OpenAstroTracker: 3D printed, open source star tracker(openastrotech.com) |
OpenAstroTracker: 3D printed, open source star tracker(openastrotech.com) |
[0] https://garyseronik.com/build-a-hinge-tracker-for-astrophoto...
[1] https://www.astropix.com/bgda/sample2/sample2.html
[2] https://sites.google.com/view/emvilza/proyectos/star-tracker...
https://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/hands-on/diy-exoplanet-d...
Must. Not. Enter!
This wiki start page actually manages to explain what the thing does:
OpenAstroTracker is an equatorial mount which "compensates for Earth's rotation by having one rotational axis parallel to the Earth's axis of rotation". You can mount a camera (mostly a DLSR or DSLM) on top of it and it rotates with the same speed as our earth rotation in order to remove stars movement relatively to the camera and allow longer exposures this way. The mount is being controlled by an Arduino. The Arduino is controlling multiple stepper motors which in turn rotate the camera mount.
The mount provides multiple options for control: LCD Keypad, USB Serial connection, WiFi. Latter two enable remote control with special astrophotography software based either on the LX200 protocol, ASCOM or INDI platforms.
It’s very stylish but I just can’t see it.
Found this video linked from the github page you linked: https://youtu.be/9MNLAIyqGoA
Now that I can see it its clear that this is a very impressive mechanism!
I felt the same way though. Some of the shots, they used a background simulating a blurred out star field which was a tremendous improvement over the solid black, but still very difficult to see. I did like the red highlight, but still that background.
The astrotracker appears to be a bit bigger than what i'm looking for: A DIY alternative to the Omegon Mini Track LX2/LX3.
I’m always on the lookout for neat things to 3D print. The current title is deceiving in that you cannot fully 3D print the whole thing. It looks cool though!
[1]: https://wiki.openastrotech.com/OpenAstroTracker/ShoppingList
I say this as someone who uses "computerized" and EQ mounts, but I also assumed from the title that this was a completely 3D printable project (sans mirrors, I can print my own washers and bolts), which is way more exciting a prospect than having to buy or put together a fairly complex kit, just not all of it if you have a 3D printer.
I just 3D printed a custom IR CCD mount for my CST, but I'm very interested in adapting this to some of my designs, so thank you for sharing!
For example, the EQ6R Pro mount is a very popular and decent goto mount and it will set you back $1600. You will struggle to find any decent mounts for less than $1000.
$200 is EXTREMELY cheap.
However, this is not a fair comparison. In astrophotography, a primary consideration for the price point of a mount is its instrument weight capacity. The EQ6-R has a weight capacity of 44 lbs. This astrotracker has a capacity of 5.5lbs. The difference is, well, massive.
The EQ6-R also has other features, like a built-in polar scope and a periodic error correction. Mounts are also a lot like cars, in that some consumers purchase them for the level of support offered by the manufacturer, and perception of reliability.
With that said, I know I'm burying the lead and focusing on the wrong subject. $200 is very reasonable to get something that will probably provide very good initial results, and get that astrophotography addiction started. And I'm really happy this exists, at this price point.
I don't want to suggest the parent poster is really reinforcing this attitude, but in this hobby (and let me stress, it's a hobby), there is an occasional subtext that expensive gear is the only way to get great results. I don't think that's the case. You can spend as much as you want, of course, and money will let you do more things, but at the end of the day, we're just making sciencey art.
If you have a 3D printer and live in a country with decent hardware suppliers (not the case for me in Australia), then sure go ahead, DIY and save money. But for people who want an almost ready to go solution it's very well priced, considering commercial alternatives are well into 500+ for the feature set that this mount offers (GoTo, optional guiding down to 1" accuracy).
Not saying that's bad, just that my question is what makes this cost what it does. If it weren't justified, there'd be competitors doing it way cheaper (the field is accessible and large enough for that), so it's just a question out of curiosity.
You have to source all the parts, make sure they work together properly and assemble the kit.
