Go to Venus

Venus (NASA year 2008)

 The climate change which has been predicted for decades has become part of our new reality. Moreover, the effects and resulting damages and difficulties engendered by that change are also evident. Being interested in Astronomy, and living in British Columbia, some of the environmental changes caused by the  climate change are at least annoying, if not definitely unhealthy. Some much more serious aspects of the climate change are hundreds of forest fires in our province alone (other areas have the same problems). People are forced to leave their houses, find them burned down, thereby incurring immense losses. More serious, some people, while fighting the fires are injured, and, sadly, some have died. 

Climate changes have occurred a number of times in the past, but, it appears, not at the current rate. Humans, at whatever evolutionary stage, seem to have developed methods, physiological, biological, and  thinking up solutions which allowed adaptations to changes of climate. Many humans may have lost their lives in these processes. 

Evolution, in my thinking, is a random process. Most genetic and DNA alterations are unsuccessful. The successful versions continue and become more numerous and dominant. I therefore believe that some of our current human individuals have a genetic internal makeup which will allow their adaption and increase their biological dominance under the new climatic conditions. 

As humans, we also have developed a very complex system of dealing with climate change: it is called space travel. Humans have walked on the Moon and have returned to Earth. Current efforts aim at permanent settlement on the Moon, and even Mars. That means getting away from current dangers on Earth and facing new, more likely much more powerful dangers in space. 

Humanity is very adaptive. These current efforts will likely result in success sometime in the future. We'll possibly  spread to wider space presence within suitable environments created by us. There is going to be no "hell". So, if someone annoys you in that future, recommend that person go to Venus.

Navel-gazing

Astronomers, ancient, recent, and current have looked and are looking for "life, as we know it", elsewhere in the universe. A lot of resources are applied to this purpose (see image). Whenever I hear or read this statement something in my mind asks: what about life as we do NOT know it (yet)? 

NASA

The James Webb Telescope (Sun.Org)

(Costs of building and launch have been quoted as 10 billion dollars. It is used for other explorations as well.)

What follows is my thinking (I am no expert) about the subject. The starting event was what we call the Big Bang. Scientists have established that all the atomic particles, atoms themselves, molecules, down to the smallest sub particles came into existence in a sequence of events depending on pressure, temperature, time and available space and other temporary conditions. Whatever combination of particle combinations occurred in that time frame, the final results are entities we call stars, planets, galaxies, and whatever else we find in space (including us), all made from some part of the same source of atomic materials. 

There are occasions which I think of as a small repetition of the Big Bang. They happen inside very large and giant stars. These stars are at the end of their present existence; they no longer produce the counter pressure that made it possible to counteract the gravitational forces which try to concentrate the star's material at the centre of the star. Without that counter pressure, the star can collapse at an immense speed and with extremely large activating of huge amounts of light and much other electromagnetic activity. These energetic conditions create and may also recombine and blow the material of which the star is made into space (some part of the same materials which followed the Big Bang because that's the material which made up the star in the first place). We can observe such events. We call them supernovae. 

Our current level of technology allows us to watch the formation of new stars from the material blown into space by the collapse of dying stars. This means that the forming of new stars, planets, moons, meteors, rocks, air, and every other physical piece which we observe associated with that event uses the material from supernovae. It can be called the stuff of stars. We know of no other available material to form a new thing. Therefore, everything, including us, could only be made of some part of Starstuff. 

So, finding life as we know it could be possible. It would have to be made from the same basic materials of which we are made, starstuff, and the same organizational principles. It would also actually replicate itself or help some other species do so, as we know it. 

Is replication the proof of life?  Currently, we are quite intensely concerned with the speedy growth of Artificial Intelligence (AI). We have built computers which do replicate themselves, based on sophisticated software written by humans. Some of these computers (robots?), in my thoughts, could be working to improve and, independently, come up with a way to replicate themselves without having to rely on any human effort or connection. If we were to encounter such entities somewhere in space, would we recognize such as life, and, specifically, life as we know it ? It can only be built from Starstuff (which is the same as what was originated by the Big Bang). Could this affect our species' existence? If AI outcompetes us over time, and our species slowly disappears will AI consider us to be the gods that created them ? Astronomy connects with many of our different sciences, examples are Astrochemistry,  Astrobiology, Astrophysics, Electronics, and other scientific activities. How will these sciences affect us if they are controlled by AI ? 

In my younger years I voraciously read science fiction written by Arthur C. Clarke, Robert A. Heinlein, and Professor Isaac Asimov (all polymaths in my opinion) had interests in writing science fiction. These writings often included the interaction of humans and human-like robots. These robots had levels intelligence about equal to that of our current Artificial Intelligence. Professor Asimov required these robots to operate only under his Three Laws of Robotics:

(from Wikipedia)

Perhaps our current AI should incorporate these same laws without any possibility to remove or inactivate them by either Humans or  robots.

I think about these things because, before I retired about 10 years ago, making my living included having an electronics background. The recent improvements in that field, with closer relations to the computing world, make me consider these things. 

One thing we will likely have in common with whatever entity evolves in the future: we are, and will be, made of some part of Starstuff. Since everything in the Universe looks like Starstuff (again: including us, we are a piece of Universe), when we examine and explore the Universe we can say that the Universe is examining itself. 

..... Navel-gazing

Some questions remain in my mind: What is Dark Matter ?  What makes the Universe expand ?  Maybe AI knows?

. 

Again, the 3" telescope...

After a recent serious family event, I finally have found some time to put a number of things into some order. Among those, I ran across a picture (on photo paper) which I had developed, from a film I had also developed, both in what was then my darkroom. In those days (in the sixties) it was possible to have a chemical darkroom in your house. Digital processing technology did not exist then. Nowadays, chemical processing is tightly controlled, and what limited photography I pursue now is all of digital nature.

