Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

SilverAstro

Members
  • Posts

    2,143
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Posts posted by SilverAstro

  1. 5 hours ago, FLO said:

    so no eyeballs were harmed in the making of that video :)

    :laughing4:

    I must admit to a little chuckle at the bit in the description "and irreversible damage to the eyes " shirly they mean eye -singular? one would still have a spare with which to investigate what went wrong the first time ? Or is there going to be a bino viewer in a bundle?

    ok hat&coat

    Now has been changed to the singular, but no "ho ho ho" here, oh well

     

    • Haha 1
  2. 6 hours ago, Gerd said:

    Hi guys, I've fixed Niels' old website http://www.njnoordhoek.com and intend to maintain it until I keel over myself.  There are too many cool things on it.  Poke me if anything isn't where you think it should be or you have any questions.
    Gerd.

    That is such really good news, it was so illuminating back then to read his blog, so sad when he departed.

    Well done, thank you.

    :thumbsup:  :thumbsup:  :thumbsup:

     

  3. 9 minutes ago, Shera said:

     that would sit on my Star Adventurer and is capable of getting more detail than the lenses that are supplied with my DSLR the biggest being 70-300mm.

    Ah yes ok, I see that I tried to cover too much all in one go, but as it had been a few hours 'hanging' I tried to cover various :)

    So 'Dual-Speed 2” Crayford Focuser '  is the bit to take advice on to be able to use your 1.25" kit then. You wouldnt need the star diagonal for the camera but would need an equivalent extension I suppose.

     

  4. 10 hours ago, Shera said:

    Can someone tell me (as a Newbie) will this work with my Canon DSLR T ring adapter and is it capable of photographing and viewing deep sky objects like galaxies as well as planets? I've got a Star Adventurer as a mount. I've got a Skywatcher Explorer reflector scope which came with 1.25" 10mm & 25mm eyepieces and a x2 Barlow lens, would these be ok to use as I noticed it says it doesn't come with any eyepieces? Thanks.

    I guess your DSLR T-ring/adapter? is 1.25" so you will need a 2" to 1.25" adapter, I think. ( I have not yet done anything yet in that line with my DSLR.) or a 2" T jobbie.
     
    Skywatcher adverts like to talk about "light gathering", so in like style :-
    this will gather about 1/4 *of the light of your Explorer if it is the 130, or about 1/9th * the light of the Explorer 200.

    Photographing galaxies is doable but will need very approx. 4x longer exposures (or equivalent more subs to stack) than an Explorer130. Visually it will not show you many more galaxies than your average binoculars, 50mm vs. this at 70mm. What it will do is show you what it can see with excellent clatrity, we hope (that is a tremendous simplification ! think of it as a HiFi 70mm glass)

    Your eyepieces will work but you will need a 2" to 1.25" adapter and a star diagonal (or the other way round).

    Perhaps  !  Me no expert, an expert should be here soon :)

    Edit * 75% less and 90% less  light than

  5. 11 minutes ago, Redscouse said:

    Yeah, the only difference to the entire texts are the word 'astro' substituted for 'baader'.
    To be honest, I've read this thread numerous times and the only thing I know for certain is I've saved £60 :) 

    Thanks for the confirmation, yes, that was my dilemma

    I have been up and down his pages to make sure it was not my eyes (or dyslexica!) all very odd. Could there be two Baader mods / filters, cos someone posted earlier about it being a clear glass whereas I thought it (singular?) was for daylight colour balance,   with a bit of residual/extra IR cut as well I wonder?  If that latter were the case then for astro only use we would be better off without it ??

    my head hurts !

     

  6. 15 hours ago, Redscouse said:

    Thanks for the response. So what you're saying, looking at the picture below, I can save myself £60 and go for the £399 one and it will work ok?

    Me muchly confussled as well ! Until this topic I thought I knew what I wanted, now I am not so sure, thanks y'all !

    Ref the above pic, in that Juan is saying "ASTRO modified for astronomical use" on the top one, and on the lower he is saying "BAADER modified for astronomical use".

    In his other ads for other models he says "BAADER modified for astronomical use and daylight photography   " which made me think that the Baader mod used a colour correction glass 'filter' to thus not need a custom white balance -but otherwise not needed for your astro only requirement-

     

  7. 2 hours ago, Alien 13 said:

     the ship needed a payload of some description...I know what I would choose.

    True, but  I am conflicted on this junk / novelty aspect.

    Every satellite needs, now, to have an end of life plan. Usually to de-orbit and burn up. So by rights the final burn should have been to lower perigee to cause the no longer needed dummy load to return to Earth, not to raise its apogee to 'out there'  ???

     

  8. 5 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

     computer control must be incredible.

    Thanks.

    Yep, needed a bit more than the ZX81 they used for the moon landings :D

    and after all that they came back within seconds / inches of each other !

     

  9. Just now, michaelmorris said:

    Whilst the Earth's rotation will certainly help shorten the the return track, AFAIK it is a not the whole story.  From what I understand, the boosters do actually partially retraces their path through space as well as retracing their ground track.

    Yes, most of my thinking (above)  is in error because it starts with the initial velocity of the earth (so it is 'flying' relative), but not sure about the turning round and flying back bit, it all must be more-or-less ballistic ?

    Generally speaking it is more efficient fuel-wise to launch satellites into orbit with the rotation of the Earth than against it., so hmmm,,

    There is more to this than meets the eye ! all very thought provoking !

     

  10. oh ! ding !! I think  :

    but the Cape is not where it was,  it has moved with the rotation of the Earth underneath it all, so ,

    gosh that means that the timing of separation and the speed that they had achieved must be precisely matched to the rotation such that they fall back at exactly the right moment to "hit" the Cape at where it now is ?

    but such a narrow window would set an exactly defined  weight to the payload, if more weight then more boost, but they would then overshot the Cape ??

    meanwhile the centre core has gained extra speed so needs a boat to catch it ?? clever !

    my head hurts, too much scratching !

  11. Watching EM during the press conference he came over as a man of great good humour (or humor over there :) ) and the conference was a world away from the stilted stuffed shirts of yesteryear !

    One thing though that is puzzling me, the thing takes off at huge great speed, flies rapidly (<understatement!) down range, boosters peel off, , ,then,  how did they fly back to the Cape to land ? I saw no wings and extra motor.

    Scratches head ,,,,

    • Like 1
  12. 2 hours ago, Stub Mandrel said:

     it recover core  benefits them, bigger orbit benefits their customers.

    EM said during the press conference that they were "not going to re-use the core anyway", so I guess this has saved them the cost of taking it to the Council Recycling Amenity :D (and the car too haha !)

    They dont intend re-using the boosters either but he said that they did have some useful bits on them to recycle, so he was pleased that it was those that survived, not the other way round.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.