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_android_vs_ios_winners.thumb.jpg.803608cf7eedd5cfb31eedc3e3f357e9.jpg

Jase71

Members
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About Jase71

  • Rank
    Nebula

Profile Information

  • Location
    SE UK
  1. Not exactly on topic-but related...sort of i think .. lol Have seen/read about huge gravitqaional forces within a black hole,strong enough that even light itself does not have the velocity to escape. Now,looking at our own satellite,If the Moon has enough gravitaional force to attract the water on the earths surface,deforming it to form tides-Why is the effect of gravity on things like Astronauts bouncing around on it "weak"? Umm Yup-I know very little ofc...but wondered if the "Huge Forces" in the BH depended on WHAT matter was being affected? If that makes sense...
  2. Kinda makes me wish id gone the i7 route when built this. But...Knew the Core2Quad 6600 in G0 stepping clocks like a b****. Went for Q6600,8Gb Ram, and 2x 896mb GTX260's. Runs Win7 x64 nicely-But i do often wonder how it woulda been with the i7 cpu instead.. May you have many happy hours watching in amazement as your shiny new PC eats everything you can throw at it
  3. Another Earth?-Probably not.. Another life supporting planet?-Probably. Thing is..Earth may well be suitable for higher life forms at present-But "present" is a drip in the ocean of Earths lifespan. Have heard a lot about how we are so lucky to be here thanks to Earths "just right" balance of temperature range,atmospheric composition,stabillised by the moon etc... I dont really think we ARE that lucky...I simply think life adapts to conditions around it...Even here on earth life exists in some crazy conditions that until recently would have been declared impossible to support life. Im not expecting little green men and "take me to your leader" anytime soon,but i do firmly believe there are other planets that harbor life-In whatever forms its capable of sustaining them in.
  4. I would say that given the sheer scope of differing conditions thoughout the universe,our understanding of life is rather limited. Sure-We know a great deal about our own carbon based lifeforms,but im not so sure the same criteria could be applied across the board. Is life out there anywhere? I think so.There are just so many other star/planetary systems/galaxies etc,that as said earlier-i cant believe we just happen to be the only ones in the sweet spot in relation to the star. Mankind is nothing but a tiny blip in Earths history,and yet we seem to have this idea that we are "special". (I guess in a way we are-To my knowledge no other species has been on such a mission of self destruction as the Human race.) I think it far more likely that across space,life has,and still is,rising and falling at all kinds of stages. After all-Earth and the life on it is (with some variations) made up of the same materials found throughout the galaxy..
  5. I would love to see the shuttle launch with my own eyes.. Keep yourself busy im sure the hours will fly by. Hmm.. "anxiety" Think i should seek out a little more of that if it means i get to lounge on a sun bed in Florida with sunny skies and a cold drink... *sigh* Hope you enjoy it
  6. hmm.. I was also running the Einstein boinc project,on a 50% share with SETI. Have now detached Einstein...And Seti@home has sprung to life. I still get one of the Seti tasks saying "Waiting to run 0.4 CPU 1 nvidia GPU",but all other tasks seem to be running niceley now. Strange... But at least its doing something now
  7. Thank you very much Will have a look for the Astronomik CLS EOS clip-Sounds perfect! Im quite a fan of the Nifty Fifty,so the EFS bit isnt an issue.
  8. Am looking for a filter system for Canon EOS 1000D to help filter out that lovely orange glow i get from living in such a hellpit. Im hoping to use the Canon for both widefield shots just on a tripod,and when i get the adapters etc-Through a 5" reflector. I take it i would need different filters for each? Anyone have any recommendations as to which would be best to use? Saw on one website that LP filters only make Nebulae more visible,and will reduce the visibility of stars,So i really dont want to buy something that isnt going to help. (I ask far too many questions!) Any advice would be much appreciated
  9. Know the feeling... Bordering on White here (But then im a stones throw from Heathrow so not too surprising i guess:D)
  10. Only joined recently,but as a total newcomer i thought i would echo many of the above... GREAT site. Have spent endless hours reading through the various topics,picking up little bits of info here and there.. The end result,Which really stands as testiment to the admins and members-Is that every time i click the bookmark for this site-My enthusiasm skyrockets. Seeing what others have achieved,and reading the excellent obs reports is truly inspirational. The learning curve is steep-But is made much more digestable by the helpful folk's right here. I for one,would like to say "thank you!"
  11. I currently have SLI disabled,so the cards are capable of independant operations. (Not using SLI at the moment as it wont work if have 4 monitors attached-Wish they'd change that!) BOINC shows 15 CPU tasks and 5 CUDA ones. (Although the vast majority are at 0%,Waiting to start etc)
