Part 5

Astronomers have invented a most ingenious device for making sure that the telescope's aim can be brought back again to the same point with great exactness. This is a very important matter; for the slightest disturbance of the plate before the second or subsequent portions of the exposure would ruin everything. Instead of a very complete single picture, we should have two partial ones mixed up together in inextricable confusion.

To prevent this, photographic telescopes are made double, not altogether unlike an opera-glass. One of the tubes is arranged for photography proper, while the other is fitted with lenses suitable for an ordinary visual telescope. The two tubes are made parallel. Thus the astronomer, by looking through the visual glass, can watch objects in the heavens even while they are being photographed. The visual half of the instrument is provided with a pair of very fine cross-wires movable at will in the field of view. These can be made to bisect some little star exactly, before beginning the first night's work. Afterward, everything about the instrument having been left unchanged, the astronomer can always assure himself of coming back to precisely the same point of the sky, by so adjusting the instrument that the same little star is again bisected.

It must not be supposed, however, that the entire instrument remains unmoved, even during the whole of a single night's exposure. For in that case, the apparent motion of the stars as they rise or set in the sky would speedily carry them out of the telescope's field of view. Consequently, this motion has to be counteracted by shifting the telescope so as to follow the stars. This can be accomplished accurately and automatically by means of clock-work mechanism. Such contrivances have already been applied in the past to visual telescopes, because even then they facilitated the observer's work. They save him the trouble of turning his instrument every few minutes, and allow him to give his undivided attention to the actual business of observation.

For photographic purposes the telescope needs to "follow" the stars far more accurately than in the older kind of observing with the eye. Nor is it possible to make a clock that will drive the instrument satisfactorily and quite automatically. But by means of the second or visual telescope, astronomers can always ascertain whether the clock is working correctly at any given moment. It requires only a glance at the little star bisected by the cross-wires, and, if there has been the slightest imperfection in the following by clock-work, the star will no longer be cut exactly by the wires.

The astronomer can at once correct any error by putting in operation a very ingenious mechanical device sometimes called a "mouse-control." He need only touch an electric button, and a signal is sent into the clock-work. Instantly there is a shifting of the mechanism. For one of the regular driving wheels is substituted, temporarily, another having an _extra tooth_. This makes the clock run a little faster so long as the electric current passes. In a similar way, by means of another button, the clock can be made to run slower temporarily. Thus by watching the cross-wires continuously, and manipulating his two electric buttons, the photographic astronomer can compel his telescope to follow exactly the object under observation, and he can make certain of obtaining a perfect negative.

These long-exposure plates are intended especially for what may be called descriptive astronomy. With them, as we have seen, advantage is taken of cumulative light-effects on the sensitive plate, and the telescope's light-gathering and space-penetrating powers are vastly increased. We are enabled to carry our researches far beyond the confines of the old visible universe. Extremely faint objects can be recorded, even down to their minutest details, with a fidelity unknown to older visual methods. But at present we intend to consider principally applications of photography in the astronomy of measurement, rather than the descriptive branch of our subject. Instead of describing pictures made simply to see what certain objects look like in the sky, we shall consider negatives intended for precise measurement, with all that the word precision implies in celestial science.

Taking up first the photography of stars, we must begin by mentioning the work of Rutherfurd at New York. More than thirty years ago he had so far perfected methods of stellar photography that he was able to secure excellent pictures of stars as faint as the ninth magnitude. In those days the modern process of dry-plate photography had not been invented. To-day, plates exposed in the photographic telescope are made of glass covered with a perfectly dry film of sensitized gelatine. But in the old wet-plate process the sensitive film was first wetted with a chemical solution; and this solution could not be allowed to dry during the exposure. Consequently, Rutherfurd was limited to exposures a few minutes in length, while nowadays, as we have said, their duration can be prolonged at will.

When we add to this the fact that the old plates were far less sensitive to light than those now available, it is easy to see what were the difficulties in the way of photographing faint stars in Rutherfurd's time. Nor did he possess the modern ingenious device of a combined visual and photographic instrument. He had no electric controlling apparatus. In fact, the younger generation of astronomers can form no adequate idea of the patience and personal skill Rutherfurd must have had at his command. For he certainly did produce negatives that are but little inferior to the best that can be made to-day. His only limitation was that he could not obtain images of stars much below the ninth magnitude.

