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.

Welcome to Stargazers Lounge

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customise your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

  • Announcements



Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

78 Excellent

About kilix

  • Rank
  • Birthday 23/10/85

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

196 profile views
  1. So, after testing it at night and failing miserably, I was forced to open the eyepiece again. Finally, after multiple tries, this assembly works as intended (maybe it helps someone in the future): Now it starts to vaguely resemble some kind of erfle modification. Well, at least I'm not learning on Naglers
  2. SW AZ3 head+tripod with homemade counterweight and a bit better locknut for ALT movement. Yeah, the ST102 is in my sights as a logical improvement over ST80. Twice as expensive, but may be well worth it. But I won't order it, I must see it in person, because I am concerned about portability. Portability is the reason ST80 gets so much light. It gets actually used more than the SkyMax because of ease of use&ease of setup and ofc portability. Ags - I believe himalayan skies are jaw dropping even with naked eye
  3. Hello I think I need to share this session, even thou it's really nothing groundbreaking, but still. So, my "better-than-average" observation site is located about a 1km up a really steep hill through the forest, where a nice meadow opens up on top of the hill. This way I merge astronomy with a bit of much needed movement. My back garden is terribly light polluted with all those new LED streetlights purchased with Eurofounds, so no point staying there and trying to spot anything else besides the Moon and planets. This is the reason I have only the ST80 and a 127SkyMax. Yesterday I took the SkyWatcher ST80 for a spin, first time to this meadow. The scope fits in a small backpack with all accessories, tripod carried in hand, nothing terribly difficult. So, I started with obvious M42, I could see the trapezium being not a single star even at 13x mag, with increase to 27x mag just barely resolving 4 stars of the trapezium. Barlowing that showed the nebula nicely in the FOV and a clear separation of the trapezium stars, a pleasant sight. I was kinda surprised how much nebular detail I could see in the ST80, maybe the seeing/darkness/transparency combo was really in my favour? Then I spent some time "hunting" the M35, M36, M37, M38 clusters in/near Auriga. Auriga was quite high, so it was a bit difficult to point the scope where I wanted, but eventually I managed to see all of them (well, I could see them all with naked eye, the challenge was to point the scope accurately). Not much to write home about thou, in the 127Mak they are a "WOW" moment, not so much with the ST80. Then obvious M44, which is a nice sight in a widefield scope like the ST80, and unobtainable in the Mak and afterwards I went quickly to M67, which I 'discovered' during my last observing session with ST80 from a different observing location. That was a big moment, I am sure most of you know the feeling, when you just faintly see something in the finder, you don't know what it is, you don't go for anything particular and bam - a nice star cluster, of which you know nothing, you feel like you are the first human who ever discovered it. Only later you confirm what you've seen in stellarium. This was the case with M67 and yesterday I went and tried to see some detail with this recent 'discovery' of mine. It was a nice sight in the 15mm eyepiece. Barlowing it did not improve the sights, the sky got dimmer, but I could not resolve more stars even after several minutes under blanket. The pinnacle of the evening was the Leo triplet. I was curious if I could see that in a really small and cheap ST80, or if such objects are reserved only to bigger apertures. The funniest thing was how I found it - I moved the scope roughly by hand somewhere below leo's tail roughly along the line Zosma-Chort (as I remembered the location roughly from the planisphere), did not even look in the finder thinking 'I would not see anything there anyway' and there it was Three small fuzzies, one of them blinking in and out of existence, only barely visible with averted vision, but there was no mistake - leo's triplet found at first try by roughly moving the scope, weird stuff. I spent several minutes under the blanket. The best view was -again- with my much loved cheap 15mm ES70 eyepiece, barlowing it (2x) dimmed the background a lot, but also the third galaxy became invisible. 10mm ES70 eyepiece yielded no improvement on the image, only made it more difficult to use with tighter eye relief, so I kept the 15mm EP there and observed those three wisps of smoke at 27x mag. What is weird thou, is the fact, that the more I kept staring into the eyepiece the more they started disappearing. NGC3628 disappeared first ofc, but also M66 and M65 seemed to vanish the more I stared. So I had to take breaks, like 3min observing, then 15sec looking away from the EP and again 3min observing, etc. Staring intermittently did not improve my view. That is contrary to my previous experience with planets, nebulae, or doubles. I do not know how much time I spent there, but suddenly it was 22:00, time really flies by when you enjoy the sky. That's it, I am really pleasantly surprised with the ST80, backpackable scope, lightweight, but still able to provide tons of fun. I really did not expect to see all three leo triplet galaxies, so pleasant surprise there. I also like the challenge of actually seeing some of the more difficult objects with an 'underdog' type of scope.
  4. exactly, nothing is actually moving through space faster than the speed of light. Those objects are near stationary in relation to space around them. There is no actual movement through space. And this is happening right now. There are parts of the universe that are actually being "stretched out" away from us right now faster than the speed of light. And from their point of view, we-earthlings are also being stretched out away at FTL speeds. Do you feel any different?
  5. SW Maks have motor problems on their own too like you can read here maybe that Meade scope needs only some minor cleaning and maintenance? I'm sure Meade users can give an advice. And that LX90 is an 8 inch scope? I highly doubt that going for 5 inch Mak is an upgrade. Maybe if you go for pure planetary/lunar observation and you want better portability. Other than that, aperture is king. Sure SkyWatcher 127Mak is a nice scope and all (I really like it), but if I had an 8inch SCT, I would not think about getting a 5inch mak.
