Hacker News Reader

Comment by Fwirt | Hacker News Reader

For those interested in astrophotography, when asked how to get into the hobby, most astrophotographers will tell you, "don't".

The setup that he's got in the picture is very conservatively $10,000 worth of equipment. Not to mention the time spent in setup, planning, extensive postprocessing, etc. Personally, with a day job and living in a city (light pollution), I find it difficult to get time for visual astronomy, and astrophotography takes a lot more time and dedication. All that for something that the big scopes are going to do a lot better.

Not trying to dissuade anyone who's passionate about it. If you're up for the fun and challenge of it, you'll get some nice results for the rest of us to enjoy. :)

View on HN

As a person who has spent well more than $10,000 on his equipment and software setup for astrophotography, I disagree with the blanket "don't" statement. I think the biggest cause of frustration is amateurs starting out with something like an AP1100 and a Takahashi FSQ, along with some ridiculous overpriced CCD camera they bought because it was listed as having "the most megapixels" in order to try and avoid the pains of a "substandard" setup. Ironically, however, this usually causes more pain than if the setup had been simpler in the first place. Additionally, it harbors resentment towards the hobby from the person who just dumped 15k on their bulky imaging system only to find they can't even get it to guide correctly. I operate my primary scope in a large personal observatory, but I can't rave _more_ about the amazing pictures I've taken with my cheap ZEQ25, Explore Scientific ED80, ASI 1600MM-C, and cheap set of narrow-band filters. Setup is fast, the focal length is short, the speed is (fairly) fast, and the results can be seen in just a single night of test imaging[1] for less than $2200. Additionally, new devices[2] are coming out that will make imaging even simpler!

1: https://imgur.com/a/fcFbh

2: https://vaonis.com/telescopes

Regarding your second link: great, just what we need, astronomy run by locked-down proprietary hardware and software. If anything should be hackable, it's your telescope. After reading through their FAQ, I'm ready to bet that it won't be possible to, for example, write a script on your Linux laptop to have the telescope track some arbitrary celestial target over several weeks. Proprietary firmware/protocols/apps for controlling hardware products should be illegal.

Illegal? You wish to use the power of the legal system to prohibit a closed protocol for telescope control? I think there are more serious problems in the world that deserve the attention of courts/police and prosecutors, but whatever.

Let me propose a compromise in the spirit of YCombinator's startup-focus: As you feel so strongly about this, and AFAIK such an open-protocol system does not exist, that tells me you have a perfect opportunity for you to invent this stuff, market it and sell it. Why not go tackle this gaping hole in the marketplace?

>Illegal? You wish to use the power of the legal system to prohibit a closed protocol for telescope control?

Of course not. I wish to use the power the legal system to establish broader laws prohibiting the distribution of proprietary firmwares. Think farmers unable to repair their tractors without spending thousands of dollars bringing them to the manufacturer. Same umbrella of problems.

>Let me propose a compromise in the spirit of YCombinator's startup-focus: As you feel so strongly about this, and AFAIK such an open-protocol system does not exist, that tells me you have a perfect opportunity for you to invent this stuff, market it and sell it. Why not go tackle this gaping hole in the marketplace?

Capitalist incentives don't work here, which is why I suggest a legislative approach.

Funny you should mention this. The astronomy community actually suffers from "proprietary bloat" in terms of astronomy software and mount firmware. I used to own a certain red-colored high-end mount from a well-known astronomy software and mount vendor. This mount had a completely closed-source control protocol, and had to be used with buggy software that was only available for Windows and MacOS at the time (a big problem since I used FreeBSD and Linux), so I went to the liberty of installing a filter driver above their USB drivers on a Windows box to reverse engineer the protocol and develop an INDIlib (an open telescope control standard) driver to bypass the need of their bloated software suite. When I posted about my project, I received a rather nasty cease-and-desist letter from them threatening legal action if I discussed it any further despite the fact that I was well within the bounds of the exceptions allotted by the DMCA. Being a young lad of 16 at the time, I had no resources to fight back against them and as such never got the driver into INDI mainline.

$10k is too much of a barrier for a hobby? I know amateur musicians who spend more on guitars than that.

Other examples: * Photographers and youtubers with a Canon 5D Mark3 DSLR with decent set of lens will cost thousands, and I wish I could afford a Red cameras that cost $10k-$50k, not including lens.

* I had few car enthusiast friends who spent thousands, more than what they paid on their cars, so they could drag race or so they could race on SCCA tracks.

* My die-hard NFL fan friend, who spends $20k on the season ticket, jerseys, merchandises, and collectibles EVERY year

* my frends who is an audio enthusiast, dropping $50k on home speakers and amps. He's not that wealthy, but that's his priority, I guess.

* My animator friend who spends $10k+ on his PC render farm.

Of course, I don't think you need to spend that much money to enjoy astrophotography. But it takes a little bit of effort and time, which is the fun part in a hobby. In high school (in pre-internet days), I built a Dobsonian telescope from scratch for my science project, except for the mirror, since I didn't have the skill to grind my own mirror. I still remember pestering my mom to drive me around the town, looking for a 7 foot long Sono tube, which looks like a giant cardboard toilet paper roll. We went to every single Home Depot/hardware stores/construction supply stores within 30 mile radius of my home, and eventually found one after months of searching.

