dannybgoode

Yep - agree with most of what you have said; particularly trying to troubleshoot without having full knowledge of the gear etc. The problem with the above though - I can do that with my mount however it is often quite a long way off target and so I still miss, have to spend time re-framing, take another test sub etc when plate solving has it done in a matter of a minute or two to an accuracy I couldn't hope to repeat. I don't use ASCOM either rather INDI so no issues there . But yes, there are plenty of ways to skin this particular cat and one man's meat etc...

The trick in my mind when looking at DSO's is to think about what you are looking at. That faint smudge is a whole other galaxy. Literally a whole galaxy; billions of stars light years across and you are seeing it with your own eye(s) from your back garden. That is pretty cool by any standards. Most DSO's are just smudges of varying shapes and sizes but, when at the eyepiece looking at them, just ponder about what they actually are and how far the photons hitting your retina have travelled, their age and their origins. To me that makes the whole thing magically :)

Depends - I can barely see the main stars of Orion such is the light pollution in my garden so yes, to frame most DSO's plate solving is pretty much essential. And to be fair of all the things that go wrong during an imaging session I don't think I have ever had a problem with plate solving. Loads of other stuff goes wrong, some of it my fault and some of it just because computers are a PITA, but plate solving is the one thing that has been utterly reliable for me . It just works.

Oh that's nice. Sometimes sparkle doesn't work but the balance is just right in this. Really nice variation in colour in the stars too. Must have a go myself

You know what. For an only an hour's worth of data and for a first run through I'll take this. It could be loads better but as a proof of concept for using the Sony RX10M4 as a grab and go deep space astro-imaging device it maybe has potential. For those not in the know the RX10M4 is Sony's top of the range 1" sensor bridge camera - great daytime camera, one of the best I have used. More data would help (couldn't you *always* need more data when astro imaging ) but the nice thing about deep space objects is bar the odd supernova they are generally where you left them so in the coming weeks I can add more to this and see if I can improve it some. Image of M81 - Bode's Galaxy and its companion M82. 60 x 60" sub frames shot at f5 ISO1600. Initially processed in PixInsight - sub-frame calibration, star alignment, cosmetic corrections, stacking, stretching, photometric colour calibration, Denoise, Deconvolution and a few other processes and then into PS CC for tweaking with various astro-imaging tools I have.

Pretty much how 50% of my sessions go . Get everything working, then everything breaks. Repeat the exact same setup steps as the first time and it doesn't work. Rinse, repeat and suddenly everything decides to work with you doing nothing different at all. Clouds... Hope you get it sorted. I did manage to get a session in last night with my Sony RX10 as an experiment and it actually worked fine. Went to try and run a Flats sequence this afternoon and it was not having any of it!

Just now - 'why the chuff can't I see polaris? I am sure I am there or thereabouts'... Are yes, forgot to extend the counterbalance weight bar as I am not using counterweights tonight. Yep that would do it...

@JamesF - thank you. I will have a rummage. Linux is not my strong point I am afraid. I just installed the whole of Astroberry and regularly run the updates but cannot really tell you much more than that. The camera is recognised and works with EKOS and PHD for plate solving and guiding - I know that much :) . I will have a hunt around for the library you mention and try and get that installed.

That's pretty cool

I am trying to get my Altair GP0130 working as well and I cannot see the file 70-altair etc. Am I missing something or do I need to add it? Thanks for your help

A focal reducer for my scope would cost the same as a nice 60mm ED triplet and even then I would still be struggling to fit it in so would rather get the smaller scope . Plus my scope is heavy and I want something more portable for a grab and go. If you are not seeing colour etc then it is down to the imaging process. What camera are you using, what exposure settings are you using, what software to control everything etc? If you could post a sample image as well so we can see what you are managing to capture

To give you an example this is the Rosette with the red square simulating the field of view my TMB 105/650 + camera will give. As you can see I actually need a much smaller scope or larger camera to be able to fit it all in

I would say it is not the scope in that case. The Rosette is a large target - much too large to fit in the field of view of my 650mm scope and Starlight Xpress SX674 for example and you would want a smaller widefield scope for it. Similarly the HH is overall a large target and the ED80, depending on the camera, be about right for it. What camera are you using, what sort of exposure times are you giving it, are you shooting one shot colour or mono with filters etc

A small scope on a big mount is a good thing for AP and as per the above, long focal lengths become much much more difficult to handle. Your guiding needs to be spot on, there needs to be little to no wind etc. Also, many DSO's are small and trying to make them big by chucking focal length at them isn't always desirable. You will see that most imagers prefer scopes like the ED80 or ones that are even smaller as they are more versatile and can image objects both large and small. I would suggest careful consideration about exactly what objects you want to image and whether a longer focal length is the best way to go about this.

This should help

The routine in KStars/EKOS is pretty much exactly the same as Sharpcap. Take a frame, rotate mount, take another frame, move highlighted star to indicated point. Job jobbed

Yes I get that but it is still Hubble's replacement, if not like for like. Hubble has 5 years at best left I think and I doubt it will be replaced with another visual scope...

Given that the HST will die in the near-ish future the JWS will be it's replacement visual or otherwise I think. I am not sure they will launch another purely visual space telescope these days.

On the plus side the resulting 'safe mode' operation did highlight a few other faults. Can't believe it's 30 years old either. Still one of the great space missions IMO along with the Voyager missions, Apollo and New Horizons. https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/12/hubble_bork/

The power supply bit is interesting and it works both ways. Many people already have a suitable 12v power supply and USB hubs so paying for supplies you don't need is a waste of money and resources. As to your requirements, given your equipment list I assume you are wanting to go mobile? If not then a mains extension (with a suitable RCD if outside) and a nice fat 12v PSU will do the trick and you can just run wires from that. I run a full imaging set up just from mains and a PSU, no PowerBox or anything - just a big 30A liner PSU with cables plugged into that, a USB plug for my Raspberry Pi and my main camera did actually come with a power supply. If you are wanting to go battery powered then something like the PowerBox is very useful as you just need one cable from a suitably spec'd battery and away you go. Or you can rig up your own power tank and plop a 12V to 240V inverter on it and plug PSU's etc into that :) . Agree though if you are a bit cautious of elctrics (as is sensible if you do not 100% know what you are doing) it can seem daunting and Pegasus do an 'official' 10A psu for the PowerBox although any high power 12V psu would do. https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/pegasus-12v-mains-10ah-power-supplies.html

No point buying Sharpcap if using Astroberry. A) it won't work and b) KStats/EKOS has a very similar PA routine built into it

Simply a lot of galaxies come into view for imaging at this time of year

My skies are Bortle 8/9 and even images minutes long are not too bright. You need to view the un-stretched RAW images on your computer though. Your camera, even shooting in RAW does some processing to show the images on the screen though this processing is not carried through to the file. You should be aiming for at least 2 mins at ISO 800 or 1600 but don’t judge the results until you’ve viewed them unstretched on the computer Take a single test shot if you don’t want to potentially waste a load of time taking frames that end up being useless.

I’ve just got a Pegasus FocusCube v2 and it’s a lovely thing. Very well made and will fit just about any focuser. Worked straightaway with Astroberry/EKOS too. Not had chance to test it in anger but very happy with my choice. The hand controller is a nice addition. Can see that getting plenty of use when I’m using high powered eye pieces or lunar imaging with my frac.

For most nebulae you need exposure times in the minutes not seconds. When you say the images are washed out if you expose for longer than 20” what are you viewing them in? Are they auto-stretched etc? What are your other camera settings? RAW or jpeg, are you definitely in full manual mode etc?