|
I had a scan through this thread to see if it was mentioned, and I couldn't find it. I just thought I'd post this link to The Backyard Astronomer's Guide This was the most complete beginner's guide to astronomy that I've seen. I found it very useful when I started this most excellent hobby 2 years ago, and still use it quite regularly. It covers primarily visual astronomy, but does also has a reasonable guide for the budding astrophotographer as well. My astronomy library started with this book, and it's only grown from there. I like to find stuff manually (I don't own any guided scopes), and as a result, I need a halfway decent sky atlas. Sky and Telescope's Pocket Sky Atlas is my first choice. It's ring bound, which means I don't have to worry about the drat book closing on me when I'm looking stuff up, and the pages are plastic treated and are quite resistant to the dreaded dew. I've used this atlas when out with My William Optics 90mm refractor, and my SkyWatcher 10inch dob. I find it very easy and convenient to use. Regrettably, I've not been able to do much viewing recently, but I can't wait to get back out there. 
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2013 11:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 07:30 |
|
|
I hope you have light weight binoculars, or have something to lean on to steady your hands. You'd be amazed how tricky it is to keep still enough to see what you want properly. Tip: sit in a beanbag so you can recline comfortably and rest your arms on something to keep them steady. You won't have to strain your neck, shoulders and arms this way. More energy and comfort leads to more actual viewing. If you are particularly anal, many binoculars have a mounting point which, with an adaptor, will allow you to mount your binos on a standard camera tripod. Most good camera shops sell these adaptors. I have found the tripod setup useful, but not strictly necessary. Good luck, and have fun.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
That is a really nice shot. I don't recognise the object in the photo though. Mind telling me what it is? 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2013 04:02
|
|
|
shezihka posted:Looks like a tree to me, abet one with some interesting illumination. Well yes, I managed to figure that part out myself  I was actually more interested in what constellation/celestial object was being photographed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2013 06:57
|
|
|
There are many fine small secondhand telescopes out there. That was not one of them. Tip; if they are advertising how much magnification it can achieve, generally it is poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
Look at that woman's face. She knows exactly what's going on. Brilliant troll picture.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
AstroZamboni posted:I've been soliciting for suggestions on what to add next on various astronomy forums and social networking sites. On one amateur astronomy facebook group I got a scathing response that NOBODY should listen to music while observing, that it's irritating to other astronomers (in spite of the fact that I specifically said I enjoy music when stargazing ALONE) and that I should quit amateur astronomy entirely because my "behavior is degrading to the hobby." I never knew there were such pretentious hipster pieces of poo poo in the hobby! Proof positive that every hobby has its  I don't know how you'd feel about Muse. But some of their stuff is pretty good. If you want something more mellow, OneRepublic Waking Up is a pretty good album.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2013 12:43
|
|
|
The obvious answer to that is Orwell's War of the World radio broadcast.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2013 08:17
|
|
|
Eegah posted:Never heard of this; Googled it and the first thing that came up... Gross. Thanks. Anyway I think seagulling in an astronomical sense is the phenomenon that can occur in short f ratio reflectors where the stars in the edge of view are stretched from points into "m" or "seagull" shapes due to the curvature of the mirror. Some lenses exacerbate this problem. If you are asking *which* type of lenses do this... well that I can't advise on. Sorry.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
squeakygeek posted:I thought the term was coma. I think you are right. I think "seagulling" is the colloquial term.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2013 11:47
|
|
|
You'll be fine. Go before sunset, introduce yourself, set up your kit, and bring food to share (preferably not greasy stuff). And bring a thermos of coffee. Lots of coffee.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2013 07:23
|
|
|
pwnyXpress posted:I figure you guys would probably be able to help with this. I'm on a small project team at my university and was assigned by the professor who is project-lead to trawl the internet for ideas. We're trying to get decent photographs of 3 very small satellites in a polar orbit (here's the tracking data for one of them: http://www.n2yo.com/satellite/?s=39269). Since they are traveling so fast (only visible for short amounts of time, 15-20 minutes typically), and they are so small and dim (10cm diameter spheres, estimated visual magnitude ~11), we don't appear to have good enough equipment to get the kind of pictures we want. Nice try. Kim Jong Un can do his own drat surveillance.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2014 10:14
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
These are great, keep them coming. For some reason, I find the idea of taking pictures that nobody has looked at seriously in over a hundred years and applying modern computer imaging techniques to reveal more detail very clever. I'm surprised I've not heard of anybody doing this before.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
That's how it starts. It's only a matter of time before you start wearing a tinfoil hat to keep the alien signals out of your brain and start collecting your own pee in mason jars.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
Collimating is a piece of piss if you have the right tools. I recommend practicing a couple of times in daylight (and getting into the habit of doing it at the start of each session, before the sun goes down). It's also a job that needs to be done often enough that it's not really practical to take it to an expert every time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Honestly? I'd trade the gift card for straight cash and buy something second hand. If you absolutely HAVE to buy one of those three, the 300x 76 Newtonian or the Safari would be the better choices. 300x 76 if you've got a park bench somewhere you can sit it on, and the Safari if you don't. To be quite honest though; dealing with extremely budget equipment can often be quite frustrating, and may turn you off the hobby. You wouldn't be the first. I'd actually suggest trying to find some 10x50 binoculars and getting yourself a halfway decent sky map. You can just lie on your back and check stuff out. You'd be surprised what you can see with it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
DreadLlama posted:I'll ask about trading the card in for cash. I'd heard that they don't let a guy do that, but if not, I'll look at that cosmos one. You don't really want to be using that tabletop Newtonian on a fold out table. It'll be rickety as hell. I use a fold out table to keep all my stuff on while observing but that's all.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
I generally try to discourage people from buying newtonian scopes on equatorial mounts. They are awkward as gently caress to set up as a novice and invariably the default mount isn't up to the job. Definitely get a newton as a first scope. Just make sure it's on a dobson mount. Skywatcher makes quite nice entry level dobson mounted newtonian scopes when you are ready for one.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
DreadLlama posted:In that case, please describe what to look for in a pair of good binoculars. Also, are tripods generally future-proof? 10x50 binoculars of good quality are a good place to start. You can get an adaptor to mount them on a standard camera tripod. Stability on a camera tripod is less of an issue than with a telescope, but quality still counts.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
People recommend binoculars because with a light enough pair (which is part of the reason why 10x50s are recommended) your setup time is zero. You can literally lie on your back, or rest your elbows on a fence and get viewing. Setting up an equatorial mount, even for an experienced person, takes a reasonable amount of time and effort. It means more time fiddling, and less time viewing, which can put people off. Every time you want to view for a night, you end up asking yourself the question; do I want to spend 20 minutes faffing around with this to set it up, and then same again tearing down afterwards? Especially when you're cold and tired. Equatorial newtonian setups are especially nasty because it often puts the eyepiece in really irritating positions. You'd be amazed how many people give up on astronomy simply because setting up the equipment can represent a disproportionate amount of time in the hobby. That's why people suggest binoculars first, and then dobson mounted newtonian scopes as a first scope after. Binoculars because they are (relatively) cheap, and you can see a surprising amount with them, and as a means to test whether you really have enough interest to drop several hundred dollars on a telescope. Then a dobson newtonian because they're very easy use and take minimal setup aside from collimation and offer the best aperture for the cost.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2015 07:28
|
|
|
Luneshot posted:I have a really nice pair of astronomy binoculars- and they're completely unusable for me because my hands are ridiculously shaky. Just a heads up that if you have shaky hands a tripod will probably be mandatory. I too have pipecleaner arms and have that same problem. You'd think that would mean I would have taken that into consideration when I bought my first scope, but no I decided I had to have the 10in dob rather than the 6 or the 8. It spends most of its time undercover and I pull out the William Optics 90mm when I want to look at things.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
Man I love astrophotography but I hardly do enough visual stuff to justify the kit for it. Nice shot.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
smarion2 posted:I was stoked to see Jupiter as a giant white smudge. I would flip if I ever saw that with my own eyes. A bit (a few hundred dollars). Planets reveal the most colour, though some star clusters can be quite varied, and the brighter planetary nebulae can as well I think. "Deep sky" stuff like galaxies and other things do not have colours that can be seen with the human eye. The Hubble scope is in many ways, NASA's cruelest joke on the backyard wannabe.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
smarion2 posted:That's good to know I would be happy with being able to make out Jupiter's Red spot or Saturn's rings. I assume I could do that with a cheapish scope? Yes* (*don't buy a cheap scope, you will hate it very quickly). Keep in mind that visual astronomy is very weather dependent. Seeing Saturn's rings can be done with a modest scope, as can the colour bands on Jupiter. Seeing distinct, separated bands of Saturn's rings or Jupiter's storm? Very clear, cold and still atmosphere required and a very good scope. Considerable luck and oodles of patience are essential. Typically you will be sitting at the eyepiece fine tuning focus and waiting for the 60 miles of atmosphere above you to sit still for a few seconds so you get some amazing detail for a moment. Then it will lose detail to gusts and movement. Rinse and repeat over a period of time and you will train your brain and eye to pick out more detail when the next still moment happens. Carth Dookie fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Jan 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
