Kn4fty

46 minutes ago, Sator Steve said:

By Jove! I thought it was bright enough to be a planet, so early in the evening. Thanks a lot, FaDG!

Jove is right! 😁😁😁😁😁

Sounds like a great night! Few things are as memorable as the first view of Jupiter and Saturn!

Congrats!

Rob

Hi Kay and welcome to SGL!

Absolutely beautiful!!! Thanks for sharing!

On 25/05/2019 at 06:19, Paz said:

I agree with checking your filter every time. I hold mine up to the sun and check for pinholes by eye every time I put it on the scope.

Also, I check with my hand that it's on and solid every time I put my eye to the eyepiece.

I've also got a film filter for my finder scope which helps but a proper solar finder would be good.

Yes, I do the same with my filter. I hold it up and inspect for any holes. Like you I also use my hand to check filter placement while looking in the EP. 

The only issue ive ever had with a filter was years ago as a youngin with a borrowed glass filter. It had a small unnoticeable crack. Fortunately no eye damage. It definitely made me always check after that.

Rob

50 minutes ago, ScouseSpaceCadet said:

That is amazing. There's so much talent contributing to this forum, it's rather humbling!

 

It definitely is humbling. Sometimes I just go thru the sketch section to look at the amazing art done by others.

Rob

Beautiful job! My work is no where near that level! Great job and thanks for sharing!

Rob

Thanks! Ill check that out! 

Id thought about a tarp, but want less hassle on set up. Im thinking of using more for when im camping, so I can leave the scope set up.

Howdy folks! Have any of you seen or used the portable observatory tents? What was your thoughts on them? Are they worth it or just a waste of money? Just curious.

Rob

On 02/10/2013 at 22:25, Qualia said:

What Can I Expect to See?

By Way of Introduction

It’s a very easy mistake to make.

You see those spectacular images of colour and shape which show the beauty of the Universe and just how fortunate you are to live within it and you think to yourself, perhaps a telescope will show me something similar?

Time passes and one day you hear about some astronomical phenomenon that’s going to occur. You’ve read the reports in newspapers and seen something on TV about the breath taking sights in the superlative that will appear in the night sky.

So you decide to ask about what telescope you should buy and from an astronomer’s natural enthusiasm and well meaning intention you are informed that telescope x, or p or q will give you the most fantastic and awesome views. And so you purchase your telescope. The clouds and rain pass, you set up with batted breath and at long last you take a peek at the night sky, and your heart sinks.

The meteor shower wasn’t that promised firework display after all. The giant planet was the size of a pea in the palm of your hand, and the spiral galaxy, and the cosmic clouds of nebulae were mere smudges in various tones of bland grey.

You feel let down, disappointed. Somewhere in your mind you expected to see these Hubble type images, at least a little colour on those huge cosmic galaxies and if you don't feel ripped off, then perhaps at least a little deceived.

Some may argue that there ought to be a warning on every telescope box and advert and image: This Telescope Will Not Show You A View Like Those in Magazines or Taken by Camara.

Others, perhap partkaking in the casual ideology of cynicism, will blandly inform you that such warnings are pointless. You don’t expect to buy a guitar with a sticker on it saying, ‘Buying this guitar will not make you play like Jimi Hendrix.’ Nor do you buy some perfume with a label saying, ‘Buying this perfume will not give you the sex appeal of Brad Pitt.’

But somewhere in this jumble there is a middle ground we can tread upon. Some words of advice we can offer up so that new comers of the future never have the occassion to feel unnecessarily deceived or ripped off in any manner.

The Telescope

The primary function of a telescope is not necessarily to make things look bigger but ultimately to concentrate more light to your eye. Distances are so vast in the universe that the more light a telescope can gather, the more powerful it is. This power makes the object brighter which makes it easier for you to see distance features. It is measured in terms of aperture whose light gathering capacity increases with the square of its radius.

Typical beginner’s telescopes range from about 4” to 8” and the typical distance these little bits of glass and mirror are looking at is anything between a few hundred or so million kilometers to many millions of light years. And what you will see will depend on many factors. These include but are not limited to, sky conditions, the quality of your telescope and eyepieces and your own level of experience.