The image of the Moon below was taken fairly soon after I bought the used 3" refractor in 1964. I have mentioned this telescope before, shown here on the left. The Moon photo is an afocal image, taken through an eyepiece attached to that telescope. 

3" telescope.                                                The Apennines, 

                                                                         Caucasus and Alps on the Moon

                                                                  (from the bottom up)

The afocal method can be used on any telescope with an eyepiece inserted for visual observation. The trick is to align and mount the camera to be used in such a way that the "optical centres" for all the lenses, both in telescope and camera involved, align precisely. For instance, anyone who has tried to use a smartphone to take a picture by holding it behind the eyepiece of a telescope pointed at the Moon, will have found out that a good, undistorted image is mostly a matter of luck. I've heard that there are smart-phone-to-telescope adaptors available. Personally I haven't seen one, but they should be available at reputable telescope dealers. 

Another requirement is an accurate alignment of the telescope mount with the North Pole in the sky. Exposure time may vary, depending on what is being photographed. If the mount is misaligned, and the magnifying power used is high (i.e. a short-focus eyepiece) tracking errors could result in a "smeared" image.

As an aside, there is evidence of the Moon's curvature visible in the photo. You may notice that the crater Eratosthenes at the very bottom is perfectly round. That implies that we are looking straight down on it. The shape of the other craters placed successively higher, i.e. the large one in the centre (Archimedes) looks more oval. Plato, the large crater at the top, even more so, We are looking from increasing angles at them. 

That shows the Moon's surface is dropping more and more away from our point of view. For anyone of average height standing on a level surface of the Moon it means that the horizon is about 2.4 km away. This is also shown by the increasingly darker surface curving westward (to the left) on the Moon. The Sun rises in the East on the Moon, just as on Earth, therefore the East is the brightest area on the right.

I think that it is obvious that I like my 3". Occasionally, you may see it on these pages again.

 

Little problems

 

Living in an area subject to a lot of cloudy weather, I use my telescopes sporadically. The Christmas and New Years' periods additionally result in family and friends getting together. That means that some clear sky conditions are also bypassed. Because of several days being available, I had time in which I could, and did, check the operation and possible problems on my EQ type telescope mounts and my telescopes. 

From my previous blogposts you'll know that I much enjoy the public astronomy nights which SFU runs on clear Friday nights. I've been using my 3" refractor most often for our RASC participation. The telescope is not heavy and can be put onto the telescope mount quickly. As well, it is easy to align with the celestial North Pole. The reason, of course, is the automatic tracking of any object being observed by moving the telescope westward at the same rate as the Earth's rotation eastward.

The EQ4 tracking mount I use for the 3" refractor has somewhat of an issue though. No matter how closely I align the telescope with North, the object in the telescope's field of view slowly drifts out of view. It's easy enough to correct this by using the control buttons on the Dual Axis Motor Drive which powers both the Right Ascension and Declination motors. However, it requires my periodic attention to make sure that our public guests will actually see the target to which I pointed the telescope.

There are many cloudy days and nights at this time of year. I set up the telescope and mount in our recroom at home to move through a 24 hour tracking run. The idea was to set the time and direction scales on the mount to a start point (I pointed the E marker on the telescope RA axis to the 0 hour mark on the time scale) and to read the scales at the end of the run, 24 hours (actually 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds) later. At that point I would have expected to see the E marker to point again at the 0 hours mark. Lo and behold, it pointed instead to 2h and 50 min beyond the 0 mark. This means that the telescope actually indicated that it moved past the 0 hour time marker; it incorrectly showed that it had moved a total of 26 hours and 50 minutes. The tracking motion of the mount is therefore 11% faster than the daily sky motion. Since the Earth turns 15 degrees per hour this result moves the telescope to a position almost 45 degrees ahead of  the position it should have after 24 hours tracking, Instead of moving through 360 degrees, it moved almost 405. I had noticed smaller overruns on other days, even on much shorter test runs. This is what actually made me run the 24 hour test.

My motor drive unit has 4 control buttons to speed up the RA and DEC stepper motors 2, 4, or 8 times by means of a separate speed switch. Each button is dedicated to one particular direction. The RA motor is controlled by an East button and a West button, the DEC motor by a North and a South button. The East button can be used to compensate for the 11% excess tracking speed, but it requires me to push and hold the button to move the telescope back to the observed target. It is a very basic and very slow slewing system - it would take many minutes to move from Vega to Deneb for example. As it exists, this whole system is not suitable for long-exposure astrophotography, in my opinion. It's ok for visual observation and possibly photography of the Sun or the Moon.

The dual axis motor drive

proposed astable  timer (below)

Now the question: what causes this? I was thinking about the gear ratios in the RA motor, or in the mount, the clock frequency in the electronics of the Dual Axis motor drive unit, the pulse rate applied to the RA motor stepper windings, searched for an adjustment capability in the electronics board (found none), and other electronic possibilities. I also searched the internet for electronic schematics (there are dozens) but did not find the one which exactly matched the Dual Axis motor drive above. 

I'm thinking of putting together an astable timer based on the 555 precision timer chip. Its output voltage could control the power provided to the motor drive, i.e. shut off power 11% of the time. That way, the movement of the sky could catch up with my faster-moving telescope. It's a crude approach, but in my working days I built many similar timers to control printers, vending machines, debit card readers, and other equipment. I found the timer shown above in one of my "junk"drawers which contain all manner of parts, most of which are decades old. The shown timer is an unused piece I started about thirty years ago, and never finished. I'll check it out and may modify it to counteract the tracking error. 

Stay tuned. .