Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_30_second_exp_2_winners.thumb.jpg.b5430b40547c40d344fd4493776ab99f.jpg

Whirlwind

Members
  • Content Count

    354
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

121 Excellent

About Whirlwind

  • Rank
    Star Forming

Profile Information

  • Location
    Leicester
  1. The other benefit of longer telescopes is that you are usually getting a larger aperture. Therefore if you are binning to the same resolution as a smaller 80mm refractor then you get the benefit of the extra aperture overall (barring some noise differences from binning). Your field of view will be overall smaller though. For example a C8 edge with reducer or 200mm F4 reflector would give you a similar 1.1" resolution. Ideally you'd want the largest telescope with a short focal length but they are usually quite expensive... So it depends on how much you want to spend!
  2. What defines Jupiter as a planet is that it is the primary gravitational body within that region (it doesn't have to be the only object that crosses that path). The Trojan / Greek asteroids are there because Jupiter is the dominant body (without it they would be scattered all over the place). The same goes for Neptune. Strictly speaking Pluto 'crosses' Neptune's orbit but when they come to be close together Neptune will hardly notice Pluto, whereas Pluto will definitely notice Neptune!
  3. From a terminology perspective the answer to this is no. One aspect of the definition of a planet is that it is the primary gravitational body within its orbital path (summarised). As such you can't have two 'planets' on the same orbital path. Though potentially two dwarf planets. What you are describing really is one of the theories of planetary system formation in that many bodies are formed and they eventually merge to former a few larger bodies/planets (or get ejected from the system). If the question is that whether such a system could form and be stable for hundreds of millions of years then in principle if you have two perfectly circular orbits, a perfect star system, and they are exactly opposite each other in ther orbit then in principle the answer is yes, but the chance of such a system forming is so infinitesimally small that the answer really is no. Lagrangian points need two larger bodies though (e.g. Jupiter / Sun) so needs another body as well. So strictly speaking you can't have planets at lagrangian points as at best they would be dwarf planets (the other larger body would be the planet).
  4. A budget would help. When you talk about buying a mount once, that's great but if you want the best mounts out there for imaging then you are looking in the region of £4k upwards at least. If you are looking at casual imaging once in a while (or solar system only) then you can get away with a lesser mount and then get a short focal length refractor for imaging. You might also want to consider portability if you aren't going to have a permanent set up. If you really want top range mounts (and portability that will image with a C11 edge) then you could look at something like (in no particular order):- Mach1 (used) or Mach2 (new) from Astrophysics M-uno from Avalon instruments GM1000HPS from 10 Micron MyT from Software Bisque Even a TTS Panther Mount if visual / solar system imaging are more your intent (these have potential limitations for deep sky) However there are other portable mounts that will get you reasonably close (Ioptron, Skywatcher, Vixen etc) but generally they sit a bit below those stated above according to the community (*caveat I have not tested every single of these mounts!)
  5. The youtube comments that it is about to blow are all conjecture without any real basis or evidence. There is little historic data on pre-supernova sequences (and indeed could be different dependent on mass of the progenitor). Betelgeuse is already a known variable likely due to pulsations and large dark convection cell spots (like our own stellar spots but much larger). Alternatively it could have recently shed a lot of dusty material that is now in out line of sight (though I've read that the luminosity reduction is the same across all wavelengths and if it was dust then we'd expect wavelengths to be dimmed by different amounts). So it is probably just a case of multiple periodic cycles lining up - it's pulsated to a smaller size and there is a dark convective cell on the visible face to us. To put things into context if the luminosity change was *just* due to a size reduction then a 1 magnitude change would equate to a current radius about 65% of what it was in October (and assuming no temperature change).
  6. It depends on what you are intending to use it for. For Deep sky it allows for a much greater field of view without optical distortions becoming apparent. Most SCT flatteners have more limited fields in this regards because of limitations of their design whereas the Edge's I believe are corrected for full frame (or close to) cameras which requires a lot more glass and hence expense. In addition there are mechanical differences between the two. There is likely also the impact of what the market will pay for an off the shelf design factor and in the UK I think there is a bit of one distributor syndrome that is coming into play. If you are a deepsky imager with a large CCD then the Edge wins. For visual, photometry, spectroscopy or solar system imaging the Edge only really has the mechanical benefits (e.g. mirror lock etc).
  7. I would suggest asking local scrap merchants to see if anything comes there way. It is unlikely to be able to be sold and my suspicion is that it may have been picked up for the metal value by ad hoc thieves (and completely ignoring the value of the telescope itself).