  12. Joined the SGL team a few days ago.. I *think* i got the optimized one,but have a minor issue... currently have it running on a Quad Core system,8GB ram,with 2 x 896mb Geforce GTX's (both CUDA compatible ofc as they are identical) However.. When running Seti@home,it often sits there with "Waiting to run- 0.4 processors,1.0 GPU" Why it claims 0.4 CPU and only sees a single CUDA GPU? (Its set to run always,and use 100% of available processors,@ 90% CPU load.) anyone have any idea?
  13. I'd be happy to get anywhere near that Okies.. Think perhaps i been jumping ahead of myself a bit.. What i have been doing is getting the cam setup on tripod looking almost straight up (Lower alts just make it much worse),and starting with 30 second exposures,dropping exp time down as neccersary depending on lens used.Once i find a shutter speed that keeps sky reasonably dark while showing stars,i get my series of shots to be used,followed by a few dark shots with lens cap on. I then simply use the default settings in Deep Sky Stacker to stack the images,and save the result with options embedded but not applied. Open image in Photoshop and start playing with curves etc. Problem is.. Until i saw your post-i had not been checking the original images before stacking. (Pretty stupid i know...) But...Surprisingly..The original images have far more stars visible,with better detail than the stacked image does? I was kinda hoping stacking would improve the visibility of faint stars-not simply exclude them from the image. (a single "original" image looks far better than anything i can get in photoshop from the stacked one!) i did notice in DSS that there is an option for Star Detection threshold,set at 10 by default. By dropping the value to 5,i found that DSS detected far more stars,but it made no real difference in the final image. I'l get my head round it at some point no doubt
  14. Have an awful feeling that my desire (Mid life crisis?) for astronomy is running headlong into a brick wall before its got off the ground.. After my initial post in the welcome section,i decided to spend as much time as i could sat with my 5" newtonian. Nowhere near as much clear skies as i'd hoped (along with the rest of you i guess!),but i did manage a few reasonable nights observing. Even managed a rough polar alignment for first time,making Jupiter a doddle to keep in the view. Was fairly mesmorised sat looking at the color bands,although they were very hard to distinguish.Im starting to realise half of it isnt about the view you have-but appreciating just what it is you are looking at considering distances/time involved. However-I have a major problem. I live perhaps 1.5 miles south of Heathrow airport.And generally no more than 10 stars readily visible most nights. (Limited to South - North westerly views only from the garden) Tried on a couple of nights to have a bash at some long exposure widefields to see what it would bring out on my canon with 18mm and a 50mm f.18,and was massively dissapointed.(@18mm f5.6 had problems with needing a LOT of exposures to get anything at all-which resulted in problems due to being a static tripod setup-trails were awful,while at f1.8,exposures were down to a few seconds and still looking very bright,with little stars) Would a better scope be able to increase the number of visible objects,kinda cut thru the LP at all? Or would say a 200-300mm mirror simply mean more of the LP to look at? I have street lights about 75ft from Obs location,and sky is never black. (oh how i wish!) Anything i can do about it?-or is it simply a case of driving out to distant sites anytime i want to have a little gaze? I love watching Jupiter,and the details on the lunar surface..but.. Need a little more to look at!
  15. Hi folk's. After looking for a decent place to learn the ropes-I kinda liked the "feel" here.Looking forward to picking your brains! I had a small refractor as a kid (Many moons ago!),and recently decided i would love to get deeper into Astronomy... MUCH deeper! Now approaching 40,and just cant stop gazing up in wonder. (And every time i do-its like being 10 all over again!) To this end,i dashed out and bought the first scope i could find...tho i have a suspicion it may be a "dud". (though of course-its also equally likely that i am the problem,not the scope!) Bought a Celestron 127EQ on Equatorial mount for the princely sum of £180. After looking around online-it seems i paid too much,and could have got a much better scope for that.ho hum! The scope has a 4mm and a 20mm erecting eyepiece,along with a 3x barlow. The barlow is tacky as hell,and any time i tried it the image was awful. Both eyepieces are Celestron made,with no other lettering etc on them. Perhaps my biggest gripe is that it is very difficult to see through the eyepieces,with partial image obscured. (by what i have no idea!) Anyway,I seem to have much to learn! Had reasonable fun with Lunar observation,but really wanted to use it more for planetary/deep sky (including imaging) Is the 127EQ suitable for such things? And would new eyepieces make a difference,or should i just buy a better quality scope? The label on the scope says "D-127mm F1=1000mm F/8" I have a background in photography,so can understand focal lengths etc,just not sure how it impacts scope use. Sorry for the "wall of text"!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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