A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

why no true high resolution systems for "jetstream" seeing?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 7th 06, 05:16 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default why no true high resolution systems for "jetstream" seeing?

While it's true that webcams are doing wonders for certain types of seeing,
in many areas of the US during the Wintertime, the jetstream is constantly
overhead and even a webcam cannot undo this blurring. I keep reading about
these new adaptive optics scopes, like the new pro scope used for solar
imaging, which also incorporate speckle imaging and reconstruction- why
nothing for amateurs? Couldn't blurring of frames (caused by high
jetstreams) be deblurred or "reconstructed" so blurring is minimized. With
computers and the power they possess these days, I'm surprised there aren't
programs that can do this or maybe jetstream effects still can't be truly
nullified.

Thanks,
Frank


  #2  
Old January 7th 06, 05:46 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default why no true high resolution systems for "jetstream" seeing?

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 16:16:24 GMT, "Frank Johnson"
wrote:

While it's true that webcams are doing wonders for certain types of seeing,
in many areas of the US during the Wintertime, the jetstream is constantly
overhead and even a webcam cannot undo this blurring. I keep reading about
these new adaptive optics scopes, like the new pro scope used for solar
imaging, which also incorporate speckle imaging and reconstruction- why
nothing for amateurs? Couldn't blurring of frames (caused by high
jetstreams) be deblurred or "reconstructed" so blurring is minimized. With
computers and the power they possess these days, I'm surprised there aren't
programs that can do this or maybe jetstream effects still can't be truly
nullified.


It simply isn't possible to do much along these lines with amateur
systems. Adaptive optics requires a reference object very close to the
target, and in almost all cases that object (if one exists at all) is
going to be dim. For this reference to be useful, you need to collect
enough photons to get out of the noise. Since detectors are already
nearly 100% efficient, the only way to get enough light is with a large
aperture. Adaptive optics starts becoming practical as apertures get in
the range of a meter, and larger is better. Obviously, this is well
outside what most would consider amateur optics.

The lack of available reference stars is another problem for amateurs.
Professional observatories can address this by making their own, using
lasers to excite atoms high in the atmosphere. But aside from cost,
shining such lasers at the sky requires special permits that pretty much
preclude their use by amateurs.

Finally, adaptive optics wouldn't provide much benefit to most amateurs
because it can only correct the field over a few arcseconds- much
smaller than typical observing or imaging fields. It is more a
scientific tool for examining very small zones at high resolution than
something useful for improving the aesthetics of an image or view.

Adaptive optics would really only be useful for most amateurs for
observing (or imaging) very small (or small areas) and very bright
objects- the Sun, Moon, and brighter planets. Right now, adaptive optics
are expensive enough to produce that there probably isn't enough market
for so limited a device to justify development. That might change in the
future, but don't expect to see anything useful for deep sky observing-
ever.

What may come around, assuming that low readout noise cameras become
generally available, is software that selects high quality short frames
and stacks them automatically. This is done already with planets, of
course, but doesn't work with dim objects. Unfortunately, as the size of
the field increases, the number of useable high resolution frames
decreases. It might take several hours to collect a few minutes worth of
data.

Deconvolution techniques can help to reconstruct distorted images, but
there is no certain way to determine just where any given photon came
from. Deconvolution is a sort of educated guess, but it frequently
produces invalid data- and there is no getting around that problem.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
  #3  
Old January 7th 06, 07:08 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default why no true high resolution systems for "jetstream" seeing?


"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 16:16:24 GMT, "Frank Johnson"

What may come around, assuming that low readout noise cameras become
generally available, is software that selects high quality short frames
and stacks them automatically. This is done already with planets, of
course, but doesn't work with dim objects. Unfortunately, as the size of
the field increases, the number of useable high resolution frames
decreases. It might take several hours to collect a few minutes worth of
data.


The professionals are catching up with the amateurs in this area

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4456988.stm

Robin


  #4  
Old January 7th 06, 07:30 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default why no true high resolution systems for "jetstream" seeing?

