July 17, 2014 4:00 AM EDT

Correction appended, July, 17.

The poet James Fenton said, “One does not become a guru by accident.” Such is the case with NASA astronaut Donald Pettit, arguably the guru of photography when it comes to making pictures from the International Space Station (ISS). Pettit, who holds a doctorate in Chemical Engineering, has made three visits to the ISS since 2002, spending a total of 370 days in space. His enthusiasm for every challenge he approaches — both as an astronaut and as an image maker — is as infectious as his intelligence is intimidating (if you haven’t seen this video of Pettit fashioning a didgeridoo out of vacuum hoses on the Space Station, pause and watch it now). TIME speaks with Pettit, who shares his insights into what astronauts face when they make pictures from the ISS, some of the mad-genius solutions he came up with during his time there, and his mind-bending thoughts on the implications of photographs taken in space.


Mia Tramz: Could you describe what kind of background you had with photography before you went up to the International Space Station?

Donald Pettit: I’m always an amateur at photography, but I’ve been doing it since I was in the sixth grade. I started off with a Kodak Brownie. I could only afford to do black-and-white, and I developed all my own film and did my own darkroom work. And so I’ve been doing photography as an avid amateur ever since, and I tend to bring photography into whatever technical discipline I’m doing, whether it’s high-speed photography when I was an undergraduate; photomicroscopy; macrophotography; and amateur astronomy stuff. Photography has [always ]been a central part of my life and my career.

Who needs high-powered publicists when you're the most influential woman in the world? On Wednesday morning Beyoncé employed her usual public relations strategy — subtly settling rumors on social media — when she uploaded four happy photos of her and younger sister Solange, who was seen punching and kicking Jay Z in leaked security footage from a Met Gala after party. All is well with the Knowles sisters, the photos seem to say — nothing to see here. Except, of course, that Beyonce notoriously exerts tight control of her public image (hello, Beyoncé archive!), so she prefers to squash rumors without actually acknowledging that said rumors even exist in the first place. But when the singer uploads four photos the day after Solange seemed to delete her own Instagram photo of her and Beyoncé from the Met Gala, the Beygenda couldn't be more obvious. Your move, Solange. [protected-iframe id="0f3c338da1944dcb30370b0aa21bb8f7-1359921-63983260" info="//instagram.com/p/n-VtzLPw-8/embed/" width="612" height="710" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"]
Donald Pettit—NASA

MT: TIME actually just got to do a video-chat with Reid Wiseman, Steve Swanson and Alexander Gerst on the ISS last week. Have they come to you and asked for any advice on how to photograph from the Space Station?

DP: I’ve been corresponding with them via email to help them set up some photo situations. One of my ground jobs right now is to write a technical report on photography in space. My working title is Astronauts’ Guide to Photography in Space. It’s written for astronauts, so it basically assumes that if I’m talking about going into the PMA and doing something that you know what the PMA is. It’ll probably be 50 pages. It doesn’t say anything about how to use the cameras, it assumes that you know how to use our Nikon D3S’s and D4’s. It just tells you how you should be setting the camera up for different situations.

For example, matrix metering works great down here on Earth, but when you are in space and say you’re taking an oblique picture of Earth where about half the frame is just jet black space and the other half of the frame is bright Earth, matrix metering may not do the best job.

[Or] say you have a visiting vehicle coming up — maybe it’s a European cargo vehicle or a Japanese unmanned cargo vehicle, or maybe one of the American cargo vehicles like Dragon or Cygnus — and as they approach you want to get pictures. But you’ve got this little spot of white surrounded by inky blackness, and again, if you just use standard matrix metering it isn’t going to work. Because you’re in this unusual environment… You have to use some photographic skills to get the good pictures.

MT: In what ways are light and shadows different when you’re photographing on the Space Station?

DP: Actually very good question. Exo-atmospheric is really, really bright. You know the sunny 16 rule, which is F16 at one over the ISO for a shutter speed? If you follow that rule, you basically can’t go wrong for standing outside in the summertime with a nice sunlit scene. The sunny 16 rule applies to being in orbit, but you have to stop down two more stops because it’s a lot brighter. So that’s an example: Being exo-atmospheric, the sun is a lot brighter.

