe scrutiny.

The small size and proximity of Deimos and Phobos to their parent planet make them unique in the Solar System. Both are too small to gain enough hydrostatic equilibrium to acquire a spherical shape. Deimos is about 7.5 miles in diameter and orbits about 15,000 miles from the surface of Mars. Phobos, 13.7 miles in diameter, orbits much closer at 5,800 miles and has enough “intriguing” characteristics – including recently discovered ones – that had acquired the interest of generations of astronomers over the years.

The most remarkable thing about Phobos, according to some observations, is that its period of revolution appears to be decreasing slowly but perceptibly. The only plausible explanation is that the slight drag of the Martian atmosphere is taking energy from it, thus making it move closer to Mars and follow a shorter and faster orbit. The Martian atmosphere is so thin than a satellite the size of Phobos affected this way must have extremely low density. If these observations are correct, then Phobos must be lighter than any known solid substance.

The Russian astronomer Iosif S. Shklovsky has supplied a novel answer to this puzzle. He believes that Phobos is hollow and artificial and the work of highly civilized Martians of hundreds of millions of years ago. According to Shklovsky, when the Martians discovered that they would soon became extinct, they constructed one or two extraordinarily spacious satellites to serve as libraries and museums as a way to preserve their culture for future explorers as a testament to the glorious history and achievements of their doomed civilization - a sort of mother-of-all-time-capsules.

Few scientists – Shklovsky included – actually count on finding any such rather “convenient” repositories of ancient learning, and discovering any sort of intelligent, civilized life flourishing is considered extremely unlikely. But future prospective explorers of Mars will certainly look for archaeological evidence of long dead civilizations. Maybe Iosif S. Shklovsky had a big beef with what is now called the Fermi Paradox – the inexplicable lack of even the most basic archaeological remains proving the existence of extraterrestrial biological beings as smart as – or smarter – than the human race.

Our current knowledge suggests that the beginning of life on a planet and its evolution toward higher forms has no fixed timetable. Life may have started early on Mars and evolved faster, reaching climax hundreds of millions of years ago. Even if nothing nearly as spectacular is found on Mars – even recent ones like the monkey-like humanoid face on Mars later turned out to be nothing more than an optical illusion – the exploration of the “red planet” will be an event unmatched in all of humanity’s history.

So will Phobos be the Fermi Paradox buster every believer in extraterrestrial life is waiting for? Maybe too soon to tell, but more recent images of Phobos taken by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter did show a blue patch near the rim of a deep crater on an otherwise reddish surface. A contrast that’s rarely seen on a body supposedly a captured asteroid turned into a moon. Some astronomers say the blue is recently exposed terrain that hasn’t yet weathered to red; others think it is a wholly different material poking out from the interior. Russia already has plans to send a lander to Phobos to gather samples – and perhaps clues to this Martian moon mystery. Maybe Iosif S. Shklovsky was right all along.

Can the Phases of the Moon Affect Precipitation?

2010-07-28T18:33:00.000-07:00

Often dismissed as an old superstition, but does the changing phases of the Moon affect when it would rain or snow?

By: Ringo Bones

I don’t know how many heard of it, but I first heard this supposedly old superstition back in 1989 that goes: Wet weather follows the new Moon and the full Moon. Dry weather follows the first quarter Moon and the last quarter Moon. Strangely enough, a correlation was indeed found out at that time using U.S. Weather Bureau precipitation records showing that there is indeed a better than average chance of rain or snow in the week after a full Moon and the week after new Moon. While the driest periods tend to occur the week after the first quarter Moon and the week after the last quarter Moon. Unfortunately at the time, no clear-cut explanation was provided behind the phenomena after the study was published showing a correlation between occurrence of precipitation and the phases of the Moon. Will a renewed study ever shed light on the validity of this old superstition?

My hypothesis on the matter is that probably during the week after the full Moon and the week after the new Moon, the gravitational effects between the Earth and the Moon during these periods probably allowed higher than average amounts of meteoric and cometary dust to fall into our atmosphere. These comet and meteorite sourced material probably acted as nuclei via the Bergeron-Findeisen Theory of Rain / Precipitation thus causing rainfall and snowfall frequency to increase a week after the full Moon and the new Moon. But is this explanation really satisfactory?

Swedish meteorologist Tor Bergeron first proposed the nuclei theory of precipitation around the mid-1930s, which was later elaborated by German physicist Walter Findeisen and is now widely accepted as the Bergeron-Findeisen Theory Rain. This theory was later applied as the working principle behind cloud seeding. Artificial seeding of rain clouds to induce precipitation during times of drought was developed in 1946 by General Electric’s Vincent J. Schaefer and Irving Langmuir. They used both silver iodide and dry ice as cloud seeding material.

Silver iodide, whose crystalline structure is similar to that of natural ice and therefore provides hospitable nuclei on which ice crystals readily form. Solid carbon dioxide or dry ice – another good cloud seeding agent - is so cold that it causes water vapor to solidify into enormous numbers of tiny ice crystals. In either case, precipitation should follow, according to the Bergeron-Findeisen Theory. Pellets of dry ice are usually sown into a cloud from airplanes while silver iodide is released as smoke, sometimes from an airplane, sometimes from the ground. Meteoric and cometary dust could act as a cloud seeding nuclei, increasing chances of rain or snow – depending on the season – during the week after full Moon and the week after new Moon.

Johannes Hevelius: Father of Selenology?

2010-07-19T18:24:00.000-07:00

Given the existing technology at the time, did Johannes Hevelius (1611-1687) able to know more about the Moon in comparison to his astronomy contemporaries?

By: Ringo Bones

Some astronomers think that we only managed to know more about the Moon than Johannes Hevelius did when we had the ability to send robotic spacecraft and manned exploration of the Moon, but is there some truth to this? Even though it was Galileo who first documented the Moon’s topography as seen from his first telescope back in 1610. It was Johannes Hevelius, a notable Polish astronomer born in January 28, 1611 that from his crowded rooftop in Danzig laden with his custom built telescopes – where he gained the fame as the pioneer of Lunar topography a few years later. Hevelius also studied distant celestial objects, but learned little because of dust and other disturbances in the atmosphere over Poland despite using an aerial telescope of his own design that’s 150 feet (46-meter) long – equal to the height of a modern 12-story building.

In collaboration with his wife Elizabeth, they charted the Lunar landscape then published their descriptions in Selenographia back in 1647. During his extensive studies of the Moon, Hevelius got curious of the fact that 59% of the Moon’s surface visible from Earth. During his time, the period between new Moons was already measured with a fair degree of accuracy. And the fact that the same face is always turned toward the Earth with only minor wobbling – the extra 9% of the Moon’s surface seen from Earth – was noted although not explained. The modern explanation is in part that the Moon is not a perfectly symmetrical spheroid. The Moon has a massive bulge, which the Earth’s gravitation attracts like a plumb bob, thus keeping the same hemisphere towards the Earth. With such detailed observations of the Moon, Johannes Hevelus’ contribution to modern selenology was indeed indispensable.

During his lifetime, Johannes Hevelius was also credited for discovering four comets and was noted for his suggestion that the comets revolved around the Sun in a parabola. And his observations on comets were published in Prodromus Commeticus in 1665 and Cometographia in 1688. Hevelius also listed 1,564 stars and in 1661 became the second person on Earth to witness the transit of Mercury – i.e. the planet Mercury moving across the face of the Sun as seen from Earth. Coincidentally, he passed away during his birthday on 1687.

Aperture Synthesis: Making Radio Telescopes “See”?

2010-03-30T06:54:00.000-07:00

Developed by Sir Martin Ryle back in 1952, can aperture synthesis be used to make radio telescopes finally “see” celestial objects when before it can only “hear” them?

By: Ringo Bones

When the Rayleigh Criterion is taken into account, radio telescopes seem to “hear” rather than actually “see” the celestial objects of interest they are aimed at due to the much longer wavelengths of the radio spectrum in comparison to the optical / visible light part of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is the reason why RADAR or radio wave-based imagery of the universe has always been inferior in resolution terms in comparison to optical astronomy. The most obvious solution is to make ever-larger radio telescope dish antennas so that their resolution capabilities would equal that of optical telescopes, but that presents its own problems. Even the 1,000-foot diameter RADAR dish in Arecibo, Puerto Rico - in imaging terms - still cannot match the detail resolution of the human eye, and making ever bigger dishes presents its own problems.

Since radio astronomy began, astronomers had been constructing ever-larger dish antennas in an attempt to detect radio emissions from objects millions of light years away from Earth where the optical portion of the electromagnetic spectrum – i.e. visible light – cannot be picked up by optical telescopes. Radio astronomers knew, however, that to “see” into more distant objects would require the construction of antennas several miles wide. And it had taken awhile for radio astronomy to rival that of its optical sibling in resolution terms.

Ever since Albert A. Michelson used his interferometer in optical astronomy to bypass the inherent Rayleigh Criterion limitations of reflecting telescope with finite-sized mirrors, radio astronomers have adopted this technique in radio astronomy. The simplest kind of radio interferometer is based on the Michelson interferometer – which consists of two small reflectors. Radio waves arriving at an angle to the baseline of the reflectors reach each other slightly before the other, producing a multi-lobed antenna pattern similar to the fringe pattern in optical interferometers. The farther apart the reflectors, the narrower the width of the lobes – or beams – of the antenna’s radiation pattern, thus greatly increasing the radio telescope’s resolution.

A very example of this type of radio telescope is the California Institute of Technology twin-element interferometer, which consists of two 90-foot steel-mesh parabolic antennas. The antennas are mounted on special vehicles that move along special railroad tracks that can be separated by up to 1,600 feet in either east-west or north-south direction. With a beam-width or acceptance angle as narrow as 0.03 degrees, the telescope is used to record the 960-MHz radio noise in our Milky Way galaxy.

Another type of radio interferometer consists two linear arrays at right angles to each other that electronically compares the fan-shaped beams of the two arrays that result in a single pencil beam being produced that can accurately pinpoint radio sources. Developed in the early 1950s by the Australian radio astronomers W. N. Christiansen and B. Y. Mills. Each array may consist of many dipole antennas (Mills cross), parabolic antennas (Christiansen cross), or a parabolic cylinder.

The Mills cross near Sydney Australia was completed in 1952 and has legs 1,500 feet in length. Later upgraded to a version in 1957 with 3,500-foot legs, and a 1.6-kilometer version. The cross antenna at Stanford University consists of 16 steerable 10-foot parabolic reflectors in a row 375 feet long bisected by a similar row at right angles to it. This antenna is roughly equivalent to a single paraboloidal antenna 375 feet in diameter. Other cross radio telescopes include the Soviet Union’s 0.62-mile (1-kilometer) cross consisting of two parabolic cylinders, while a similar instrument is also found in the University of Bologna in Italy.

Radio interferometer resolution further improved when British astronomer Sir Martin Ryle developed a more effective method called aperture synthesis. He discovered that if he periodically varied the distances between a number of small radio telescopes, they would yield the resolving power of a single mammoth-sized radio telescope. Aperture synthesis was developed over two decades starting in 1952. This technique revolutionized radio astronomy by allowing radio astronomers to achieve an accuracy and resolution rivaling that of optical science. Together with Antony Hewish, Ryle won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1974. The first ever given to astronomers since it began in 1901. In fact, the long time-exposure of Ryle’s telescopes allow “viewing” with a definition so sharp that in the words of the Nobel selection committee: “it corresponds to an observer on Earth being able to see details of a postage stamp on the Moon.”

Years later, aperture synthesis even influenced the development of the US Navy’s Synthetic Aperture RADAR technology that allows their ship and plane based radar systems to achieve the same capabilities to that of the Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line base in Thule, Greenland. Many pundits claim that Synthetic Aperture RADAR is the main technology that made Operation Desert Storm a success in 1991.

Those Other Moons of Jupiter

2010-02-25T04:05:00.000-08:00

After being periodically surveyed by robotic spacecraft in recent years, did those astronomers that discovered the other moons of Jupiter years before got the accolades that they truly deserve?

By: Ringo Bones

I tend to have a rather rigid definition on the difference between space exploration and astronomy because to me, sending space probes to distant celestial bodies – in my point of view – is space exploration. While peering though an astronomical telescope via the eyepiece or via a high-resolution computer grade monitor in front of me is what I define as true astronomy. The Voyager and Galileo spacecraft flybys of Jupiter and the planet’s retinue of satellites may have gathered data previously unknown to late 19th and early 20th Century astronomers. But the astronomers themselves who discovered those excruciatingly tiny non-Galilean satellites decades before those robotic spacecraft flybys seem to have been largely forgotten in this day and age.

Before the Pioneer X and Voyagers I and II flybys, there are only 12 moons of Jupiter that can be seen from Earth using existing astronomical telescope technology prior to the 1960s. Set side-by-side to the relatively large four Galilean satellites: Io at 2,000 miles, Europa at 1,800 miles, Ganymede at 3,120 miles, and Callisto at 2,800 miles, the other moons of Jupiter look like grains of sands in comparison. With diameters that range from as large as 70 miles to as small as 10 to 12 miles, discovering these Jovian moons without resorting to optical interferometry is probably next to impossible.

The first one of these non-Galilean satellites to be discovered was discovered by an American astronomer named Edward Emerson Barnard of Barnard’s Star fame in 1892 and was called / designated as V. This tiny Jovian moon at just 70 miles in diameter in unique in many ways. V orbits just 110,000 miles from Jupiter allowing Jupiter’s strong gravitation to make the tiny moon hurtle through space at 1,000 miles a minute – 26 times faster than the Earth’s moon.