To understand just what is meant here by the ninth magnitude, it is necessary to go back in imagination to the time of Hipparchus, the father of sidereal astronomy. (See page 39.) He adopted the convenient plan of dividing all the stars visible to the naked eye (of course, he had no telescope) into six classes, according to their brilliancy. The faintest visible stars were put in the sixth class, and all the others were assigned somewhat arbitrarily to one or the other of the brighter classes.

Modern astronomers have devised a more scientific system, which has been made to conform very nearly to that of Hipparchus, just as it has come down to us through the ages. We have adopted a certain arbitrary degree of luminosity as the standard "first-magnitude"; compared with sunlight, this may be represented roughly by a fraction of which the numerator is 1, and the denominator about eighty thousand millions. The standard second-magnitude star is one whose light, compared with a first-magnitude, may be represented approximately by the fraction ⅖. The third magnitude, in turn, may be compared with the second by the same fraction ⅖; and so the classification is extended to magnitudes below those visible to the unaided eye. Each magnitude compares with the one above it, as the light of two candles would compare with the light of five.

Rutherfurd did not stop with mere photographs. He realized very clearly the obvious truth that by making a picture of the sky we simply change the scene of our operations. Upon the photograph we can measure that which we might have studied directly in the heavens; but so long as they remain unmeasured, celestial pictures have a potential value only. Locked within them may lie hidden some secret of our universe. But it will not come forth unsought. Patient effort must precede discovery, in photography, as elsewhere in science. There is no royal road. Rutherfurd devised an elaborate measuring-machine in which his photographs could be examined under the microscope with the most minute exactness. With this machine he measured a large number of his pictures; and it has been shown quite recently that the results obtained from them are comparable in accuracy with those coming from the most highly accredited methods of direct eye-observation.

And photographs are far superior in ease of manipulation. Convenient day-observing under the microscope in a comfortable astronomical laboratory is substituted for all the discomforts of a midnight vigil under the stars. The work of measurement can proceed in all weathers, whereas formerly it was limited strictly to perfectly clear nights. Lastly, the negatives form a permanent record, to which we can always return to correct errors or re-examine doubtful points.

Rutherfurd's stellar work extended down to about 1877, and included especially parallax determinations and the photography of star-clusters. Each of these subjects is receiving close attention from later investigators, and, therefore, merits brief mention here. Stellar parallax is in one sense but another name for stellar distance. Its measurement has been one of the important problems of astronomy for centuries, ever since men recognized that the Copernican theory of our universe requires the determination of stellar distances for its complete demonstration.

If the earth is swinging around the sun once a year in a mighty path or orbit, there must be changes of its position in space comparable in size with the orbit itself. And the stars ought to shift their apparent places on the sky to correspond with these changes in the terrestrial observer's position. The phenomenon is analogous to what occurs when we look out of a room, first through one window, and then through another. Any object on the opposite side of the street will be seen in a changed direction, on account of the observer's having shifted his position from one window to the other. If the object seemed to be due north when seen from the first window, it will, perhaps, appear a little east of north from the other. But this change of direction will be comparatively small, if the object under observation is very far away, in comparison with the distance between the two windows.

This is what occurs with the stars. The earth's orbit, vast as it is, shrinks into almost absolute insignificance when compared with the profound distances by which we are sundered from even the nearest fixed stars. Consequently, the shifting of their positions is also very small--so small as to be near the extreme limit separating that which is measurable from that which is beyond human ken.

Photography lends itself most readily to a study of this matter. Suppose a certain star is suspected of "having a parallax." In other words, we have reason to believe it near enough to admit of a successful measurement of distance. Perhaps it is a very bright star; and, other things being equal, it is probably fair to assume that brightness signifies nearness. And astronomers have certain other indications of proximity that guide them in the selection of proper objects for investigation, though such evidence, of course, never takes the place of actual measurement.

The star under examination is sure to have near it on the sky a number of stars so very small that we may safely take them to be immeasurably far away. The parallax star is among them, but not of them. We see it projected upon the background of the heavens, though it may in reality be quite near us, astronomically speaking. If this is really so, and the star, therefore, subject to the slight parallactic shifting already mentioned, we can detect it by noting the suspected star's position among the surrounding small stars. For these, being immeasurably remote, will remain unchanged, within the limits of our powers of observation, and thus serve as points of reference for marking the apparent shifting of the brighter star we are actually considering.