A long exposure picture shows scorched earth burned in the path of the Bernardo Fire in North San Diego Count on May 13, 2014.
Courtesy of Donald Pettit

Shadows on Earth are moderated by the atmosphere. Shadows on pieces of your spacecraft — say you want to take a picture of the truss system or another module or something like that — are really, really stark because there’s no atmosphere in which to make scattering and kind of fill in some gray area in the shadow. It’s either jet-jet black or really, really bright. If you’re taking pictures of spacecraft structure outside, either through a window or when you’re doing a space walk, it’s a high dynamic range environment.

MT: So before you ever went up to the Space Station for the first time, how did you prepare for all of this? Was there some kind of training?

DP: We have a group, we call it Photo TV Crew Training and Flight Support here. They support all the photographic needs for crew in training and crew on orbit. We’ve got some really sharp people. A good portion of them are IT graduates [from the] Rochester Institute of Technology. They teach us how to use these complicated professional level cameras. And when we run into issues, like junk all over the sensor, they walk us through how to clean them and things like that. They’ve got a standard profile for training us, and everybody goes through that, which gets you prepared for when you’re on orbit. And then once you do show up on orbit, you have to figure some things out for yourself, of course.

MT: What was the most surprising thing that you weren’t expecting in regards to photography when you got up to the Space Station?

DP: How quickly the Earth goes by. Say you want to get a good picture of some spot on the ground — maybe you want to get a picture of the Eiffel Tower, the Pyramids, or your hometown. If you don’t have everything set up you’ll miss the shot. You have 10 to 15 seconds of prime time being over that site to get your picture.

Generally speaking we don’t turn any of the cameras off [on the Space Station]. We don’t put lens caps on. The cameras that are staged next to the window [of the cupola] are just set up ready to go. And we’ll have one camera with a 200 millimeter telephoto lens, and another camera with a 14 millimeter wide angle lens, and we’ll have three or four cameras set up in between, because when you’re taking pictures you don’t have time to change lenses. So you just grab one camera, go click click click set it down, grab another camera, click click click, grab another camera, click click click. And there’s your 10-second window to get a picture of your hometown or the Pyramids.

If you’re in the process of doing this and you grab a camera and somebody before you had either put the lens cap on or turned the camera off, and you were expecting it to be set up ready to go — if you grab the camera and go, “Unh!” and nothing happens, and you stop and you look — “Oh, it’s turned off.” And then — “Oh, the lens cap’s on.” By the time you deal with that, your target is gone.

MT: How many cameras are kept in the cupola?

DP: We keep about eight cameras. And they’re all set up a little differently. Some of them are set up for nighttime, aurora, and other kinds of photography, some of them are set up for high-speed daytime photography with long telephoto lenses, and some of them are set up with extreme wide-angle lenses to get daytime wide-angle obliques of Earth and space and everything in between.

A posthumous Michael Jackson album that tasks today's top beatsmiths with bringing the King of Pop into the 21st century could easily have ended in disaster, as such ambitious projects often do. But the newly released Xscape largely avoids that fate thanks to songs like the Justin Timberlake-assisted "Love Never Felt So Good," an update of an old 1983 cut. The track hits the "Get Lucky" disco-revival sweet spot by blending Jackson's signature styles with Timberlake's polished 20/20 Experience sound, though the Timberlake-Jackson ratio is more 60-40 in this version. The track's music video, which premiered today, celebrates the successful collaboration in the most appropriate way: a dance tribute. [protected-iframe id="670a030728f64becf02541e1414f9d80-1359921-63983260" info="http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/index.php/kwidget/wid/1_pmn543i3/uiconf_id/6995152" width="480" height="316"]
Courtesy of Donald Pettit

MT: So I’ve seen some videos of you speaking about space photography and I was wondering if, for our readers, you could explain what a barn door tracker is and how that applies to the rig that you made on the Space Station.

