Starship Asterisk*

Why was so much attention and scientific instrumentation, in space and on earth, devoted to the recent transit of Mercury (or for Venus for that matter)?

Granted it was an infrequent event, but to my mind, it was only slightly more relevant than a lunar eclipse.

What new science was sought and/or uncovered by observing this latest transit?

What science was confirmed that could not be confirmed by other more convenient means?

Actually, I don't think many scientific resources were dedicated to the transit. I suppose the attention is because it's a relatively easy, but very tangible observation for amateur astronomers to make.

Personally, I find the pictures of the Mercury transit rather boring, but I think if I were watching it in real life, I'd be glued to the lens.

Similarly, I've noticed a lot of astronomy sites mention prominent planetary conjunctions. There's no scientific value in a conjunction, but they make for good viewing.

Photographic skills are enhanced by practicing on these non events.

the second half of my reply. I have a NIKON D70 and a 1000 mm lens attachment. What filter to use to take a photo of the sun ( I admit I know a lot of stuff but I am a rookie at astro pictures- noone evers lets out how they took the pictures that appear on APOD )

ta152h0 wrote:the second half of my reply. I have a NIKON D70 and a 1000 mm lens attachment. What filter to use to take a photo of the sun ( I admit I know a lot of stuff but I am a rookie at astro pictures- noone evers lets out how they took the pictures that appear on APOD )

ta,

It would probably be better for you to post your question as a separate thread herein as well as in other astronomy and/or photography forums.

I understand that Sky & Telescope magazine in the USA has and has had many articles relating to astrophotography. If you are a film user, some films are better than others, which would be critiqued within the articles. Each issue also contains many advertisements for the types of filters (visual, H-alpha, etc.) you would need for direct photography of the sun. You could also contact a local amateur astonomy club where I am sure you could pick the brains of others already doing astrophotography.

Also, don't hesitate to use the resources of your local public library. My state (NJ) has made available to all in-state public libraries a number of online databases from which magazine articles -- some full text, others PDFs -- are available for downloading. If not available online, my library will get me without cost or obligation a photocopy of any magazine article if I can provide the particulars.

Finally, you can Google appropriate search terms and come up with references that can get you started immediately. Good luck.

ta152h0 wrote:the second half of my reply. I have a NIKON D70 and a 1000 mm lens attachment. What filter to use to take a photo of the sun ( I admit I know a lot of stuff but I am a rookie at astro pictures- noone evers lets out how they took the pictures that appear on APOD )

I've been thinking about your desire to do astrophotography, and I have to ask the question, why bother? There was a time when if one wanted a picture of something, one either had to pay for it from an observatory or planetarium, or make your own. Today, for just about anything above our heads, there are any number of images made by big telescopes and posted on the Internet ready for downloading.

Every picture snapped by the Hubble Space Telescope is available online, and since the HST is just slightly better than my backyard reflector, I see no point to making observations or images on my own. Just about every image made by any telescope on earth or in space is similarly available on the Internet, so the need for amateur astrophotography just escapes me.

A far more useful project for amateurs (like myself), for example, would be to make careful photometric observations of long period phenomena, something to which professional astronomers can't justify dedicating precious telescope time or other resources.

RJ Emery wrote:Why was so much attention and scientific instrumentation, in space and on earth, devoted to the recent transit of Mercury (or for Venus for that matter)?

Granted it was an infrequent event, but to my mind, it was only slightly more relevant than a lunar eclipse.

What new science was sought and/or uncovered by observing this latest transit?

What science was confirmed that could not be confirmed by other more convenient means?

Excellent questions RJ, I have been asking myself the same questions, what is the significance?

ta, interesting wording, non-event, actually it was an event, just not high on the importance scale but I don't want to underestimate the significance, if there is one.

I dont' think there was much scientific instrumentation devoted to the Mercury and Venus transits, just a lot of cameras. I agree too that it's kind of boring, seeing this black dot against the sun but just like iamlucky13 said, i'd be glued to the lense too if i were watching it real-time.

A non-event would be any named yet irrelevant observation just like a transit. If Earth could keep up with the orbit of Mercury or Venus then they would forever be in transit. And if Earth could maintain the speed for such an orbit but on the opposite side of the sun there would never be a transit. Those planets would be orbiting there regardless if we were watching or not or if Earth even existed, so it's not really an event. You could fly your spaceship to any point in our solar system and watch any planet make a transit over and over again. lol it's like calling the sunrise/set an event

RJ Emery
I've been thinking about your desire to do astrophotography, and I have to ask the question, why bother?
- Some people have these things they do in their spare time called "hobbies." hahaha