Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

Science562h

Members
  • Posts

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Science562h

  1. Looks good. I went for contrast, with RGB filters & single frames, through EP. I only edited sharpness.
  2. My install of Registax has the same problem on laptop, the RGB box will not show ... those crooked scum bags ... I had to uninstall the program & then reinstall it, with my physical disc, under a new renamed directory. My version came directly from Orion Telescopes, on disc; so, it contains all of the needed files. It's not, like I have a file missing. It's a freebie, not a professional stacking app. It's a half illiterate program. Half the time, you have your fingers crossed, that the app either doesn't foul up or that it can do it. "Priceless Junk." Laptop 8 GB DDR3. I will say this, on a desktop, with 12, 16 or 32 GB of memory, it's super fast, like 30 seconds for everything fast. I found, that Deep Sky Stacker (DSS) has been performing better for stacking pictures. That thing aligns slight movements & slight rotations, in all cases, that "Registax can't do it." Registax has better final basic editing features but not, as a stacker. "For pics, I have been getting 100% results from DSS."
  3. So, the only monkey rigged part on that 'scope is 'gonna be, what you made? What's your point, "use tape & tape round eyepieces?" Bad advice 🐵. That's, what towels are for & they protect your head, against the Sun. BECAREFUL, WHEN SOLAR OBSERVING & USE PROPER DEDICATED EQUIPMENT. DO NOT ALTER EYEPIECES TO VIEW THE SUN, PERMANENT INJURY MAY OCCUR.
  4. I believe, that those bearings are made, by GSO for their dobsonians. Ultimately, they are used for Push-To. They might fit the Apertura, Zhumell, Bintell, Omegon, Bresser, Antares, Atronz, & Guang Shen DOB models. johninderby, but he can GOTO, Push-To & track, with those bearings & you can't/haven't. He's more right, by picking them. It's not, about opinions or likes & dislikes; its about technology, making the right decisions & those bearings are simply better. They have full capabilities. Your Bresser is made, by GSO but your rings are totally useless. You can't even transport/move properly or logically. GET THE BEARINGS, THEY'RE BETTER.
  5. Just buy a new one & it will arrive in 1 week, already made.
  6. We "can not" clearly see Jupiter's Moons. We see a spheroid shape; no surface or atmosphere features. In contrast, we can clearly see the surface of the Moon & Sun. Your pic needs a filter, more clarity or contrast, or might as well place DSLR @ the EP.
  7. Too much Moon light, you must still use a Moon filter. Must have more contrast. No one has superman eyes, even, when using smaller 90mm 'scopes. "I don't believe that at all."
  8. I use Starry Night Orion SE 7, with my Celestron SLT Maksutov-Cassegrain because it essentially does the same thing. Go to: "Telescope Control" "Configure" "ASCOM Telescope Chooser" (Choose 'Celestron Telescope Driver') "Properties" "Celestron Setup" and fill out the boxes, with your location information. I use the GPS module; so, I click "GPS," afterwards Now, go back to "Telescope Control" and click "Connect" Under "Device Manager" & Ports (COM & LPT), I had to upload a "Prolific USB-to-Serial Comm Port" driver for my cable. My computer didn't recognize it either. I also have the apps ASCOM Profile Explorer, ASCOM Diagnostics & Gemini Telescope. I did not have to flash my Nexstar+ handheld controller; however, I downloaded Celestron updates from ASCOM.
  9. Right. I worked on aircrafts, as a lead aviation elecrician & went to Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU) Florida USA. Our college teachers were from NASA's real flight safety control room, during Columbia, late 90s & early 2000s. They travel the world & teach classes for distance learning schools. We have to know all of the schematics and build all of the engines in power plants. Yes, there is a link, the use of: gyroscopes (gyros), automatic flight control systems (AFCS), navigation (NAV), ect. I could go on. Image: NASA Spaceshuttle Endeavour. Government image, no further crediting required. I really worked on Boeing & Lockheed Martin aircrafts, like the ones, that make the current Orion shuttle. I actually worked on P-3 Orion aircrafts ... F-18 Superhornets, Orion, & Hercules. Those are the, as you call 'em, 'planes, that actually carry the spaceshuttles, like pictured above. The U.S Navy picks up the Orion, in the ocean; you also have to be a deep sea SCUBA diver & breathe air, oxygen, nitrox & helium. I built 100s of 50 million $ military aircrafts & engines; I had to wire them by myself ... so did everyone else, thousands of others. A person working, towards a private Cessna license, just has to pay & take classes, that's it. Log hours, no degree or experience required. - just be rich. No sir, 1/4 scale RC park 'planes don't count at all, that's something for outright children. UAVs are different, those are like probes. A peron has to do it for a living & be an expert in the field; go all the way in school & profession. Working for Lockheed Martin & Boeing crafts is serious business, not a game. Entering the field of professional aviation-astronomy is more complicated than just teaching theory, getting a private Cessna license & flying an RC 'plane on the weekends, not like the Wright brothers flying a kite. Time's up, on the clock.