I mean $200 isn't a lot of money for something you'd potentially get years and years of use out off.
So if I understand your comment correctly, it's the R&D (making sure all parts work together correctly) that decides the majority of the price here, not one of the actual components?
- Equatorial: follows star in one direction. Works best on lower stars since the move E-to-W mostly. Cheapest models start at $200 USD (MSM)
- Altazimuth (azimuth+altitude): follows the star in two directions. Can be used for stars higher in the sky. Models start at $400+
- Computer guided and GOTO: Use a secondary telescope to lock onto stars and counter small integration errors. GOTO means you can type a star by name into a computer and the mount will move to its location in the sky (based on a database of where the star is at that moment). These start at $1000+ and can easily be a lot more.
These systems are so expensive because they need to swing a typically very heavy telescope with a lot of precision. My mount (on the smaller end) is rated for 11lbs. Being off by 1 arcsecond (1/3600 degrees) at the distance of Alpha Centauri is an error of 200,000,000 km.
If this tracker can provide all these features + precision at $200, that’s a steal.
My original point was more along the lines of "if you think $200 for a mount is expensive in astrophotography then you will be very disappointed when you start learning about the hobby". I see this high ($$$) barrier of entry as a very real impediment to getting started in the hobby. But like you said, you don't need to go all in when starting, a decent DSLR and a tracking mount will provide countless hours of fun (and frustration!).
From your continued asking of the "why" question, it makes me wonder if you've ever tried to build a DIY anything yourself. Developing something like this involves a lot of the designer's literal blood, sweat, and tears. There are all sorts of levels of DIY from using 2x4s to machine precision accuracy. I will say, that precision is what astro is all about though. A seemingly innocent +/-1 degree accuracy will be okay-ish for something like wide-angle DSLR type shots, but once you start using longer lenses, you will be wasting your time.
This person is trying to have a discussion, you're trying to have an argument.
> Developing something like this involves a lot of the designer's literal blood, sweat, and tears
I retain a lot of water so I can see the sweat part. But I think blood and tears are an OSHA concern.
If you've never shed a tear over something so close but ultimately not working, then you must be a robot or souless. It's human nature. You could just as easily add and/or swap tears for curses. Personally, I lean toward the cursing as it's more satisfying.
Also: argue: intransitive verb: To put forth reasons for or against; debate.
The fact that this word immediately sets forth a hostile emotion for you does not mean I am being hostile.
I wouldn't do this for random internet people for less.
Add another 20 parts that you need to order from different place, make sure they meet the specifications, pay for shipping for a lot of different packages and that many things must be bought in bulk and not single pieces.
USD 200 is a bargain for this kit. Sure, you might be able to save a couple of dollars if you do the work yourself. But is that worth many hours of work, and the risk of ordering wrong stuff?
Like, pretty much every other product that wasn't an entirely new concept in the last few years? Looking around me, I think the thing with the highest R&D price component is probably the chips in computers (desktop, laptop, smartphones), everything else is just mass production and low markup with hardly any research recuperation in the price (keyboard, lamp, paper, desk, floor, beanbag, fridge, IR thermometer, picture frames, a spoon, a computer display...). Unless you meant "when is that not the case for astro trackers", I don't get what you meant because it's rather exceptional to still be paying off R&D if you're buying regular mass-produced consumer products.
> This is something that has been thought about,
Obviously, but if it's open source (with a free, commercial-use license and no big call for donations other than a coffee) then apparently recuperation that design time is not a goal, they're actively giving it away for free and encouraging people to make it themselves. That suggested to me that the price must be for an expensive component or two. Or perhaps the printing time, but since it's mostly unattended and filament is cheap, I didn't expect it to be that. And the tracking calculations have been long done by people decades ago, so it's just buying parts and putting them together, where the "putting together" part is done by the customer since it's a kit. So yeah I expected the price to be mostly an expensive precise motor or something.
