|
Your 10x42 are definitely close enough. I'd dork around with those until you decide you want to get a telescope. Or jack up to 12x80 'nocks. Also you should be able to do some planetary viewing, even in a city, because of how bright they are. Probably not much with binoculars, but it's something to keep in mind. Your biggest problem would be not looking over sources of heat. That shimmering effect you see creates a ton of distortion.
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
The 10x50s would make a significant difference, but only under dark skies. For some urban observing, the 42s ought to do well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Check out my fuzzy lovely photo of Mars from last night: click for big Astrophotography is hard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
What equipment were you working with?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
I hooked up a Canon Rebel XTI EOS 400D to an Astromaster 70mm with a 2x Celestron Barlow in between. The mount is the CG-2 that the Astromaster came with. It was pretty shaky and I had to keep swapping out the 20mm lens with the camera since the XTI doesn't have a live view. Looking for ideas on what to do to get better with this setup. It was pretty much luck that I got this picture as even when taking the photos I couldn't tell what was in focus and what wasn't through the viewfinder.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Adiabatic posted:I hooked up a Canon Rebel XTI EOS 400D to an Astromaster 70mm with a 2x Celestron Barlow in between. The mount is the CG-2 that the Astromaster came with. The easiest thing to do would be to plug the xti into a laptop and tether it. Then you can take a quick pic, check focus, adjust, take another pic, and so on and so forth. Easier than swapping lenses (especially since there's no guarantee that what you see through your eyepiece will be exactly what you see through the camera, the focal planes are probably slightly different).
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Thanks! I didn't know I could do that. I'll definitely try it out next time. I was wondering how the heck I compared focus between a camera and an eyepiece anyways. Anyone have any info on this? EDIT: Just got everything hooked up! I can take pictures and adjust ISO & exposure time using my laptop. It also dumps right into a specified folder pretty much immediately! Freakin technology man. Adiabatic fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
Your Dead Gay Son posted:Your 10x42 are definitely close enough. I'd dork around with those until you decide you want to get a telescope. Or jack up to 12x80 'nocks. Great, thanks. The book came today so it's time to read a bit then stare at the sky I guess. I have a large park nearby that I can go to and get a good view of the sky and there's no heat sources other than suburban homes within several miles of me so I should be fine I think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
God I love astronomy. I haven't stargazed with equipment in at least 15 years, but it only took a handful of articles to pique my interest again. Now I'm dangerously close to buying my first Newtonian scope, the Orion StarBlast 4.5. It's reviewed as a great entry-level scope for learning the sky and getting some cool views of distant objects.
Van Dis fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Oct 24, 2019 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
If you have a car, it doesn't take much of a drive north to get out of the city lights. When I was a kid we used to camp on the north end of Napa Valley and the skies there are spectacular.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
Since this seems to be the only astronomy thread on SA, we should talk about more than just astrophotography (which is extremely cool, don't get me wrong). I didn't see it discussed itt, but a couple months ago the USGS released the most comprehensive geologic map of Ganymede to date. Article here. There's a huge and detailed pdf of the survey here. I love stuff like this. Last year, NASA released the first complete map of Mercury. My favorite is the false color showing variations in rock composition and age:  Follow link to HUGE version, and further links to other including true-color versions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
There is another space-related thread in SAL, the Spaceflight Megathread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
I am interested in upgrading my old , cheap Meade telescope to something better. I live on a hill in rural Ohio with a practically unobstructed view of the sky. I would describe my skill as a beginner. Mobility isn't an issue and my budget is ideally $200-$300, but I could go a little higher. Would a 'Orion XT8 Classic Dobsonian' be a good choice?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
I have an XT8 as my first scope and I love it. My main complaint is moving it around but if mobility isn't an issue for you then I would think you'd like it. While doing my research for a first scope it seems like the consensus is to get the biggest dob you can afford and move around.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
I have an XT8c and its a great 'scope. It is about the upper limit of what I would consider mobile but it is fairly easy to move around as one piece. The mount on it is very steady. It always dampens out vibrations in a second.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Hello people, just found out about this thread. For a moment I thought there were no astronomy thread on this forum. I acquired some motors for my Skywatcher 200p quite recently and have been trying to take some photos. This polar alignment business was kinda hard at the beginning, mainly because the built in polarscope was quite unfocused(not sure if on purpose or not) and because my eyes suck. But once the scope was properly aligned it could track the sky quite well. It's Capella!  Now I got to read up about how to properly photograph stuff in space.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
