Jump to content


Photo

I have one of those!!! COOL!

  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 iceblaze

iceblaze

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1526
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2011
  • Loc: 33.9° N, 118.4° W Lawndale, CA

Posted 22 January 2013 - 08:44 PM

Not sure if you guys already covered this, but check out this story. I sure hope those optics were triple checked/star tested before they sent it over. I wonder if Celestron covered shipping? What's the return policy for something like that? :roflmao:

-James

#2 ewave

ewave

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1244
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Loc: northwest NJ

Posted 22 January 2013 - 09:33 PM

heck yeah, or nocked out of collimation just from liftoff .. how many g's was that? :question:

#3 Asbytec

Asbytec

    Guy in a furry hat

  • *****
  • Posts: 8416
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2007
  • Loc: La Union, PI

Posted 22 January 2013 - 11:50 PM

Great! More bloggers from space asking about collimation. Wonder how well the GPS and EQ fork mount will work.

Man, wonder what research paper someone did to justify bringing "his" scope into space. I am drafting one now, would love to have my 6" MCT on that platform (looking into space, though.)

#4 core

core

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1506
  • Joined: 23 Feb 2008
  • Loc: Mostly in Norman, OK

Posted 23 January 2013 - 12:39 AM

There were one or two threads on CN with regards to the scope prior to it being launched and installed, iirc. fwiw it's operating in fast-star mode, pointed down to earth. A couple of links with larger pics of the setup:

Back

Front

#5 hottr6

hottr6

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2514
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2009
  • Loc: 7,500', Magdalena Mtns, NM

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:28 AM

Wot, no Edge HD?

#6 Eddgie

Eddgie

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 13188
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2006

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:23 AM

If it is operating in Fastar mode, the EdgeHd offers no advantage at all.

#7 Asbytec

Asbytec

    Guy in a furry hat

  • *****
  • Posts: 8416
  • Joined: 08 Aug 2007
  • Loc: La Union, PI

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:11 AM

I wonder what the effects of seeing are from space. Just guessing, but when you're on earth looking up you get large and small scale turbulence. One might guess when looking down it's all small scale turbulence. Maybe better images?

#8 fuzzystuff4ever

fuzzystuff4ever

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 44
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2012
  • Loc: Micco, FL

Posted 23 January 2013 - 11:18 AM

Good luck getting the GPS to lock on up there. :(

#9 Aircrftr

Aircrftr

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1103
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2006
  • Loc: Claremore OK

Posted 23 January 2013 - 07:27 PM

I wonder how much the images will be distorted due to looking through a nice thick (probably multipane)window?

#10 Footbag

Footbag

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6274
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2009
  • Loc: Scranton, PA

Posted 23 January 2013 - 07:51 PM

Well. They wont be complaining about mirror flop.

#11 stevew

stevew

    Now I've done it

  • -----
  • Posts: 4387
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2006
  • Loc: British Columbia Canada

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:04 AM

NASA has a long history using Celestron telescopes.
There are many advertisements for the C5 that indicate that NASA had taken the C5 up on several shuttle flights.
There's also this http://www.nasa.gov/...sH-05-097.ht...
I have one of those :lol:
Steve

#12 Geo.

Geo.

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3035
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:07 PM

Interesting, they went with the 9.25 there is no commercial Fastar version. Damn big obstruction. Woder if the custom trunion arms are for balance (no gravity) or to pull the mount closer to the window?

#13 shawnhar

shawnhar

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5946
  • Joined: 25 Jun 2010
  • Loc: Knoxville, TN

Posted 24 January 2013 - 09:07 PM

So...what's the polar alignment routine...lol!

#14 snowcrow

snowcrow

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2012
  • Loc: Vermont

Posted 24 January 2013 - 10:24 PM

Interesting, they went with the 9.25 there is no commercial Fastar version. Damn big obstruction. Woder if the custom trunion arms are for balance (no gravity) or to pull the mount closer to the window?


I think the custom trunion arms are to reduce the swing of the scope's front aperture. I would have gone a little closer to the front with the fork myself. It's a mighty small window!

#15 end

end

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 362
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2011
  • Loc: Houston, Texas, USA

Posted 25 January 2013 - 06:10 PM

Putting a scope up there in fastar mode might make sense under certain circumstances, but a 9.5 with a DSLR in front has a terribly large (and non-uniform) central obstruction. Considering the huge expense of launching anything into space you'd think they would have developed a more highly optimized system. There are plenty of CCD cameras that would have fit very nicely in front of that scope, but a DSLR does not. Alternatively a larger SCT or just a nice regular camera lens seemingly would have been a better choice.

#16 snowcrow

snowcrow

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 246
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2012
  • Loc: Vermont

Posted 25 January 2013 - 06:23 PM

Budget cuts! Beside the CCD cameras you speak of are for low light use, but they could have chosen a more streamlined DSLR, like the Sony.

Edit: I'm assuming the camera is for daylight imaging only.

#17 Qwickdraw

Qwickdraw

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1731
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2012
  • Loc: Ann Arbor, MI

Posted 25 January 2013 - 08:28 PM

So next time you point your Celestron up remember there might be one pointing back at you

#18 mclewis1

mclewis1

    Thread Killer

  • ****-
  • Posts: 11069
  • Joined: 25 Feb 2006
  • Loc: New Brunswick, Canada

Posted 27 January 2013 - 06:29 PM

Putting a scope up there in fastar mode might make sense under certain circumstances, but a 9.5 with a DSLR in front has a terribly large (and non-uniform) central obstruction. Considering the huge expense of launching anything into space you'd think they would have developed a more highly optimized system. There are plenty of CCD cameras that would have fit very nicely in front of that scope, but a DSLR does not. Alternatively a larger SCT or just a nice regular camera lens seemingly would have been a better choice.

Or perhaps the folks that put the system together know a lot more about precision optics and digital imaging of the earth than anyone around here.

And for all the folks questioning how the scope might get a suitable alignment and the use of GPS in orbit ... it's taking pictures of the earth, there's no need for a traditional stellar alignment.

#19 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10463
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 27 January 2013 - 06:37 PM

Mark,

On the other hand maybe it was just plain lousy to rig a DSLR like that and its killing contrast and light gathering power and there were any number of better choices.

There is that to consider too.

Pete






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics