The Stargazing Thread!

[Rareden]

3 hours ago, cubinator said:

Not sure about the specs, it's enough to see the bands on Jupiter and Saturn's rings pretty well. I hardly remember ever looking at the rocky planets with it, but it could probably see the crescent of Venus, and maybe some features on Mars. It's an old Celestron, orange, and I don't have the manual or anything within easy access.

Edit: Hey, whaddaya know, it's printed on the side:     Aperture 8 in     f/10     efl 80 in
Before I saw that (all the time up until now) I was just guessing, I'll have to check with Stellarium and see just how well I can actually see it!

Edit 2: It'd be barely distinguishable from the other stars.

BTW it seems to be a catadioptric telescope.

Ah i have the same telescope specs then, havent been able to get planet images that detailed with it though, 
must be the air clarity.

[cubinator]

7 minutes ago, Rareden said:

Ah i have the same telescope specs then, havent been able to get planet images that detailed with it though, 
must be the air clarity.

Really? I could make out the bands on Jupiter if I wiggled the focus knob just right on my highest power lens a few nights ago, and that was with Jupiter only ~15° above the horizon, and enough icy haze in the upper atmosphere to put a halo around the moon! (A very beautiful halo, too!) I was trying to observe the eclipse Io was making, but I just could not quite make it out.

[Rareden]

3 hours ago, cubinator said:

Really? I could make out the bands on Jupiter if I wiggled the focus knob just right on my highest power lens a few nights ago, and that was with Jupiter only ~15° above the horizon, and enough icy haze in the upper atmosphere to put a halo around the moon! (A very beautiful halo, too!) I was trying to observe the eclipse Io was making, but I just could not quite make it out.

yea through the eye piece its sharp but small, if i use my camera its quite blurry and after processing if turns out like so, cant get anything as large or sharp as your planet shots.
 

Spoiler

 

Edited February 25, 2016 by Rareden

[cubinator]

8 hours ago, Rareden said:

 

  Hide contents

 

That looks about the same as what I can see.

[Endersmens]

I have a pathetic little telescope, I believe it's 60mmx700mm. I was able to easily admire the bands of jupiter, and watch 6 moons orbit around her all night. One of the moons wasn't even just a point of light! I was also able to admire Saturn's rings, and 3 of her moons as well. Of course if I put a camera on it the planets would be 2 pixels wide, but for my own eyes it was plenty enough to be dazzled by their beauty.  I'm looking at getting a 80x700mm possibly, but money is a thing now and I don't have much of it.  

 

Could anyone recommend me a good scope for under $150? Preferably the highest power/brightness possible. Not sure how I feel about reflectors, but I might budge and try them, although I would prefer refractor I think.

[Shpaget]

I can't recommend anything, but reflectors are usually a lot less expensive than refractors for the same light gathering capability.

However, refractors usually have better image quality.

That being said, I doubt you can find anything new for $150 that would be half decent. Supermarket stuff is a waste of money.

Take a look at the possibility of making the primary mirror yourself. That's the most expensive part of a reflector and actually can be done at home and very good quality is achiavable.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Shpaget

[Camacha]

Did you guys ever stop to think how amazing it is that space is translucent and that we can see these object from so very far away? I mean, I cannot even see into the next street, but luck has it that we can see other galaxies just by averting your gaze towards the sky.

[Shpaget]

... when those ugly street lamps are not getting in your face.

[Endersmens]

2 hours ago, Camacha said:

Did you guys ever stop to think how amazing it is that space is translucent and that we can see these object from so very far away? I mean, I cannot even see into the next street, but luck has it that we can see other galaxies just by averting your gaze towards the sky.

All the time. I find it amazing how even air is that transparent. That car headlights can be seen from over 20 miles away on a clear night in some places. It's crazy how many atoms are in the way and yet we can still see through them.

[cubinator]

3 hours ago, Shpaget said:

... when those ugly street lamps are not getting in your face.

They recently installed some blue lamps in my neighborhood, it's really annoying because my house has it's own lamp in front which would illuminate the street, but that we can turn off whenever we want to look at the sky or whatever. It's still ok, but not as good a view to the west anymore.

[Camacha]

1 hour ago, cubinator said:

They recently installed some blue lamps in my neighborhood, it's really annoying because my house has it's own lamp in front which would illuminate the street, but that we can turn off whenever we want to look at the sky or whatever. It's still ok, but not as good a view to the west anymore.

Here they are redoing to houses on the other side of the street. Sadly, they are installing massive amounts of lights. Not only does it look like a factory floor, it also ruins the view and uses heaps of energy to boot.

[Rareden]

8 hours ago, Shpaget said:

I can't recommend anything, but reflectors are usually a lot less expensive than refractors for the same light gathering capability.

However, refractors usually have better image quality.

That being said, I doubt you can find anything new for $150 that would be half decent. Supermarket stuff is a waste of money.

Take a look at the possibility of making the primary mirror yourself. That's the most expensive part of a reflector and actually can be done at home and very good quality is achiavable.

Reflectors are cheaper compared to a same spec refractor, i dont agree that a refractor has better image quality however, more lens = more chromatic aberration and diffraction,
a 6inch Newtonian reflector is pretty good for its price depending on what your wanting to observe.
I do find that my 8inch 2000mm scope has too much magnification for the deepsky photography i like to do, cant even get all of orion in the view with it.
I would sell it for a newtonian if it didnt have a damaged mirror.