  10. I put in, what I'm going to use. For example, it's winter; so, there are no planets to image or view. I leave out my Venus, Mars & Jupiter filters. Currently: Open UV-IR Cut Moon 25% Moon 13% O-III My targets are the Moon, Orion & stars. I have plenty of other filters, just don't need them. I can always add to eyepiece, which is why I leave "1" open. Image. Five position filter wheel. Maksutov Cassegrain
  11. I worked on aircrafts, as a lead aviation electrician; wired, every engine. I don't program but I know, about gyrocopes & automatic flight control systems. Those are the components, that keep the SATs, space telescopes & crafts in flight. In electronics, that complicated, when actually figuring the math & circuit designs, it's best to work from both ends & always use bridge circuitry. I would have to be there & look, at the schematic for input. Try soldering an integrated component, at the macro level first, unless you design micro circuits. Best of 'luck.
  12. I have a Neximage 5 and it's way better than the basic older Neximage Solar System Imager. That's a good Saturn pic bud. You did a real good job, with the NEX5.
  13. Yes, GCs can form, while being comprised of population-I stars, as type-I globular clusters but they are not population-II. To be a POP-II GC, you can't have star formations or any gas present. That's why, it's broken down in-to type-I & II. Your GC possibility is a globular cluster type-I, with population-I stars, which still makes it type-I, in everyway. GC only in structure, due to early formation, like all others. It's, like resetting spacetime & counting the age of our observable universe all over again. We already have POP-II GCs. The belief was, per book, "that all GCs were very old" (PG. 394). Obviously, that's not true; hence, we have exceptions & that isn't taught anymore. That leads to population-I stars & open clusters. Chapter 12: Test Question 1. Globular clusters are spherical shaped and __________. A. comprised of old bound stars located in the galactic halo B. normally located along the galactic disc C. unbound group of stars located near the nuclear core D. comprised of young and hot stars, that are tens of thousands years old
  14. That's, what my Astronomy I class teaches, right out of the text. Population II stars are old stars that were not enriched by heavy metals, yet. They are intermediate population stars. Population III stars are primordial & devoid of any metal, exccept for lithium. Therefore, if stars are forming in bound GCs, those GCs are now comprised of population I stars, within a population II cluster. Umbrella'd, as GC POP-II. However, true POP-II GCs do not have active star formations. POP-II GCs don't contain high mass main sequence stars & the clusters are doomed to burnout. GCs formed, at the same time, as OCs & traveled to our MWG or were accreted, through dwarf galaxies & mergers. There are exceptions, such as Westernlund 1 & in other galaxies. That's, what I think, you are referring to & I know exactly, what you meant. We can't teach that straight forward or make test questions, out of it. The "exceptions" are new forming Type-I globular clusters but they require mass. They are main sequence stars, in the upper left of the HR-Diagram. In contrast, POP-II GCs are not main sequnce, in the lower right. They fuse helium. Typical GCs, like M55, do not have considerable mass & the stars are -2 solar masses. They are also in the lower right of the H-R diagram. Any gravitationally attracted stars can form in-to a globular cluster; new stars can form in-to a globular structure but they are not population-II. Those become population-I , like open clusters. The exceptions are "isolated globular clusters or just clusters." Typical aged globulers stop, at the turnoff point," about 6,000-6,500 k. Yes, new GCs can form but they are very young, like 5 mill yr old, giants, white, blue & hot; not like 12.8 bill yr old, dwarf & red. Anyway, those are called superstar clusters. GC exceptions are in the early stages of GC formation & are POP-I stars. They form around H-II regions of dense gas & dust, opposite of devoid POP-II GCs.. Like I said, 95-99% of globular clusters are old population-II stars, that formed, at the same time, after the Big Bang, along with open clusters. That's, what has to be taught first, which is why, that's all I posted. That's the actual test question, to pass, with an A. Your answer is correct, POP-I stars can form in-to a globular structure early-on but they are not POP-II. Whether it remains bound or unbound, depends on interactions. Primordial typical GCs have to be differentiated from new GCs because the stars are comprised of different populaces; yet, both have similar structure. Yes, but to get to get the actual test queston right, I have to say, this & then teach: POP-I (Open Clusters)= young & hot, millions to tens of mill yr old; located inide of the nuclear bulge or disc. Metal rich. POP-II (Globular Clusters)= old, of the oldest & 12.8 bill yr old; lie in halo. Metal poor. NO ACTIVE STAR FORMATION.