On average, Jupiter is 629 million kilometers from Earth, which makes Barnard’s discovery of V somewhat of a remarkable feat in astronomy back in 1892 because astronomical telescopes having at least a 4-meter diameter mirror is the minimum needed to see V from Earth due to the Rayleigh Criterion limitations. The smallest celestial object that a 4-meter mirrored astronomical reflecting telescope when the Rayleigh Criterion is taken into account is around 103.5 kilometers – a little under 70 miles - in diameter from 629 million kilometers away using the visible spectrum centered around 550 nanometers. And most important of all, use of optical interferometry in astronomy to bypass the inherent Rayleigh Criterion limitations of existing reflecting telescopes in 1892 was still several years away. Probably a few years after 1910 when Albert A. Michelson used an optical interferometer of his own design to accurately measure the diameters of those newly-discovered tiny satellites or moons of Jupiter.

Even the discovery of the next non-Galilean satellite designated as VI (diameter 50 miles) in 1904 and VII (diameter 20 miles) in 1905 by American astronomer Charles Dillon Perrine is also miraculous given that optical interferometry for astronomical use is still years away. Even back in 1908, when English astronomer Philbert Jaques Mellote discovered Jupiter’s moon designated as VIII with a diameter of 10 miles without an aid of optical interferometry is nothing short of a miracle.

In 1914, an American astronomer named Seth Barnes Nicholson discovered one of the last few moons of Jupiter whose diameter averages between 10 to 12 miles designated as IX, probably with the aid of Albert A. Michelson’s newfangled optical interferometer. Not only will Nicholson discover the last of the tiny moons of Jupiter that can be seen from Earth before the Pioneer X and Voyager spacecraft flybys, he also made remarkable theories that almost accurately predicted the actual climate of the planet Venus. Together with fellow astronomer Charles St. John, their hot and dry Venus climate hypothesis that they proposed back in 1922 was proven to be closer to reality. Compare that to the one proposed in 1918 by Swedish chemist Svante August Arrhenius – who also discovered the mechanism behind the greenhouse effect – depicted planet Venus as covered by hot steamy tropical swamps.

In 1938, Nicholson discovered another two of Jupiter’s very tiny non-Galilean satellites. Designated at the time as X and XI, X because Nicholson declined suggesting names for the new Jovian moons that he discovered orbits in a region 7,400,000 miles away from Jupiter while XI orbits in a region almost 15 million miles away from Jupiter. X is part of the other 4 of Jupiter’s outermost satellites that orbit in a retrograde direction. Two of these outer satellites even have “open” orbits that are never repeated from one circuit to the next. Probably due to the Sun’s much stronger gravitational influence in comparison to Jupiter’s at this distance.

The last of Jupiter’s satellites / moons that can be seen by Earth-based telescopes have to await discovery until 1951 when XII – now known as Ananke – was yet again discovered by Seth B. Nicholson. XII or Ananke was a difficult find not only because of the Jovian moon’s small size – 10 miles – but also because it shines no brighter than the light of a burning candle seen from 3,000 miles away at night. This is primarily due to the Jovian moon’s extremely low visual albedo or reflectivity, not to mention the Jovian moon’s relatively small size of 10 miles in diameter. Sadly, these amazing astronomers, especially Seth Barnes Nicholson, are largely forgotten given their amazing feats in the science of astronomy.

Optical Interferometry: A Way Around the Rayleigh Criterion?

2010-02-22T04:34:00.000-08:00

Invented by Albert A. Michelson during the 1870s, can optical interferometry be used effectively in circumventing the Rayleigh Criterion limitations of a typical reflecting telescope?

By: Ringo Bones

Albert A. Michelson was more famous for his work with Edward W. Morley in which they won the 1907 Nobel Prize in physics for proving that the mythical medium called the ether wind doesn’t exist, thus paving the way for Einstein’s theory of special relativity. Michelson invented the interferometer primarily as a way of accurately measuring the speed of light back in the 1870s. Albert A. Michelson also managed to earn the fame of being the first one to utilize optical interferometry as a very important astronomical instrument until 1920. It is this time when Michelson became the first ever person to measure a diameter of a star using an optical interferometer of his own design. He determined that Alpha Orion to be 260 million miles in diameter. A few years before, Michelson was also the first person to determine the diameter of Jupiter’s satellites. But how does optical interferometry works?

Optical interferometry depends on the light splitting and summing properties of an interferometer. An interferometer is an instrument that utilizes light interference phenomena for precise determinations of wavelength, fine structure of spectral lines, refractive indices of a given medium and very fine linear displacement of distant objects. By bringing together beams of starlight captured by two or more widely separated telescopes, a typical optical interferometer can achieve the equivalent resolving power of a single instrument equipped with a main mirror as large as the distance between the ganged telescopes.

When the starlight beams are combined, the light waves interfere with one another. Where the peak of one light wave meets the peak of another, they reinforce each other. When the peak of one light wave meets the through of another, they cancel out. An electronic detector or a video digital-to-analog-converter (video DAC) records the resulting pattern of dark and light areas – or interference fringes – which can then be analyzed by computer via digital signal processing to extract detailed information about the object being observed. If at least three telescopes are used, the fringes can be rendered into images hundreds of times crisper than even those obtained by the orbiting Hubble Space Telescope – at a much reduced expense, thus bypassing the Rayleigh Criterion limitations of constructing an ever bigger mirror of a typical astronomical telescope. Given its ability to improve reflecting telescope performance beyond their Rayleigh Criterion limitations, why is it that most astronomers are still mistrustful over optical interferometry?

There had been famous and amazing stargazing feats achieved by optical interferometry since the 1970s. In 1974, Kitt Peak National Observatory astronomers managed to penetrate the Earth’s atmospheric haze for the first time by discerning the features in the atmosphere of a star named Betelgeuse with the computer aided technique called speckle interferometry, while the Mark III Optical Interferometer on Mount Wilson Observatory in California had been in operation since 1986. Astronomers tend to be a conservative bunch and a lot of them consider optical interferometry to be “black magic” because even though they can measure the outlines of celestial objects millions – even billions - of miles away, optical interferometers cannot make true images of these objects.

If you remember the movie version of Tom Clancy’s Patriot Games when Langley analysts got a hard copy of a photo taken by a KH-11 reconnaissance satellite showing the cleavage of the female underwriters of the Ulster Liberation Army standing in the middle of the Libyan Desert. You’ll notice that it is monochromatic – i.e. black and white – yet managed to show features that according to Rayleigh Criterion on the KH-11 reconnaissance satellite’s mirror specifications cannot supposedly resolve that make it appear like a distinct black and white image of a woman’s cleavage seen from 160 miles up. That’s the power of optical interferometry put to use were the video signals are probably processed using the reconnaissance satellite’s built-in 10-bit video DAC that’s probably not more advanced than one’s found in a circa 1998 DVD player.

Image quality-wise, the resulting image is so “abstract” and “clinical” that free-spirited American under-aged teens who are frequent skinny-dippers have no fear having compromising photos taken by computer nerds who know how to re-task the US National Security Agency’s reconnaissance satellites - Largely because its image quality is far inferior in comparison to those photos taken by a typical paparazzi operating in the 90210 area code. Probably due to the fact that optical interferometry – a technique probably utilized by the KH-11 reconnaissance satellite to be able to read Soviet-era Pravda headlines and car license plates from 160 miles up - cannot make true images.

The Rayleigh Criterion: The Bane of Mirrored Telescopes?

2010-02-11T01:47:00.000-08:00

Named after a 19th Century English physicist, is the Rayleigh Criterion the true arbiter over press hype of the true capabilities of large mirrored telescopes and reconnaissance satellites?

By: Ringo Bones

I could have titled this blog entry as; “Is the KH-Series of American Reconnaissance Satellites’ Capability of Seeing Soviet-era Pravda headlines from 160 kilometers up Somewhat Overly Optimistic?” but that would only answer a part of a little understood concept of optics. And if the “hype” over the runaway success of adaptive optics were to be believed, would this imply that the best astronomical telescopes could soon be found here on Earth as opposed to orbital space? Though that too is only part of the story, but the point of this discussion is about how an oft-ignored, yet vital aspect, of advanced telescope design. Whether using a Hubble Space Telescope-sized 2.4-meter primary mirror or a 10-meter primary mirrored Earth-based astronomical telescope is ultimately diffraction limited. This means that the resolution of a large reflecting telescope – whether those on the KH-series reconnaissance satellites, the Hubble Space Telescope, or those very large astronomical telescopes found on top of Mauna Kea or in the Chilean desert – is limited by diffraction.

The first person to study the diffraction limitation problem of reflecting or mirrored astronomical – or other large - telescopes was a 19th Century English physicist / gentleman-scientist named John William Strutt, but he’s better known to the rest of the world as the 3rd Baron Rayleigh or Lord Rayleigh. Also more famous for his 1904 Nobel prize for Physics for the discovery of the element argon – which he isolated in cooperation with Sir William Ramsay – than his work / investigations in optics that lead to the criterion named after him. The Rayleigh Criterion defines the resolution capabilities of a reflecting telescope where two points are just resolved when their angular separation is equal to an angle designated as theta at which the first diffraction minimum occurs. As given in the equation theta = 1.22 multiplied by the wavelength of light of interest divided by the mirror diameter of the telescope. The number 1.22 is a constant derived by Lord Rayleigh when he used differential equations in tackling this problem. The angle theta can also be designated as dividing the linear separation of the characters of interest – like the headline of a Soviet-era Pravda newspaper at around an inch or 2.5 cm – with the orbital altitude of the reconnaissance satellite – often at 160 kilometers up.

If anyone – besides me – is really curious if a KH-11 like reconnaissance satellite is really capable of seeing clearly a Pravda newspaper headline from 160 kilometers from the Earth’s surface. One can use the Rayleigh Criterion to test to test whether the KH series of reconnaissance satellite’s capabilities are nothing more than cold War era media hype. Let’s just assume that the KH-11 reconnaissance satellite has a main mirror similar in size to that of the Hubble Space Telescope at 2.4 meters since the two are almost of similar dimensions. Assuming that it works in the visible light spectrum at 550 nanometers (smack down in the middle or the green portion of the visible light spectrum) as the wavelength of interest.

So to get the resolution limit of your typical reconnaissance satellite, just multiply 1.22 with the orbital altitude of the reconnaissance satellite – usually around 160 kilometers or 160,000 meters. Multiply this number with the quotient that resulted when the wavelength of interest – 550 nanometers (550 times 10 to the negative 9 meters) – is divided by the reconnaissance satellite’s main mirror diameter of 2.4 meters. The resulting figure is 4.47 centimeters, which makes the reflecting telescope of your typical reconnaissance satellite really have a hard time seeing a Pravda newspaper headline – even license plates – from 160 kilometers up. The letters and numbers may be 4.47 centimeters tall but if they are spaced closer than 4.47 centimeters, the resulting image will be a blur if taken from 160 kilometers up. Shifting to the longer infrared wavelengths worsen the resolution when looking at “small” objects, while the shorter ultraviolet wavelengths could face problems of increasing atmospheric opacity from going through more than 100 kilometers of air.

There might be truth to the rumors of the gripes of “civilian” optical technicians working on the Hubble Space Telescopes main mirror during the Reagan Administration being denied access to the mirror testing equipment primarily used to test the main mirrors on the KH-11 series of reconnaissance satellites. Citing national security concerns back when America was still engaged in a Cold War with the Soviet Union. Sadly, this resulted in the Hubble Space Telescope’s technicians not knowing that the telescope’s main mirror is ground a few millionths of an inch too much while still on the ground in the NASA clean room. Worse still, the astronomical community only knew of the Hubble’s misshapen mirror only after it has been launched 350 kilometers into orbital space when they tested it, hence the then famous press headline of the Hubble Space Telescope being a 1.2 billion dollar blunder.

Maybe, the end of the Cold War proved to be a blessing in disguise to the Hubble Space Telescope because there are rumors too that the potato chip-shaped “corrective lenses” that are retrofitted to the Hubble back in 1993 were borrowed from the KH series of reconnaissance satellites. Maybe this specially shaped lenses are the “magic wand” that allowed the NSA reconnaissance satellites to beat around the Rayleigh Criterion / diffraction limitations of space-based reflecting telescopes. Regardless whether they are used to look up and out into space or look down on Earth’s surface in search of WMDs.

Silent Skies for Radio Astronomers

2009-12-23T01:15:00.000-08:00

With the ever-increasing expansion of radio-frequency mobile telecommunication chatter via cellular / mobile phones and other wireless devices, will our skies be “silent” enough for radio astronomy?

By: Ringo Bones

The International Astronomical Union and the International Dark Skies Association had made significant progress recently in stamping out the scourge of urban light pollution during the celebration of the UN sponsored 2009 International Year of Astronomy. Especially when the Galloway Forest Park in Scotland was established as a protected dark sky area for stargazers and amateur astronomers. Unfortunately, nothing has been done for radio astronomers when it comes to the “trivial” problem of the increasing radio-frequency traffic that denied a chatter-free silent sky condition for astronomers who explore the cosmos in the radio portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Especially in radio frequencies of interest used in exploring our universe like galactic structure and evolution to signs of “extraterrestrial technology”.

