Using observatories remotely

[Broadymike]

Hi all.

This morning while looking at fb an advert came up for the open universities free courses. After a little browse through there are several astronomy related short free courses to have a look at and choose from. 

I decided to enrol in one of them as it seemed quite interesting. For a start it finally explained to me how to use the RA/Dec coordinates to locate objects lol. The main reason I thought I'd give this particular course a shot was because you actually get to request images to be taken for you by the open universities COAST telescope in tenerife.  So far I have got to the point in the course where you request your first images so I'm quite looking forward to seeing what the results are. You can request different filters and exposure times depending on what you have requested to be imaged although for this first batch of requests I just used the recommended settings. 

What I'd like to know is people's opinions on using things like this. For a start it will be a very long time before I could even dream of affording a 14" SCT at f/10 or any of the other equipment used so I see it as a way to utilise equipment that I may never get the chance to use. Other than having to set up your own scope and needing longer exposure times due to smaller aperture, surely using a goto mount with automatic tracking is pretty much the same as me giving the coordinates to the COAST telescope to take the images. I can see that there is a sense of achievement using your own scope and cameras, but surely there must be an argument for doing this as I doubt any of us will get the seeing conditions in our local sites that they get at the top of a volcano on an island in the Atlantic. 

I spose what I'm asking is would people consider an image requested by (for example) me to be taken by the coast telescope to be an image captured by me? I'm assuming that if I took an image through my own scope it would be my image. Like I said other than set up time and effort and the fact that COAST uses far superior equipment to what I'll ever be able to afford, is there really any difference between this and using a computerised mount to image the cosmos? Throughout the course so far they have put it that the images you request are your images to do what you want with. Also to my understanding there have been numerous discoveries made by people observing from large observatories. The person who made the discovery still gets the recognition even though they don't own the scope they were observing with. 

Just thought I'd put this out there for discussion as it certainly got me thinking. Could take up to a few days for my images to come through as obviously your request ends up in a cue. When they do come through I will endeavour to post them here. 

[iapa]

Initially, my first thought would be that the COAST image copyright would not be yours, so, worth reading through the rules involved.

Take your own images, you own copyright and can do what you want.

It may be that COAST put images in the Public Domain, so this isn’t an issue.

When you receive the images would depend how many others in front of you in the queue.

Yes, the images are likely to be better than you can achieve initially, but over time you will improve, and if you concentrate on one or two targets you will after a while accumulate more, and better, data to process.

[Broadymike]

7 minutes ago, iapa said:

Initially, my first thought would be that the COAST image copyright would not be yours, so, worth reading through the rules involved.

As I understand it the image copyright isn't the property of the open university. Not only can you request images through the OU courses but when not covered by the courses anyone can pay to use the scope. 

I understand about the cue as to when you will receive your images. But as the Teide observatory site gets a minimum of 85% chance of clear skies on any given night, you could easily take far longer to capture the image just because of waiting for clear skies at home. 

The big limiting factors for me on imaging are cost and storage. My whole astronomy journey so far has cost me less than £100. Due to these factors imaging is beyond my bank balance mainly but I live in a small flat so space is at a premium. My current rig (celestron 114eq) just doesn't have the mount to cope with imaging. Observations are my main goal. So for me currently if I want to do any imaging then I would have to either utilise something like the COAST telescope or have to spend a large amount of cash. 

Like I said in my original post is there any real difference to using COAST or your own scope with a goto mount? Both find and track the objects for you. Just one is in your garden the other is in one of the best locations to observe from. 

There is also nothing to say that you can't take multiple images of the same object with COAST and stack them like you would with your own scope. So that would mean that you could collect just as much data as you could at home. 

[iapa]

Image copyright is owned by the person who takes the image, unless they place it in the public domain or otherwise make it available.

I found this out when I wanted to use a picture of myself on the BBC website, and found that I do not own copyright on my image.

Consider to cost of using a remote observatory vs cost of your own mount, something this an EQ or AVX would support the OTA plus upgrades over several years.

Storage costs these days are almost negligible, you can get a couple of terabytes online for less than a tenner a month. Or multi terabyte drives are around £100.

Returning to your original question, i suppose it depends on whether you just want to process some other person’s data, or your data. My preference it to get my own data.

There is another member who images from a room in their home in Glasgow who produces better than excellent images. I cant remember her name at the moment

 

 

[Broadymike]

3 minutes ago, iapa said:

Storage costs these days are almost negligible, you can get a couple of terabytes online for less than a tenner a month. Or multi terabyte drives are around £100

When i said storage I meant actually storing my scope. Don't really have room for it now lol. 