smarion2 posted:Not disappointed I'm really just starting to get into this so I don't know what to expect what you are able to see with your eyes and what is photography. If I'm ever able to look into a scope and see Saturns rings or even a somewhat colored Jupiter I'd be pretty happy. The picture shown is roughly what Jupiter would look like in a decent scope in moderate conditions, except imagine it being a quarter the size of your pinky nail. Honestly the best thing to do is find your local astronomy organization (check nearby universities) and see when they are having a public viewing night or star party. With any luck you'll have a chance to check out a few different types of scopes and see what can be seen with them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
The refractors you are looking at don't have much aperture and all of them are on wobbly mounts that will quickly give you the shits (and the reflector has an equatorial mount which is also time consuming to set up). Honestly I'd recommend trying to find a 6 or 8 inch dobsonian reflector second hand. Or if you can stretch your budget to 305 and want something new, skywatcher makes a 6 inch reflector.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
That looks reasonable. Only thing I'd say about it is that it is mounted on one side only, whereas the skywatcher 6 inch is cradled and mounted on both sides of the tube which *may* make it a little more stable. The orion looks more compact if you are worried about hauling bulky stuff around though. Edit: spend the 25 bucks on the night watch book too if you can stretch it. It's pretty good.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
Did you see this guy perched on top of it?:
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
A brief report on the evening news alerted me to the fact that a bunch of planets are all supposed to be visible in the morning sky over the next few days and my wife decided that if I was prepared to get up before dawn to check it out then so would she. So I dusted off the little 90mm and got it ready. Cute little thing shows quite a lot of detail. I was shocked just how vibrant it could be when I was lining up the finder on a distant tree. I just hope the humidity drops and the clouds stay away. It occurred to me that I've not yet seen Mercury, Mars or Venus yet so I'm looking forward to it (especially Mars). My wife has only seen Jupiter so fingers crossed I can give her a real show. Anyway here's a pic of the thing: The mount is significantly more sturdy than it looks. 
Carth Dookie fucked around with this message at 10:40 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 10:36
|
|
|
Seems I successfully jinxed myeslf. When I went to bed, the sky was blue from horizon to horizon. I got up well before dawn and awoke to total cloud cover.  Hopefully the weather is kinder tomorrow morning and I can convince the wife to have another go.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Finally got some clear skies to check out the planets this morning and got to see Venus, Jupiter and Saturn. Mercury was too low on the horizon from my viewing point and was obscured by my shed. Unfortunately the moon was too bright and that combined with all the regular light pollution washed out all the constellation points I needed to find Mars. Despite the gusty wind conditions, we still had quite a good view of the planets I could find. Despite being dragged out of bed at 4am my wife was pleased with what we saw. Alas, I managed to break my focuser somehow during the show, so I'll have to see about fixing it now. Otherwise, a good morning.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
Yes I definitely plan to have another go at finding Mars later in the year. Thanks for the picture though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Sorry no, you're doomed. The best we can do is help you spend your money more efficiently.  your wallet.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Skywatcher does (I think they still do) a collapsible 8 inch dob which might suit. A refractor is nice, but in general, aperture is key if you want to do more than look at the planets, and dobs give the best aperture per dollar value.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
cheese posted:Is a 400 dollar Dobsonian going to massively outperform the 300 dollar refractor? Does the much larger aperture just make it better for everything? For visual astronomy; yes. Also reflectors aren't subject to chromatic aberrations like refractors are (unless you spend big money on an apochromatic refractor).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Get a scope that accepts 2in eyepieces that has an adaptor to 1.25in. That way you have options. I personally like televue eyepieces but they aren't loving cheap. A couple of plossls would be a fine starting point. The backyard astronomers guide by Terence Dickinson is a fantastic book that covers the technical side of the hobby that I found hugely useful as a complete newbie. It covers visual astronomy and gives a rundown on how photo astronomy works, explains different kinds of telescopes and how they work. How to decide what to buy, how to navigate the sky, how to set up and troubleshoot a scope. Everything. Still the best and most complete astronomy book I own by a wide margin. Carth Dookie fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Low-Pass Filter posted:I have a feeling this is going to be a recurring theme for me. I just want to look at stars man! Dew shields and special electric heaters. Welcome to the rabbit hole. cheese posted:Ya I bought Nightwatch by the same guy and while its great, I think I should have just gotten that book. Oh well! I bought night watch first too. It's a good basic primer, but the other one cranks it to 11.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
cheese posted:Awesome! Still gonna wait to buy anything until after this weekend's star party, but I'm pumped. The bigger it is the easier it is to see things as it absorbs more light. However; the biggest killer in this hobby is setup time. The bigger it is, the more you have to talk yourself into lugging it around and setting up. That's why an 8 inch dob is recommended. It is about where the average person will reliably tolerate dealing with the set up, and has enough aperture that you can see a lot of stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 07:30 |
|
|
I have a 10 inch
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2016 03:36
|
|