Discussion
http://stellarium.org
https://stargazerslounge.com
http://www.heavens-above.com/main.aspx
FOC.
Correct alignment is very important. Not looked at what yours can do but practice finding your way around the constellations, star hop etc to look for stuff. Light pollution may or may not hinder. The moon is an excellent thing to observe, check out Saturn and Jupiter when they are visible, Mars is a blob no matter what you look at it with....
https://stargazerslounge.com
http://www.heavens-above.com/main.aspx
FOC.
Correct alignment is very important. Not looked at what yours can do but practice finding your way around the constellations, star hop etc to look for stuff. Light pollution may or may not hinder. The moon is an excellent thing to observe, check out Saturn and Jupiter when they are visible, Mars is a blob no matter what you look at it with....
Edited by jmorgan on Wednesday 27th December 15:54
You can get street light filters etc. But the first time you look at Saturn, it is superb, and seeing the Galilean moons pin sharp is spine tingling (not due up for a few months).
Even with the local light pollution here it is great when you can see different coloured stars as distinct colours.
There are also dark sky sites, pack it away and drive out somewhere. On my list to do.
BTW, for the OP, best add on I bought was a red dot finder to replace the finder scope. Personal thing, but I find it easier to to spot my way around the sky.
Also, let the scope cool down outside for a while, reduce shimmer from cooling optics. And the Moon is bright. Obviously, but it can hurt after a short while so a moon filter will not go amiss. And when you start observing planets, be prepared to move with them, why it is important to set up orientation (depended on the mount)
Even with the local light pollution here it is great when you can see different coloured stars as distinct colours.
There are also dark sky sites, pack it away and drive out somewhere. On my list to do.
BTW, for the OP, best add on I bought was a red dot finder to replace the finder scope. Personal thing, but I find it easier to to spot my way around the sky.
Also, let the scope cool down outside for a while, reduce shimmer from cooling optics. And the Moon is bright. Obviously, but it can hurt after a short while so a moon filter will not go amiss. And when you start observing planets, be prepared to move with them, why it is important to set up orientation (depended on the mount)
Edited by jmorgan on Wednesday 27th December 16:48
thanks for the tips.
it was pretty clear last night in Leeds but we managed to get the moon in focus on a 22mm eye piece without the 3x Barlow - it looked amazing.
the knack appears to be trial and error to begin with - moving the scope is fine but it has a tiny settling movement which takes objects out of view - from what I've read this might be due to the equatorial mount? well I'll keep reading up and learn as I go.
- I'll be taking it out in the daytime tomorrow to align the sight scope. the LP isn't too bad where I am as I can shield from immediate street lighting quite easily but I appreciate it can be a problem.
I'm looking forward to seeing the planets of course and looking at Orion which is prominent - or was last night.
thanks again
it was pretty clear last night in Leeds but we managed to get the moon in focus on a 22mm eye piece without the 3x Barlow - it looked amazing.
the knack appears to be trial and error to begin with - moving the scope is fine but it has a tiny settling movement which takes objects out of view - from what I've read this might be due to the equatorial mount? well I'll keep reading up and learn as I go.
- I'll be taking it out in the daytime tomorrow to align the sight scope. the LP isn't too bad where I am as I can shield from immediate street lighting quite easily but I appreciate it can be a problem.
I'm looking forward to seeing the planets of course and looking at Orion which is prominent - or was last night.
thanks again
Equatorial mount?
Easy to set up. There should be a marker on the legs to point north and set the latitude. Then tracking should be one adjuster.
http://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/astronomy-how-se...
Easy to set up. There should be a marker on the legs to point north and set the latitude. Then tracking should be one adjuster.
http://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/astronomy-how-se...
noted thanks - i wasn't even considering looking at the sun for observation purposes, the moon was incredibly bright last night too more than I excpected.
i think I have the mount set up correctly it's vertical movement once positioned that seems to be the issue - the RA and Dec adjusters are too close together so I think i will need to remount.
when you say north do you mean pole star north or magnetic?
i think I have the mount set up correctly it's vertical movement once positioned that seems to be the issue - the RA and Dec adjusters are too close together so I think i will need to remount.
when you say north do you mean pole star north or magnetic?