So this person I am having a "discussion" with is 100% that there are multiple, space travelling alien species that are on Earth as well. "Thinking outside of the box is pretty outlandish isn't it. But people with very high roles in our society has come out and given light to very outlandish things. They have books and books of sources. They say there are multiple alien species that have come here time and time again." I already tried talking about how the chances of life even developing, let alone civilization and technology to space travel, is such a minuscule chance. But she keeps talking about tens of billions of possible earth-like planets in our galaxy alone and all sorts of nonsense. Anyone have some actual scientific articles/studies about this?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Arguing with alien believers is a waste of time. However, If you really really want to... There's somewhere in the order of 1800 known exoplanets. A great many of those are what as known as "Hot Jupiters" supersized planets inhospitable to life as we know it. Currently the science in this field is relatively thin on the ground, as its only relatively recently we've been able to detect the presence of exoplanets and their structure, orbit and other things. Some estimates put the number of planets in our galaxy in the region of 100 billion. What proportion of those have earth like qualities can only be guessed. When dealing with such large numbers, you can see why people argue that even if only 0.001% of these potential planets could be inhabited, that's still quite a lot. The problem is, the universe is in the order of 13.5 billion years old. Its not impossible that there has, is or will be life other than our own somewhere in the universe, but the odds of life existing on an alien world at an advanced enough level that they can somehow overcome space and time and travel to Earth and be here right now is vanishingly small. The other problem is; how would an alien civilization find us? It's not a 'needle in a haystack' search. It's a "single, ordinary grain of sand on the entire earth" type search. Realistically, its only been in the last 2 to 3 hundred years that we've done things that might be visible from space. Particularly; radio waves and other electrical signals, and possibly the change in our atmosphere due to the industrial revolution. Even then, the things we've been doing would only really be visible from within 2 to 3 hundred light years away. Our galaxy alone is over a hundred million light years in diameter. As the universe is so absurdly big, the only real way we'd encounter alien life is if it was so ridiculously abundant that we literally had them splattering on the Voyager space craft solar windshield. Yet we still haven't found them. No credible evidence exists. In short; alien life here, now, on Earth is a total fantasy. Not that your conversation partner will listen. edit: I don't have a journal detail on me at the moment, but a quick googling of the Fermi Paradox is a good place to start. Carth Dookie fucked around with this message at 02:13 on May 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
darth cookie posted:Arguing with alien believers is a waste of time. However, If you really really want to... Yeah I know it is probably a useless thing to discuss with her, but sometimes I start doing it before I realize the mistake has been made. I'm trying to find a scientific journal or something that talks about the distances and probability. I don't think she realizes how big space is.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
goodness posted:Yeah I know it is probably a useless thing to discuss with her, but sometimes I start doing it before I realize the mistake has been made. Generally its thought that life exists outside of Earth, and probably it follows that intelligent life exists. The big jump is interstellar travel, making it work with just energy budgets vs decay and ignoring all engineering challenges is really difficult. Even then, making it efficient in time is a complete mess.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
If we're talking actual flying saucers here, where's the Russian dashcam video? Those guys got a rare large meteor from multiple angles; if there were saucers buzzing Earth all the time they should have the goods by now. 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
swebonny posted:Hello people, just found out about this thread. For a moment I thought there were no astronomy thread on this forum. I acquired some motors for my Skywatcher 200p quite recently and have been trying to take some photos. This polar alignment business was kinda hard at the beginning, mainly because the built in polarscope was quite unfocused(not sure if on purpose or not) and because my eyes suck. But once the scope was properly aligned it could track the sky quite well. There is one but it's not this thread  http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3155317 is what you're looking for.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:There is one but it's not this thread You do realize you just linked back to this thread, right? Or am I missing a joke here?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
Luneshot posted:You do realize you just linked back to this thread, right? Or am I missing a joke here? No, this is what happens when you spend a bit reading the other space thread and don't realize you've switched tabs 
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:No, this is what happens when you spend a bit reading the other space thread and don't realize you've switched tabs Haha, I thought there was something wrong with my browser.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
 Just got my advanced author copies of the July issue of Sky & Telescope. My first published work is in print! It's so exciting that I've pretty much been cumming my pants all morning.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
nevermind
Wubbles fucked around with this message at 22:21 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 21:55
|
|
|
And the hits just keep on coming. I've been making do with just 6" of aperture for 16 years. No more. I'm picking up a used XT8 from a club member on Tuesday for $75 bucks. It even includes a Telrad and an improved handmade dob mount. He's clearing out a storage unit and getting rid of scopes he no longer uses. Awesome score. Also, considering Tuesday is my birthday it makes a perfect gift to myself.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
It feels like it's been a horribly long time since I've done anything astronomy related. The last time I went out was February when I finally decided that the CGEM could not longer do what I needed of it and then whilst playing with some planetary imaging with my QHY5L-II my observatory PC died. From there I basically took the next four months off. However I am back to it now, the PC is repaired, my bonus finally came in and I have ordered an iOptron CEM60 to replace the CGEM, and I got round to looking at the videos I tool before the computer died. Alright but not great, it's got a halo / ghost due to double stacking 4x and 2x barlows. I think I need to pick up a 5x image mate or decent quality barlow instead. The new mount should be with me in a couple of weeks and I then have the summer to get it working to my satisfaction before what will hopefully be a decent winter with the QSI.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 10:55
|
|
|
