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

AndyWB

Members
  • Content Count

    1,273
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by AndyWB


  1. I'm just looking for some reassurance that I've not gone and spent £109 on something that's not much use. It's a stunning looking EP though, solid and very well made.

    Thanks,

    Mark

    You've not. I've the same scope; it's my primary planetary eyepiece. That said, sometimes x200 is too much; then I'll normally try x150 (and I've had a night or two when that was too much too). And rarely, x240 works too (Those are 8 and 5 mm respectively.)


  2. I use a 250px, and my eyepiece range is:

    BST Starguiders - to be honest, the 5, 8 12, and 15mm would be enough. I found them far better than the eyepieces that came with the scope. Yes, I'm sure there are better eyepieces, but I had these from my first scope, and they're still good bang-per-buck.

    Vixen SLV - 6mm - I got this to give me x200 for planetary. x240 was too much fairly often, and x150 too little. It might not have the same field of view, but it's a lovely eyepiece. I used it for a fantastic view of Jupiter on Friday.

    Vixen NPL - 30mm - Struggles a bit with the speed. Bearable, but out performed by the more expensive…

    Maxvision - 28mm - Lovely, wide field. a bargain bit of glass.

    I've also tried all the Hyperions apart from the Zoom on my 250px - and they were rubbish. LOTS of coma. I wouldn't recommend them.


  3. I saw exactly the same basic phenomena from a dark site in Berkshire, on the 24th of November 2013, at 1821GMT. There was a sudden, intense point of light, brighter than Venus, near Pi Herculis. It lasted 5 seconds, maybe, before turning reddish and fading. There was no apparent movement during that time, but after the flare had subsided I could still see a faint, reddish-brown point of light that did drift off to the south, before turning brown and vanishing.

    My instant reaction had been 'aircraft with landing lights on coming directly at me', but the lack of navigation lights and growing brightness made me realise it wasn't that. It was startling, and it wasn't like any flare I'd seen before - but I am happy that it was a satellite. I could see it drift off at a speed I associate with satellites, and the 'turning red' as it passes through sunset was another hint.

    That's not to say that what you saw wasn't something else, but your description could've been lifted from my log book, and I'm sure that it was a satellite of some form. I couldn't find anything that might match it on Heavens Above, though. Not Iridium, nor nothing else predicted.


  4. I regularly view Jupiter at x130, and it's a fair bit bigger than 1mm (even when I can't see much detail).

    Check for the 4 moons in a line around it. They appear like stars about 1mm in size to me. If there aren't 4 bright moons, then it isn't Jupiter. I did get confused between Jupiter and Aldebaran a while back… (Beer was involved).

    Has the finder been correctly aligned with the scope itself? It could be that the finder is pointing at it - but the scope is somewhere else. 


  5. Do most of you use paper charts and red lights??

    If I'm somewhere dark, I try to, but sometimes SkySafari is just too darned useful. In that case, like Nicos, I use red rubylith too.

    If I'm just out the back of the flats I live in,well, there are so many lights around, it's not worth panicking about - you never get properly dark adapted.

    • Like 2

  6. I also tried the 8mm BST but was underwhelmed by this ep, it is not enough of an upgrade to the stock 10mm to be worthwhile in my opinion

    I've all the Starguiders apart from the new(ish) 3.2mm and the 25mm, and I also feel that the 8mm was the weakest of mine. The 5mm, though, is pretty good.


  7. Just as a note on the speed side of things - I tried the 5, 10, 17 and 21 Hyperions in my f4.8 dob. They were all terrible. The BSTs are fine. Just something to think about if you were ever going to think of faster focal ratios. In a slower scope - an f6 refractor - the Hyperions were lovely. I reckon around 68 degrees is what I find most comfortable.

    • Like 1

  8. FWIW, I tried for the Horse Head nebula on Friday having spotted the bright edge to IC 434 and NGC 2023, but I couldn't see it. With and without filter, there wasn't enough contrast. This was, however, from within 2 miles of the centre of Reading.  Annoyingly, it felt like being on the edge of being visible; if only I'd been able to go somewhere properly dark.

    • Like 1

  9. Yeah, don't be deceived - you'd think 'cos it's the first on Messier's list that M1 would be really easy to spot, but it isn't. Lowjiber's tapping tip really helps, as does an OIII or UHC filter if available.

    He's also right in that it is a little disappointing when you do find it; I've yet to see any detail or structure to it.

    • Like 2

  10. think I managed to split Sirius on Friday with a Vixen SLV 6mm in my 10" dob. I say think because it wasn't as definite as, say, Rigel, but I sat and watched and every so often this little star of light appeared out of the glow of Sirius. It wasn't as dim as I thought it might be, and it wasn't visible for most of the time - but every so often it appeared. Looking at the Proper Angle afterwards, it would appear to be in the right place.

    I'm not sure if I should record it as split as it wasn't as definite as, say, Sarin or Beta-MON - but it was in the right place, and Friday night was the most stable sky I've had in a long time (Jupiter was crystal clear!)


  11. I was out on Friday too, and was struck by the lack of dew too. It was very squelchy underfoot, and the temperature low (but not really freezing) so I was sure after 2-3 hours  my secondary would dew up - but it didn't.

    Despite being in town, I found myself nebula hunting with my 250px, and an OIII filter - and I got a number of new ones. An unexpected highlight was catching IC434, though it was fairly faint, and I couldn't make out the Horse Head. However, I could definitely see the edge of the nebula.

    M1 looked good, too; it felt like it was on the edge of given a bit of detail beyond just 'a fuzzy patch'.

    And toward the end of the evening, Jupiter - lovely. Like you say, dark swirls in the belts; it felt like a very stable and sharp image.

    • Like 1

  12. I looked at this on Friday; I didn't see filaments, but I did see like a star with a brighter nebula around it, then a darker ( but not dark ) ring, and then a pale and slightly brighter outer ring. Sort of like the second of these two sketches. http://www.perezmedia.net/beltofvenus/archives/000493.html 

    It's only the 3rd or 4th time I've looked at the Eskimo Nebula, but it was easily the most detail that I could see.  This was at x200 in my 250px, using a Vixen SLV 6mm and Astronomik OIII filter. From a light polluted town centre, too.


  13. ...  It was so bright that it blinded me.. took me few minutes for my eyes to go back to normal. 

    This is normal! I find looking at the Moon "blinds" me at night, so I always leave the Moon until the end of a session. Don't panic - you won't fry your retina (as looking at the Sun would).

    ... At higher magnifications the brightness decreases?

    Yup, at higher magnification the image gets dimmer. I think of this as the light being gathered by 'scope being more spread out to give me a larger image. As John suggests, I tend to increase the magnification if the brightness is bothering me (but it doesn't, much).

    Regarding UHC and OIII filters and so on - note that these only help with some deep space objects. Things like emission nebulae and planetary nebulae tend to emit very specific frequencies of light. A filter like that can let through those frequencies, while rejecting other frequencies, which increases contrast. Also, those rejected frequencies may be light pollution, so it can help with seeing faint nebulae under conditions where you wouldn't see them otherwise.

    So I would describe it as a filter like this decreases brightness, but improves contrast, and therefore the quality of the image.

    However, some deep space objects do not emit specific frequencies of light. This includes stars, mainly - and therefore open clusters, globular clusters, and galaxies - and also reflection nebulae. Filters just can't really help with those.

    I use an Astronomik OIII filter in my 10" reflector, and while it does dim the stars quite a lot, it really does help at picking out detail in nebulae. Even so, don't expect photographic levels of detail.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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