It’s worth pointing out at this stage that in general, you’re not going to be viewing over 200x magnification. If the telescope box tells you otherwise, don't believe it for the simple twofold reason that average sky conditions don’t allow for this to happen and that many objects are so far away that if you up the magnification too much you’re simply making them too dim.

Assuming that for now the first two factors (quality of optics and sky conditions) are out of your immediate control, then a lot of what you are able to see in the night sky depends on your own observing skills and this requires time and patience.

Typically, a beginner wants to see a bit of everything: The Moon, some planets, galaxies, emission and planetary nebulae, globulars and open clusters.

The first part of this thread will concentrate on typical solar system objects viewed by the beginner. The second part will concentrate more on Messier objects and other deep space phenomena.

Part I - The Solar System with 4" to 8"

The Moon - you should be able to make out typical lunar features such as craters and riles. An 8” should be able to tweak out details about 2 to 3km in size. Bigger the aperture, brighter the image and the more detail you will see.

Mercury and Venus - you’re going to see these planets as small disks, a lot bigger than the brightest stars but they will generally have a total lack of detail to be seen and you will only be able to observe their phases.

Mars – again, you’re going to see this as a small red disk and if you want to see anything else you’re going to have to not only spend a lot of time at the eyepiece, but also have realtively high magnification which in turn requires some decent atmospheric conditions. After time, you might be able to make out a tiny white-ish area at its pole, perhaps a tiny dark marking or two. And all this in an object no bigger than a lentil in the palm of your hand.

Jupiter - a 4" will reveal some detail on Jupiter and an 8" will reveal more. But in either case you need time to observe. If you look casually through the 4 or 8", have a quick five minute gander, you'll say to me in both cases, 'I saw a white-creamy disk about the size of a pea with one or two orangy-brown bands on it.' And yes, that is the first impression we'll all get, but to go beyond that you will need to work. An 8” will reveal a significant amount of detail but you need to sit quietly for quite some time, relaxed in a comfortable position and allow your eyes to respond to the faint delicate markings, the subtle whisps of differing shades which are present on the Jovian disk. You’ll also see the four big Jovian moons which will look like very bright stars. Visual observing is quite hard work but the more you do it the better you get and the more you see.

Saturn – a similar story unfolds for Saturn. There are no easy wins in astronomy and you need to take your time. With a 4” to 8” telescope you should be able to see the rings of Saturn (it may just appear as the one), subtle bands on the planet itself, four or five of its moons that in some cases will appear like brightish stars and on a good night, Cassini’s Division which will look like a thin black circle drawn inside the rings.

Uranus and Neptune – these will appear as tiny objects. With enough magnification you might be able to garner a pale blue or greenish colour and the appearance of a disk-like shape.

The Sun – with the proper white light filters in place you will see sunspots and the structure within, namely, Umbra and Penumbra; you will see faculae, granulation and limb darkening. Do not ever look at the Sun without proper filtration.

An Approximation of an Eyepiece View

Here are some approximations of what you might see through your eyepiece which will hopefully ground expectations.

Jupiter as taken by Voyager 1.

Jupiter as seen in a 4" frac.

Saturn as seen by Cassini.

Saturn as seen in a 4" frac.

Uranus a taken by Voyager 2

Uranus as seen through a 4" frac.

I hope this part of the thread has helped a little in getting an idea of what to expect from your telescope. The second part will follow shortly dealing with some of the more popular Messier and NGC celestial objects.

What Can I Expect to See...Galaxies and Nebulae

A Truism or Two

There’s an old truism that runs around the boards: a galaxy or a nebula is a faint, grey fruzzy in a 4” and a 6” and a brighter grey fuzzy in an 8” or a 10”.

There’s also another truism which rings truer to an astronomer’s heart beat. All things being equal, you will see more tomorrow than you did today, and so it follows that you will never see less than you did this evening. Each evening with a galaxy or nebula you are training your eye and brain to notice more than what you have already seen. And that takes time; it takes patience, a little love and care at the eyepiece.

Size, Magnitude & Brightness

When beginning to observe deep space object such as globulars, galaxies and nebulae it is handy to bracket them into three intertwined classes:

• The size of the object
• The object’s magnitude
• And its surface brightness

We do this so as to have a rough estimate of how well we may be able to view a given object, and by doing so not only arming ourselves with useful knowledge, but also lessening the impact of frustration and disappointment.

Size

As a frame of reference, we can argue that the angular diameter of the full Moon viewed from Earth is about 0.5 degrees, or 30 arc minutes, or 1,800 arc seconds.

So a galaxy like M 31 is over 3 degrees in diameter. An emission nebula like M 42 in Orion is over 1 degree in diameter. A globular cluster like M 13 is about 16 arc minutes in diameter and a planetary nebula like M 57 is just over 1 arc minute.

Apparent Magnitude

The object’s magnitude is the total sum of all the light stemming from the object. There are differing ways this can be measured but for the observer the most useful guide would be the apparent magnitude. This scale starts on the minus side for bright objects and travels up into the plus side for dimmer objects.

Most of the stars you see making up a constellation’s pattern have an apparent magnitude of about 1 or 2, M 31 about 3.5, M 42 around 4, M 13 about 5, M 57 about 8 and at a dark site the naked eye should be able to see stars down to about 5 or 6. Looking just at these figures, then, it would appear that M 31 and M 42, for example, are a lot easier to see than M 13 or M 57.

But this is where it may get confusing.

Surface Brightness

If we say that the object’s apparent magnitude suggests the the overall light output of an object, then by comparison surface brightness is a measure of how bright an object may appear. Although it isn’t necessary for the given discourse, we can point out that apparent magnitude is not measured in any unit but surface brightness is actually measured in magnitude per square degree. Again, lower the number, brighter the object. M 31 has a surface brightness of about 23, M 42 around 22, M 13 about 21 and M 57 about 18. Looking at these figures, then, contrary to what we have just said, it now seems that M 13 and M 57 will be easier to see.

So what gives?

For something like M 31, although its apparent magnitude is relatively quite high making it one of the brightest deep sky objects in the night sky, its light is spread over a colossal area, that light is being thinned out and so the galaxy is very dim to see. By comparison, M 57 or M 13, although having a poorer apparent magnitide, are a lot smaller so the light, the magnitude per square degree, is more concentrated and therefore they have a higher surface brightness making them easier to see.

Rule of Thumb

As a general rule thumb, then, we can say that apparent magnitude is a good indication of how well you may see an object where we are dealling with point sources of light such as planets or stars, but for large extended objects such as globulars, galaxies and nebulae, surface brightness and size are the tools you want to be using. Take this as an indicative, not a definitive rule of thumb.

Other Factors to Bear in Mind

No matter what has just been said above when it comes to observing deep space objects most of what you will be able to see will depend on a myriad of other factors, not limited to, the quality of your optics, atmospheric conditions and inevitably, your own experience. Nevertheless, we can suggest a number of pointers to bear in mind when preparing for a deep space session:

Dark skies

Whereas planets and the moon are bright and largely unaffected by light pollution, being large and extended and very faint, deep space objects depend entirely on dark skies. If we say that a comfortable seat will add ½” to 1” of aperture to your telescope, then the impact of dark skies is unprecedented. It’s probably not much of an exaggeration to say a 6” under dark skies will blow away a 10” or 12” in an urban setting. Galaxies and nebulae and globulars are some of the faintest deep-sky objects and dark skies are everything when viewing them.

Transparency

Whereas good seeing conditions are essential to good planetary and lunar observing, deep space objects are more dependent on clear, transparent skies.

Magnification

Whereas detailed planetary and lunar observing require high magnifications, there's no ideal magnification in which to view deep space objects. It’s a case of trial and error. If you want to view M 31 in its entirety, you’ll need extremely low powers but if you want to see a little more detail, you will need magnification. Some planetary nebulae, some globulars take magnification well, some don’t. It’s a case of trial and error.