Dude your friends are rich. Period.

If you put $20 into your hobby weekly on average, you'll have invested $10k in a decade. Sounds obvious but I know people who put that much into coffee.

It doesn't look like GPs friends have been spending $20 per week on their hobbies. You don't build a render farm over 10 years.

I still remember pestering my mom to drive me around the town, looking for a 7 foot long Sono tube, which looks like a giant cardboard toilet paper roll.

Best part of those is that when you get tired of astronomy, you can take up Tesla coiling! Then you get to explain to your mom/wife why you need your own power pole transformer.

“His neighbors hate hi- CracklezaaaaaapZorchZzzzzaaaapZapzapzapzap... him.”

>$10k is too much of a barrier for a hobby?

Yes. A few hundred dollars is normally too much of a barrier into a hobby, let alone $10k. Your friends are obscenely wealthy

You really don't have to be obscenely wealthy to have that kind of money invested into a hobby over time, just a decade or three into a white collar career (or decent paying trade) is plenty.

Your hobby is to expensive? Try clubs.. great way to share resources

I understand spending 10 grand on a hobby, but not when you're starting out.

As someone interested in photography and who bought a 10-inch Dobsonian telescope that barely gets used, I'll have to echo your sentiment with some modifications.

I say this as someone who has only dabbled, but astrophotography, even at the bottom end of things, takes quite a bit of work to get a mediocre image. You can get decent images from a cheap webcam attached to a big scope if you capture lots of images (or video in this case) and use focus stacking and noise reduction techniques using programs such as Registax.

It's one of those hobbies that promises improvements along the way the more money you spend, but it also rewards knowledge.

Definitely. I photographed the lunar eclipse a couple years ago with my 10-inch dob, an afocal eyepiece adapter and a DSLR. None of my images were any good.

Astronomy is as expensive as you want to make it, and the knowledge and enjoyment is worth more than the equipment, but the equipment gives you the knowledge and enjoyment, so it's a catch-22. The key is figuring out what you can afford and what you want to see and choosing your equipment accordingly.

There are many types of astrophotography. You don't need $10,000 worth of equipment to get into it. An inexpensive DSLR with a relatively inexpensive wide angle lens will get you some very impressive shots when starting out. Something like a Canon Rebel [0] with a Tokina 11-16mm[1], for example, or the Nikon equivalent can be had for under $1,000. You can do landscape astrophotography with that setup and capture plenty of stars (assuming you're someplace where stars are visible).

[0] https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1238183-REG/canon_115... [1] https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/882235-REG/Tokina_atx...

Actually, its probably at least double or triple that. The twin Takahasi scopes retail for more than $5000 each. The mount is $3000 to $5000. The SBIG camera is $10000 (can't tell if he has one or two). Throw in a guide scope for $2000, batteries around $1000, software at $500, eyepieces $300 to $600 each, and cables and other accessories of $500 to $1000.

A beginner doesn't need to spend that much but a good 100mm refractor scope, camera, and mount are still going to run you $5000. That'll get you great images of solar system objects and some nearer, bright deep sky objects but not much in faint, deep sky. Also factor the cost of travel to dark sky locations if you don't already live nearby to one. It's a big investment.

Two cameras and two telescopes. Plus the third camera/scope for tracking.

"I have a dual telescope system: two identical telescopes and cameras in parallel, shooting simultaneously at the very same area of the sky - same FOV, save a few pixels. The telescopes are Takahashi FSQ106EDX. Their aperture is 106mm (about 4") and they give you a native 530mm focal length at f/5. The cameras are SBIG STL11k monochrome CCD cameras..."

Investment? In what, personal happiness?

I didn't run the numbers but I figured as much. I was just trying not to be hyperbolic. :)

I've heard good things about online telescope rental [0] - sure you don't have the pleasure of seeing through the eyepiece, but for expensive imaging equipment it makes sense.

[0] http://www.itelescope.net/

"Rates vary based on your membership plan and the phase of the moon."

It'd be a joke on any other site, but makes sense here!

Thanks for sharing this. Their network of scopes is quite impressive.

people do all sorts of silly things with $10k or way more than $10k as a hobby... look at the folks with quarter mile drag strip cars you can see on the youtube "tesla racing channel" (high octane gasoline fueled highly modified cars) racing against the stripped down P100D. Any of those are easily $40-50k and run a huge risk of catastrophic expensive engine failure at any given time.

Or the people who are now importing right-hand-drive JDM 25 year old Nissan GTR from Japan. Easily $22k each and then they put another $20-30k modification into them.

And all you get is a rapidly moving dot in black and white? Sad and unfair...

I wonder whether a startup out there has plans for a timesharing space telescope. Maybe with adaptive optics.

Isn't the whole point of a space telescope so that you don't need adaptive optics? Or are you making a joke?

A lot of people don't know that adaptive optics is meant for atmospheric usage only.

You need compensation against seeing for very, very big space telescopes, the kind that can resolve a moon in orbit of an expoplanet. IIRC there are reasons against using adaptive optics there, so you might need speckle interferometry there.

I am merely interested in the subject, but from what I understand, there are different types of adaptive optics.

I am specifically curious about the kinds to allow for seeing exoplanets by blocking the light of their star.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com