[Endersmens]

@Rareden, reflectors have a "blind spot" though. Where the second mirror is, and the spokes that hold it. Not really blind, more like blurry. From what I have read and seen. Not sure if I want to have to deal with that. 

[Rareden]

1 hour ago, Endersmens said:

@Rareden, reflectors have a "blind spot" though. Where the second mirror is, and the spokes that hold it. Not really blind, more like blurry. From what I have read and seen. Not sure if I want to have to deal with that. 

really? as far as i know having the secondary mirror there reduces the overall brightness /Fstop, as for the blurriness it depends on the quality of the mirrors, for instance the heres a comparison between the celestrons standard and HD mirror,
I unfortunately have the standard and you can see the bloating/ blurring effect on my last image.

[kookoo_gr]

For observation i recommend a Dobson Newtonian telescope (dobson is the mount of the telescope which is an alt az mount). The big advantage of this type of telescope is that you can have a large aperture, which means larger light gathering capability which in turn means you can see fainter objects, with a lower cost in comparison with a refractor telescope of the same aperture, also setting it up and dismantling it takes less than 5 minutes. A small disadvantage of the newton telescope is that from time to time you need to check the collimation of the optics (ie the alignment) so you can have clear sharp images but once you learn the process it becomes a routine check. As for the blind spot it only removes a small portion of the total surface of the main mirror and it does not affect the observation at all, also the spider vanes (the spokes you mentioned) of the secondary mirror don't affect the observation and the only thing that affect the image is the addition of spikes at the stars due the refraction of the light at the spider vanes which can help you in focusing the image. As for what telescope to choose i recommend from 6 inches in diameter and above with the 8 inch being the most popular, i have a skywatcher 8'' dobson for 8 years and it never failed me whether i used it for observing or imaging the planets. If money is the issue i recommend to save some more money and get a good scope or buy a used one from an astronomy forum (cloudy nights is the US forum)

[nesixakin]

On 6/7/2015 at 0:27 PM, jmiki8 said:

Those pictures are pretty cool!

I take a different approach, as I don't have a telescope.

I tried to take photos of star fields with a camera. I have an old-ish Nikon D80, which doesn't have the ISO capability for the job (ISO 800+ is a no-no in terms of IQ). I'm going to replace it with a D7100 in weeks, which has a 3+ stop improvement over the D80 in terms of noise. I really hope I'll be able to shoot nice photos of the stars with it at lake Balaton, where light pollution is almost nonexistent. I'm going to use a 35mm f/1,8 lens, which is fast and wide enough to take long (~10-15s) exposures without a tracking mount.

Soon, you'll be mine...

To fix  ISO capability issue please follow these steps:

You need to manually choose the reset option in the Shooting Menu and the Setup menu. To do this press 'Menu', select the Shooting Menu and scroll through the options until 'Reset Shooting Options' is highlighted, press ok, highlight 'Yes' and press ok again. Repeat this for the Setup menu.If this method works, then its ok otherwise check Nikon D80 Manual for help. 

[Green Baron]

On 26/02/2016 at 4:21 AM, Rareden said:

really? as far as i know having the secondary mirror there reduces the overall brightness /Fstop, as for the blurriness it depends on the quality of the mirrors, for instance the heres a comparison between the celestrons standard and HD mirror,
I unfortunately have the standard and you can see the bloating/ blurring effect on my last image.

The left image shows comatic aberration, the stars are distorted, the farther away from the center, the more. You don't realize that visually as you watch only on the optical axis, but a large camera chip would show it as it has a larger area than the pupil.

The difference is that the "EdgeHD" thingies have a corrector for the comatic aberration built in (aka coma-corrector), the right image shows only little coma. The advertising is bit misleading, you don't need a new scope. You can have the same effect with a separate (but much cheaper) coma corrector, one that fits your scope/focuser/camera. You don't need one for visual.

As to what is "better", a mirror or a lens ... if it is only the image quality then nothing tops an apochromatic refractor, but a well made mirror can come close. "Real" apos larger than 120mm aperture are expensive, though there are so-called ED (referring to the glass designation of 1 or more elements of the objective) or half-apos (german: halb apo). That are three element objectives with an apochromatic correction that go for about half of a real- or super-apo to serve a wider market. Much cheaper are the entry level 2-element achromatic objectives, but then you're probably better off with a mirror. As said, you get a large aperture for comparably little money.

 

Edited June 9, 2017 by Green Baron

[RoadRunnerAerospace]

MUST

KEEP
THREAD
ALIVE

I saw the iss fly over.... Two nights ago (i think)

[Guest]

The Moon!

[NSEP]

On 03/10/2017 at 6:31 PM, dundun92 said:

The Moon!

Me too!

[munlander1]

@NSEP what are your telescopes specifications?

[NSEP]

12 minutes ago, munlander1 said:

@NSEP what are your telescopes specifications?

Oh, yes, the question you have been asking for quite a while.

Its a COSMOS 90GT WIFI telescope, i have 3 different lenses for it but im not home right now and i can't remember wich one i had.

[cubinator]

There was an ISS pass tonight I was going to watch, but I forgot about it because I was watching math videos.

[Guest]

[Guest]

http://

Edited October 19, 2017 by Guest