Filters

Whereas colour filters aren’t really that useful when viewing planets, nebulae often benefit from filters, in particular, narrowband ones like UHC and OIII filters. They improve contrast and make faint details apparent. There aren’t filters to improve your views of galaxies and even if there were, any improvement would be negligible.

An Approximation of an Eyepiece View

Here are some approximations of what you might see through your eyepiece. Bear in mind that the sketches were generally not made in a hurry and in many cases took a good hour or so sitting at the eyepiece.

M 31 - Galaxy. Hubble Image.

M 31 - 4" Sketch.

M 51 - Galaxy. Hubble Image.

M 51 - 4" Sketch.

M 27 - Planetary Nebula. Hubble Image.

M 27 - 4" Sketch.

M 3 - Globular Cluster. Hubble Image.

M 3 - 4" Sketch.

M 42 - Emission Nebula. Hubble Image.

M 42 - 4" Sketch

I hope this had helped a little.

- - - - - - - -

P.S: Thank you everyone for your kind replies and support. I'm sorry I haven't replied to each of you but it's been a busy day and I just haven't had the time. Seriously. Please don't think me rude and I will make ammends this weekend.

I will try to post up a little on open clusters and doubles with a shorter and final third part.

Thank you again to everyone

This should be pinned! Im gonna direct everyone here from now on when asked that question! 

Rob

Nice report! Thanks for sharing!

Out of scale or not, still some really nice sketches. Wish mine looked that good.

Rob

You have a couple options. The biggest one is just spend time at the eye piece. The longer you look, the more detail you'll see. Its all about training your eyes. Another option is filters. Different filters can make different features more apparent. I find 82a light blue fairly good. Filters will help cut the brightness. Not everyone uses filters. For some folks it enhances detail. For others it doesn't make a difference. Hope this helps. Mostly its just spending time observing. The longer you look, the more you'll see.

Rob

Thanks  y'all. I firmly believe a bad night observing is better than a good night at work! 😂

All my scopes have names except the cheap one, but after its performance last night, it might get one. My named ones are:

Copernicus- 8" reflector with equatorial mount

Kepler- ETX 70 AT refractor

Cassini- ETX 90 RA mak

Halley- Halleyscope Zoom 2400. Thinking about piggybacking it on the 8"

Galileo- 10x50 binos

If I name something then I can't sell it! 😂😂😂

I enjoy his presentation. He really seems to enjoy what he does and it bleeds over to the viewers. Hope to get more of his material on this side of the pond 

Rob

Last night was a beautiful clear night. I had been excited about taking Copernicus, my 8"Newt, out to observe Jupiter. While waiting on darkness to fall, I tested a couple other scopes. One was a 40mm Halleyscope Zoom 2400. The Moon looked clear and sharp in the little refractor. Later I tried Halley on Jupiter. Jupiter was clear and sharp, but tiny on highest magnification. The four Galilean moons were bright pin points.

The other scope I tested was a cheap $25 junk scope I picked up at a dollar store. I bought it to experiment with and possibly make a solar projector with. The main point of the experiments are to find ways to improve ease of use. Its has the horrible .965 EPs. All lenses were plastic as well. It really surprised me on performance. It wasn't superb views, but definitely better than I expected. 

Finally once it was dark and Copernicus had adjusted to the temperature, I swung to Jupiter. The Jovian looked good in the 26mm EP, but any increases gave me a "boiling" image. Jupiter was low on the horizon, but I'd still pulled good views on objects there before. I put the scope on a random star field higher in the sky, the seeing was horrible!!! Ok. Not a big deal. Things can change. So I decided to get Kepler, my ETX 70 AT, out and compare views. Jupiter was ok in it. Fortunately the seeing improved. It didn't become fantastic, but was ok. Jupiter looked clear in the low end of medium sized EPs. Could finally inrease power enough to see the equatorial bands on the planet. But any higher and the boiling image came back. 

I figured I'd compare views side by side, but found out the barlow was not short enough for the ETX to match the newt. Oh well. 