As far back as the 1970s, astronomer Carl Sagan raised concerns over the US Department of Defense’s heavily encrypted DARPA Net “Hotline” operating so close a frequency to the hydroxyl radical radio frequency. In 1995, the Strasbourg-based European Science Foundation issued a warning that the rapid expansion of the mobile communications / mobile phone / cellular phone industry’s excessive “radio-frequency pollution” – a.k.a. RF pollution - was a serious threat to radio astronomers worldwide. Back then, Dr. James Cohen of Britain’s Jodrell Bank observatory decried the ongoing deployment of numerous low-Earth-orbit telecommunications satellites used to serve the mobile / cellular phone industry.

Around that time, Dr. James Cohen stated that even if the sideband emissions from satellite / mobile / cellular telephones were small, they would still devastate radio telescopes equipped with large dishes which are so sensitive they can detect extremely weak and distant RF signals on the sub-nanovolt level. Like urban light pollution plaguing astronomers who work in the optical portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, Dr. Cohen likened the problem to a professional photographer having a light shining into his or her lens every time he or she tried to snap a picture. Dr. Peter Napier of the US National Radio Astronomy Observatory concurred with Dr. Cohen, saying that the problems of excessive RF pollution in the radio spectrum of our skies were severe and getting worse as the years go by. Dr. Napier characterized common telecommunications engineering practices as “inadequate” to prevent severe disruption to radio astronomy.

Due to a lack of a legally binding international treaty designed to protect the world’s radio astronomers against excessive RF frequencies reaching into their astronomical instruments or radio frequency pollution. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) had assigned a frequency of 1410MHz – previously the sole domain of the US DoD during the height of the Cold War to send heavily encrypted data streams – available for civilian use for satellite / mobile / cellular phone systems. Unfortunately, this radio frequency band is dangerously close to the 1412MHz signature of the hydroxyl radical – a hydrogen / oxygen molecular fragment widely distributed in space and is used by radio astronomers to map our universe.

In the time since the European Science Foundation issued its warning against excessive radio frequency traffic ruining radio astronomy, “celestial traffic” via telecommunications satellites around the Earth had increased tremendously. These now support an ever-growing market of dedicated ISDN modem / broadband modem lines / wi-fi / and mobile / cellular phones – not to mention an “experimental” system intended to prevent auto collisions. Not only do these satellites contribute to the RF frequency pollution that spoils radio astronomy - their highly reflective Teflon-coated antennae can also be a source of light pollution to astronomers working in the optical spectrum. These satellites – like the various Iridium satellites and the 24-satellite Global Positioning System in geosynchronous orbits - are probably the only “stars” visible in urban areas plagued by sodium-vapor street-lamp light pollution.

The radio frequency pollution problem shows no sign of abating. Mike Cousins, who runs the Stanford Research Institute’s radio-telescope research program, told the San Francisco Examiner that the problem is “constant, sometimes severe”. There is now a cellular phone tower just over the hill from Stanford’s 150-foot dish, Cousins told the San Francisco Examiner’s science writer Keay Davidson. “There is nothing we can do about it” Cousins says. The Stanford dish is sensitive enough to pick up radar reflections from ships in the Western Pacific and Citizen’s Band radio transmissions from as far away as Florida. Even Seth Shostak of the SETI Institute in Mountain View, California, characterized the radio frequency pollution problem in radio astronomy as “science versus heavy-duty commerce”. Scientists at Seth Shostak’s institute search for radio frequency signals from extraterrestrial civilizations.

Will the radio frequency pollution problem that plagues radio astronomers like urban light pollution problems plaguing astronomers using optical telescopes ever be solved? Most radio telescopes, like their optical counterparts, stand in once-remote and once-uninhabited locations that are now surrounded by highly urbanized civilization with their inherently light and RF polluting lifestyle. Even the International Dark Skies Association had failed to solve the increasing light pollution problem around Mount Wilson Observatory in Pasadena, California.

Recently, radio astronomers have developed a few techniques for separating the extraterrestrial radio signals of interest from the more mundane RF pollution noise. One is by computer correlation of signals received by two or more dishes spaced hundreds of miles apart. Using this technique, radio astronomers can filter out the transmissions of cellular phone “yakking yuppies” and concentrate on the spectrum of interest. The better – if not the best technique – for radio astronomers to beat radio frequency pollution is to build a radio astronomy dish as far away from the earthbound RF noise as possible – like on the dark side of the Moon. Sadly, this project won’t be getting any US Congressional funding anytime soon after the Bush-Cheney Consortium ran their “Global War on Terror in a malfeasant manner that left the US Government mired in a 12 trillion dollar debt burden. Some gifted scientist now smoking weed in Amsterdam could have built a faster-than-light capable spacecraft that carries a crew of 150 with that kind of money.

Can the International Astronomical Union Stop Urban Light Pollution?

2009-12-21T02:24:00.000-08:00

As one of the major goals of the International Year of Astronomy 2009 (IYA 2009), does the International Astronomical Union or IAU hold enough clout to stop the scourge of light pollution?

By: Ringo Bones

As the only international astronomical body that has the power to downgrade Pluto from a bona fide planet to a “dwarf planet” status, the International Astronomical Union could have easily stopped urban light pollution. But as of late, many amateur astronomers have always been wondering why the International Astronomical Union had always been “very meek” when it comes to stamping out the scourge of urban light pollution. The question now is, can the IAU – using its political clout – really has the power to stamp out the scourge of urban light pollution? After all, those sodium-vapor lamps that radiate as much light upwards as well as lit our streets is pretty useless when it comes to stopping a 123-grain Lapua Scenar round travelling at 2,600 feet per second, doesn’t it?

When it comes to achieving the “bottom list” of the International Year of Astronomy 2009’s major goals – i.e. on facilitating the preservation and protection of the world’s cultural and natural heritage of dark skies in places such as urban oases, natural parks and astronomical sites. It did manage to score big points recently when the world’s astronomical community voted Galloway Forest Park in Scotland as one of the best stargazing sites on the planet. Galloway Forest Park was even awarded “dark skies” status and praised for accessibility to the general public. The park’s dark skies status accolade was probably due to the healthy tree cover filtering the distant glow of not-so-distant urban nighttime illumination.

Recently, the International Dark Skies Association had tested the levels of darkness in the Galloway Forest Park using a Sky Quality Meter – a method of darkness measurement that would rate a photographer’s darkroom (with the dim red light on?) a rating of 24, the highest reading possible. Galloway Forest Park got 23 out of 24, while the reading in cities such as Glasgow would be 15 or 16.

Despite of its relatively close proximity to major urban centers, it is a miracle that Galloway Forest Park managed to score very high marks on the Sky Quality Meter. But the park’s proximity to northern England, Central Scotland and Northern Ireland – not to mention the ferry port of Stranraer – allowed Galloway Forest Park to score high on the general public accessibility scale in comparison to some other famed but more remote stargazing sites in Britain. Let’s just hope that billionaire property developer Donald Trump doesn’t buy the park in order to turn it into an extremely well-lit casino and golf course. Noting that the full Moon can’t be seen anymore on a well lit nights of the Las Vegas Strip.

To the benefit of us amateur astronomers who live elsewhere on the planet. The International Astronomical Union should be urging governments around the world to redesign streetlights so that they only illuminate the pavement as opposed to our current ones that does double duty of shining a spotlight on four-engine World War II-era night-bombers flying at 25,000 feet. These overly bright streetlights that scatter their light everywhere can’t even make a 9-mm Parabellum round fall to the ground as soon as it leaves the muzzle of a Beretta 92-F – like those “newfangled” inertial dampening field devices. And lets not forget that they don’t even to do double duty either as a quantum-tunneling wormhole that allows our law enforcement personnel to “ miraculously materialize” at the scene of the crime in less than three seconds as far as I know. These overly-bright sodium-vapor lamps that scatter their lights all over the place – especially upwards – not only ruin amateur astronomer’s view of the night sky, they also produce unnecessary carbon dioxide that leads to global warming.

Saturn’s Newly Discovered Ring System: A Curious Astronomical Oversight?

2009-11-30T00:09:00.000-08:00

Inexplicably overlooked by the Cassini-Huygens space probe’s arrival into Saturn back in 2004 is the planet Saturn’s newly discovered ring system the greatest astronomical oversight history?

By: Ringo Bones

When a newly-discovered ring system of the planet Saturn was first seen and discovered by a space based – though still in Earth’s orbit – Spitzer Space Telescope at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory back in October 2009. The first thought that came through my mind was how come the Cassini-Huygens space probe wasn’t the first one to “see” and discover this dust-based ring system of the planet Saturn when it entered into orbit there back in July 2004? You know, that controversial Cassini-Huygens space probe whose weapons grade plutonium-based thermal generator used to power its electronics was the subject of Professor Michio Kaku’s disdain during its launch back in 1997.

This somewhat curious and inexplicable astronomical oversight aside, the newly discovered ring system of the planet Saturn is a natural wonder of the cosmos to behold. Probably greater than that in comparison to the seven ring bands that we knew before. The new ring system lies 8 million miles from Saturn’s surface, compared to 85,000 miles of the outer reaches of the previously known ring system. If seen by the naked eye from the Earth’s surface, Saturn would appear as large as the full Moon instead of just a “bright-ish” star that is of no consequence to civilians clueless about navigating using star positions. Sadly, our eyes – normal human eyes that is – are not designed to see Saturn’s newly discovered ring system.

The NASA JPL Spitzer Space Telescope, which was the instrument used to discovered the new ring system back in October 2009, is primarily designed to “see” and find dim stars – i.e. brown dwarf stars that are believed to be the underlying explanation of the dark matter phenomena - that radiate most of their energy in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. Unlike the Hubble Space Telescope which can only reach the TV infrared remote / gallium arsenide-based night vision goggles section of the electromagnetic spectrum. The previously mysterious dust deposits on one hemisphere of Saturn’s moon Phoebe could now be safely blamed on the newly discovered ring system, which is made up mostly of ultrafine dust particles.

Given that the dust particles comprising the newly discovered ring system of Saturn has an average temperature of –300ºF, one needs specialized equipment to see it. Like a germanium bolometer, an instrument first developed by Professor Frank J. Low of the University of Arizona. A germanium bolometer is an instrument used to detect extremely weak infrared – make that thermal-range – radiation. Composed of a tiny crystal of germanium cooled by liquid helium to almost absolute zero, a germanium bolometer is able to detect a hundred-trillionth of a watt of infrared radiation - equivalent to sensing the glow of a lighted cigarette 10,000 miles away. The NASA JPL Spitzer Space Telescope was probably equipped with one.

To us amateur astronomers, being able to see the newly discovered ring system of Saturn from our hopefully light pollution free regular stargazing sites could be an almost impossible task. At an average temperature of –300ºF – which is probably 50ºF colder than the surface of Pluto – the dust that make up Saturn’s newly discovered ring system will be too cold to be visible with the more common gallium arsenide-based night vision goggles / image intensifiers. Even those Vietnam War era photomultiplier tube-based image intensifiers will probably still can’t see Saturn’s newly discovered rings. A 5,000 US dollar bolometer-on-a-chip equipped thermal camera similar to that mounted on a state of the art firefighter’s mask when placed behind the eyepiece of a Celestron reflecting telescope with an 8-inch mirror will probably work. If the telescope’s primary mirror is efficient enough in focusing in the thermal infrared range – though I haven’t tried this set up yet.

Buying Your Own Starter Astronomical Telescope

2009-04-12T20:32:00.000-07:00

From the elementary grade amateur to the tenured professional astronomer who decides to buy one, is buying your own astronomical telescope still a good investment?

By: Vanessa Uy

For the tenured professional whose significant other is understanding enough to allow him or her to own a “reasonably-sized” astronomy telescope – given that the one he or she uses on the job probably has a primary mirror taller than their two-story house. Owning a “portable” astronomy telescope surely has it’s own advantages. For the elementary grade amateur – or those in between – there’s nothing more satisfying than emulating the Golden Age of 17th Century Astronomy every time you use your telescope. But if you are looking for one, read on. Given that 2009 has been designated as the International Year of Astronomy, everyone should have the opportunity to experience first hand of using your very own astronomical telescope.

Even though there are very user-friendly astronomical telescopes that cost around 3,000 US dollars though the wisdom of shelling out with that sum of money can be questionable - especially if your funds doesn’t stretch that far. We should be looking for something more modest given that the world is currently in a recession. The second hand classifieds selling such items – like those on major astronomy magazines like Astronomy or Sky & Telescope - can be a good place to check out. But there are those brand-new priced between 150 to 500 US dollars that will do very well as starter telescopes. Even the ubiquitous 10 X 50 binocular telescope qualify as a very good starter refracting astronomical telescope. It can be used to see the major craters on the Moon and even has the magnifying power to see the planet Uranus.

There are two basic kinds of astronomical telescopes that you can choose: refractors and reflectors. A telescope’s primary function is to collect light and gather it to a focus. A refractor telescope uses a lens – called the objective lens – to refract or bend light to a focus. While a reflecting telescope uses a mirror – called the primary mirror – to reflect light to a focus. To know which type of astronomical telescope is best for you very much depends on what you will be looking at most of the time – or your specialty. Refractors are generally better for viewing small bright objects, like the Moon – if you consider the full Moon “small” – the planets, and double stars. Reflectors are generally suited for viewing large dim objects like the Milky Way, nebulae, other galaxies and star clusters.