Three Norths we use on earth but there is also the polar alignment. The equatorial mount is meant to mimic the movement of the heavens over us making it easier to move the mount. But true Noryh we need, the imaginary pole through the Earth that we rotate on.
However when I am messing I use true north, so magnetic variance needs to be understood, I assume that is not an issue? In theory there is an imaginary line through my mount that should go to the pole star. I can by an add on that will set that up for me. However, I find I get around usually with true north and and quick squint up the hole to see if I can see the pole star.
Maybe a better explanation here.
http://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/feature/how-guid...
Never got the hand of the setting rings, that why I hop from start to star etc.
Edit. Curse of the iPad predictive and spelling.
However when I am messing I use true north, so magnetic variance needs to be understood, I assume that is not an issue? In theory there is an imaginary line through my mount that should go to the pole star. I can by an add on that will set that up for me. However, I find I get around usually with true north and and quick squint up the hole to see if I can see the pole star.
Maybe a better explanation here.
http://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/feature/how-guid...
Never got the hand of the setting rings, that why I hop from start to star etc.
Edit. Curse of the iPad predictive and spelling.
Edited by jmorgan on Thursday 28th December 10:30
Sounds good fun, OP!
We haven't a telescope; yet. I checked the Web last night for examples of what can be seen with a domestic telescope, sounds like some wonderful sights can be seen.
OT, but from looking last night, I saw some artist's impressions of planets in newly detected solar systems. It's exciting stuff.
We haven't a telescope; yet. I checked the Web last night for examples of what can be seen with a domestic telescope, sounds like some wonderful sights can be seen.
OT, but from looking last night, I saw some artist's impressions of planets in newly detected solar systems. It's exciting stuff.
Is there..um..scope for a sticky Astronomy thread here in Science?
Obviously, there is some cross-over on the astro-photography side with the Photography Forum, but a) some of the best (and worst...frostbite) astronomy experiences don't involve cameras and b) they're a bit competitive over there - all action shots and artistry.
A thread subject criterion of a minimum direct photon travel time of a second plus, with extra kudos for 1 million years plus, would do nicely - with waivers for managing to observe man-made satellites?
Having had to spend so much time down here in Devon, I decided to try and take advantage of the dark skies - and eBay - and over the past couple of months have acquired a 150mm Skywatcher reflector, a 90mm Skywatcher Maksutov-Cassegrain, a vintage Meade ETX-70AT AZ GoTo and a 70mm Celestron refractor....plus various motors, imagers and widgets - each have their virtues and drawbacks, and I wish I had more time to explore with them.
A dedicated PH astronomy thread - would it work?
Obviously, there is some cross-over on the astro-photography side with the Photography Forum, but a) some of the best (and worst...frostbite) astronomy experiences don't involve cameras and b) they're a bit competitive over there - all action shots and artistry.
A thread subject criterion of a minimum direct photon travel time of a second plus, with extra kudos for 1 million years plus, would do nicely - with waivers for managing to observe man-made satellites?
Having had to spend so much time down here in Devon, I decided to try and take advantage of the dark skies - and eBay - and over the past couple of months have acquired a 150mm Skywatcher reflector, a 90mm Skywatcher Maksutov-Cassegrain, a vintage Meade ETX-70AT AZ GoTo and a 70mm Celestron refractor....plus various motors, imagers and widgets - each have their virtues and drawbacks, and I wish I had more time to explore with them.
A dedicated PH astronomy thread - would it work?
It isn't at all intuitive, but resolving resolution isn't just a matter of gathering lots of light and really really whacking up the magnification. It is a function of the wavelength of light. Basically, it means you need a "lens" that is a long long way across.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution
The same thing limits the magnification ability of optical microscopes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_resolution
The same thing limits the magnification ability of optical microscopes.
It may not be intuitive, but it is in accordance with our direct experience of sight. If you draw two dots on a piece of paper and then back away from the paper until you're just at the point where the two dots appear to blur into one blob, assuming you've got good eye sight to start with, the distance you're standing from the paper will be in accordance with the distance predicted by the Raleigh Criterion. I.e. the maximum resolving power of the human eye is determined by the size of your eye's lens. The retina has the right density of photoreceptors to be able to exploit the maximum detail that the lens can resolve, albeit in just a small proportion of your field of view.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff