Shooting the Shuttle

Space Shuttle Endeavour Streaks Across The Northwestern Sky
November 25, 2008

By Christopher Lane

Cold, clear winter nights are ideal for astrophotography, but in my experience it is by far the most difficult photographic pursuit. Even something as simple as shooting a lunar eclipse can be trying. Given that our universe is constantly on the move, exposure times are always a consideration. Ideally one would want to use the shortest exposure time necessary to capture a sharp image. That said, using too high an ISO can also degrade image quality. The upside is that at least a lunar eclipse gives one time to experiment with various settings.  Usually, long exposure noise reduction is not an issue either because most exposures will be under the applicable threshold.

When your subject is really on the move, the whole process gets quite a bit more dicey. The four most popular moving objects to image are meteor showers, the Space Shuttle, the International Space Station (ISS) and Iridium flares. I've tried all four with mixed success. 

The best meteor showers to view are the Perseids in August and the Leonids in November. There are many others at various times throughout the year. The most valuable resource that I have found is the meteor shower page on Astronomy For The People. They have loads of data and lots of tips. Be prepared to make lots of long exposures and be frustrated. As moving objects, meteors are totally unpredictable except for a very general instruction to look in a certain direction. After three years of trying, I have yet to capture a meteor.

Taken individually, the Space Shuttle and the ISS are not very brilliant objects. When docked, however, they make a much brighter target. Fortunately, the position of either at any given time is predictable. You can find out where they are by consulting the Heavens Above website. Heavens Above is an invaluable compendium of data about the whereabouts of objects in space, both natural and man-made, including the Shuttle and the ISS.     

Iridium flares are caused by the Sun glinting off the Main Mission Antenna of a relatively small communications satellite. These reflections can be up to 30 times brighter than Venus so they are quite visible. That said, the flares only last from 5 to 20 seconds before the satellite becomes invisible to the naked eye. Iridium flares are predictable and can be quite spectacular. Consult Heavens Above to find out when one will occur. 

Getting a good image of any of these fast moving objects can be very difficult. Use a tripod and full manual mode. To give yourself the best edge, mount a lens of 50 mm or less. I like 24mm myself. Shoot in raw, use the highest ISO setting you feel comfortable with, and plan on making a manual exposure using a remote.  Try to keep your exposure under 30 seconds for the Shuttle/ISS and Iridium flares to avoid "star trails," but don't worry if your shot looks over-exposed; exposing to the right means that you will have that much more data to work with. For meteor showers you may just have to live with motion distortion to get a good exposure as you will never know when one will show and you will have to use long exposures. Be aware that using long exposure noise reduction will double the time of your exposure. 

Your sighting will happen very fast and you will have only one chance so you need to be absolutely sure where the object will be in the sky. I missed a rare double Iridium flare last winter because my camera was aimed too low on the horizon. Be sure you know exactly how many degrees above the horizon line you need to look and in what direction the object will be coming from. This is easier said than done, so do your research on Heavens Above or elsewhere on the Internet. Out in the field you may want to consider using some sort of aiming device like a Altazimuth or Equatorial telescope mount. Prices on these vary widely and the investment may not be worth it if you are a casual shooter.             

A final caveat:  If you will be disappointed that all your planning and hard work will only yield an image of a streak of light across the sky, try another pursuit. For many of us though, that streak of light represents something much larger and very satisfying.

Chris

Chris Lane is a lawyer and photographer who writes a photo-blog entitled Written By The Light.

Send this post to a friend

Featured Comment by chip w: "Difficult? Try meditative. Check this guy out and try to keep your jaw from hitting the floor.... And...don't forget to mention the word expensive when you talk about astrophotography."

Robert Gendler, The Rosette Nebula in Monoceros

Comments

[Oliver]

Just as a diversion from photography, the Kennedy Space Center has a schedule of it's shuttle launches and you can buy tickets to go and see one. You aren't that close, it's still little more than a blob in the distance, but given the sheer amount of heat and noise that's probably for the best.

My wife and I worked on a space telescope and we were able to watch it launch. It was a night launch and that was really spectacular. As far as you could see, everything was lit up orange by the blast from the shuttle. It's pretty impressive, and they dump something like a quarter million gallons of water onto the launch area to keep it from slagging from the heat.

Well worth it if you can squeeze it into a trip in the area.

http://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/

[luke]

"The four most popular moving objects to image are meteor showers, the Space Shuttle, the International Space Station (ISS) and Iridium flares."

Don't forget the lost tool bag of the ISS! I heard it should still be visible… ;-)

Anyway, great article!

[Jim Allen]

Thanks for the great article, I have tried on and off for the last year or so to get good quality images of the moon and space images in general. I have shot at night through a couple different telescopes. I agree with you that it is quite difficult at first, but that is part of what makes it so satisfying when you actually get a good image. Here's a link to my first attempt to capture the space shuttle during a night launch this past November.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26317521@N00/3197068384/sizes/l/

It's certainly not National Geographic quality, but it was fun to shoot and see the launch. I hope to capture a better image during the next launch - now that I have some idea what to expect. It sure happens quickly, so you have to be prepared in advance and use a high enough ISO/shutter speed to hope to capture it without too much shake and telephoto induced blur. I used a ball head and tried to pan it up, but next time I'm taking a heavy telescope tripod to try for a more rugged and vibration free shot. I'm going to try to utilize a bit more "foot zoom" too, I can't afford the 800mm Canon lens for the rare hobby shot. I debated trying to use my 8" telescope, but I'm not sure I could get critical focus on something that's moving that fast...In fact I'm sure I couldn't.

[aizan]

wide-field astrophotography isn't all that expensive. you just need a wide to normal lens that's really good at wide apertures, and a barn door tracker to avoid star trails. i remember one web page featuring a sophisticated, exquisitely machined barn door tracker that operated at or near the theoretical maximum accuracy, but a simpler device will still do the job.

unfortunately, at the time i couldn't reconcile technical constraints with artistic desires. there was always that tradeoff between sharp heavens or a sharp earth, and i wanted both - without resorting to photoshop.

just the other day, daniel bayer made a very interesting post on rff. it shows a mountainscape with a well exposed milky way above it. the exposure time was 30 seconds, so there's no problem with star trails! what made it possible? he used a 35mm ZF wide open on a nikon d700 set at ISO 6400.

http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=971638&postcount=4

[aizan]

found it!

this double arm drive was made by evan williams in 2002.

http://www.crazywolf.com/astrophoto/drive.htm

[ctein]

Dear Chip,

As always, it depends on what you mean by the word, "expensive." There's lots of casual discussion in this forum of buying digital camera bodies that cost $2500-$3000. Many people here don't seem to think that's unreasonable (although most of them do balk at the $8000 -$10,000 stuff).

That kind of money will buy you a VERY decent astrophotography rig, fully functional and ready to go (assuming you already have sufficient computer to process the images). If you just want to get started at a decent level, some savvy shopping will push this to well under $2000.

Astrophotography has benefited more from the advances in electrooptics than any other field of photography. As one who has been doing this, very casually, for 40 years, I can tell you that the changes are breathtaking.

But one thing that hasn't changed is that astrophotography is dependent as much on knowledge and technique as any other kind of demanding photography. Equipment counts, but learning just how to use it counts for more. If you know the craft really well, you can obtain remarkable photos with VERY little expenditure. Just time and patience (lots of those!) and dark skies.

This photograph, for example:

http://ctein.com/top/Comet_Halley.jpg

required only a few hundred dollars worth of equipment beyond my regular camera. I bought the cheapest telescope I could that had a motorized clock drive with a manual controller. I piggybacked my camera on the scope and used the telescope as a guide scope for making this five-minute exposure on ISO 400 film.

~ pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
======================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com 
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com 
======================================

[ctein]

Dear Aizen,

Sometimes, if you've picked a subject where most of the "motion" is parallel to the horizon, you can fake a sharp horizon well enough. I made this 10-minute exposure of Comet Hyakutake in the same fashion as my Comet Halley photo:

http://ctein.com/Comet_Hyakutake.htm

Fortune provided me with said horizontal motion, so rather than crop out the horizon as I'd originally expected to do, I left it in. At first glance, it looks sharp (enough); anyway, people don't notice that it is in fact smeared. Greatly improves the 'presence' of the subject matter.

An aside: sharp-eyed viewers may notice that the stars are slightly elongated rather than being pinpoints. That's not sloppy tracking on my part. I was tracking on the nucleus of the comet, and Hyakutake was so close to Earth that over a 10-minute exposure it moved measurably against the background. In fact, looking at it through my guide scope, I could actually see it moving, very slowly, relative to the stars. It's very strange to look at deep space objects and watch them move!

~ pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
======================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com 
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com 
======================================

[Abbazz]

Another cool hobby: shooting Mother Earth from outer space. Check the incredible results this guy is getting by shooting his Pentax K10d DSLR at 98,514 ft. above Oklahoma:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3242/3103366673_95bfdb1822_b.jpg

Here's the link to his Flickr sets:
http://flickr.com/photos/arena5/sets/72157611198154954/

http://flickr.com/photos/arena5/sets/72157606119049987/

What I prefer is his first post on PentaxForums.com:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3213/2659744049_fd87d8598c_b.jpg

He posted the above picture accompanied by the following text without any other explanation:

"Took this shot yesterday with a k10d at over 104,000 ft altitude. The k10d performed flawlessly in the harsh vacuum of space at temperatures below-60F"

Cheers!

Abbazz

[ctein]

Dear Abbazz,

Shows how lousy Pentax lenses are. Look at that distortion-- the horizon line isn't even CLOSE to being straight!

[VBG]

Seriously, thanks for this link. My jaw dropped when I opened the first jpg.

pax / Ctein