When those in the know talk about a telescope’s “size” they are talking about its aperture. Aperture is the diameter of the telescope’s primary lens or mirror. For example, a 4-inch reflector doesn’t mean that the telescope is 4 inches long. It means that its primary mirror is 4 inches in diameter. For some weird reason, the aperture measurement of refractors or lens telescopes are usually given in millimeters, while the apertures of reflecting or mirror-type telescopes are usually given in inches. And remember an astronomical telescope’s job is to collect light. The larger the aperture, the more light it collects and the sharper the image it delivers. So chose the largest one you can afford because more than anything else, aperture determines what you will be able to see with the telescope.

Vibration can be an issue when it comes to starter astronomical telescopes. No matter which kind of telescope you choose, make sure it is attached to a good, sturdy mount. Telescopes mounted on long skinny legs that are held together with tiny screws are not worth the time and money. There is nothing worse than trying to use a telescope that makes the planet Jupiter look like that alien probe in the sci-fi TV series Threshold every time the cat walks by. Astronomical telescopes – especially the reflecting type – are prone to vibration. Even though my trusty but rusty Celestron 8-incher probably cost 1,500 US dollars when new, I can’t even play my stereo at a decent enough volume every time I use it because it vibrates wildly in time to the music. So listening to J.S. Bach’s organ cantatas or Iron Maiden’s Fear of the Dark while using a reflecting astronomical telescope is out of the question.

Speaking of astronomical telescope mounts, most beginners’ telescopes come with a simple alt-azimuth or equatorial mount. The “alt” means altitude and “azimuth” refers to horizontal movement. Which means an alt-azimuth mount allows the telescope to be moved or aimed up and down of left and right. An equatorial mount is set up so that one axis always points to the North Star. This type of mount moves in curves that match the movement of the celestial bodies in the night sky. Which can be an advantage if you want to use your telescope to capture long exposure photographs of a dim star using de rigueur 150 ASA 35mm photographic film.

There are advantages and disadvantages of each type of mount. Alt-azimuth mounts are mostly used in refractor or lens-type telescopes and are easier to use. And can be a boon if your telescope does double duty as a sniper’s spotting telescope. Especially if you are skilled enough to be a able to hit a bowling pin from 6,000 feet away using a rifle that fires the .50 caliber Browning Machine Gun cartridge. Although equatorial mounts – usually relegated to reflecting astronomical telescopes - are primarily designed to track celestial objects with ease. Plus the latitude and altitude readout on the equatorial mount can be very educational, especially if a seasoned astronomer ask you about the coordinates of the particular patch of night sky you are currently looking at. But most of all, it doesn’t matter which kind of mount you get, as long as it is sturdy enough for your telescope not to vibrate wildly every time the cat walks by.

By now, you’re probably asking how much magnification capability can I buy for my money. Sure enough, commercially manufactured astronomical telescopes’ power specification can be a contentious issue, especially since entry-level manufacturers tend to be too optimistic – even dubious - about the capabilities of their product lines. A telescope by itself doesn’t magnify anything because it doesn’t make objects look bigger it makes objects look brighter.

Making things look bigger is the job of the eyepieces you use with the telescope. Which – to the astronomical telescope’s manufacturers’ disdain – can allow you to use microscope magnification eyepieces as magnification eyepieces for your starter astronomical telescope. So it can be a boon if you also own a starter microscope. By changing eyepieces, you change the magnification. In most cases, the eyepiece will be marked with a number – usually in millimeters – that tells its focal length. The same eyepiece will deliver different magnifications in different telescopes. But in general, the lower the number on the eyepiece, the higher the magnification it delivers.

And believe it or not, you don’t even need a lot of magnification to see some interesting celestial vista. You can see Jupiter and the planet’s four biggest moons at a magnification of just 15 times (15X) – which is half that of the magnifying power of Galileo’s first astronomical telescope. While Saturn’s rings pop out at around 30X magnification. It is worth noting that most beginners’ astronomical telescopes – especially those with small apertures – can’t deliver a good image of anything at much over 150x. Either the result is an image that is too dark, since higher magnifications tend to darken the image, or is an overly distorted mush. Most entry-level astronomical telescopes – those priced between 150 to 300 US dollars – come with one or more eyepieces. You can also buy extra eyepieces separately or use ones from your microscope. Generally, it’s nice to have three sets of eyepieces: one for low power around 15X, one for medium power around 30X to 60X, and one for high power around 100X or greater.

For those beginners looking for an astronomical telescope on the cheap – which usually means second hand – avoid falling into the “long skinny trap”. I mean don’t discount a telescope just because it doesn’t looks like your typical astronomy telescope – i.e. long and skinny and mounted on a tripod. I’ve frequently encountered second-hand telescopes being offered on garage sales and swap meets that although very good, tend to look weird. Like the Astrocan, a round telescope that rotates on a short metal base. And Dobsonian reflectors – featured in the movie Roxanne – which have very stable box-shaped alt-azimuth mounts are often featured on Internet adverts being offered at prices too low to ignore. These two types are probably the most common second-hand astronomical telescopes being offered for sale. Although these types of astronomical telescopes have the disadvantage of not being so man-portable, unless of course your observation spot is accessible by car.

A good place to buy an astronomical telescope if you chose to buy one brand new are astronomy specialists shops – although some offer second-hand and “ex-dem” models at “very reasonable” prices. The clerks are more than likely to be able to help you choose a good scope within your budget, and you’ll also be able to test the telescope at the store. Also, you will be able to take the telescope back to the store if there are manufacturing defects. Or servicing within the warranty period since the shop is probably the telescope manufacturers authorized distributor / dealer. And the specialist shop carries a line of eyepieces and other accessories that you may want to buy later on. And believe it or not, specialist astronomy shops are probably the last place on the planet that sells 35mm photographic film. Given that - to my knowledge - everyday picture taking / photography has more-or-less gone completely digital since 2005.

Seeing Pluto

2009-03-30T05:20:00.000-07:00

Debate over its planetary status aside, is it possible to actually see the planet Pluto using astronomical instruments commonly available to amateur astronomers?

By: Vanessa Uy

Mysterious Pluto managed to acquire “Page Six” supermarket tabloid-style popularity during the last few years. Mostly due to the International Astronomical Union’s somewhat hasty dethronement of its planetary status, thus inciting a populist uprising of a significant portion of planet Earth’s population. But to an amateur astronomer lucky enough to own an 8-inch reflector, chances of seeing this far-off real estate of our Solar System is now a possibility.

For some amateurs, seeing Pluto first hand via their own telescope can be a transcendental experience. Not unlike that of experiencing a live performance of "Beethoven’s Ninth” first hand. For others – like me – glimpsing it’s feeble light means creating your very own cherished memory. Especially if the most advanced digital camera you happen to own doesn’t have enough resolution to capture your “Pluto Moment” and post it on the Internet.

After the older members of our astronomy club had their “Pluto Moment” via their 8-inchers back in 1998. Using the star Zeta Ophiuchi as a guide star to find it back then. By the way, Zeta Ophiuchi is the bright middle star in the row of three at the bottom of the constellation of Ophiucus the serpent handler. Pluto’s current position on the latest Telrad Finder Charts puts it within the field of the constellation of Sagittarius, where it will remain until 2023.

As a consequence of our Earth-based vantage point, Earthbound astronomers will always see Pluto initially describes typical annual loop formations – which in this region of its orbit – averages around 2 ½ degrees across measured from Eastern to Western stationary points. The loops gradually open out into zigzag formations as Pluto approaches and then crosses the ecliptic – i.e. the apparent path of the Sun through the Zodiac as seen from our earthbound perspective. The helical nature - though it looks more like a squashed spring stretched sideways - of Pluto’s loop formations – which resembles a stretched spring – is a consequence of its steep – 17 degree - orbital inclination to the ecliptic. Coupled with the fact that Pluto is currently on the descending half of its orbit. Pluto’s opposition magnitude or brightness as seen from the Earth’s surface fades during the 16-year period – i.e. between June 2006 and July 2022 – from +13.9 to +14.3.

With Pluto’s magnitude fast approaching +14.0, you should be able to spot it with an 8-inch reflector from a dark observation spot, preferably one not plagued by urban light pollution. Once you become familiar with the Sagittarius constellation star field at medium power, crank up the magnification past 150x. An even higher power is better still, if the seeing conditions are good – i.e. the night sky is not shimmering like the air over a barbecue grill – or if your telescope’s optics is up to the task. Higher magnifications will darken the background, making Pluto more than just a faint flicker.

Even though blink comparators for amateur astronomers isn't yet widely available, the best way to confirm your very own observation of Pluto is to look for it twice – preferably a few days apart. You could decide to sketch the field with stars slightly dimmer than 14th magnitude. Use the second night’s observation to see which star has moved against the distant background stars. A broad V-shape of 8th to 9th magnitude stars can be used to anchor your sketch. Some newer telescopes are even equipped with a built-in LCD combining display with memory function. Which allows you to save your sketch into your telescope. To display their handicap prowess, some amateur astronomers who served as US Army or USMC snipers during Operation Desert Storm even masked down their 8-inchers while trying to find Pluto with less than 4 inches of available aperture.

My first hand experience – or is impression more apt - of “seeing” Pluto is that it looks like a pale blue robin egg colored star. From the eyepiece of my 8-incher with the magnification set at 150x – assuming that it’s chromatic aberration is invisible to my own eyes – Pluto does look different when compared to other stars within the Sagittarius star field. You can somewhat tell – assuming your own visual acuity is up to it – that Pluto merely reflects light from a primary source like our Sun. As opposed to the distant stars which can generate light by themselves. If an amateur astronomer has the ability to spot Pluto with his or her own 8-incher, and can do this with handicaps like masking their telescope to reduce available aperture. Then maybe they should consider becoming pros.

A Brief History of Pluto

2009-02-09T17:38:00.000-08:00

Since its discovery in 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh to its eventual – yet not by any means final – dethronement as a planet in 2006 by the IAU. Is Pluto for all intents and purposes a planet?

By: Vanessa Uy

Seeing VHS recordings – the 1990’s version of TIVO – of an aging Clyde Tombaugh in his last TV appearance for the first time, especially ten years after, can be quite disconcerting. With an oxygen tank in the background and a tube up his nose, defending to the “bitter end” on the then embattled status of Pluto as a true-blue bona fide planet after the discovery of the Kuiper Belt – a previously unknown region of our Solar System - back in 1992. Given all the available viewpoints of the “Great Pluto Debate”, I began to wonder if this issue would still be relevant as we enter into the 22nd Century?

Of all the books written about Pluto’s “embattled” status as a true-blue planet, the one that I consider being the most “scientific” when it comes to pointing out the present status of Pluto is the one recently published by Neil deGrasse Tyson titled Pluto Files. As a Frederick P. Rose Director of New York’s Hayden Planetarium and a member of the American Museum of Natural History’s Department of Astrophysics, it is safe to say that Neil deGrasse Tyson is truly qualified to shed light on the on-going conundrum that has plagued Pluto’s planet-or-not status.

Even though the planet’s discovery in 1930 and naming it from a letter-writing “suggestion” of an 11-year-old British schoolgirl, it seems like Pluto has a somewhat “charmed” status right on the get go. Even though the Pluto’s planetary status was somewhat not-so-beyond-reproach from the beginning. I mean an orbital path that strays into the planet Neptune’s. Plus radically straying off our Solar Systems plane of ecliptic, Pluto has really got it coming from the beginning.

Then came the 1970’s, which given the advances in astronomical telescope technology allowed astronomers greater insight into Pluto. Astronomers around the world – university tenured or not – didn’t have to wait for the 248.4 years or so for Pluto to completely orbit around the Sun for them to know that there is seriously something wrong with the planet’s “personality”.

During the discovery of the Kuiper Belt back in 1992 – a hitherto monumental discovery in astronomy – given that various Japanese science fiction animated series has theorized its existence (remember that Star Blazer cartoon?) since the late 1970’s. Only highlights every astronomers doubts – especially ones affiliated with the International Astronomical Union and it’s Paris, France headquarters – to seriously cast their doubts about the somewhat “dogmatic” axiom describing Pluto as a planet since it’s discovery in 1930. When Pluto’s planetary status was endangered in the mid-1990’s, this prompted the now-aging and on assisted-living astronomer Clyde Tombaugh to have his last live television appearance defending his “pride-child” – namely the planet Pluto.

Toward the end of the 20th Century, the planetary status of Pluto was further eroded by such groundbreaking discoveries as “having 7 moons bigger than the planet itself”. Thus marking the somewhat untimely decline of Pluto’s planetary status. The Uruguayan upstart astronomer and IAU lap-dog named Julio Angel Fernández proposal of declaring Pluto’s “Dwarf Planet Status” only accelerated the process, but Pluto supporters won’t give up their planetary status issues without some semblance of a fight.

While Neil deGrasse Tyson mentions the American phenomena of a “Pluto Industry” which centers on the state of New Mexico staunchly supporting Pluto’s planetary status. Even though the state’s native son and Pluto discoverer Clyde Tombaugh spent most of his time in Arizona – make that the observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona - during his discovery of Pluto. Even though most New Yorkers are now letting the issue go, everyone around the world now see the defense of Pluto’s planetary status as an American phenomena. But is there any strong and contemporary scientific basis that supports Pluto as a true-blue bona fide planet?

Recent scientific studies done by astrophysicists’ show that during the early days – a little over 4 billion years ago – of our Solar System, there were 20 or more planet-sized objects bumping into each other in the inner Solar System. The region now occupied by the planet Mercury all the way to Mars. Remember that Mars-sized rock that collided with the early Earth that eventually created our own Moon? This is how our Solar System looked back then. Now compare that to the present-day Kuiper Belt region of our Solar System. Given these existing facts we shouldn’t be dismissing Pluto as a true-blue planet too hastily.