R&D is everything in making of something. Just because someone else made it doesn't mean you get to start exactly where they left off (except in cases of open source where you get their literal plans). Even in wood working or any shop type of work, you often spend more time setting up things like jigs or other custom tooling than it takes to do the actual work. Is that supposed to be a sunk cost to the builder? No, it is part of how the builder arrives at the price of the final thing being built.
R&D cost is built in to everything you buy, otherwise the companies that make this stuff wouldn’t be profitable. The amount of per unit R&D markup for, say, a thermometer just isn’t as high due to its relatively low complexity and huge number of units sold. This thing is niche and not going to sell that many units.
And if people regularly bleed and cry at my workplace then I think it's reasonable to call that a toxic environment.
Since definitions of terms and semantics are now a part of this Internet conversation, I think we're done here. You can reply once more and have the last word, if you like. :)
We could have given someone a warm welcome to the hobby by clarifying that politely.
I know when I was getting started, I didn't know what made some things more expensive than others. I didn't know about doublet or triplet refractors, Strehl ratios, Chroma vs ZWO filters, why a MACH2 is such a grail mount over a Optron CEM120. Luckily I had nice, friendly, helpful people to talk to, instead of a wall of arrogance.
If this was Cloudy Skies or some similar site dedicated to the hobby subject matter, then sure, let's hold someone's hand while they decide to make expensive decisions.
HN is not that. It is, as the name applies, a place where tinkerers in any hobby gather. As someone that hacks/tinkers/plays/circumvents/etc, it is clear that research is step 1, 2 & 3.
Their questions are sincere. Your comparison to the M1 is not appropriate, and you're not actually paying attention to what they wrote.
They wrote that they are surprised that R&D makes up the majority of the cost, since this is an open source project. This is a fairly non-obvious feature of open source company business models. They give away the product, and its designs, for free, and solicit community collaboration. But it's usually complex or cumbersome to operationalize or build, so they then sell a set of services or pre-builds around it. Datastax and Confluent are two examples of this in the OSS domain.
Woodworkers don't market their plans as open source, put them on Github, and accept pull requests.
Don't create arrogant, sarcastic responses to sincere questions. It devalues this forum, and it's a bad look.
I am as equally as surprised by their surprise about how much R&D is involved in making a "simple" lamp. Someone had to draw the plans so that the metal/plastic could be formed/shaped into the lamp. The parts had to be researched on what could suffice and be safe. Some person didn't just go "i want to make a lamp" and a lamp was created (unless they had Aladdin's lamp first). Research can be as simple as internet searching on parts, but that is still research even if people with PhDs and white lab coats were not involved. The design is still necessary in getting the lamp to a shape that is aesthetically pleasing enough for someone to want to buy it.
>Woodworkers don't market their plans as open source, put them on Github, and accept pull requests.
That's not true in the spirit to the point you are making. There are plenty of websites where wood workers offer their plans/drawings/instructions, and then allow comments where people that followed their plans made modifications. So yes, they don't necessarily use Git and PRs, but the concept is there nonetheless. Same with cooking/baking/etc.
> I'm not sure why you're so hostile to the GP. >Don't create arrogant, sarcastic responses to sincere questions. It devalues this forum, and it's a bad look.
You're reading into the comment an emotion that did not exist when the message was sent. If you read hostility, then that's no what I was trying to infer.
I think your surprise is justified, especially since you've been in this world for a while. But I think there is an apparent (but not real) contradiction between offering designs for free so people can go and build something themselves, and then charging money for R&D. This is what is meant by the term trade secret.
re: Woodworkers and co -- sometimes. Room & Board doesn't share their designs. Tartine Manufactory probably has a cookbook.
> You're reading into the comment an emotion that did not exist when the message was sent. If you read hostility, then that's no what I was trying to infer.
I'm genuinely really happy that this is not the intent. Challenging phrases and Socratic questioning can really come off as hostile.
I think this is an entire new thread that could be expanded upon. This is how I was taught. Never given the answer directly, but by being asked another question designed to create further thought on how to answer the orginal question. If being offered a way for more critical thinking is considered hostile, then I weep for future generations.