You say about the copyright going to who took the image. In that case anyone who requests images from COAST is then technically who took the image. There is no one there actually operating the scope it is all done through computers etc. The scope even decides for itself if the conditions are right to take images. Also I looked at the forum that is tied to the course I'm taking and someone asked the tutors who owns the copyright of the images. The tutor replied that they are the images of those who requested them. They apparently even ask you permission to use your requested images in the gallery on the site for the observatory. So by the sound of it any images I request would be mine. 

So taking this into account any data I would get from COAST would technically be my data to process. If I had the cash to buy a better mount and cameras etc I'd be jumping straight into imaging but circumstances won't allow that at the moment. It's certainly a way of having a play around with imaging if you don't have the equipment.

I spose I'm looking at it along the lines of you are just borrowing the telescope occasionally to capture images. Just not being physically there. Also the other thing I've noticed on many comments on here and other sites is people saying that they set up for imaging get things started and just leave the scope/camera to do its thing for however long and then pack up and process the image. Surely by using COAST its the same thing minus having to set up/pack down equipment? 

[iapa]

ah, sorry. I thought you were talking about data storage - my bad.

I understand the concept of using remote observatories, I have considered using these a few times, but never actually been convinced of cost/benefit. However, I have different circumstances to yourself.

Re your own gear, it is partly down to whether you want to observe or image, and what targets you have a preference for. Plus of course, budget.

I understand that the majority of people have suffered from income reduction in the past 18 months and mean no offence to those who have been affected.

However, again, compare the cost of a remote observatory (once you have to pay) vs putting that amount away every month.

A goto mount can be had for under £400 - as a wine drinker I put that as a cheaper bottle of wine a day for just under 7 weeks ( I do not drink a bottle of wine a night :)) 

Check the Sale/Swap forum, lots of gear comes up there.

If that is over budget, I know that there are motors available for Skywatcher EQ mounts, wonder if there are any such for the EQ mount you have?

at the end of the day, if.  You have free access just now, milk it

Edited June 20, 2021 by iapa

[Cosmic Geoff]

I don't know who owns the copyright of the COAST images (you would have to read the small print to find out), but if you tried imaging yourself with a GoTo scope I expect you would find it to be a very different experience from booking a COAST session.

[Broadymike]

57 minutes ago, Cosmic Geoff said:

I don't know who owns the copyright of the COAST images (you would have to read the small print to find out), but if you tried imaging yourself with a GoTo scope I expect you would find it to be a very different experience from booking a COAST session.

Think I've got to the bottom of who owns the copyright to images taken with COAST. Its actually the person requesting them. As an account holder (doesn't matter if its a free 9r paid account) you own the rights to any any images taken. Think of it as you are renting the scope for the duration of any imaging. 

I completely understand that it's a different experience but the biggest difference is just setting up and packing away your gear. The actual process is fairly similar. You request the mount to track a certain object while your camera takes an image. Other than the set up the only real difference is hitting the shutter button or starting the video (depending on how and what equipment and object being imaged). Oh and saying warm indoors in the winter lol

One of the things that at the moment is putting me off imaging is actually the goto mount. Not the cost etc but for now I want to concentrate on learning the night sky. A goto mount is definitely detrimental to that in my opinion. In the future it is something that i will probably end up getting but for now I want to use my brain rather than just press a few buttons. Don't get me wrong I'm not knocking people who use goto scopes, I just feel that I am learning more about the night sky by using a manual mount. 

[Broadymike]

1 hour ago, iapa said:

ah, sorry. I thought you were talking about data storage - my bad.

I understand the concept of using remote observatories, I have considered using these a few times, but never actually been convinced of cost/benefit. However, I have different circumstances to yourself.

Re your own gear, it is partly down to whether you want to observe or image, and what targets you have a preference for. Plus of course, budget.

I understand that the majority of people have suffered from income reduction in the past 18 months and mean no offence to those who have been affected.

However, again, compare the cost of a remote observatory (once you have to pay) vs putting that amount away every month.

A goto mount can be had for under £400 - as a wine drinker I put that as a cheaper bottle of wine a day for just under 7 weeks ( I do not drink a bottle of wine a night :)) 

Check the Sale/Swap forum, lots of gear comes up there.