Even though Pluto has earned itself the proverbial page-six-supermarket-tabloid-type-fame most of us could only dream about. And even though I myself thinks that it is very good that a lot of people had become interested in astronomy again and hopes that the Pluto controversy will not end for the sake of making astronomy popular again could anger quite a large number of people. But should the Pluto planet status be resolved soon, like before space tourism or space real estate becomes a booming business?

I would say yes, remember that “overpriced-gentrification-driven” Whitewater land development deal that almost destroyed the Clinton’s political career in America? I mean, should a parcel of land be over-priced by virtue of geologic stability alone? This debacle could affect the future real estate and space tourism development potential of Pluto. Just imagine the rigmarole and legalese nightmare that could ensue if the planetary status of Pluto remains unresolved by the time Paris Hilton’s descendents will be planning to create hotels and ski resorts on Pluto, only to be stymied by unclear zoning laws resulting from Pluto’s unresolved planetary status.

Bose-Einstein Condensate Refracting Telescopes

2009-01-19T16:50:00.000-08:00

With their ability to slow down light by 100 million or more times, does this mean that Bose-Einstein Condensates have very high refractive indexes and therefore excellent for telescope use?

By: Vanessa Uy

Though not yet mentioned - as far as I know - throughout Star Trek’s 40 or so years of history, just imagine a substance with the ability to slow down light from 300 million meters per second to 3 meters per second – the speed of a little girl riding a bike. With a substance like this, can we ever make the ultimate refracting telescope – i.e. the kind that uses lenses to magnify far away objects – using this substance as our lens?

For about 8 years or so, scientists have been experimenting with Bose-Einstein Condensate and had been observing their property of being able to slow down the speed of light as it passes through them by a factor of 100 million – even a little bit more in subsequent laboratory experiments. Given this kind of refractive index, which since hitherto we can only dream of, will we be soon making astronomical telescopes using Bose-Einstein Condensate for the lenses?

Currently, Bose-Einstein Condensates are still seen as mere “laboratory curiosity”. But since lab experiments have shown that given their ability to slow down light, Bose-Einstein Condensates certainly have refractive indexes several order of magnitudes greater than the ophthalmology-grade glass – which is 35% lead to increase it’s refractive index - currently used as optical lenses in telescope construction. Even the refractive index of diamond lenses – even if you can afford to use one – still pales in comparison to a lens constructed out of Bose-Einstein Condensate.

The higher the refractive index means the smaller or more compact you can make your telescope compared to one made using lenses with a lower refractive index, even if both of them are rated with the same powers of magnification. Looks like Bose-Einstein Condensates will have their first practical use in the field of astronomy. But if Bose-Einstein Condensates are a miracle material when it comes to refracting telescope construction, how come nobody has built one yet?

Using present technology, Bose-Einstein Condensates exists only in temperatures very near to that of absolute zero. It would be very impractical to construct a Bose-Einstein Condensate telescope the size of a Soviet-era RPG-7 with magnification ability comparable to that of the Keck telescope in Hawaii. When it’s cooling system – to maintain the structural integrity of the Bose-Einstein Condensate lenses – is the size of St. Paul’s Cathedral.

Given the somewhat “rapid” advances in technology, a Bose-Einstein Condensate astronomical telescope could be built – someday. Remember back in the 1980’s where 12-bit digital video processing and CCD or charge coupled device cameras with peak quantum efficiencies approaching 85% can only be found in US National Security Agency reconnaissance satellites. Today 12-bit digital video processing is now de rigeur in DVD players – even those made in China. And high quantum efficiency CCD cameras can be easily bought in better specialist astronomy shops at prices from 200 to 1,000 US dollars each – which is nigh on impossible to purchase during the Reagan Administration. Plus those bolometer-on-a-chip helmet-mounted thermal-imaging cameras used by firefighters that used to cost 6,000 dollars 15 years ago can now even be bought for less than the hundred dollars in some garage sales and swap meets.

Technological advances always mean a quantum leap in performance coupled by a dramatic reduction in price and widespread ability. Who knows that 200 years from now, telescopes made from room temperature Bose-Einstein Condensate lenses will be widely available, even to middle-school kids. Too bad Gene Roddenberry haven’t built one for Captain James T. Kirk in the original series of Star Trek.

Thomas Harriet: The First to Use the Telescope in Astronomy?

2009-01-14T17:57:00.000-08:00

There is now proof that an Englishman from Oxford named Thomas Harriet was the first to use the then newly invented telescope in stargazing a few months before Galileo. Will our schoolbooks be revised?

By: Vanessa Uy

In a debacle somewhat reminiscent of the late 1970’s debate on who were the first to release the first Punk single – The Sex Pistols or The Damned? - Has now invaded the world of astronomy. And the timing that even supermarket tabloids can only dream of, given that we are just starting the UN-declared International Year of Astronomy in honor of the Galileo being the first to use the then newly invented device called the telescope in astronomy on that fateful night in 1609. Will this story be the forever remembered as the bombshell of the 2009 International Year of Astronomy?

The recently discovered document – according to the BBC World report aired on January 14, 2009 proves that the Oxford gentleman-scientist named Thomas Harriet (or is it spelled Harriett?) had beat the Italian polymath named Galileo in being the first to use the then newly invented device called the telescope in stargazing / astronomy. The newly found document focuses on the detailed drawings and sketches used by Thomas Harriet in his attempt to map the mountains on the Moon and to record on what he saw on his telescope near the end of December 1608.

Being a gentleman of stature in 17th Century Oxford, Thomas Harriet probably procrastinated in taking steps to publish his recent findings because he has other more important tings to do. Or because it would take almost superhuman-like feats to publish such groundbreaking and radical scientific findings in an age almost 400 years before the invention of the Internet, never mind Blogging and Web 2.0. Given these preexisting challenges of publishing ones own extremely groundbreaking scientific discoveries during 17th Century Europe, it's easy for both Thomas Harriett and Galileo to be ignorant of each others findings even years after their own lifetimes. But first let us review the a piece of equipment that both of them used to advance the then fledgling science of astronomy - namely the telescope.

The telescope - according to most Europeans at that time - was the product of Dutch spectacle-makers. These Dutch spectacle-makers who had been grinding lenses from chunks of glass - probably since Medieval Times - did so without fully understanding quite how they worked. A few years after 1600, one of them, possibly a Dutch scientists named Hans Lippershey. Discovered by happy accident that two lenses of appropriate curvature, held the proper distance apart, makes distant objects look larger. Galileo was the first - as we know so far - to put the fascinating invention to serious work in astronomy. But was he really the only one who did it during that time?

Given that Galileo was the first to publish his findings, he established the principal claim. Which sadly also draws the attention of the Pan-European Inquisition and the 17th Century Vatican Police Apparatus to the detriment of Galileo’s future standing in the scientific community of 17th Century Italy.

Back to the mountains on the Moon issue, dispute was arising fast over who should take credit for these glorious new discoveries hitherto never seen before the telescope was pointed to the heavens. Even though Galileo was very much aware of the dilemma between the urge to publish his findings quickly, and the need for continued observations until he was certain of their accuracy. Galileo chose to publish his findings immediately, thus was forever credited for being the first one to use the telescope as an astronomical instrument. Even though a gentleman from Oxford, England named Thomas Harriet had beat him to it by several months.

My 2009 International Year of Astronomy Wish Lists

2009-01-11T07:27:00.000-08:00

Even tough we are primarily honoring Galileo’s pioneering efforts in his use of the telescope in astronomy, we all can still wish for very interesting celestial phenomena this 2009 can’t we?

By: Vanessa Uy

Yes it was primitive, but have you ever wondered why no one before Galileo ever decided out of curiosity to use 15th Century era telescopes for stargazing and astronomical purposes before that fateful night back in 1609? We could be honoring Galileo out of his sheer luck 400 years later, but given his resolve against the genocidal bureaucratic might of the Inquisition, he really does deserve the honor.

Suppose we amateur stargazers and amateur astronomers can make a wish list about very interesting celestial / astronomical phenomena to occur that could make the night skies of 2009 the most interesting of the last 400 years. What would it be? For the sheer fun of it, how about a very bright supernova that could put the supernova of 1987 – Supernova 1987A – into shame? Though the supernova should occur not too close to our system to allow it to blow away the Earth’s ozone layer. Otherwise, a very bright supernova would be perfect.

Scores of comets would also be a good choice. Especially ones that rival the size and brightness magnitude of the comet Hyakutake’s appearance back in 1996, or what about the appearance of an oddly shaped comet? Like the Arend-Roland Comet of 1956. Or for an ultimate year-end finale, our large bright comet’s occultation with our very bright supernova during the Yuletide Season of 2009 just to make things more festive given the global economic downturn would still be around by then.

Those previously mentioned are probably the only ones that are of immediate concern to us amateur astronomers. Given the capabilities of the telescopes that we immediately possess. Those who are into astronomy as their day jobs could discover more fascinating and exotic astronomical phenomena this 2009. Like new extra-solar planets the size of our Earth for instance. Or what about new Kuiper Belt objects whose properties allow yet again the International Astronomical Union’s reevaluation of Pluto’s status as a bona fide planet.

Yep, those pesky little Kuiper Belt objects that had recently become the wildcards when it comes to Pluto’s status as a planet. Which to me is always good news, given that astronomy has always been ruminating in its complacent obscurity (in Uranus?). A controversy that allows it further mainstream-media exposure – even supermarket tabloid-style exposure – is always good for astronomy.

Remembering Henrietta Swan Leavitt

2009-01-11T07:21:00.000-08:00

Is our contemporary astronomical community very reluctant to honor the achievements of Miss Henrietta Swan Leavitt because it could reveal the very recent chauvinistic past of astronomy?

By: Vanessa Uy

Her mathematical works in astronomy were frequently rumored to have helped in the eventual discovery of the planet Pluto in 1930. But American astronomer Henrietta Swan Levitt (1868 – 1921) was better known in the astronomical community for her discovery of the relation between the absolute magnitudes of Cepheid variable stars and the periods of their light-variations. Which later provided as a method for “sounding” the depths of our cosmos. She is also credited with the discovery of a number of asteroids, four novas, and 2,400 variable stars.

Around 1912 – i.e. during the early years of stellar spectroscopy - particularly at the Harvard Astronomical Observatory, almost all of the data were catalogued and analyzed by female astronomers – called “computers” – who were forbidden because of their gender / sex to use the telescopes. It is quite ironic that during the “Dark Ages” – i.e. in the early 20th Century’s chauvinist-leaning sociological period of modern astronomy - that the work of such female astronomers as Henrietta Swan Leavitt and Annie Jump Cannon (1863 – 1941) came to be of greater significance. Especially when compared to the work of many of their male colleagues who saw these female astronomers to be nothing more than menial assistants.

Back in 1912, Miss Henrietta Swan Leavitt, an assistant at Harvard Astronomical Observatory had been assigned the task of studying 25 Cepheid variable stars in the Small Magellanic Cloud. Without any prior idea of the remoteness of the stars she was investigating, she noticed a peculiar characteristic that had since made all variable stars famous: The brighter they are, the more slowly they fluctuate. Miss Leavitt thought her find rather peculiar and published it. At once, because of her discovery, the great Danish astronomer at that time Ejnar Hertzprung – co-discoverer with Princeton’s H. N. Russel of the color-brightness graph and of the difference between dwarf and giant stars – took serious notice. The two of them soon realized that Miss Leavitt’s curious discovery might be the key to measuring the vast distances of the universe.

Before Henrietta Swan Leavitt’s discovery of Cepheid variable stars’ brightness fluctuations, astronomers previously used the geometric method of parallax in their attempts of measuring the vastness of our universe. Parallax is the apparent movement of stars, or in actuality a reflection of the Earth’s motion as viewed against the background of more distant stars. But parallax has one glaring drawback when used to measure the almost incomprehensible vastness of our universe. When measuring distances of 500 light-years and beyond, our base angle with respect of the diameter of the “circle” – actually it is an ellipse of low eccentricity - defining the Earth’s orbital path around the Sun could fall ridiculously low. When our base angle of parallax falls below 0.006 second, parallax as a means of geometrically measuring the vast distances of the universe becomes essentially useless.

This is where the beauty and brilliance of Henrietta Swan Leavitt’s discovery of using Cepheid variables to measure the vast distances of our universe comes into it’s own. If astronomers can see the distant galaxies and their retinue of Cepheid variables, those astronomers can measure how far away that galaxy is with certainty hitherto unobtainable previously via geometric parallax. Just imagine using geometric parallax to measure the distance of our nearest galactic neighbor, the Andromeda Galaxy. The parallax triangle that results in measuring the Great Galaxy of Andromeda’s 2 million or so light-year distance from us would look for all intents and purposes nothing more than a virtually straight line.

The 2009 International Year of Astronomy: Galileo Rem

2009-01-11T07:07:00.000-08:00

Primarily a commemoration of that fateful night back in 1609 when Galileo first used a telescope in astronomy, but has our contemporary society come a long way since the Inquisition?