DP: Okay. I’m an amateur astronomer, and amateur astronomers make this thing they call a barn door tracker. You take a couple hinges and two pieces of plywood and a bolt, and you hinge the two pieces of plywood on one side. You have the bolt going through so you can turn the bolt and change the angle between the hinges. And then you mount a camera on it, and if you orient this so the hinge line is pointing towards Polaris, by turning the bolt you will actually hinge the piece of plywood so it moves with Earth’s rotation. Then if you know what the thread pitch is on your bolt, and the little geometry of this, you might know that if I turn the bolt a half a revolution every 15 seconds that [it] will keep up with the Earth’s motion.

Now you put a camera on there. This is not for telescopes — this would be for wide field astro photography, where maybe you have an 80 millimeter lens on a 35 millimeter camera. You open the shutter and turn your little bolt a half a revolution every 15 seconds and that, you know, over the course of a 3- or 4-minute exposure, will basically compensate for Earth’s motion. And when you close the shutter you’ll have a picture where stars will be nice pinpoints. So that’s a barn door tracker. It’s a real simple, inexpensive thing that any amateur astronomer can make and take really good wide field astro photographs.

MT: And how did you apply that while you were on the Space Station?

DP: Well, I found spare parts and I basically made a barn door tracker to compensate for orbital motion so that while I was in space I could take pictures of Earth. This was at a time when we had cameras that the highest ISO was 400. To take pictures at night of Earth took a 1-second, maybe 1 1/2-second exposure. Orbital motion is so fast that if you just lock the camera on station and take a 1-second exposure it would be blurry. This barn door tracker allowed you to precisely track and compensate for orbital motion and make a 1-second-ish exposure, so you could record things like cities at night with up to 60-meter resolution.

If you've stopped going to Starbucks -- in an attempt to support local coffeehouses instead or to save money or because you're sick of it or whatever -- here's a reason to start going back. Just in time for summer, the folks over at Foodbeast have discovered three totally unadvertised frozen drinks you can order off the chain's secret menu. They all sound delicious and whimsical and totally indulgent. Here's how to order them: 1. Horchata Order a Tazo Chai Creme Frappuccino Add vanilla syrup, Cinnamon Dolce syrup and Chai syrup Add whipped cream and cinnamon as a topper 2. Orange creamsicle Order choice of milk Add Orange Mango or Valencia Orange Refresher Juice Add classic syrup and a creme base Add whipped cream 3. Cake pop Frappuccino Order Vanilla Bean Frappuccino Add cake pop (or two) blended
NASA

Now the European Space Agency made a really neat computer-based tracking system, and they call it Night Pod. Instead of using this jerry-rigged homemade thing, [they have] this piece of equipment that is really, really nice. That’s on Station now and if you’ve looked at some of the city at night pictures that are coming down from Station, they’re just amazing.