  15. I wrote a thesis on the Quantum Corrections Theory in cosmology, not quantum computing ... but, what are you trying to make, a gravitron detector or camera?
  16. Image. Moon, at 11% lumination. The Camera used was a Sony Cyber shot DSC-H300 20.1 mp, 35x, ISO 200-400 & mounted on tripod. Quick Registax, Windows Paint and Photo Viewer editing. December 29, 2019.
  17. No, it would not be better. You need to work back & start from scratch, with a 60 mm refractor & hire an astronomy tutor.
  18. Well, Synta makes bit better mirrors, if you see them in person. 1% more reflectivity & better coating. I agree, with the post, DOBs are for viewing first, anything else is a plus.
  19. It's about $, get the cheaper one & upgrade to customize later-on. 10"!
  20. "Aperture fever" is just people trying to justify smaller scopes & limiting themselves. Forget that, if you can afford an 8-12 inch DOB, get one. The magnitude differences are: 12 in= 14.9 10 in= 14.5 8 in= 14.0 In using, Area= 3.14 x d2/4, the light gathering power for each is: 12 in (305 mm)= 73,024 mm 113 in Large Scope Large DOB 10 in (254 mm)= 50,646 mm 78 in Medium Scope Medium DOB 8 in (203 mm)= 32,349 mm 50 in Medium Scope Medium DOB 3.5" (90 mm)= 6,358 mm 9 in Small Scope - Science does not lie, it isn't an opinion. You need the aperture fever, to keep progressing because eventually, you will need to resolve & see detail, which means, you then know more, about objects. After reading your post, Id'e definitely go, with the 12 inch. However, I would pass on the Push-To and use two other options. (1) Get a classic, with an aftermarket tracking base or just (2) get the GOTO. The GOTO is not worth the extra $1,000. What did you end up getting?
  21. They are exactly the same, by GSO; different labels for different countries. "The cheaper one." GSO uses bearings for the base, which is good. Availability of either should be the only deciding factor. None of those companies, like HPS or Orion make their own 'scopes. They are made in Taiwan & China. APERTURA=APERTURE and that's all we need. Image 1. Apertura 12 inch.
  22. 8' & 10" is medium sized & 12" is large. The 8 inch is, as most people say, the sweet spot.
  23. You need to line-up the finder 'scope. (1) Aim, at something in focus, with your telescope & then, (2) adjust your finder 'scope. Center your finder 'scope, with, what you see, trhough the EP. I find Apertura's finder exceptionally good & better than Celestron & Orion's shaky ones. There isn't much comparison at all there. Apertura's hold's accuracy. Id'e stick, with the 8x50mm finder 'scope, it's awesome for viewing fields. If you just 'wanna star hop & cut down on finding time, put on a red dot. though. A GOTO 'scope wouldn't make a difference because you have to find alignment stars. Image 1. Apertura 12 inch.
  24. I use an Apertura 12", with a 2 inch Orion Q70 26mm 70' SWA & SVBONY 34mm 72' SWA eyepiece. They are 5-Element and I use them before any barlow. 3x is too much. Personally, I would get 2 in EPs & use the focuser's full potential first.
×
×
  • 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.