After sketching the planetary view, I swung Copernicus almost to the zenith and dialed in the Whirlpool Galaxy. With the moon at almost 69%, I didn't expect to see anything. Boy, was I wrong. I was pleasantly surprised to see two smudges with slightly brighter centers. Not the best compared to a moonless night, but still not bad. I observed this gorgeous Messier for about an hour, trying to tease as much detail out as possible. After a sketch it was time to move on.

To finish up the night I looked at Saturn. Not a lot of detail due to seeing. Could separate the disc and ring, but could not see bands or Cassini's division. Titan was just noticable. 

After this I packed up and called it a night. To answer the question "to see or not to see", while originally not expecting to see, I did get to see better than initially expecting. It was still a good night. 

"Keep looking up!" -J Horkheimer

Rob

2 hours ago, pandoraefretum said:

Hi group,

just got a Meade 12mm HD-60 eyepiece from China (listed on UK Amazon)

it arrived with a P65Warnings.ca.gov / Cancer and reproductive harm sticker on the box

I looked up the warning, so I know what it means, but can anyone tell me some specific info on Meade eyepieces; why or how dangerous this eyepiece is to use?!!

Thanks, Roland, Bristol

 

Don't worry about it. California has those warnings put on everything! We have a joke here in the USA. "Everything in California causes cancer and reproductive harm!"

Enjoy your EP. 

Rob

Welcome to the forum and welcome to stargazing! Greetings from across the pond!  There are a lot of knowledgeable folks here that are always willing to help guide you or answer questions!

Rob

Nice report and good sketch! Looking forward to seeing the next one!

Rob

I'm definitely ready for activity to pick up! Thanks for posting! 

On 31/05/2019 at 05:21, Paz said:

Great report and sketches. I've recently started trying to sketch sometimes but it takes me absolutely ages so I need to keep practicing! How long does one of those doubles sketches take to do?

Paz, like Cotterless45 says, drawing helps you pick out more detail. Definitely draw. It doesn't have to be a Rembrandt, mine definitely are not. It makes you spend more time at the EP so you end up seeing more.

Great report! Thanks for posting. I really enjoyed reading. Yeah, I understand about the music. Some fits some objects, some others. Sometimes if I cant find some music that seems to fit, I'll put on an astronomy podcast that talks about the object currently being observed.

Rob

Last Sunday night/ early Monday morning was the first time in months I could get a scope out. For the past few months work and weather prevented any time at the EP. For a week I had watched the forcast predicting a clear night. I had spent the day swimming and was preparing to head home for my date with the stars when I got side tracked in conversation. I finally got home about midnight. I was tired but wanted some sky time. I was too tired to set up Copernicus, my 8" Newt, so I set up Kepler , my ETX 70 I had repaired. Grabbed a couple EPs (26mm and 9.7mm) and did a quick two star alignment and began to hunt. I initially tried to find galaxies around Ursa major. I knew the surface brightness of those were beyond Kepler's grasp, but what the heck! Obviously no luck. I then pursued more reasonable quarry. I punched in M27 the Dumbbell nebula and the little ETX slewed to it. I could see the roundness of the nebula, but no structural detail like in the big scope. Plus, my eyes ain't what they use to be. But it was still gorgeous to see it hanging there! Next I figured I'd check out a planet. Since Jupiter was behind a tree, I tried Saturn. In the little scope it was tiny! Tiny but satisfying. Satisfying because I immediately thought "This is how Galileo saw it!". The rings looked less like rings and more like the "ears" he saw. After a bit, I dialed in M11 the Wild Duck cluster. It initially appeared as a nebulous mushroom with a couple stars. Some time at the EP brought out many more stars as the "nebulosity" changed into individual stars. About this time the active day had caught up with me and I waa starting to yawn. I figured one more before I turn in. The little scope moved to M15 globular cluster. It was tiny in the scope and looked like a fuzz ball. I couldn't see any individual stars, but thats ok. I still got to get under the sky with a scope for a couple hours. And you know what? It was worth it!! In the immortal words of Jack Horkheimer-

"Keep looking up!"

Rob

Hello and welcome! Ditto what Greymouser said!