We have merely to photograph the region at various seasons of the year. Careful examination of the photographs under the microscope will then enable us to measure the slightest displacement of the parallax star. From these measures, by a process of calculation, astronomers can then obtain the star's distance. It will not become known in miles; we shall only ascertain how many times the distance between the earth and sun would have to be laid down like a measuring-rod, in order to cover the space separating us from the star: and the subsequent evaluation of this distance "earth to sun" in miles is another important problem in whose solution photography promises to be most useful.

The above method of measuring stellar distance is, of course, subject to whatever slight uncertainty arises from the assumption that the small stars used for comparison are themselves beyond the possibility of parallactic shifting. But astronomy possesses no better method. Moreover, the number of small stars used in this way is, of course, much larger in photography than it ever can be in visual work. In the former process, all surrounding stars can be photographed at once; in the latter each star must be measured separately, and daylight soon intervenes to impose a limit on numbers. Usually only two can be used; so that here photography has a most important advantage. It minimizes the chance of our parallax being rendered erroneous, by the stars of comparison not being really infinitely remote. This might happen, perhaps, in the case of one or two; but with an average result from a large number we know it to be practically impossible.

Cluster work is not altogether unlike "parallax hunting" in its preliminary stage of securing the photographic observations. The object is to obtain an absolutely faithful picture of a star group, just as it exists in the sky. We have every reason to suppose that a very large number of stars condensed into one small spot upon the heavens means something more than chance aggregation. The Pleiades group (page 10) contains thousands of massive stars, doubtless held together by the force of their mutual gravitational attraction. If this be true, there must be complex orbital motion in the cluster; and, as time goes on, we should actually see the separate components change their relative positions, as it were, before our eyes. The details of such motion upon the great scale of cosmic space offer one of the many problems that make astronomy the grandest of human sciences.

We have said that time must pass before we can see these things; there may be centuries of waiting. But one way exists to hurry on the perfection of our knowledge; we must increase the precision of observations. Motions that would need the growth of centuries to become visible to the older astronomical appliances, might yield in a few decades to more delicate observational processes. Here photography is most promising. Having once obtained a surpassingly accurate picture of a star-cluster, we can subject it easily to precise microscopic measurement. The same operations repeated at a later date will enable us to compare the two series of measures, and thus ascertain the motions that may have occurred in the interval. The Rutherfurd photographs furnish a veritable mine of information in researches of this kind; for they antedate all other celestial photographs of precision by at least a quarter-century, and bring just so much nearer the time when definite knowledge shall replace information based on reasoning from probabilities.

Rutherfurd's methods showed the advantages of photography as applied to individual star-clusters. It required only the attention of some astronomer disposing of large observational facilities, and accustomed to operations upon a great scale, to apply similar methods throughout the whole heavens. In the year 1882 a bright comet was very conspicuous in the southern heavens. It was extensively observed from the southern hemisphere, and especially at the British Royal Observatory at the Cape of Good Hope.

Gill, director of that institution, conceived the idea that this comet might be bright enough to photograph. At that time, comet photography had been attempted but little, if at all, and it was by no means sure that the experiment would be successful. Nor was Gill well acquainted with the work of Rutherfurd; for the best results of that astronomer had lain dormant many years. He was one of those men with whom personal modesty amounts to a fault. Loath to put himself forward in any way, and disliking to rush into print, Rutherfurd had given but little publicity to his work. This peculiarity has, doubtless, delayed his just reputation; but he will lose nothing in the end from a brief postponement. Gill must, however, be credited with more penetration than would be his due if Rutherfurd had made it possible for others to know that he had anticipated many of the newer ideas.

However this may be, the comet was photographed with the help of a local portrait photographer named Allis. When Gill and Allis fastened a simple portrait camera belonging to the latter upon the tube of one of the Cape telescopes, and pointed it at the great comet, they little thought the experiment would lead to one of the greatest astronomical works ever attempted by men. Yet this was destined to occur. The negative they obtained showed an excellent picture of the comet; but what was more important for the future of sidereal astronomy, it was also quite thickly dotted with little black points corresponding to stars. The extraordinary ease with which the whole heavens could be thus charted photographically was brought home to Gill as never before. It was this comet picture that interested him in the application of photography to star-charting; and without his interest the now famous astro-photographic catalogue of the heavens would probably never have been made.