From the moment the two films were announced, Grace of Monaco and Diana were destined to draw comparisons to one another. Each film focuses on a compelling period in the private life of a high-profile royal — Princess Grace of Monaco and Diana, Princess of Wales. Each film even stars an Academy Award-winning Australian actress — real-life BFFs Nicole Kidman and Naomi Watts. But it was only after Thursday's premiere of Grace of Monaco, the opener at the Cannes Film Festival, that the two films became linked in infamy. When Diana was released last fall, it was immediately and viciously panned by critics. As TIME editor at large Catherine Mayer bluntly put it in her review,"The film is a royal mess." But Diana also gave reviewers a new benchmark of failure to which future royal biopics could be compared — and that benchmark hasn't served Grace well. In his TIME review, Richard Corliss wrote the film is "[o]ften silly but never vivacious" and it's "short on either insight or juice." Other reviewers were more vicious: The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw wrote, "It is a film so awe-inspiringly wooden that it is basically a fire-risk"; The Hollywood Reporter's Stephen Dalton asked, "Is it even possible to make a boring film out of this rich, juicy, gossipy material?" Ouch. While it's already apparent that both films — despite juicy subject matter, stunning settings and award winning actors — won't deliver on the hype, we broke down each movie to determine which royal really got the worst big-screen treatment. Director: Both films had well-known foreign directors attached, who had each previously garnered critical acclaim. Diana was helmed by German director Oliver Hirschbiegel, who is best known for Downfall, a 2004 film that depicts the final ten days of Adolf Hitler's reign over Nazi Germany in 1945. That film not only earned an Oscar nod for Best Foreign Film, it also became an internet supermeme when, years later, a scene from the film was co-opted for countless parodies. (We're sure there's a "Hitler hears about the Diana movie" parody out there somewhere.) Grace of Monaco was also helmed by a similarly auspicious director, Olivier Dahan. It was Dahan's La Vie en Rose — the 2007 film about the life of French singer Édith Piaf — that brought Marion Cotillard her 2008 Best Actress win at the Oscars, marking the first time an Academy Award had been awarded for a French-language role. Budget: Each film was repeatedly described as "lavish," which shouldn't come as a surprise considering their budgets. Though there's no official numbers for Diana's production budget, reports have put the number as high as $40 million. While that's not an exorbitant amount of money compared to the massive budgets afforded to Hollywood superhero films, Diana took in a paltry $21 million in box offices around the world, making it a verifiable flop. For its part, Grace was made on a marginally tighter budget, with a reported $30 million spent on production. Since the film hasn't received a theatrical release yet, there are no box office sales to calculate whether that figure will come close to being recouped. But considering the reviews, the film certainly isn't guaranteed to be a money-maker. Insider input: Perhaps not surprisingly, both projects were met with resistance from the real-life families and friends of the movies' subjects. Diana's sons Princes William and Harry refrained from commenting on the the film about their mother, while the princess's former lover, Dr. Hasnat Khan, was reportedly approached for input, but refused. He later told the press the film was, "based on gossip and Diana's friends talking about a relationship they didn't know much about." He added, "There's no way I am going to go anywhere near it, not now or ever." As for Grace, the late royal's children, Prince Albert II, Princess Caroline and Princess Stephanie, released a joint statement earlier this year saying their "numerous requests for changes" to the film's script had been ignored. The statement went on to denounce the project, saying: "the royal family wishes to stress that this film in no way constitutes a biopic. It recounts one rewritten and needlessly glamorized page in the history of Monaco and its family with both major historical inaccuracies and a series of purely fictional scenes." Post-premiere brouhaha: As Diana the woman continues to loom large in Britain's public imagination, it's hardly any surprise that U.K. critics were especially hard on Diana the film. It's likely that scathing reception was the impetus for the film's limited release in the U.S., where it appeared in a measly 38 theaters. But being barely seen stateside didn't prevent Naomi Watts from being nominated for a Razzie for her performance. When it comes to Grace, its post-premiere drama seems to be ongoing, as Dahan and U.S. distributor Harvey Weinstein are locked in a battle for final cut. The director has previously called Weinstein's cut “a pile of shit,” but as it was Dahan's cut that premiered at Cannes — and earned all the blistering press — it's unclear which cut will actually hit theaters in the U.S. Result: On paper, Diana and Grace of Monaco had everything going for them: prestigious directors, big-name stars, juicy subjects, lavish budgets and pre-release buzz. Yet the finest ingredients don't always make the best dish and, in this case, the public was left with two very unsavory choices. And though it's a close call, the combination of a festival opening flop, a public dispute over final cut, an official and royal denunciation, and marginally worse reviews lead us to believe that Grace of Monaco is the bigger cinematic train-wreck. (Though, of course, there's still the possibility that Grace of Monaco will prove critics wrong and be a hit at the box office, but we very much doubt it) Ultimately, it almost doesn't matter which princess picture was the bigger bomb: we all lose here.  
NASA (2)

MT: How did you develop the idea and the technique for your star trail photos?

DP: Well, again being an amateur astronomer, I’ve done star trail pictures on Earth, and it just seemed to me because I was there that I should do star trail pictures in space.

MT: Were you surprised with the results?

DP: Oh, yeah. You look at the star trail pictures [taken from Earth and] say, “Oh, I know all about that.” You see the stars going in a circle and they all go around Polaris and it’s like yada, yada, yada.