By: Vanessa Uy

When Galileo turned his “primitive” telescope to the night sky on that fateful night back in 1609, he never expected in his wildest dreams the wondrous vistas he had opened which people at that time had hardly dreamed were there. Galileo found mountains on the Moon; he soon found out that Venus had Moon-like phases, which proved the planet’s Sun-centered orbit. And also the four “little stars” orbiting Jupiter, which were later named collectively as the “Galilean Satellites” in Galileo’s honor; the countless stars never before seen in the main band of the Milky Way, plus the Sunspots traversing the solar disk which made him deduce that the Sun rotates. With all these discoveries, in one fell swoop, the old, comforting idea of the planet Earth being the center of creation was doomed 400 years ago.

Armed with these findings, Galileo became a convinced Copernican – i.e. the Earth and the rest of the planet’s revolving around the Sun, unlike the Church accepted Earth-centered Ptolemaic system – which spurred him into a “crusade” to gain Church acceptance of the Copernican system. But the bureaucracy of the Roman Catholic Church at that time proved unyielding and even threatened to unleash the might of the Inquisition on Galileo. Which eventually coerced him to admit “errors” in order to avoid torture - all proved to be in vain to still Galileo’s questioning mind and his faith in God.

Now 400 years after that fateful night when Galileo decided to use the relatively primitive telescopes of the time for stargazing, the 2009 International Year of Astronomy should – in my opinion – be dedicated to Galileo’s resolve in the face of the “evil” bureaucracy of the Roman Catholic Church. Science shouldn’t be undermined with established power politics, especially when the findings are not to the liking of the powers-that-be. Remember during the height of the Bush Administration when the American ultra-conservative Christian Right decided to make scientific data proving that global warming / climate change is real be labeled a hoax and be made part of their accepted Christian doctrine? Well, America’s ultra-conservative Christian Right almost got away with it because plans to wean-off our dependence on fossil fuels were backlogged for eight years in order for them to maintain their political and financial hegemony - at the expense of our planet’s environment.

Luckily in the nick of time, a more enlightened leader was elected as the new US president in the name of Barack Obama. Economic problems aside, 2009 might yet prove to be a good year for astronomy. Lest we forget what Galileo already experienced first-hand almost 400 years ago that science and politics really are very nasty bedfellows. Which sadly what got Giordano Bruno burned alive at the steak. Maybe the Inquisition is still alive in the 21st Century.

Is the Star of Bethlehem a Comet?

2008-12-07T17:49:00.000-08:00

The subject is a perennial favorite at planetarium shows around the world during the Christmas Season. But is there irrefutable proof that the Star of Bethlehem that announced Jesus Christ’s birth is a comet?

By: Vanessa Uy

Though the comet theory of the Star of Bethlehem gained prominence when the Florentine painter Giotto di Bondone painted his “Adoration of the Magi” showing the Star of Bethlehem as a comet. Given that during Giotto’s lifetime that he and his fellow Florentine’s saw one of Halley’s Comet appearance in 1301, the “orientative” (head and tail) structure of a comet could – in theory – serve as a plausible “guiding star” for a precise point on Earth. Thus when Halley’s Comet returned back / made an appearance in 1986, the robotic spacecraft sent to analyze the comet was named Giotto, in honor of the Florentine painter who portrayed the Star of Bethlehem as a comet in his Adoration of the Magi. But does this serve as an irrefutable proof that the Star of Bethlehem is a comet?

The most prominent theory suggesting that the Star of Bethlehem is a comet is the most popular one. The famous Halley’s Comet was visible in 12 BC and was documented on records dating from that period, but other comets observed by stargazers around 5 BC could also be better candidates. Although there’s a problem about the comet theory, given that comets have a long history for being “portents of dire catastrophe” since recorded civilization began. It’s use to signify the fulfilled prophecy heralding the birth of an extremely important person is one nagging detail against the case of the Star of Bethlehem being a comet.

Other much rarer celestial phenomena like supernovae would also seem plausible as a Star of Bethlehem candidate. Archaeological records dating from 5 BC did show that Chinese and Korean stargazers noted observing a nova around that period. Some archeoastronomy scholars even suggest an extremely rare occultation of a periodic comet with that of a super-bright supernova.

Even though we can still see the Crab Nebula – one of the brightest supernova events during the entire human history – via a powerful enough telescope despite the event being completely ignored by European stargazers during the Dark Ages. Finding the supernova remnants of the Star of Bethlehem – if it is indeed a supernova event – will be difficult since ancient stargazers ability to document precise celestial coordinates leaves much to be desired. It wasn’t until Tycho Brahe created gigantic sextants and related instruments like the equatorial armillary that Western astronomy acquired the ability to make and measure “relatively accurate” celestial coordinates that are of use to present day astronomers.

The theory proposing that the Star of Bethlehem is a comet has no trouble being widely accepted because comets are relatively bright celestial occurrences. Most of them can easily exceed the absolute magnitude of the planet Venus as seen on Earth’s surface. Plus their head and tail structure can be interpreted – especially to the ancients – as pointing to a certain direction. Plus, given that the current academic studies suggest that the Three Wise Men in search of Jesus were probably Zoroastrians – i.e. the first adherents of monotheism. And since Zoroastrians see flame as a sacred symbol, Halley’s Comet arriving during the time of Jesus’ birth could suggest that this is a very important event to the Three Wise Men or Magi. Given that photos of Halley’s Comet visitations to our part of the Solar System does make the comet appear flame-shaped, the event will nonetheless seen as an event of auspicious significance, rather that the traditional view of comets being portents of dire catastrophe.

This Star Belongs to Me?

2008-11-17T07:03:00.000-08:00

The heavenly aspirations of having a star or other celestial body named after you usually involve the rigmarole of an earthbound bureaucracy. Too much red tape to achieve celestial immortality?

By: Vanessa Uy

Many of you have asked previously about what it will take to name a star or other celestial body after your loved one or favorite Hollywood celebrity, porn star, musician or band – imagine an Earth-crosser or Earth-crossing asteroid named after Veruca Salt. This particular blog attempts to answer those pressing queries. Spoiler alert: It will cost you ungodly amounts of money.

For quite a while now, an Illinois based company called the International Star Registry – or others like it - had been frequently mentioned in various TV series’ story lines about how someone bought the naming rights of a newly discovered heavenly body after their cherished loved one. Sometimes at a price that’s beyond rational comprehension, imagine purchasing the naming rights of a heavenly body for 3,000 US dollars or more as a Christmas, Valentine’s Day, or Anniversary present as intangible as a celestial body named after you or your special someone.

Sadly, the worldwide astronomical community does not recognize celestial bodies named by the International Star Registry because the company is not the one legally and / or officially tasked to name heavenly bodies. After doing some research about what it takes to have a star or other heavenly and or celestial body named after you and your loved one is a truth that’s really stranger than fiction.

The international body that is assigned the task of naming existing heavenly and or celestial bodies that already exists and those that are yet discovered is the International Astronomical Union or IAU. Over the years, the IAU has been divided into various sub-bodies, teams, committees, and task groups due to the sheer number of celestial bodies that already exists and the ones that are continuously being discovered.

The last time I checked, Dr. Brian G. Marsden director of the IAU ’s Minor Planet Center at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge is probably one of the busiest of IAU ‘s “top brass”. Because as the head of the Minor Planet Center, asteroids – or minor planets as they are more properly called – is perhaps the celestial body that’s often named after famous and not so famous Hollywood celebrities. Which many tenured astronomers with prestigious university affiliations in the astronomical community often complain because most of these “celebrities” – although there are a few exceptions - haven’t worked in astronomy as an amateur or otherwise or who had no interest in astronomy whatsoever.

But still you can still have a celestial body – preferably an asteroid since there are still many that’s being discovered. To be named after you or your loved one / favorite musician / band / porn star, etc. that the International Astronomical Union will recognize with no strings attached, though it might still cost you several thousands of American currency. You can do this through a “legal loophole” via “research contributions” to professional asteroid hunters – i.e. paying them.

For example, if you have a six-figure sum burning a hole in your pocket – preferably close to a million in American currency, you could contact a professional asteroid hunter like Edward Bowell at the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona. Maybe you might have enough money as research contributions to allow him to bestow some of his yet unnamed newly discovered asteroids with the name of your choice. Like naming an asteroid after your favorite musician or “Rock Band”. Imagine people over 30 will now be forever grateful to you because you spend almost a million in American currency just to name asteroids after Mia Zapata, Lunachicks or Veruca Salt. Sorry to disappoint you guys, but naming asteroids after your favorite musicians, bands, or celebrities do cost ungodly amounts of money. Maybe Adam Carolla’s fans conducted a fundraiser to raise enough money to have his name immortalized in an asteroid. Check out Asteroid 4535 Adamcarolla, it's very faint considering the absolute magnitude that's a little over 12 or so.

Earth-Crosser Asteroids: Unexamined Threat or Untapped Real Estate?

2008-09-26T08:14:00.000-07:00

Ever since the Alvarez’s Brothers proof of an asteroid impact wiping off the dinosaurs became well known, asteroids have since been perceived as the ultimate threat to humanity and civilization. Is it now time to reexamine established assumptions?

By: Vanessa Uy

Earth-crosser asteroids have become inexplicably linked with that 1997 Veruca Salt song “earthcrosser”, which frankly to me passed muster as a depiction to what it would be like to witness first hand a seven-mile wide asteroid crashing down at 50,000 miles per hour just five miles in front of you. Something that’s not so different from what the dinosaurs living in the Yucatan Peninsula witnessed 65 million years ago. It even inspired big budget science fiction movies about what would happen if any of these space-borne high-speed “pieces of dirt” crashes into our planet’s surface at more than seven miles per second.

Earth-crosser asteroids are classified as a Near-Earth asteroid whose orbital path crosses that of the Earth’s regular orbital path. They are different – and a separate group - from Earth-Crossing Asteroids (ECA s) because ECA s are asteroids that are capable of coming very close to Earth at any point in the future and of interest to anyone manning our Spaceguard Survey Program. While Earth-Crosser asteroids, only their orbital path intersects our planet and not the asteroid physically impacting into the Earth’s surface.

Earth-crosser asteroids whose orbital semi-major axes are smaller than Earth’s are classified as Aten asteroids; the remaining ones are classified as Apollo asteroids. Of the Earth-crossing asteroids, 3753 Cruithne is of special interest because it has an orbit that has the same period as that of Earth.

Earth-crosser asteroids have very good uses as potential scientific “space station” sites in the future since their orbits take them to the inner Solar System. Thus serving as a fuel-efficient way of exploring the inner Solar System. Not to mention their potential as a source of valuable ores for the metals needed for our future space faring civilization. Or a good place for research scientists to look for organic materials that remained unchanged since the formation of the Solar System. And the most important of all, real estate for setting up colonies either for long-term studies on space colonization or just good platforms to build our future astronomical labs on.

To colonize these asteroids is probably the best way to study their motions across our Solar System and researchers on an asteroid are probably the ones who can readily obtain data. Like weather their particular asteroid they are sitting on will crash into our planet somewhere in the distant future. They can probably obtain a very exact if and when compared to their “Earthbound” counterparts.

But Earth-crosser asteroids need extensive developing to make them habitable to humans. Like the construction of pressure domes with appropriate radiation shielding from the Sun’s harmful radiation and of cosmic rays as well. Earth-crosser asteroids are very different from Earth when it comes to their surface conditions unlike the way they are portrayed in 1950’s era science fiction films. Some of them have even less surface gravity than our Moon because they are much smaller in size. But their development holds a myriad of promise for mankind.

Mecca Mean Time: A New Way To Measure Our Planet?

2008-08-29T05:25:00.000-07:00

Muslim scientists and clerics call for the adoption of Mecca Mean Time throughout the Islamic world during the April 21, 2008 conference in the Gulf State of Qatar gained widespread press coverage. How will the Western world react?

By: Vanessa Uy

As the world’s major news providers surprisingly (to me at least) bothered to cover the “Mecca, the Center of the Earth, Theory and Practice” conference in the Gulf State of Qatar back in April 21, 2008. The purpose of the conference is to spread the word throughout the Islamic World about Muslim scientists and clerics calling for the adoption of Mecca Mean Time to replace GMT – at least in the Islamic World. Arguing that the Saudi City of Mecca is the true center of the Earth. A prominent cleric and a leading voice of the conference in Qatar, Sheik Youssef al-Qaradawy, said that modern science had at last provided evidence that Mecca was the true center of the Earth. Proof, the cleric said, of the greatness of the Muslim “Qibla” – the Arabic word for the direction Muslims turn to when they pray.

The meeting in the Gulf State of Qatar is part of an increasingly popular trend in Muslim Societies increasingly being assimilated by the Western World’s modernistic materialism of seeking to find Koranic precedents for modern science. Not surprising for us in the know since it was Arabic scholars who studied in the learning centers of 12th Century Andalucia, Spain who had sown the tentative seeds of the Renaissance, especially in the planet Earth measuring science of geodesy. Even the 9th Century Arab mathematician named al-Khowarizmi briefly enjoyed fame outside of the stuffy old academic circle towards the end of April 2008.

Unfortunately, majority of the scientists in the libertine West – especially astronomers; make that American astronomers – became very weary. And they immediately voiced their weariness in the Blogosphere. Philip Plate’s Bad Astronomy website serves as a very excellent example. Despite of the somewhat emotionally heavy-handed reaction by most of us “defenders of rationality” here in the West, we have our reasons. Mostly it relates to the Inquisition and the burning alive of Giordano Bruno on the steak or the “reclusion perpetua” of Galileo by the “Princes of the Vatican. But it is rather more recent. And it happened in the school district of Dover, Pennsylvania back in 2004.