  8. It depends on what you are imaging and what you are imaging with. If you are using a colour camera and want a 'fast' refractor and/or wish to image broadband objects then you would want a triplet A fast doublet refractor would not bring enough of the wavelength range to focus at the same point and hence stars would bloat badly. On the other hand a slow refractor would have less of this issue as the best focus range is much larger and it is much better at focussing a longer range of wavelengths - you can offset the decrease f ratio by binning the camera. If you want to solely focus on narrowband objects then strictly speaking (and assuming all optics are made equally) then a doublet should be better. As you are working at narrowband then all of that narrow range would be focussed equally so bloat can be avoided. You would have to focus each time you changed narrowband range though (e.g. SII, HII, OIII etc). The doublet would then be better as it should cool down faster and be more temperature stable (less glass) and have less surfaces so should result in less scatter so stars should be smaller and light throughput should be higher. In principle it should also be easier to manage as it would be lighter as well. As for the size of stars that is probably a combination of optics, aperture, seeing and image processing. With no seeing (i.e. in space) then the size of a star is limited by the aperture (assuming no central obstruction) - in a perfect world a larger aperture would result in a smaller star. However, seeing, poor focus (perhaps from temperature changes) optical imperfections and so forth generally scatter enough light so they bloat to some extent. Many then use software tools to shrink down the stars. In the UK I would guess most stars are fatter then other images (from say Chile) because of seeing assuming both parties have equally understanding of imaging (e.g. can find the point of best focus).
  9. The Baader website only shows the OIII ultra narrowband as out of stock at the moment. The long lead times in the UK are probably because they don't hold them in stock and order them in specifically.
  10. As you can rotate the focuser compared to the optical tube you could do this and re-orientate the camera. If the pattern stays the same then it is likely something to do with the optical tube. If the pattern rotates then it is probably something to do with the focuser. However, it does look like pinched optics to me. These things happen and FLO is good at helping sort the issue.
  11. I've heard that for RCs a truss design makes it easier to centre the secondary because you can look directly at it whereas for a solid tube design this isn't possible (except with Superman vision).
  12. You don't really need a V filter for exoplanet work as most science is done in flux rather than magnitudes these days. Photometric filters are more important for binary eclipse work because the varying depths of the eclipses (or variation) can be an indication of the temperatures of the different components. For exoplanets you can just go with a luminosity filter as there is no emission from planet; the transit depth is the same regardless of the wavelength (except maybe far IR if it is a jovian sized object but then you'd need to be observing from Hawaii to get above most of the atmosphere. Depths of exoplanets are quite small so you want to maximise flux to increase the S/N. Having GPS corrected signal is highly important though if it is for true science work so the time can be converted to heliocentric julian date (HJD). With accurate times people look for transit time variations (TTVs); basically the start of the eclipse changes, which can indicate the presence of other planets in the system. There are plenty of WASP objects to start with though (and these were found using camera lenses).
  13. OK so you probably wouldn't be able to get a focal length reduction without potentially running into focussing issues. However, your pixel scale should be fine at 650mm focal length with that camera without the need to bin (but you can if you want). One thing to note with the 1600 class cameras is that you get microlens artefacts because of how the CMOS is made (no AR coating apparently). You might want to check some images of bright stars where this is obvious so you can determine whether you are happy with this effect. An alternative would be the ASI183 which is a sony based camera and my understanding is that you don't get the same effect. Disadvantage is that it is a smaller chip (although you can mitigate that somewhat by using a camera lens for very widefield views) and the smaller pixel scale which introduces greater challenges (though they are slightly cheaper). Advantage of either of the CMOS is that they can have high frame rates so planetary imaging is possible with these too. It can also depend on what you want to image. If you prefer large nebulae (e.g. M42) then the large chip would help. If you prefer galaxies / planetary nebulae / planets then the larger chip isn't really necessary.
  14. Are you intending to use the 250PX for imaging based on your profile or is there something else you intend to use?
  15. "Chewed their ear off" might be a better way of putting it... , we did talk about the new 'scope briefly but didn't get chance to talk to anyone in detail about the specs; and I missed the chance to thank Ian for some assistance a month or so back. Hence was interested in the specs but couldn't quite recall the aperture (got the 2 and the 4 mixed up). I think it was mentioned that it was going to the Pixelastro site and you were going to use it as a tester for equipment but didn't realise the data would be made available? A large part of the design is in the mechanicals. A great set of lens can still be limited by this. It's good to hear that testers are involved - that would stand them above the other similar competitors. I do like the handle though - it makes moving telescopes that much easier.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.