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.

STGZR_102_NE

Members
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About STGZR_102_NE

  • Rank
    Nebula
  1. Thanks I do have a tablet with sky safari which of course gives the altitudes and I have it set to also simulate a 9x50 finder view for hopping. But I wanted to see if a chart might work better for protecting my night vision. I think a percentage of viewers use aps like sky safari and don't seem to indicate it bothers their night vision. But for those more faint objects I was wondering about it. For example I couldn't see M30 the last time I tried. I know its not the brightest cluster, but then I 'm not sure if it was due to the seeing conditions or my eyes due to exposure to the tablet - even though I have it in red-light mode. Not a very difficult object to star-hop to. But still couldn't see it.
  2. Hi all, I just started thinking about a process for finding objects - I plan on trying the next time I'm out. Lets say I'm comparing a constellation on my chart with it in the sky - and there is an object nearby. I rotate the chart so that the constellations rotation is identical to what I see it in the sky. On the chart I imagine a straight vertical line going up from the object - looking for the closest naked eye star on that line. Using the Telrad - I center on that star and then obtain the altitude of that position using an inclinometer on the scope. By this, I've set my scopes azimuth position. Then on the chart I measure down from that star to the object of interest to obtain the altitude difference between the two. I subtract that number from my inclinometer reading and move the scope down to that altitude. Theoretically I should be pretty close to the object - I think. Has anyone tried this kind of method? Thanks
  3. Awesome! Thanks very much. It doesn't output the rise-time, set-time data to an output file, but it does output the objects of interest and it does display those times. So I can simply select each one and data enter them into my sheet. Many thanks! :-]
  4. Hi All, I've been studying the to be able to navigate my way around the stars and constellations at night. Using Stellarium I have started a spreadsheet to record the very bright stars rise-time, zenith-time, and set-time, based on my lat/long. I'm just recording this data on the 1st, and 15th day of every month. I started with Vega and was about to add Antares and Sirius, when it occurred to me someone may have created a software program that calculates these. If anyone knows of such a program I would be grateful. Thanks!
  5. My bad! I believe the formula is working correctly - I just didn't think it through.
  6. Hi, I'm reading an online article about star magnification cataloged values and whether or not a telescope (based on diameter) is sufficient to resolve it. http://www.rocketmime.com/astronomy/Telescope/MagnitudeGain.html The Ptolemy's magnitude scale is inversely proportional - where brighter stars have smaller numbers - and vice versa. The formula presented in the article is: Lmag = 2 + 5×log(DO) - where Do is the diameter of the scope in mm The author gives an example - he wants to check out a star with a cataloged magnitude of 8.6 Will his handy 90mm ETX suffice for this - he asks. Then he gives the formula results: 2 + 5×log(90) = 11.75 and with that he concludes his 90mm scope will be fine. The problem I'm having with this formula is that the result is directly proportional to the value entered for the scope diameter - not inversely proportional as one would anticipate. So the formula appears to be working backwards. For example, a 102mm scope gives a result of 12.04. But according to principle, a larger diameter scope works to resolve stars with lesser magnitude values than the smaller diameter scope. Either I'm missing something, or this formula is obviously incorrect. Any help would be appreciated! Thanks.
  7. Awesome! I was suspecting the same! Thanks so much for the excellent advice. Very much appreciated. :-]
  8. Thanks! I'll check out the DIY section as you suggest. I think I want to get alot more educated than I am before I go for another scope. I've ordered Richard Berry's " Build your own Telescopes" and I've been looking at glass dealers. I'm a little surprised at the cost of buying glass primary mirrors. The prices seem to be around 90% of what one would pay for a complete unit new the same diameter. I was wondering if Celestron or Orion would sell mirror replacements. That would obviously steer me in the newtonian or dobsonian route. A used Skywatcher Skymax 150 Mak ATO in the $350 ball-park might be a good fit, if its possible to pick up one for that price. But again I think I would be wise to get more educated first. I've reached out to a local group in our state via email but no response yet. They plan sky watches and clear-sky permitting that might be a good association for me to connect with. I'm also wondering about what an attached camera can add to the mix. If a camera can capture a longer exposure of an object, (longer than the eye) which then can be digitally magnified with sufficient clarity. Is it possible that one who is strictly limited to what one's eye sees in the eyepiece, will end up making 5 times the financial investment for that privilege - compared to capturing the image to digital?
  9. Thanks everyone! Celestron doesn't have a model number for this mount. Which tells me something right away. I'll upload a screen-shot of it - and try the suggestions. But I think Proto Star's comment on using this scope for planetary views is correct. Theoretically, the max magnification for this scope is 200x. But I suspect in most instances 100-140 is going to be its best magnification for best visual clarity. I've been looking at Maks. And I'm wondering about the possibility of getting a used unit. And also what diameter for planetary views. I've been looking at simulated views of Saturn at various magnifications. A mag of 350x is of course a very pleasing view of the planet. And that would require an 8" Mak. But I'm wondering if that magnification would then be unrealistic for most "seeing" situations? On the tripod - I do have my own welding setup, so I could consider building a beefy mount. Something that would take two men to carry! :-]
  10. Hi there, As additions to the standard 25mm eyepiece that came with this Celestron 102/660 Refractor, I purchased a barlow 2x and a 9mm eyepiece. Brings the scope up to ~140x Scope is mounted on an AZ tripod. Went out to look at Mars the other night and found that just touching the focuser made the whole scope wobble and in many cases pushes the scope off target, taking a few minutes for me to find it again. Once I get it fixed, don't dare to even touch the eyepiece with my eye for fear it will go off again. I think the tripod design may not be strong enough for the weight and length of this scope. Not a problem with low magnification below 50x. But quite a challenge above 100x. I'm guessing this may be a common issue with scope kits? Any suggestions or recommendations would be welcome. Thanks! STGZR_102_NE
  11. Thanks Brown Dward! Awesome Web-site! I've been plugging in different parameters to compare estimations of what the eye would see. And it does confirm, the difference between the two Celstron refractors, in terms of optic results is, at least for my ROI judgement not significant. Thanks! :-]
  12. Thanks for those responses! This strays off the main topic - but being a newbe I'm noticing that Celestron (for example) categorizes their scope models as different series. Such as the powerseeker, the Astroview, the NexStar, and the Omni XLT. Does Celestron provide a spreadsheet of the various products with their specs - or otherwise provide info on what makes one series different from another? Thanks!
  13. Hi all, I 'm curious about the difference in planetary views between these two refractors. Celestron's 102mm Omni XLT series. The 22150 with f/6.5 and the 21088 with the f/9.8 Of late I've been reading that as a rule of thumb with refractors - for long term satisfaction - stay with a focal ration of 8 or better. The interest is best possible resolution with planetary views, such as the rings of Saturn, the color variants of Mars, and the bands of Jupiter. Any advise or comments?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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