A re-labeled form of Creationism called Intelligent Design was almost re-introduced into the Dover, Pennsylvania school district by Nazi-inspired practitioners of an extremist form of Christianity. Fortunately, Judge John E. Jones was wise enough to decide that the false-yet-profitable doctrine of Intelligent Design doesn’t belong in US public schools. Many legal precedents in the US Supreme Court’s docket, like the Supreme Court ruling on Edwards v. Aguillard back in 1987 serves as a guiding light. After all, if they – the misguided right-wing Christian extremists - want to learn Creationism / Intelligent Design, they can always go to Richard Butler’s Aryan Nation headquarters in Hayden Lake, Idaho. Given that our embrace of an egalitarian and pluralistic society had made the Western World resilient enough to overcome the threat posed by Nazi-inspired forms of Christianity, why do a majority of Western scientists very much against the idea of a Mecca Mean Time? After all, it’s only for Muslims?

Maybe (90%sure) it’s because we Western Internet-savvy smart-asses with MENSA I.Q. ’s always view with equal tragedy the destruction of the giant Buddha statues in Bamian, Afghanistan by the Taliban. To that of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center Towers by misguided extremists under the auspices of Osama Bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda. And the rift between Islam and the West only gets wider if we postpone an inter-cultural dialogue pertaining to the issue of Mecca Mean Time. Despite frequenting various Board of Muftis-approved Halal restaurants, I’ve yet to experience some Muslim intellectual talking to us X-Files / Dead Heads (Grateful Dead fans) / Trekkies / occasional Junoon fans about the “411” on Mecca Mean Time, Instead of just reading about it on the Internet. Most of all, my fellow Trekkies don’t have the levels of Islamophobia manifested by US President George W. Bush’s Neo-Conservatives.

But the Western world is not entirely of the hook. If we – the supposedly enlightened West – has allowed other existing cultures to develop into a space-faring society, it would not only be a boon to cultural anthropologists, but also to us “ amateur rocket scientists types” to know how they did it. Especially on which way their “steam gauges” turn – clockwise or counter-clockwise? Imagine this, what if the Zulu Tribe of South Africa is allowed to become a space-faring civilization. Since they are located way below the Earth’s equator, they would design their clocks to move “counter-clockwise” relative to ours since this is how their sundials – as observed by them through time – move. So does the “steam gauges” – i.e. instrumentation indicators on their spacecraft might move different from us who grew up above the Earth’s equator. We won’t have to go light-years into deep space to study cultural phenomena such as this.

Sadly, I’m not the emperor of the world. Mecca Mean Time will probably wind up into one of those good ideas that never got off the ground – both literally and figuratively. And this will surely reinforce many a Muslim scholar on how Western Civilization yet again is ungrateful for the wealth of knowledge provided by Arabic scholars who used to frequent the centers of learning in 12th Century Andalucia, Spain. For without this intellectual collaboration, the European Renaissance could not have happened. It looks like a Mecca Mean Time-based geodesy will never get under scrutiny - even an extensive peer review - by Western scientists.

Is the Asteroid Vesta a Planet?

2008-05-16T06:21:00.000-07:00

Since the dethronement of Pluto as a planet by the International Astronomical Union due to the planet being just like the countless other Kuiper Belt fragments seems somewhat disheartening. Must we clamor for another replacement?

By: Vanessa Uy

Ever since the search of planets far beyond Saturn i.e. far beyond what our naked eye can see had started a technological race to build a bigger - and therefore better – astronomical telescope towards the end of the 18th Century. Though it enabled William Herschel to discover the planet Uranus, this technological race allowed the discovery of a yet unknown region of our Solar System that’s much closer to home. A region that lies the orbit between the planet Mars and the planet Jupiter - namely the Asteroid Belt.

On the first night of the 19th Century, Giuseppe Piazzari discovered the largest of the known asteroids. He christened it Ceres after the ancient Roman goddess of agriculture. Later measurements have shown that the asteroid Ceres has a diameter of 440 miles or 710 kilometers with a surface area of 700,000 square miles or 1,810,000 square kilometers. Other asteroids were discovered in quick succession like Pallas – named after on what the Roman’s referred to as Athena – with a diameter of 300 miles or 480 kilometers. Then came Vesta – named after the Roman goddess of hearth fire – with a diameter of 240 miles or 385 kilometers. And then Juno – named after the queen of heaven in Roman mythology – with a diameter of 120 miles or 195 kilometers. Ceres, Pallas, Vesta, and Juno were often referred to as the “Big Four” of the asteroids because they are the only ones with substantial size. This title not only made these asteroids to assume a roughly spherical shape due to the substantial gravity created by their sheer mass concentration, but also those other asteroid bodies are very small in comparison to form a meaningful numerical ratio.

Though only the third largest of the “Big Four” asteroids, Vesta is the only one of them that can be seen on the Earth’s surface via the naked eye. To wonder why ancient “stargazers” who came scores of centuries before – even Renaissance era astronomers - failed to notice and observe the asteroid Vesta is a 250-page doctoral dissertation subject-in-itself. But the not so cut-and-dried scientific data that defines this asteroid only deepens its own mystery.

A number of people who do astronomy for a living have been intrigued by the subsequent scientific data that pertains to the somewhat quirky “geologic” history of the asteroid Vesta. Compared to other asteroids, the way Vesta evolved i.e. the history of how volcanic basalt migrated to Vesta’s surface and cooled is similar to how our planet Earth evolved through the eons. Ben Zellner, an astronomer at Georgia Southern University, is a proponent of the view that the asteroid Vesta should be considered as a planet in light of its geologic history. Zellner says that: “Early on, it (the asteroid Vesta) went through the same kind of history that the Earth and other rocky planets went through.” Zellner and his colleagues even utilized data from the Hubble Space Telescope back in March of 1995 to create a detailed and updated map of the surface of Vesta. Their Hubble data showed a type of basalt that cools below the surface being exposed by recent – geologically speaking – giant meteorite impacts. One such impact, in fact, is believed to have flung pieces of Vesta flying toward Earth. The different types of basalt that they have observed, says Zellner, only serve to confirm their suspicions that Vesta – though now frozen solid – must once have had a structure similar to the planet Earth, replete with a crust, mantle, and a molten liquid core.

Even if Vesta won’t be declared as a new planet, it doesn’t stand to loose brownie points - as one of the most interesting pieces of real estate in our Solar System. Asteroids are perfect spots for setting up laboratories to explore substances that date back to the formation of our Solar System. It is also a very good place to set up space based astronomical observatories, just think how our planet Earth will look when viewed by a 30 power telescope on Vesta’s surface. It also has a potential use as a future mining colony given that we are running out of profitable ores in which to mine our metals, or to provide as springboards for excursions deeper into the remote corners of the Solar System. The immediate future of mankind has always been part and parcel on our willingness to explore and develop the richest found in these asteroids.

In Search of Planet Vulcan

2008-04-04T04:38:00.000-07:00

Astronomers used to believe that there is a planet closer to the Sun than Mercury that affected the planet’s orbit before Einstein’s “General Relativity Theory” made such a planet’s existence unnecessary. Many years on, does planet Vulcan really doesn’t exist?

By: Vanessa Uy

Back in the day’s when astronomers used to believe that Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion are part and parcel of Newtonian Physics, astronomers were at a loss in explaining on as to what have caused the advancing perihelion of the planet Mercury’s orbit around the Sun. Then came French astronomer Urbain Jean Joseph Leverrier, who’s prior fame included correctly predicted the existence of planet Neptune in 1846. Through his calculations based on the orbital irregularities of the planet Uranus’ orbit years before Neptune’s existence is proven by being seen through a telescope, Leverrier also theorized that the planet Mercury’s advancing perihelion was caused by a henceforth yet undiscovered planet. Leverrier dubbed the unknown planet Vulcan after the Roman god of volcanoes probably due to its closeness to the Sun and therefore having a very hot surface.

But as time went on, our recently updated knowledge of the natural world necessitates the reevaluation of what we’ve known before. According to Kepler’s laws, the planets move in ellipses, with the Sun near one common focus. This is not exactly the prediction of Newtonian theory. The planets, in addition to being attracted by the Sun, also attract each other, although to a lesser extent since their individual masses are much less than that of the Sun. If these small mutual perturbations are taken into account, then the accurately observed planetary motions agree closely with the predictions of the Newtonian theory, except in a few small particulars. The most notorious and most accurately observed discrepancy between theory and observation is the so-called advancing perihelion or perihelion motion of the planet Mercury.

Perihelion is the point of closest approach of a planet to the Sun. On account of the perturbations by other planets, the perihelion position changes slightly with each passage of the planet around its respective orbit. However, the observed perihelion motion of the planet Mercury has been known since the 19th Century to be much larger compared to the figure predicted by the Newtonian theory by 42 seconds of an arc per century. Quite small, but observable nonetheless.

Various explanations were put fourth, including the theoretical existence – some say in the astronomical community as “invention” – of an intra-Mercurial planet named Vulcan. Some even proposes the modification of Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation which for all intents and purposes seem like a return to the days when the Catholic Church labeled the Copernican model of the Solar System as a “fiction convenient for calculation”. But each proposal produced fresh conflicts with observation. Albert Einstein was able to show that the additional perihelion motion was predicted directly by his theory without any further assumption. And the discovery of a particular solution of his equation – which is more commonly known as the Schwarzschild solution – made even more direct and elegant calculations possible, that lead to the correct prediction.

By about 1950, a corresponding but much smaller correction to the motion of the planet Earth’s perihelion – which is also predicted by Einstein’s theory – had been established by observation. In the case of the other planets, the effect is too small to have been observed thus far. Looks like this effect is much easier to observe near the Sun’s gravity well. Latter theories say the perturbations of Earth crossing asteroids is sufficient to explain the perihelion motion without resorting to the yet proven General Relativity of Einstein. Some even talk about the presence of “dark matter” in our solar system caused the perihelion motion. To me, all of these are enough to make every astronomer’s “day job” extremely interesting.

Despite it’s existence being continuously endangered by Einstein’s General Relativity theory, the planet Vulcan being theorized by Urbain Jean Joseph Leverrier steadfastly refuses to die out. Planet Vulcan even gained a new lease of life in the years after World War II during which it infiltrated the science fiction literate pop culture of America. There’s an episode in the original Star Trek back in the 1960’s where Captain Kirk and his Science Officer Spock must “beam in” a US Air Force pilot after their tractor beam “accidentally” wrecked his F-104 Starfighter. As the American airman inquired about Spock’s homeworld, he told Captain Kirk that planet Vulcan just lies beyond the planet Mercury. Even in the mid-1960’s, the existence of Leverrier’s planet Vulcan is more or less common knowledge despite Einstein’s General Relativity relegating it to the mythical realm.

But in the mid-1990’s, the credence of planet Vulcan’s existence gained a renaissance when amateur astronomers armed with appropriate telescopes saw “chunks of rock” other than the planet Mercury transiting the Sun. But later, those rocks were later proven to be just asteroids whose highly elliptical orbits bring them closer to the Sun than Mercury. Though some of them concluded that Vulcan therefore exists as opposed to some faraway planet created by the mind of Gene Roddenberry.

A Backpacker’s Guide to Mercury

2008-03-26T05:10:00.000-07:00

Even though the planet is not very far from Earth, Mercury will not be an easy place to view through a telescope – even visit – due to its closeness to our Sun. Will this be a problem to future travel agencies?

By: Vanessa Uy

Our Solar System’s smallest and innermost planet, Mercury, has been - for ages – proved notoriously difficult for Earth – based astronomical observation. This piece of rock, with a diameter of 3,030 miles (4,800 km.) is hardly bigger than our Moon (2,160 miles). Mercury is also not that far from Earth, sometimes coming in as near as 48,337,000 miles and it is fairly bright when viewed from ground level.

The main reason that makes the planet Mercury so difficult to Earth-based observers is the planet’s closeness to our Sun. Thus the angle between Mercury (which appears as a fairly bright star when viewed by our naked eye at ground level) and our Sun is always less than that between the two hands of a watch at 1 o’clock. This “quirk of geometry” makes itself known every time you try to observe the planet Mercury at daytime, the Sun’s blazing light complicates optical – based observation of the planet, and when nighttime comes, the planet disappears from view almost as quickly as our Sun does. Mercury can be seen alone only when it is low above the horizon, just before sunrise or soon after sunset. Observations at such low angles is seldom satisfactory because of the great distance that the planet Mercury’s light must travel through the Earth’s murky and turbulent lower atmosphere.

Despite the handicaps of Earth-based observations, astronomers were able to measure the rate of rotation of the planet Mercury via Doppler radar. In 1965 the great radio telescope at Arecibo, Puerto Rico, measured the rotation of the planet Mercury by the Doppler shifts of wavelength in radar echoes from its surface. But more sophisticated – and therefore reliable - surface observations of the planet Mercury necessitates the use of unmanned interplanetary probes.

Via Earth – based optical telescopes, planet Mercury always appeared as a nearly featureless blob. Then came the Mariner X (Mariner 10) flybys whose first ever close-up photographs of the planet Mercury’s surface produced an astonished double take among the astronomical community back in 1974. The volumes of data gathered by the Mariner X space probe has the astronomical community concluding back then that the planet Mercury is like our Moon on the outside, but it may well be like the planet Earth on the inside. Like our Moon, the surface of Mercury is pocked with craters and lava-filled basins. But Mariner X also detected an Earth-like magnetic field.

