Photographing the ISS

[MarkS]

I took this at 5:20 this afternoon.  It's my first ever attempt at the ISS.  I can't believe my luck - it actually worked!
I manually swung the C11 on the EQ6 mount and had the Nikon D70 attached.  It's the best of 7 shots.


Details:  C11 with F6.3 reducer.  ISO 1000.  Shutter 1/1000s.  This is a crop of the original with no rescaling.

According to http://www.heavens-above.com/ it was magnitude -2.4 over Sidcup

[Mike]

Wow!! That's a fantastic image Mark. The detail is incredible. Well done. How did you focus?

[MarkS]

I focused on the moon earlier - it's the only thing in the sky that's easy to focus on.

[Rick]

Wow! Great shot!

[Tony G]

Well done Mark, excellent clear image.
Its amazing how many more objects and different items the society is imaging in the past couple of years and how it is encouraging many others to start imaging and others to venture even further into the realms of astrophotography.

Tony G

[MarkS]

It's mind boggling to think that this is flying 210 miles above our heads. 
So from Sidcup it's like trying to photograph an object as far away as Devon! 

Next time I'll take the F6.3 reducer off.  That'll give an image of 60x60 pixels instead of 40x40.

[Ian]

It's mind boggling to think that this is flying 210 miles above our heads. 
So from Sidcup it's like trying to photograph an object as far away as Devon! 

I've never thought of it like that. We get so used to looking at objects lightyears away it becomes meaningless. That's just about the closest object we're likely to try to image and when you say it's as close as Devon, that puts it into an unusual perspective.

excellent image by the way. Without the focal reducer, do you think you'll be able to see the astronauts inside?

[Mike]

Mark,

Any chance of posting the original proportioned image up please so we can get an idea of how much this thing filled the FOV? Thanks.

[MarkS]

Sure, I'll post it later tonight - it's 3000x2000 pixels of blackness with a misshapen dot somewhat off-centre!

Each pixel is roughly 0.9 arcsec ( though I haven't done the exact calculation for the D70 on the C11+ F6.3 reducer).   
So, in the sky, it has the same overall dimension as the width of Saturn's rings.

[Mike]

So in other words it's TINY !!

I am amazed the NASA guys haven't got images of the ISS using those huge satellite tracking platforms they've got.

[JohnP]

According to Ron Wodsaki it's .93 arcsec/pixel - FOV is 35x41 arcmins... see below - I also shown picture of Saturn in FOV - it's the tiny little dot in the middle. Mark I think you did a great job on capturing this...



John.

[Mike]

I guess it makes aiming teh scope a bit easier though. Imagine trying to track it manually if it filled the FOV?!?! 

[MarkS]

If you want the full frame, here it is (but horribly compressed):
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/the_shelleys/photos/ISS_fullframe.jpg

It's very similar to what John calculated with Ron Wodaski's calculator.

I'll put all 7 images into a single montage later this evening.

[MarkS]

Here are all 7 images taken over a period of 30 seconds - the good and the bad. 



The first was taken at its highest altitude (70deg) because I spent the first 30 seconds fumbling to line it up in the finderscope.  Next time I'll align the EQ6 axis as vertically as possible so it's more like an alt-az mount - this will make it far easier for hand tracking.

All were taken at ISO 1000 & shutter 1/1000sec - there's no time to adjust settings!

[Mike]

Very impressive Mark. Some of the best ive; seen. You should send them in to NASA - they might put them on APOD!

I can't wait to see your attempt at the higher magnification.

[JohnP]

They are very good - didn't think of trying EOS to capture this with single frame images...? You have got the focal length with the C11 though...

You should try downloading the tracking software that Mac has...

Good one - John...

[spacenickoy]

What do you guys make of this?

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/41Group_Lunar_FYEO/02files/FYEO_Spacecraft_01.html

Apparently the guy has come up with a similar technique to what some students at Cambridge came up with to drastically improve clarity and detail in pictures taken with a normal amateur telescope. There was a publication about it just a few months ago on the bbc website, something about how they had found a way of taking astrophotogrpahy better than some of the biggest telescopes with a backyard scope. I cannot for the life of me find the article tho which is pretty annoying.

Anyway according to this guy, he can take immensely detailed pictures of objects around Earth orbit and beyond and that is what the pictures on that website are. However what they are exactly of is open to debate, they all look like space stations of some sort but as far as I'm aware the is only one space station currently in orbit and a lot of debris.

Any ideas on this one people? is the guy who took these pictures a fraud? I know Fay and Mike are amazing astrophotographers what is your view on the pictures. Is this science fiction or is there a basis to his claims?

[Mac]

Sat tracker software

http://www.heavenscape.com/

[mickw]

Hi Nick
I think this is the technology you are refering to
http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~optics/Lucky_Web_Site/LI_CLASI.htm

As for the pics, I think the tree is an honest representation, the rest is fraud/misinformation.
There is/was loads of structures hurtling around us.  Big stuff would be Skylab, Salyut, Mir and ISS, plus there are defence/communication structures that don't get their photos on the front pages - If they did, they would be of better quality.
Mick

[MarkS]

Why can I only see one set of solar panels?

According to APOD in June http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070625.html there should be 2 sets.  I guess it's a question of orientation of the craft and the panels.

[Mike]

Nick,

Load of tosh as far as i'm concerned, The images are far too blurry (suspiciously so) to see any detail. If someone manages to obtain a detailed image fo something such as Marks) then maybe we can reassess it.

[Ian]

Why can I only see one set of solar panels?

According to APOD in June http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070625.html there should be 2 sets.  I guess it's a question of orientation of the craft and the panels.

Maybe it wasn't the ISS after all, but a secret space laboratory where the government are researching more interesting ways of losing our personal details?

[spacenickoy]

Yeah the station should have two sets of panels but the picture could have been taken before they were installed.

I think the idea of the gvt building secret space stations is highly improbable as there are too many people tracking launches in the World. However I know you were only being sarcastic anyway Ian. And I completely agree with you! ID cards, they can kiss my ass.

Mike cheers for your input, I was highly skeptical anyway just interested as I'd heard about the technique pointed out by mickw and the fact that there is a picture of the space station thrown in there. Just thought you guys might be interested and wanted an opinion from some experts

[Tony G]

But these photos were only taken the weekend, so surely the two sets of panels should be showing.

Tony G

[Jim]

Tony
I think the other 4 panels are at right angles so in Marks picture they are edge on and thus not visible. 

[MarkS]

Jim is right.  The "missing" panels are at right angles.  I took some more today but the flypast wasn't so ideal: the sun didn't light it so well and I was not using the focal reducer, so the images are larger but more noisy.

As it approached, the upper sets of panels were visible:


At it's closest approach, those panels are now end on:


At this point, it was more or less South and and sun was coming from the West so the sun is coming from the right hand side of the image (which is correctly oriented). So the upper panels are facing the sun.

[Fay]

Mark, I can't believe what a great picture you got of the ISS!!!!! So clear!!  Really well done.



Fay