But then you look at the star trail pictures from orbit — the stars aren’t going around Polaris. They’re going around a pitch axis of the station, which is pointed off in a different direction. It’s tilted at the complement of 51.6 degrees. And then you [wonder], “What are all those streaky things on Earth?” Well, those are cities at night going by. And then you look at the atmosphere on the edge, and you say, “What’s this thing that looks like a slice of key lime pie?” And, “What’s this red glow on top of it?” And then you look at the stars as they streak through the atmosphere, you can see that the slope or the curve changes as the star gets deeper and deeper into the atmosphere, and you say, “What’s going on there?”

Well, the density of the atmosphere changes with height, and the refractive index proportional to the density. The lens is acting like a prism, and it’s bending light more as the star travels deeper into the atmosphere, so the curve of the path changes. The more you look at these pictures, the more natural phenomenology you see that is different than if you did the same thing on Earth.

June 12, 1944
Courtesy of Donald Pettit

Another thing that shows up in these pictures are thunderstorms. You see all these white dots on Earth. And then you realize that that’s one thunderstorm as a function of time because it’ll go flash and then orbital motion and Earth motion will move it to a new location, and then it’ll go flash again, and you can see cloud detail that’s consistent from flash to flash.

Editor’s note: Many fans and space photo enthusiasts have made videos using Pettit’s star trail images. See one of the best below created by cinematographer and friend of Pettit’s, Christoph Malin.

MT: Could you describe for our readers how exactly images get from the Space Station and back down to Earth.

DP: My first flight we had film. I was on Station when Columbia happened and our flight was extended for 5 1/2 months, and shuttles didn’t fly for another 2 1/2 years. That basically ended film. Fortunately the technology at that time was such that digital cameras were just coming into the point where they could take the place of film. So since 2003, we’ve done nothing but digital photography.

All the digital images come down through a high-speed data link. We call it Ku-band, and it’s basically in the gigahertz range. It’s a high bandwidth, a high data rate capability, and it goes through the TDRSS Satellite System, which is at geostationary orbit, and then back to the ground. We transmit all our video down and all our digital still imagery down via the TDRSS System.

MT: About how long does that take?

DP: At the time I was there, we could do about 50 megabits per second — and there’s a lot of other data that needs to go down so you can’t use that whole bandwidth just for imagery. When I was last there in 2012, we could get down about 100 gigabytes of images a day. I think it’s probably a factor of four or five times faster now because they did a big upgrade on the Ku-band capability since I flew.

MT: I’ve been working with TIME Senior Editor Jeffrey Kluger on various articles over here about space photography – from the Deep Space Network, to Earthrise, to the Apollo 15 mission. I was wondering from your perspective, what kind of impact do you think photography has on the space program, especially photography taken by astronauts. Is there a scientific element to it? Do you think it’s more historical? And in what ways do the photos astronauts take and share affect the space program?

DP: Actually it affects the space program in all of those ways. One, we are explorers, and we’re going off doing something that’s really unusual that most people can’t participate in themselves. Explorers [have always taken] pictures and always shared the adventures with people that stayed back home. We are doing the same thing. Part of the purpose is [also] to record engineering details in terms of how the spaceships and the spacecraft are operating and how the hardware is performing in space.

And then there’s a scientific aspect, particularly of the Earth observation photography. [The photos become] a scientific data set because we have pictures of, say, changes in the Amazon River over more than a decade now. These photographs augment the satellite database because a person taking a picture sees things that are different than what a satellite is programmed to take pictures of. Most satellites are programmed to be over certain areas at local noontime because the shadows make it so you can get better detail of the ground. Astronauts float over Earth at all different sun angles and all different shadow angles, and we’ll take pictures that show different things. I’ve got a classic set of pictures of New York City taken by satellites and New York City taken by astronauts. They show the same thing, but the detail is different because the shadow structure is different. Satellites are programmed for one thing and people are not programmed, so we’ll take pictures of other things.

Polar mesospheric clouds is [another] example of a natural phenomenology that’s easy to observe from orbit but difficult to see from Earth. If you consistently take pictures of these polar mesospheric clouds — or noctilucent clouds is another name — all of a sudden you develop a scientific database that could be useful. [Astronauts] get to see them on a different length scale than say a scientist on the ground recording messages of the noctilucent clouds.

