John

I actually found last night pretty steady. Zeta Herculis still looked well defined at 600x with my 130mm triplet refractor. Nice round primary and secondary of differing tones rather than the "blob stuck to the side" look that this pair can have sometimes.

I guess one thing that might have affected this discussion is that the original post was made in the eyepieces section of the forum where discussion usually centers around tools that are used for observing and the practical observing experiences with them.

There seem to be quite a lot of aspects of this particular thread, especially recently, that might be more relevant to the Physics, Space Science and Theories section of the forum perhaps ?

M 51 can be quite challenging to find with a small aperture scope in other than dark skies. M 101 even more so.

M 81 and M82 in Ursa Major are easier to find and will appear a little brighter. I found those with my old 60mm refractor - the first galaxies that I ever observed with a scope.

Under dark skies and when you have experience of finding and observing these faint targets, your scope will show 100's of them and some at mind boggling distances.

I was using my 130mm refractor (same galaxy capabilities as your scope) last night and managed to see a galaxy called NGC 5846 which is 90 million light years away. It was just a very faint and small patch of light which is how practically all galaxies look through smaller scopes, even the famous ones like the Whirlpool (M 51) and the Pinwheel (M 101).

You scope is actually ideal for galaxy spotting because it is so portable so transporting it to dark skies is (normally) somewhat easier. Dark skies are what helps more than anything when observing galaxies.

Great report Kerry !

I wish I was able to get up that early - I seem to be more of a night owl 

Nice dream Dave !

I had a similar night here with the 130 refractor

I'll get a scope on Venus and Mercury on Thursday, if it's reasonably clear. Looks like the pair will be a touch under 2 degrees apart so both in the same FoV will be nice then some power on Mercury to tease out it's phase

39 minutes ago, Supernova74 said:

Lol maybe I’m missing a trick after working for some of the best metal polishers finishers in the country 

Show us some better ones and I'm sure they will get as well

It's out cooling so I could not resist

Just now, Gorr_77 said:

Shiny :).......What are the prices for this lest say triplt 100mm?

As much as the hours and hours of work that Mark puts in cost

Tim Wetherell's refractor was pretty special as well (he is a member here)

I think Mark does has found a great niche.

The aesthetics won't appeal to everyone of course but they are very competent instruments as well as having unique looks.

Lowell Observatory have recently installed a rather nice example of Marks work at their public observation deck. This one has a 200mm objective:

48 minutes ago, Don Pensack said:

.... though any nebula filter did help the visibility of H-II regions in M33.

 

Yes, that is a point. Where nebulae can be seen in other galaxies a filter can help emphasize those regions.

12 inch newtonians are superb for observing but on a dobsonian mount

25 minutes ago, Supernova74 said:

Yes look very similar to those old school filters screw on end of 1.25” eyepiece for solar projection no would not buy any Astro gear or solar infact on flea bay I will go through Well known dealer typical on different note out observing tonight as use high capacity batteries on my scope must remember to turn off after Thay are flat 

They are awful and dangerous devices.

With an SCT, a filter, or a filter mounted in a mask, that securely covers the whole of the aperture of the scope is the only way to do it.

With a refractor you can use a herschel wedge which works extremely well and is also extremely safe but they are only for refractors.

I've seen so many of the eq6 12 newtonians for sale over the years and I reckon the reason is often the same - they went for as large as possible on the basis that they didn't want to feel the need to upgrade anytime soon and quickly found the scopes too much to handle.

IMHO a 12 inch on an equatorial needs to be based in an observatory as a permanent setup.

Just now, Stardaze said:

That’s the balance you need to find then. Could be a costly exercise 😂 

There are less expensive alternatives than those in fairness.

10 minutes ago, Ricochet said:

It's nothing to do with your vision compared to someone else's . The brightness of extended objects increases with exit pupil so the bigger the exit pupil, the brighter the sky background. This results in a loss of contrast between stars and the background sky. You've got a 24mm, so you can see the brightness of the sky in that. A 35mm will have a sky brightness roughly double that of the 24mm, which due to the way your eye works will appear as one "step" brighter so you can use that gauge whether you think a 35mm will be too bright. Your 11mm is roughly a quarter as bright as the 24mm, so two steps darker to your eye. 

As above. This is the reason that my Ethos 21mm gets more use than my Nagler 31mm when I'm using my F/5.3 12 inch dobsonian.

16 minutes ago, Stardaze said:

How do you find the Panoptic? Is an EP collection something of the norm 😆

The 24 Panoptic is very compact compared with the Delos's (Deloi ?). Smaller eye lens and not quite so immersive. It's focal point is around 8mm further out than the 17.3 and 14mm Deloi and the Pentax XW's so I might start using a par-focal ring on the Panoptic to equal that up a bit. It's not a show stopping issue though.

The other Delos focal lengths (12mm downwards) are the same as the Panoptic - Tele Vue's focal point "B".

I've only split Antares once from the UK. That was with my 130mm triplet refractor.

Impressive movie

52 minutes ago, lenscap said:

I don't think so John, from the coordinates in the original post I think that the OP is in the Philippines. 😀

I checked Stellarium for his time & location & the ISS was not visible.

It might have helped if he had said "I observed this from the Phillippines" in the original post rather than leaving others to work this out

A very helpful website for working out what you might have seen is "Heavens Above". You can create a login and input your location (all free) and it shows you a wealth of information about natural and man made stuff including star maps, paths, timings etc, etc.

https://www.heavens-above.com/

1 hour ago, Stardaze said:

@John away from the 100 degree £600 TV Ep's, what are your personal views on some of the £3-400 TV's? A panoptic 35 would provide a similar FOV as the ES 24 (82) but the 16/17 area seems to be quite divided. Many people seem to deviate towards 11/12, which I need to use and review. It's all hypothetical and no rush, but good to hears others thoughts/mistakes/regrets😀

In that price bracket I currently own the 24mm Panoptic, the 17.3mm and 14mm Delos and the 2-4mm Nagler zoom. I'm very happy with these and don't see any need to change them in the foreseeable future.

In between those focal lengths I use Pentax XW's which are less expensive but, to my eye, just as nice as the Delos.

I've yet to use a TV Delite though, and those get really good feedback. The Baader Morpheus likewise and they quite cost quite bit less than the Delos and the XW's.

I'll be honest and say that it is really difficult to find something better than BST Starguiders at that price. When they have been sold under other branding (eg: Orion (USA), Astro Tech, TS etc, they have cost quite a bit more than they do when under BST branding.

If eye relief and apparent field can be sacrificed a bit then the Baader Classic Ortho's are probably a little better in pure optical terms.

In terms of plossls the Vixen NPL's might be similar in performance terms but will have less eye relief and narrower fields.

2 hours ago, RH323 said:

....It was a moonless night so I can't be certain but  it was roughly 10 times the size of Jupiter (viewed from the naked eye), perhaps a bit smaller than the size of the moon, when the moon is completely overhead....

 

The Moon is the same size in the sky whether it is at the horizon or right overhead.

The apparent diameter of the moon is around 1800 arc seconds and Jupiter is 50 arc seconds so 36x smaller than the Moon in the sky.

The International Space Station is a similar size in the sky to Jupiter, a lot brighter, moves across the sky quite quickly as you watch it and, on the night in question and around the correct time, the ISS passed across the section of sky that you mentioned in your original post.

My 12 inch newtonian was bought as an optical tube with tube rings and I then had a dobsonian mount made for it from plywood based on the Orion Optics design:

Scientists are trying to re-create conditions on Mars to see how mud behaves:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-52713131