It’s time to tell each other what we’re reading and what we think of the books. The object, of course, is to give all of us hints about what we might want to read.
I’ve just finished two books, both of them good (of course both were recommended by a friend who knows good writing), and I recommend both, but especially this first one, which is superb. Click on the cover to go to the Amazon site:
There’s a Wikipedia article about this 1999 novel here, but don’t read it if you don’t want to see the whole plot. Without giving too much away, I’ll say that it’s about a Japanese-Korean man, Franklin Hata, who has moved to a small suburban town in New York, running a pharmacy-supplies store. He’s done well and has, in fact, become his town’s model citizen, eventually giving up his store and living a happy and prosperous retirement, having adopted, as a single man, a Korean girl named Sunny.
The one unhappy aspect of his life is that he can’t seem to form stable love relationships, not with Sunny nor with any of the several women he fancies. The reason involves a series of flashbacks to when Hata was serving in the Japanese Army in World War II (there are flashbacks involving nearly every relationship in the book), and a relationship he developed at that time, which haunts his whole existence. I will say no more, except that the prose is beautiful (a sine qua non for novels I like). HIGHLY recommended, and it should have won more awards than it did. I don’t think it was made into a movie, but it really should have been.
Here’s the book I just finished (click to go to Amazon site):
That one, from 2005, also has a Wikipedia page. Nathan Glass, stricken with cancer, moves to Brooklyn to live out his days in a pleasant urban environment (he’s the opposite of Franklin Hata, who hated cities). He meets his nephew, and then ensues series of random and unpredictable episodes involving an antique bookstore, long-lost relatives, and fractious relationships with other people. It’s a good read, and a short one, so it’s a good book to take along on a trip or the beach (if you happen to live in a warm place). I would recommend it, but not nearly as highly as I would A Gesture Life.
I’m not going to read the other three essays in the Ta-Nehisi Coates book The Message, for his Israel-essay debacle put me off him for a while. Instead, I have two books in line. I started the first one, below, last night. It’s from 2001 and I have found but not read its Wikipedia page. (Click to go to the Amazon site.)
After that one, I’ll attack this monster, which I’ve requested on interlibrary loan (I have no more room to put any books I buy, so I get them all from the University Library). Click to go to the Amazon page. At 864 pages, this one is a monster, but, unlike the kids, I like long books. It was published in 2004, is highly regarded, and has its own Wikipedia page that I refuse to read.
It seems that I’m on a fiction kick lately, which isn’t usual for me, but the books that my literary advisor recommends, which have all been good, are guaranteed not to contain a clunker. As for nonfiction, I’m still waiting for Robert Caro to produce his fifth volume of the LBJ biography that I love so much (I think it’s the best biography ever written, at least that I’ve read), but Caro is now 89 and it’s a race against time. The previous bio that I thought was the best, William Manchester’s biography of Winston Churchill, was abruptly truncated after volume 1 because Manchester died. I’d still recommend reading the first volume, even though it ends right as Winnie becomes Prime Minister and things would be getting even more interesting.
Your turn. Which books have you read lately, and which do you recommend (or not recommend)?
Astrophotography is a challenging art. Beyond the usual skill set of understanding things such as light exposure, color balance, and the quirks of your kit, there is the fact that stars are faint and they move.
Technically, the stars don’t move; the Earth rotates. But to capture a faint object, you need a long exposure time. Typically, from a few seconds to half a minute, depending on the level of detail you want to capture. In thirty seconds, the sky will shift by more than a tenth of a degree. That might not seem like much, but it’s enough to make the stars blur ever so slightly. Many astrophotographers take multiple images and stack them for even greater detail, which would blur things even more. It can create an interesting effect, but it doesn’t give you a panorama of pinpoint stars.
The motion blur of starlight used to create a rain of stars. Credit: Diana Juncher/ESOFortunately, there is plenty of off-the-shelf equipment you can get to account for motion blur. There are tracking motors you can mount to your camera that move your frame in time with the Earth’s rotation. They are incredibly precise so that you can capture image after image for hours, and your camera will always be perfectly aligned with the sky. If you make your images into a movie, the stars will remain fixed while the Earth rotates beneath them.
Of course, most astrophotographers have the same limitations of almost everyone. We are bound to the Earth and can only view the stars through our blanket of sky. If we could rise above the atmosphere, we would have an unburdened view of the heavens. A sky filled with uncountable, untwinkling stars. While astronauts often talk about this wondrous sight, photographs of stars from orbit are often less than spectacular. That’s because of how difficult astrophotography is in space, and it all comes back to motion blur.
Most astrophotography is done from the International Space Station (ISS). Since the ISS is in a relatively low orbit, it travels around the Earth once every 90 minutes. This means the stars appear to drift at a rate 16 times faster than they do on Earth. A 30-second exposure on the ISS has greater motion blur than an eight minute exposure on Earth. Because of this, most photographs from the ISS either have blurry stars or only capture the brightest stars.
Don Pettit’s Homemade Orbital Sidereal Tracker. Credit: Don PettitIdeally, an astronaut astrophotographer would bring along a camera mount similar to the ones used on Earth. But the market demand for such a mount is tiny, so you can’t just buy one from your local camera store. You have to make your own, which is precisely what astronaut Don Pettit did. Working with colleagues from RIT, he created a camera tracker that shifts by 0.064 degrees per second and can be adjusted give or take 5%. With this mount, Don has been able to capture 30-second exposures with almost no motion blur. His images rival some of the best Earth-based images, but he takes them from space!
The detail of his photographs is unprecedented. In the image above, for example, you can see the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds, and not just as fuzzy patches in the sky. You can see individual stars within the clouds. The image also gives an excellent view of an effect known as airglow. Molecules in the upper atmosphere are ionized by sunlight and cosmic rays, which means this layer always has a faint glow to it. No matter how skilled a terrestrial astrophotographer is, their images will always have a bit of this glow.
Airglow from different molecules in the upper atmosphere. Credit: NASA/annotations by Alex RivestBut not Don Pettit. He’s currently on the ISS, capturing outstanding photographs as a side hobby from his day job. If you want to see more of his work, check him out on Reddit, where he posts under the username astro_pettit.
The post Astronaut Don Pettit is Serious, He Rigged up Astrophotography Gear on the ISS appeared first on Universe Today.