Scientists knew that planetary magnetism was produced by a “dynamo effect” – the rapid rotation of iron-cored planets like the Earth. But planet Mercury rotates far too slow – once in every 58.6 Earth days – for the “dynamo effect” to work. So back in 1974, scientists postulated that a large iron core could also produce magnetism in a slowly rotating body.

The discovery of scarps or cliffs – via the Mariner X’s close-up photographs – towering some two miles high and snake for hundreds of miles through Mercury’s crated regions. These findings made scientists think back in 1974 that these scarps are wrinkles that formed some 4 billion years ago when the planet’s core began to shrink. Which made the planet’s surface crack. Despite the wealth of data collected by the Mariner X spacecraft, the many mysteries surrounding the phenomena that occurs on the planet Mercury necessitates the use of more sophisticated space probes with more advanced instruments in upcoming planetary exploration programs.

Then came the M-Ercury Surface, Space E-Nvironment, G-Eochemistry and Ranging (MESSENGER) probe. The NASA space craft was launched in August 3, 2004 to further study the planet Mercury from orbit to augment the data collected from the Mariner X program that ended back in March 1975. The current MESSENGER mission is the first to visit the planet Mercury in over 30 years. The MESSENGER spacecraft is fitted with the latest generation of scientific instruments that allows it to study from orbit not only the chemical composition of Mercury’s surface. But also the planet’s environment, geologic history, the nature of the magnetic field, the size and state of the core, the volatile inventory at the poles and the nature of Mercury’s exosphere and magnetosphere over a nominal orbital mission of one Earth year.

The current MESSENGER spacecraft has vastly improved optics for improved scanning capability. The cameras supplied to MESSENGER are capable of resolving surface features that are only 18 meters (59 feet) across. A vast improvement compared to the 1.6 kilometers (0.99 miles) resolution of Mariner X. MESSENGER will also be able to image the entire planet as opposed to the previous Mariner X mission which was only able to observe one hemisphere that was lit during the spacecraft’s flyby.

After being launched from a Boeing Delta II rocket, the MESSENGER spacecraft’s travel to the planet Mercury required an extremely large velocity change, or delta-v (known colloquially to aerospace types as “delta vee”), to perform a Hohmann-transfer because Mercury lies deeper in the Sun’s gravity well. A spacecraft travelling to Mercury is greatly accelerated as it falls toward the Sun’s gravity well, so most of the fuel expenditure is used to slow it down to perform a Hohmann-transfer so that the spacecraft can enter Mercury’s orbit.

As MESSENGER’s voyage to the planet Mercury requires extensive use of gravity assists to lower the spacecraft’s fuel expenditure. But this will greatly prolong the time of the trip. And to save rocket fuel even further because there are still no existing refilling stations for hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide in the spacecraft’s flight path en route to Mercury. The thrust used for insertion into orbit around Mercury will be minimized, resulting in a notably elliptical orbit. Besides the advantage of saving its own propellants, such an orbit allows the MESSENGER spacecraft to measure solar wind and magnetic field strength at various distances from Mercury. Despite of the notably elliptical orbit, the improved instrumentation of MESSENGER can still allow close-up measurements and photographs of Mercury’s surface. As of January 14, 2008, MESSENGER mapped another 30% of Mercury’s surface in addition to the photos taken by Mariner X back in 1974 to 1975. Full orbital insertion of the MESSENGER spacecraft into Mercury will happen in March 18, 2011.

As a follow-up to the MESSENGER mission, the European Space Agency is planning a joint mission with Japan called BepiColombo, which will orbit the planet Mercury with two space probes: one to map the planet and the other one to study the planet’s magnetosphere. The original plan to include a lander has been shelved due to budget constraints and of its dubious scientific value. A Russian Soyuz rocket will launch the “bus” carrying the two probes in 2013 from E.S.A. ’s Guyana Space Center to take advantage of fuel savings when launching from an equatorial location. As with the MESSENGER spacecraft, the BepiColombo “bus” will make close approaches to other planets en route to Mercury for orbit-changing / Hohmann-transfer gravitational assists. The BepiColombo “bus” will first fly past our Moon then to the planet Venus and making several approaches to the planet Mercury before entering orbit.

Is SETI a Dead End Search?

2008-02-26T03:14:00.000-08:00

Is the SETI program doomed to fail because no sentient being claiming to be intelligent chooses radio – waves as a means of communicating over vast interstellar distances?

By: Vanessa Uy

Ever since humanity mastered the efficient propagation of radio - waves early in the 20th Century and formalized the science of radio astronomy. We became intrigued by the prospect that somewhere out there in space there might be extraterrestrial - beings. Beings that are as smart or smarter - than - us just waiting for our hails. Given the vast distance separating the stars, and on what we’ve learned on how fast radio – waves can travel, it seems like calling out to our interstellar brethren might be a fools errand. Yet it haven’t discouraged a group of astronomers from establishing SETI, which stands for the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence.

Radio – waves are a part of the electromagnetic spectrum which includes the visible light part of the spectrum - which allows us to see the world around us plus the other parts that we use everyday. Like the ultra violet rays from the sun that allows our skin to produce Vitamin D and an “aesthetically pleasing” tan. Like the X – Rays for non-invasive medical analysis, the near – infrared which operates our TVs remote, the longer infrared which we use to cook and heat our food, to microwaves used in microwave ovens and navigation purposes. Then the radio – waves of various frequencies used for navigation, telecommunication, or just produced as a by product of grid electricity production (the 60 Hz AC current produces radio – waves whose wavelengths measures about 3,000 Km from crest to crest).

Radio – waves travel in space at about 186,000 miles per second or 300,000 kilometers per second. Given the vastness of space radio – waves sent to the Moon will reach there in just 1.25 seconds, Mars in about 20 minutes while further on into the Gas Giants, it could be more than an hour. Radio – waves will take almost ten hours to reach Pluto and will take the whole part of the day to completely leave our Solar System past the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud regions. Four and a quarter years to reach Alpha Centauri, 150,000 years to go across the Milky Way galaxy and will probably take 18 billion years to go across the known universe. You probably now starting to get the idea of the problem faced in interstellar communication using just radio – waves. Imagine sending an e – mail to your ET friend who lives 45 light years away from you and chances are you won’t get a response within your lifetime.

Despite the problems there are solutions even though they may take a “few years” depending on how much of our government funds slated for scientific research will be diverted to a “War on Terror” rife with malfeasance. There’s that experiment done by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen about quantum entanglement. The results of which have not yet been utilized for practical applications after all these years. Then there’s the phenomenon of particles that travel faster – than – light like tachyons, or what about the concept of “wormholes” or an “Einstein – Rosen Bridge”. The list goes on and who knows you might be the lucky one to develop such technology like the one used in the Star Trek TV series called subspace communication technology.

Despite “sticking their guns” on radio – wave technology that’s limited by the 186,000 miles–per-second speed limit, the current SETI is by no means astronomy’s white elephant. Back in the 1970’s, SETI received an anomalous signal in which they dubbed as the “WOW Signal” because it’s the definitive “smoking gun” if you will of an extraterrestrial civilization possessing technology to modulate a radio – wave for the purposes of telecommunication. Despite the ensuing excitement, the “WOW Signal” was never found again even after all these years. But anyone of us who still believes still live in hope that someday ET will call back.

To me, using radio – waves to search for extraterrestrial intelligence across the vastness of the cosmos is somewhat an inelegant solution. This will be like our ancient ancestors choosing to attach flotation devices on their feet to walk across vast stretches of water as opposed to inventing / building boats and ships. And also – to me – the search for extraterrestrial intelligence is somewhat of a misnomer. Using “radio telescopes” for SETI purposes will only detect “extraterrestrial technology”, don’t forget that extraterrestrial sentient beings that are technological equals to our ancient Babylonian astronomers are intelligent too.

Pluto No Longer a Planet

2008-01-06T04:31:00.000-08:00

The astronomical community’s consensus to reclassify Pluto’s status as a planet will have repercussions that won’t easily die down.

By: Vanessa Uy

That’s right, Pluto is no longer a planet. Astronomers didn’t have to wait the 248.4 years it takes for Pluto to complete it’s orbit around the sun to reclassify it from a planet to something like one of those large bodies that belong to the Kuiper belt. The Kuiper belt is the region of our solar system where short-period comets originate and this is where material that’s left over from the formation of the planets currently resides.

In 1978, it was found out that Pluto had a moon. The astronomical community named it Charon. Charon is almost the same size as Pluto and this “dumbbell system” has quite a curious effect on Pluto’s angular momentum. Pluto’s highly eccentric orbit will no longer make it as the farthest “planet” from the sun starting 1978. Pluto’s highly eccentric orbit is a consequence of Albert Einstein’s “General Relativity” theory.

Satellite Gazing: An Alternative to Stargazing?

2008-01-06T04:25:00.000-08:00

With the Leonid meteor shower slated for November still a few months away, are artificial satellites worthy targets for amateur astronomers in our increasingly light polluted urban night sky?

By: Vanessa Uy

Orbiting satellites of various shapes and functions had recently become “prime targets” for the starter-kit-astronomical-telescope-owning-amateur-astronomer in today’s increasingly light polluted urban night sky. The satellite’s much higher “relative brightness” rating when compared to other “dimmer” heavenly bodies like the planets Mars and Jupiter make these objects shine out above the orange barf glow permeating your local city’s night sky. Short of doing LASIK surgery on my trusty-but-rusty mass-market Celestron reflector, there’s not much you can do to alleviate the effects of “light pollution” especially if you live with your telescope in an urban area. I’ve read that there are certain people –especially in the United States- who genuinely believe that lighting up 10 million- candle- power street lamps has the power to render any modern assault rifle impotent and obsolete. You might be unknowingly voting for them into your local city council, so please talk sense into them on your spare time. Or send them to downtown Baghdad to test out their policies.

Ever since the launch of Sputnik back in 1957, the number of “space birds” that orbit our planet has been growing steadily. From those that were prime observing targets during their operational lifetimes like SKYLAB and the manned MIR, that had since crashed back to earth to the MIDAS reconnaissance satellites – because of their high orbits- will still be orbiting our planet 20,000 years from now. Unless somebody uses them for target practice via an anti-satellite missile launched from a high performance supersonic jet fighter flying at 90,000 feet or more.

Touted as the 20th Century invention that made the current Internet revolution possible - and since evolved to the real world from the theoretical musings of Arthur C. Clarke, communication satellites are more than just a technological conveyance that allow anyone to surf the web and send e-mails across the globe. To us current generation of satellite gazers / space bird watchers, communication satellites have become a major –if not the most dazzling- part of our observational targets. Like the ever growing family of Iridium satellites whose Teflon-coated high gain antenna reflects the ambient light of the moon and the sun into an optical spectacle that never cease to amaze even the most jaded amateur astronomer.

Orbiting satellites seem to arouse interest to the amateur astronomer’s community with the same enthusiasm as Charles Messier’s catalog of 109 objects. But unlike 18th or 19th Century astronomers (they’re pretty much amateurs back then because anyone who can afford to custom built his own astronomical i.e. really big telescope is automatically an astronomer), amateur astronomers today who chooses “space bird” watching has more than 8,000 –and growing- potential targets for observation. From the International Space Station, shiny Iridium satellites to the somewhat “transient light shows” created by manned space vehicles like the space shuttle whose light displays are always eventful even for the naked eye observer. From the shuttle’s launch into the desired “orbit window” dictated by the specified NASA mission to the shuttle’s brilliant re-entry back into the Earth’s atmosphere, a “light show” that could rival the best Leonid meteor shower of recent memory.

These satellites orbiting Earth has advantage to the novice amateur astronomer / prospective “satellite gazer” – other than their relatively close distance in astronomical terms- is that these objects are highly angular in shape with fine detail in comparison to the moon and other natural heavenly bodies visible in the night sky. With this in mind, you can use their angular and detailed structure as a test bed in computing the Raleigh Criterion i.e. resolution limit of your telescope system. See how it compares to the Canary Island based “Grantecan Telescope.” Or you can test out Wien’s Law or Blackbody Radiation principles in practice, especially if you are fortunate enough to live within driving distance from the company who manufactures the specific satellite you are observing. And if you can, be able to arrange a plant tour to see –and even touch- the satellite’s twin in the plant.

For those who are a genuinely “novice” amateur astronomer, you can check out http://www.heavens-above.com. The user-friendliness of this site is comparable to the latest help desk software. On this site, you can input the latitude and longitude of your observatory i.e. “home” (or is that rooftop) and you can search the heavens-above site for the various “satellites” that can be seen from your home and which part of the night sky you should point your telescope to. The heavens-above.com site is not only limited to observing artificial satellites, you can use the site to “ask” which part of the sky should you point your telescope from your house to see Mars, Jupiter, various stars and Messier objects etc. Also, you can check out the US Space Command’s web site at http://www.spacecom.af.mil/usspace. The US Space Command’s primary mission nowadays is to warn the space shuttle to avoid possible incoming meteor strikes and “space junk.” The US Space Command has the most advanced RADAR array in their Cheyenne Mountain complex that it can even “see” baseball-sized objects whose orbital path could hit the space shuttle. Or for a comprehensive list of satellites in current service, go to NSSDC Master Catalogue Spacecraft Query Form at http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/sc-query.html. Also check out the Satellite Tracking Web Page, which is an excellent source of element files and satellite links at http://staff.feldberg.brandeis.edu:80/~progrmer/satellite/satellite.html.

So goodbye and keep on watching the skies.