Another interesting thing — a student at Portland State University in Portland, Oregon, Nathan Bergey — he’s a data analyst. He [downloaded] all the images from Space Station – at the time he did this, there was [something] like 1.2 million pictures taken from the ISS — and he just plotted their GPS coordinates on a map of the Earth. Some really fascinating things came out from that.

Netflix's share of the streaming video pie keeps rising, as the service now accounts for more than 34 percent of peak wired download traffic in North America. That's up from 31.6 percent in the second half of 2013, according to research firm Sandvine. No other web application comes close; YouTube was the nearest contender with 13.19 percent of downstream traffic. That bodes well for Netflix as the company prepares a price hike for new subscribers. Netflix's video dominance only applies to wired Internet -- YouTube is in the lead on North American mobile networks with 17.26 percent of traffic there, while Netflix's 4.55% puts it in eighth place. That makes sense, as you're probably not going to throw on an episode of House of Cards while you're in line for a sandwich. Netflix's growth parallels a general rise in data use among cord cutters, who have ditched expensive pay-TV packages for Internet-based video. U.S. cord cutters who say streaming is their primary form of entertainment are consuming about 212GB of data per month, seven times more than the average Internet user. Cord cutters are streaming 100 hours of video a month on average, taking up 53.9 percent of total traffic. These figures could be frightening for TV networks and providers, who are responding by offering their own Internet video packages, some of which may be cheaper than the bloated cable and satellite deals available now. And either way, there's a silver lining for these industries: File-sharing, which is typically associated with video and music piracy, has fallen to 8.3 percent of traffic, down from 31 percent six years ago.
Nathan Bergey

I like to use that as an example where there’s scientific value in this data set that even transcends what the images are. The fact that somebody took a picture at a certain point over Earth…in itself becomes scientific data.

MT: So the photos from the Space Station are in certain ways artistic, and in other ways they are raw data for anyone to work with.

DP: That’s right. [Bergey] started off with just a blank Earth, nothing on it except for the latitude and longitude coordinates. And then he put a dot for every time one of the 1.2 million pictures were taken, and you can see the outline of all the major continents.

And then there are holes. Like over Peru and over the Congo, you’ll see — well, there’s not many pictures. That’s because those two places are always cloudy, and after [an astronaut takes] a few pictures of the clouds, then you say, “I’m not going to take any more pictures of clouds.” Fascinating dynamics show up just because you’ve simply put a point on a blank page that matches the geographic location of every picture that’s been taken from the Space Station.

MT: And that’s some interpretation of data that then could make its way back to NASA and the astronauts that are currently on the Space Station, right?

DP: That, or somebody from a psychology or sociology point of view could analyze that data. Just the idea that there is value in the pictures that transcends their imagery — the fact that a human being thought that it was worthwhile to take a picture at this point on Earth — that information becomes an interesting data set.

MT: Thank you so much, Don. It was really a pleasure to talk to you, and thank you so much for taking the time.

DP: You know, photography is fun. Photography from space is even more fun. Anyway, I have to get back and finish writing. I’m about halfway through this Astronauts’ Guide to Photography in Space.

MT: Well, I’ll let you get back to it, and thank you again.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity

Correction: The original version of this story has been updated to clarify a quotation from Donald Pettit. His comments regarded “astro photography.”


Donald R. Pettit, Ph. D. is a NASA astronaut with a doctorate in Chemical Engineering. He was a staff scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico from 1984 to 1996. Selected by NASA in April 1996, Dr. Pettit reported to the Johnson Space Center in August 1996. A veteran of three spaceflights, Dr. Pettit has logged more than 370 days in space and over 13 EVA (spacewalk) hours. He lived aboard the International Space Station for 5-1/2 months during Expedition 6, was a member of the STS-126 crew, and again lived aboard the station for 6-1/2 months as part of the Expedition 30/31 crew. Follow him on Twitter @astro_Pettit.

Mia Tramz is an Associate Photo Editor for TIME.com. Follow her on Twitter @miatramz.


Write to Mia Tramz at mia.tramz@time.com.

EDIT POST