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_dslr_mirrorlesss_winners.thumb.jpg.9deb4a8db27e7485a7bb99d98667c94e.jpg

ntc

New Members
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About ntc

  • Rank
    Nebula

Profile Information

  • Location
    Oporto, Portugal
  1. Sorry for bringing this thread up again, but I'm having the same problem as the OP, and I wonder if a longer screw is available somewhere. TIA.
  2. I'm rooting for physical double too btw.
  3. Given what we know about the positions and masses of the three components (Albireo A, B and C), isn't it just a matter of calculation? Or would the result be dependent on the data's interval of uncertainty (like Albireo A's distance, which is 430 ± 20 ly according to wikipedia)?
  4. Is it an optical double or are the two main stars bound by gravity? I've read both theories so I wonder if someone has a more definite answer and can quote scientific references...
  5. I'm not sure if they belong in the same category... If not, why not?
  6. I use go-to and also star charts. You have to know where your targets are so you can progress from one to another that's nearby. Also you may need to account for terrain, obstructions, observing near the zenith whenever possible, etc. Charts also help you decide what to observe. What may be the "death of the star chart" is perhaps the software planetarium, specially since they are widespread on portable devices.
  7. I had a good laugh with the listing for the Hubble.
  8. Burnham's Celestial Handbook is still my favourite astronomy title.
  9. I like to take notes too, even though mine are not nearly as good looking. It kind of forces me to look with more attention, so I can record the number of stars that I can see on an open cluster, the colour of doubles, details on nebulas, that kind of thing... It's also nice to log the things I've seen and read up on them once I'm back home.
  10. Thank you everyone for your helpful suggestions! Now 6x30 or 9x50? P)
  11. I forgot to mention that I also found that the finderscope gets out of alignment with the slightest tap, does this happen with other types of finder?
  12. After a decade of observing through binoculars and occasionally peeking through other people's telescopes I finally bought a 102 mm Mak. I've used it three nights in a row and I'm having a lot of fun with it. However, the 6x30 finder scope is really hard to use! I set the tripod low enough that I can observe either sitting down or bending over to the eyepiece. This way it also helps with stability. But when searching for targets up high in the sky it's a gymnastics session just to squat under the finder, maintaining equilibrium while holding the mount's hand controller, a sky atlas and a red light. After a minute or so my legs start to hurt and the desire to find that particular object diminishes. As you may now imagine, I'm not particularly of the athletic type. Also I'm not yet comfortable with the inverted view, even though I admit that I may get accustomed to it eventually. I have a go-to mount but there are situations where I need to point manually. So I'm already thinking about replacing the finder scope. I see there are finders with a 90 degree diagonal and at first sight that seems to solve my main problem. Some observers seem to prefer red point finders and telrads but you still have to get under the telescope to use them, right? Another question: how important are optical differences between models? I guess that given the function of the finder scope comfort and ease of use are the main concerns... Any suggestions? TIA!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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