We've been planning for a few weeks now to head out to my wife's parents farm in rural Nebraska to watch the meteor shower tonight and do some photography, and now the forecast is nothing but clouds and thunderstorms.  Last few nights would have been perfect too. Still holding onto a shred of hope, but it doesn't look too promising.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
My roommate has an 8" dobsonian and I have a Pentax DSLR, so we put our heads together and took this image of the moon.  The moon is pretty 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 08:55
|
|
|
Geology posted:My roommate has an 8" dobsonian and I have a Pentax DSLR, so we put our heads together and took this image of the moon. Nice shot. I've been trying to take pictures of the moon, but it somehow always end up being blurry. I'm using a Nikon D60, and mounting it on the scope with a T-ring and adapter. Both through the eyepieces and through the camera viewfinder the moon looks crisp clear. However after taking the shot, no matter if using a remote, incredibly short shutter time the result is something like this: 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 13:25
|
|
|
swebonny posted:Nice shot. I've been trying to take pictures of the moon, but it somehow always end up being blurry. I'm using a Nikon D60, and mounting it on the scope with a T-ring and adapter. Both through the eyepieces and through the camera viewfinder the moon looks crisp clear. However after taking the shot, no matter if using a remote, incredibly short shutter time the result is something like this: It could be that your focuser doesn't allow the camera to get far enough "in" to the scope. This was our problem so we ended hooking up a Barlow and the focus became much better. Also it's a good idea to add weight to the bottom of the scope to counterbalance the camera. The added weight of the camera on the top of the scope can cause it to shake continuously which will ruin images even if the shake amplitude is small. We attached some random items near bottom with bunjees and that allowed us to capture some dimmer objects that needed longer shutter speeds than the bright rear end moon.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 02:06
|
|
|
Geology posted:It could be that your focuser doesn't allow the camera to get far enough "in" to the scope. This was our problem so we ended hooking up a Barlow and the focus became much better. Also it's a good idea to add weight to the bottom of the scope to counterbalance the camera. The added weight of the camera on the top of the scope can cause it to shake continuously which will ruin images even if the shake amplitude is small. We attached some random items near bottom with bunjees and that allowed us to capture some dimmer objects that needed longer shutter speeds than the bright rear end moon. Yeah I've actually been using a Barlow to counter the focuser problem, the shot still looks like that. I just don't understand why it looks so good in the camera viewfinder, but yields so bad results. It is perhaps a vibration problem. I didn't actually add anything to counter the weight of the camera. I'll do it the next time.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 11:47
|
|
|
Could it be the diopter on your camera is off?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 13:36
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:Could it be the diopter on your camera is off? That could be it. I'm going to check that out. By the way, have you guys heard of the AstroEQ? It's a nice and cheap open source alternative to the GoTo/Synscan (whatever it's called). Just ordered mine a few days ago. 
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2014 12:57
|
|
|
Only had 4 hours of sleep, but I am happy with the result. LDN 183 LDN 564
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Beautiful!
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
So I'm kind of in the market for a new scope...I've been using the crappy department store scope I got when I was a kid. It's a 3" or 4" reflector I think with an equatorial mount. I can make it work, but it's getting more and more frustrating to deal with. The biggest issues I'm having with it are that whenever I zoom in on something, by the time I manage to get it in to focus and let the mount settle down from focusing, the thing I'm trying to look at is nearly gone. That, and at high magnifications I can't get anything focused very well...I was observing Saturn last night and with a 4mm lens and 2x barlow I was completely unable to get a sharp image. I could get it close, but if I barely nudged the focus knob it went way out of focus. I would actually get a better image with lower magnification. Not sure if this is a function of the focus mechanism not being fine enough, or the scope itself is unable to focus. I've been thinking of building myself a motorized focus, but that would be way too much effort for a telescope of this quality. Anyhow, I've done a cursory search and it looks like the Celestron NexStar 130SLT is highly recommended as a sub-$500 telescope for beginners. However, opinions in this thread seem mixed, so I'm not sure what to believe. And I guess I'm not truly a beginner, but I'm not quite on the level of a lot of people in this thread. Not sure I ever will be, but the thought of eventually getting in to astro-photography is appealing to me. So maybe the question is, if I'm looking for a telescope that has a motorized tracking, am I better off getting this one, or should I buy a cheaper scope with equivalent or better optics and add on an aftermarket tracking system? I think that's the biggest thing I'm after right now is a decent scope that can track well enough that I don't have to be constantly making adjustments. I'm not so interested in the "go-to" function, since I can find things myself for the most part (though trying to find ISON several months back proved impossible, may not have been if I had been able to hook my telescope up to a laptop running Stellarium, or my phone running SkySafari Pro). Also, I'm looking at reflectors because that's what I have and am used to. Not sure if this is the right direction or not, but it's been my research focus. I'm aware of the need for collimation, and that doesn't bother me so much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
Get a manual scope and add aftermarket tracking. If you want to stick with an equatorial reflector, one I would strongly consider would be a Celestron Omni 150. Another option if automatic tracking is important to you is to get an 8" dob and then build a poncet platform further down the road. You can get an Apertura 8" dob which comes with a great accessory package for 400, and you can build the poncet table fairly easily for less than $100. There are lots of blueprints online.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 03:15
|
|