  6. I love the eyepiece. Especially the 15mm version. For 50€ it's really good in my Mak (at f/11.8). The image gets a tiny bit blurry near the edges, but that does not bother me much. In F/5 scope, the usable view is only about 60% of the field, then it gets really distorted. I think about getting 24mm ES68, as I have nothing between 15 and 32mm focal length (only the "Super barium" 20mm supplied with the scope, which I hate), but that will happen when my wallet recovers It's not like I am OCD, but I am a really curious person and I NEED to know everything about everything Okay, maybe I am a bit OCD about knowledge. Maybe quite a lot. Maybe really lot.
  7. yeah, I've seen those charts numerous times and I kept searching, but as you can see, the eyepiece I have falls in no category That's why I am curious as to what it actually is. This eyepiece business is a terrible mess. EDIT: I also know, that this particular eyepiece is not sold under the Explore Scientific brand anymore, it went to Bresser, and now it's sold as Bresser 70° series, not ES anymore.
  8. Hello stargazers, I am unsatiably curious and I cannot find an answer to my question. So, yesterday and the day before I screwed up and it ended with me completely disassembling my 10mm ES70 eyepiece. When I struggled to get it together, I tried searching online for construction, I did not know the order of the spacers or orientation of the lenses. I did know what order the lenses are, but other than that, it was a guesswork. After 5th assembly, the eyepiece returned to it's previous state and now I am happy, as it is working correctly and it's completely cleaned. What baffles me thou, is the fact, that I do not know what type of EP it is! It is sold as an Erfle, but the construction is nowhere near similar to Erfle (5element in 3 groups). So no matter what I searched for and what I researched online, there was nothing to be found to help me reassemble the thing. This is a drawing I made from memory, according to orientation of the lenses and the spacers used it is like this: I am not 100% sure on lens #2. One side seemed planar, one concave, but it may be, that the "planar" side is actually a tiny bit concave. I am also not 100% sure on the orientation of the lens #2, it may be, that it is oriented the other way around (drawing from memory). Other lenses I am 100% certain on orientation. #1 and #4 seemed identical. But I am not sure, those are tiny lenses (maybe 6mm diameter) and really hard to judge small differences by eye. So, what type of an eyepiece it is? It is certainly sold as Erfle, but the construction does not seem like an Erfle to me. Here a screen from an e-shop. Btw, the description is the same on multiple e-shops.
  9. JOC, you have a synscan keypad on that dob, right? Well, there is a function "Guided tour" which I used about 5x, but it's nice nevertheless. It shows you the best objects that can be seen from your location at the time/date of your observation. It shows doubles, nebulae, clusters, galaxies, no discrimination on object type. It's a nice function if you don't have an observing plan prepared. Ofc it helps, if you at least know what to expect. I remember the night I set it to Beehive cluster and had 150x mag in my MAK, I've seen nothing, 3 stars maybe, I was disappointed - "it doesn't work". Well it turns out, that Beehive needs about 1.2° of TFOV to view. But first you need to align the GoTo properly, ofc.
  10. one picture instead of 1000 words:
  11. no, with eyeglasses you are looking for bigger "eye relief" number. How big, that depends on personal preferences, but most of the time, eye relief smaller than 10mm is not recommended for eyeglasses users. Also, bigger eye relief tends to be easier to use also for non-eyeglass users.
  12. I only want to add some info to the Baader helical focuser - if you mean this type here It's a great addition to a telescope, fine tuning the focus is really easy and makes a great addition, especially for the price (like 35€ here) and if you only have single speed focuser right now. BUT you need to make sure, that you now have a male T2 thread on your current focuser - that is M42x0.75 thread (I don't think you have this on your current focuser, I don't know, I don't own SW130/900) for astrophotography it's absolutely useless, as it is a rotating type of helical focuser. IMHO you are better off with a 2-speed crayford focuser in that case and don't bother wasting money on this one, go directly for a 2-speed crayford. it also adds some length to your focuser, which may be a problem, if your focuser is -with some eyepieces- near the end of its inward travel.
  13. I found out, that somehow, with multiple viewings, details start to pop out. Maybe it's the eye-brain combination recalibrating to what is percieved, but I definitely see much more detail these days, than I did when I viewed Jupiter for the first time. Too bad, that seeing was really terrible yesterday, no cloud layer here, finally! But I could not see anything on Jupiter, worst seeing I've ever experienced. Moon was the only somewhat observable object, but still, the atmosphere was shaky and detail kept slipping away.
  14. I suggest you watch PBS' Space Time videos, especially the series "Cosmology", "Origin of matter and time" and "Understanding dark energy" but you may not understand everything without studying further. Universe does not need anything to expand into, that question is meaningless. Like asking "what was before the Big Bang", there was nothing before, how could there be any "before" when time did not exist? Universe is expanding, but what into? There is not any free endless space waiting to be filled with our Universe. Actually, there is no space outside of our Universe, one of building blocks of our Universe is space itself. I believe asking what is outside our Universe is an undefined question, you are asking about a place outside our Universe, that place cannot be defined outside of our Universe. Terms like "time" and "space" only make sense in our Universe. It's like asking "how does a 30cm ruler continue after the 30cm mark?" It does not. These topics are contradictory to our brains' perspective of everyday life and therefore terribly hard to grasp. I don't claim I understand In fact, the more I know, the more I study, the more confused I am. This topic is not easily explained without prior knowledge. One of your questions can be answered safely thou - you cannot travel to the other side of the Universe, and the Universe appears flat, not curved as far as our knowledge goes, so it is not like a sphere. When you travel long enough, far enough, you will never reach the end of the observable universe, it would require infinite amount of time, because of expansion. If you really insist and continue to travel for tens of billions of years at almost lightspeed, you may find yourself surrounded by emptiness with no galaxies, no stars, no matter anywhere, not even ten billion light years away from you.
  15. then I borked it. No matter, it's very usable as it is now