On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 18:08:37 -0000, "Robin Leadbeater"
wrote:

The professionals are catching up with the amateurs in this area

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4456988.stm


Thanks for the link. "Lucky imaging"; great name! Sounds like a good
amateur project, looking for previously unknown doubles. Perfect for
this technique because the sources are bright, and the field is small.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
  #5  
Old January 7th 06, 10:34 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default why no true high resolution systems for "jetstream" seeing?


"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 16:16:24 GMT, "Frank Johnson"
wrote:

While it's true that webcams are doing wonders for certain types of

seeing,
in many areas of the US during the Wintertime, the jetstream is

constantly
overhead and even a webcam cannot undo this blurring. I keep reading

about
these new adaptive optics scopes, like the new pro scope used for solar
imaging, which also incorporate speckle imaging and reconstruction- why
nothing for amateurs? Couldn't blurring of frames (caused by high
jetstreams) be deblurred or "reconstructed" so blurring is minimized.

With
computers and the power they possess these days, I'm surprised there

aren't
programs that can do this or maybe jetstream effects still can't be truly
nullified.


It simply isn't possible to do much along these lines with amateur
systems. Adaptive optics requires a reference object very close to the
target, and in almost all cases that object (if one exists at all) is
going to be dim. For this reference to be useful, you need to collect
enough photons to get out of the noise. Since detectors are already
nearly 100% efficient, the only way to get enough light is with a large
aperture. Adaptive optics starts becoming practical as apertures get in
the range of a meter, and larger is better. Obviously, this is well
outside what most would consider amateur optics.

The lack of available reference stars is another problem for amateurs.
Professional observatories can address this by making their own, using
lasers to excite atoms high in the atmosphere. But aside from cost,
shining such lasers at the sky requires special permits that pretty much
preclude their use by amateurs.

Finally, adaptive optics wouldn't provide much benefit to most amateurs
because it can only correct the field over a few arcseconds- much
smaller than typical observing or imaging fields. It is more a
scientific tool for examining very small zones at high resolution than
something useful for improving the aesthetics of an image or view.

Adaptive optics would really only be useful for most amateurs for
observing (or imaging) very small (or small areas) and very bright
objects- the Sun, Moon, and brighter planets. Right now, adaptive optics
are expensive enough to produce that there probably isn't enough market
for so limited a device to justify development. That might change in the
future, but don't expect to see anything useful for deep sky observing-
ever.

What may come around, assuming that low readout noise cameras become
generally available, is software that selects high quality short frames
and stacks them automatically. This is done already with planets, of
course, but doesn't work with dim objects. Unfortunately, as the size of
the field increases, the number of useable high resolution frames
decreases. It might take several hours to collect a few minutes worth of
data.

Deconvolution techniques can help to reconstruct distorted images, but
there is no certain way to determine just where any given photon came
from. Deconvolution is a sort of educated guess, but it frequently
produces invalid data- and there is no getting around that problem.


Hi, yes, I already pretty much understand the current techniques involving
adaptive optics. I myself have experimented on Jupiter by using one of its
moons as a PSF. Then I tried to apply max ent to Jupiter only to end up
with a very noisy and artifact prone result. As you said, there simply
might have not been enough signal to work with.

There *is* a phenomenon I've noticed with my setup on nights when seeing is
plagued with an overhead jetream: because my tracking isn't perfect, I make
small drive corrections during capture to keep a chosen planet centered in
the field. Sometimes when I've adjusted the tracking, there will be moments
while the drive corrector is engaged where the planet I'm imaging suddenly
becomes clear. When I let go of the corrector, the blurs caused by the
overhead jet return but for a few moments there were clear frames. One
might suspect a sort of vibration as the reason, but I have noticed this
with several different mount/ scope combinations and I think it has
something to do with maybe "catching up with" or "matching" jetstream winds
for a moment (a second) while the planet is being moved back to the center
of field.

I still search for a CCD camera with very high sensitivity, rapid frame
captures and very low noise. The webcam is ok, but falls short in the noise
and sensitivity department. Commercial CCD cams, although much less noisy,
can't capture nearly as many frames per time as a webcam and are much more
expensive. I recently read here about meteor CCD cameras possibly offering
the best signal to noise ratios and sensitivity, but it's tough finding
anyone currently using those.