After considerable preliminary correspondence, a congress of astronomers was finally called to meet at Paris in 1887. Representatives of the principal observatories and civilized governments were present. They decided that the end of the nineteenth century should see the making of a great catalogue of all the stars in the sky, upon a scale of completeness and precision surpassing anything previously attempted. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of such a work; for upon our star-catalogues depends ultimately the entire structure of astronomical science.

The work was far too vast for the powers of any observatory alone. Therefore, the whole sky, from pole to pole, was divided into eighteen belts or zones of approximately equal area; and each of these was assigned to a single observatory to be photographed. A series of telescopes was specially constructed, so that every part of the work should be done with the same type of instrument. As far as possible, an attempt was made to secure uniformity of methods, and particularly a uniform scale of precision. To cover the entire sky upon the plan proposed no less than 44,108 negatives are required; and most of these have now been finished. The further measurement of the pictures and the drawing up of a vast printed star-catalogue are also well under way. One of the participating observatories, that at Potsdam, Germany, has published the first volume of its part of the catalogue. It is estimated that this observatory alone will require twenty quarto volumes to contain merely the final results of its work on the catalogue. Altogether not less than two million stars will find a place in this, our latest directory of the heavens.

Such wholesale methods of attacking problems of observational astronomy are particularly characteristic of photography. The great catalogue is, perhaps, the best illustration of this tendency; but of scarcely smaller interest, though less important in reality, is the photographic method of dealing with minor planets. We have already said (page 63) that in the space between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter several hundred small bodies are moving around the sun in ordinary planetary orbits. These bodies are called asteroids, or minor planets. The visual method of discovering unknown members of this group was painfully tedious; but photography has changed matters completely, and has added immensely to our knowledge of the asteroids.

Wolf, of Heidelberg, first made use of the new process for minor-planet discovery. His method is sufficiently ingenious to deserve brief mention again. A photograph of a suitable region of the sky was made with an exposure lasting two or three hours. Throughout all this time the instrument was manipulated so as to follow the motion of the heavens in the way we have already explained, so that each star would appear on the negative as a small, round, black dot.

But if a minor planet happened to be in the region covered by the plate, its photographic image would be very different. For the orbital motion of the planet about the sun would make it move a little among the stars even in the two or three hours during which the plate was exposed. This motion would be faithfully reproduced in the picture, so that the planet would appear as a short curved line rather than a well-defined dot like a star. Thus the presence of such a line-image infallibly denotes an asteroid.

Subsequent calculations are necessary to ascertain whether the object is a planet already known or a genuine new discovery. Wolf, and others using his method in recent years, have made immense additions to our catalogue of asteroids. Indeed, the matter was beginning to lose interest on account of the frequency and sameness of these discoveries, when the astronomical world was startled by the finding of the Planet of 1898. (Page 58.)

On August 27, 1898, Witt, of Berlin, discovered the small body that bears the number "433" in the list of minor planets, and has received the name Eros. Its important peculiarity consists in the exceptional position of the orbit. While all the other asteroids are farther from the sun than Mars, and less distant than Jupiter, Eros can pass within the orbit of the former. At times, therefore, it will approach our earth more closely than any other permanent member of the solar system, excepting our own moon. So it is, in a sense, our nearest neighbor; and this fact alone makes it the most interesting of all the minor planets. The nineteenth century was opened by Piazzi's well-known discovery of the first of these bodies (page 59); it is, therefore, fitting that we should find the most important one at its close. We are almost certain that it will be possible to make use of Eros to solve with unprecedented accuracy the most important problem in all astronomy. This is the determination of our earth's distance from the sun. When considering stellar parallax, we have seen how our observations enable us to measure some of the stars' distances in terms of the distance "earth to sun" as a unit. It is, indeed, the fundamental unit for all astronomical measures, and its exact evaluation has always been considered the basal problem of astronomy. Astronomers know it as the problem of Solar Parallax.

We shall not here enter into the somewhat intricate details of this subject, however interesting they may be. The problem offers difficulties somewhat analogous to those confronting a surveyor who has to determine the distance of some inaccessible terrestrial point. To do this, it is necessary first to measure a "base-line," as we call it. Then the measurement of angles with a theodolite will make it possible to deduce the required distance of the inaccessible point by a process of calculation. To insure accuracy, however, as every surveyor knows, the base-line must be made long enough; and this is precisely what is impossible in the case of the solar parallax.