If that is over budget, I know that there are motors available for Skywatcher EQ mounts, wonder if there are any such for the EQ mount you have?

at the end of the day, if.  You have free access just now, milk it

Basically I had no real intention of getting into imaging for at least a year or two. Just this free course jumped out at me. I've already completed half of it lol. I want to get some experience learning the sky before getting started with pics with my own scope. 

For now my intentions are observations. No particular preference as to planetary or DSOs. The scope I have (its the powerseeker 114, at least its not the  bird Jones astromaster which I hear isn't as good) wouldn't necessarily have been my choice of scope. Would have gone for something like a skywatcher 130p but this scope came up on fb for only £35 in perfect condition. I'll still be looking to upgrade when the pennies allow. Although I think the scope I have could end up being a good grab and go scope in the future for when I'm camping. Finderscopes are a far more important upgrade as the one with the scope is terrible lol. I'm going for a rigel quickfinder and pair it with a 9x50 RACI finder.

Like you said I'm going to milk the free account with COAST to the max lol. The account is valid for 6 months so I may well get some nice images out of it. Also I'll do some research and look to choose objects that my scope would either struggle to get a good visual of or not even be able to see. Then at least I'm adding to my experience rather than keep finding the same things. 

[Vilius]

15 hours ago, Broadymike said:

I spose what I'm asking is would people consider an image requested by (for example) me to be taken by the coast telescope to be an image captured by me? I'm assuming that if I took an image through my own scope it would be my image. Like I said other than set up time and effort and the fact that COAST uses far superior equipment to what I'll ever be able to afford, is there really any difference between this and using a computerised mount to image the cosmos?

Of course there's a bunch of difference between using a computerised mount and using the coast telescope. However I say you only live once. Given the opportunity to take images of the cosmos from a facility on top of a volcano in the Atlantic, go for it as much as you can!  Who cares what people think.

[Broadymike]

57 minutes ago, Vilius said:

Of course there's a bunch of difference between using a computerised mount and using the coast telescope. However I say you only live once. Given the opportunity to take images of the cosmos from a facility on top of a volcano in the Atlantic, go for it as much as you can!  Who cares what people think.

Oh I'm intending to milk it for all its worth lol. To be fair anyone in the UK I would encourage to sign up for it as its completely free. 

You say that there's a lot of differences but to my eyes I don't really see what they are other than setting up/packing down. I can see that there would be a sense of achievement as its your own equipment. But ultimately using either you are relying on the computers and mount to actually do the locating the subject and tracking for you. As far as choosing filters, exposure times etc this can all be done the same as with a home set up. I could very well have requested the same objects as the next person in the cue bit the images could come out completely different due to settings etc. 

The main thing though is the fact that for free you get to utilise a scope that let's be honest most of us on this site will never even get a glimpse of let alone get to use one. The course is actually quite informative and I must admit I'm quite tempted to take the studying even further. 

[tomato]

Having briefly dipped my toe in the water of requesting imaging time on a large remote telescope made available for educational purposes via my local Astro Club, you can get hands on some quality (albeit short integration times) data which will process through to a pleasing end result. However, depending on the popularity of the scope, and/or intervening cosmic events, the imaging request may get bumped down the queue or even dropped off the list. If you want data to process it is far easier to just download existing files available for free from a host of  sites available on the web, including HST data. Personally, the remote approach  doesn't do it for me, but then I am fortunate to have my own imaging rig.

[Broadymike]

21 minutes ago, tomato said:

Having briefly dipped my toe in the water of requesting imaging time on a large remote telescope made available for educational purposes via my local Astro Club, you can get hands on some quality (albeit short integration times) data which will process through to a pleasing end result. However, depending on the popularity of the scope, and/or intervening cosmic events, the imaging request may get bumped down the queue or even dropped off the list. If you want data to process it is far easier to just download existing files available for free from a host of  sites available on the web, including HST data. Personally, the remote approach  doesn't do it for me, but then I am fortunate to have my own imaging rig.

Having looked into it the lead times are around 3-4 days to get your images back. Like I said in an earlier comment you can easily be waiting far longer just for some clear skies. 

The advantage with this scenario is that the scope is owned and run by the OU. They seriously limit the amount of paid users not studying with them. 

I just think that it's an option for people to have a look into. Like I said my bank balance is stopping me from getting the appropriate equipment to image myself for now. 

I think it's amazing that this is being offered for free along with quite a few other astronomy related short courses. I'm getting tempted to possibly take the OU degree in astronomy. Would need to seriously brush up on my maths first though lol.