Frank


_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com



  #6  
Old January 8th 06, 03:04 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default why no true high resolution systems for "jetstream" seeing?

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 16:46:24 GMT, Chris L Peterson wrote:

It simply isn't possible to do much along these lines with amateur
systems. Adaptive optics requires a reference object very close to the
target, and in almost all cases that object (if one exists at all) is
going to be dim. For this reference to be useful, you need to collect
enough photons to get out of the noise. Since detectors are already
nearly 100% efficient, the only way to get enough light is with a large
aperture. Adaptive optics starts becoming practical as apertures get in
the range of a meter, and larger is better. Obviously, this is well
outside what most would consider amateur optics.


Hi Chris,

Most of your original reply is accurate and useful, but your comment on the
aperture size follows a common misconception. Large apertures do not
collect more photons for an adaptive optics system; the only photons that
count are those in a subaperture about the diameter of r0, typically 20 cm.
Larger aperture telescopes require more subapertures. The only way to get
more photons in the subaperture are 1) wait for good seeing, when you can
get by with larger subapertures; 2) go to longer IR wavelengths, even to 10
microns, where r0 is always larger than visible light; 3) use a laser guide
star. (Longer integration periods in good seeing also help collect more
photons.) Solution 1) is not useful for a world-class observatory, since
every night is too valuable to waste; solution 2) is used by some
observatories, but then the resolution lambda/D is not very good; solution
3) is pretty expensive, but its getting better, and is probably the
ultimate solution.

The amatuer solution is to look at only very bright, very small targets.
There are very few of these, limiting the market.

I recall a few years ago, that some observers were able to detect craters
on Mercury, on a side that was not imaged by the space probes, by using a
million short exposure images, and looking for the higher resolution "lucky
shots". So, there is opportunity for useful work in this area.

Don Bruns
  #7  
Old January 8th 06, 04:21 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default why no true high resolution systems for "jetstream" seeing?

Chris L Peterson wrote:
It simply isn't possible to do much along these lines with amateur
systems. Adaptive optics requires a reference object very close to the
target, and in almost all cases that object (if one exists at all) is
going to be dim. For this reference to be useful, you need to collect
enough photons to get out of the noise. Since detectors are already
nearly 100% efficient, the only way to get enough light is with a large
aperture. Adaptive optics starts becoming practical as apertures get in
the range of a meter, and larger is better. Obviously, this is well
outside what most would consider amateur optics.


Wouldn't you need good coherence at one-meter scales for that? Isn't
the Fried parameter shorter than that most of the time?

--
Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
  #9  
Old January 8th 06, 09:35 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default why no true high resolution systems for "jetstream" seeing?

If you're willing to pay the hefty price there are plenty of cameras on
the market.

Andrea T.

  #10  
Old January 8th 06, 08:46 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default why no true high resolution systems for "jetstream" seeing?


Frank Johnson wrote:
While it's true that webcams are doing wonders for certain types of seeing,
in many areas of the US during the Wintertime, the jetstream is constantly
overhead and even a webcam cannot undo this blurring. I keep reading about
these new adaptive optics scopes, like the new pro scope used for solar
imaging, which also incorporate speckle imaging and reconstruction- why
nothing for amateurs?


Hi:

At the _moment_ (things could change), the effective systems are
expensive and difficult for amateurs to implement. For example, the
most effective and versatile adaptive optics require an artificial
star to be projected via a high power laser.

Good way to ensure a visit to your backyard by the Black Helicopters.
;-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Join the SCT User Mailing List.
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/sct-user
============================
See my home page at
http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland/index.htm
for further details!
============================
For Uncle Rod's Astro Blog See:
http://journals.aol.com/rmollise/UncleRodsAstroBlog/

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids Henri Wilson Astronomy Misc 2901 May 25th 06 12:26 AM
Only NIXON Could Go To China! jonathan Policy 74 September 1st 05 03:32 PM
How Much Longer Can SRians Ignore Their Fundamental Error. Robert Astronomy Misc 133 August 30th 04 01:31 AM
European high technology for the International Space Station Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 May 10th 04 02:40 PM
Whats about binoviewer and high resolution? claudioB Amateur Astronomy 20 February 15th 04 07:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.