PEMS

Asked simialr at a talk: Basically is the standard model still correct? Reason was simple: Present model cannot construct Dark Matter, why are neutrinos still so difficult to detect. Some event occurred and we were swamped by apparently by billions. 4 were detected. Question - were there billions or just a couple of hundred, of which we only detected 4. Brother what a panic I caused - question the standard model ???? BLASPHEMY !!!! 🙃

0 was/is a concept or theory or something. Not 100% sure that is can exist. Likely a mathematical idea to make at least some of the maths easier. A 24 hour clock is not 24 hours. At 23hrs, 59 min, 59 secs the next "time" is 0:00. There is no 24. We have a habit of starting a count at 1, not 0.

I would never consider a non-goto now. Manual finding and tracking just is not worth the effort and mounts like the Az-Gti are so small they are very convenient. And for a G&G setup they will hold a 72mm refractor, even an 80-81mm refractor. Almost no reason not to get a goto these days. Especially for G&G.

Find Skysafari the best, but the Plus version only. Pro is just too much in number of objects most will be too small, or too far away. THink Pro had something like 13 million stars. How many do you expect to look at? Distant DSO objects will likely not visible without a 20" or bigger. Finally Plus is less cost, and will do all you ever need.

Amusingly I looked around at the "Red Light" aspect. Interesting: Use Red because it uses the night vision aspect of the eye. Problem the night vision aspect of the eye is monochromatic so you don't see red. So if you see red it is not using the night vision but the day vision. Next was Amber: Study by a Canadian university into this. Never read the paper, couldn't find it or didn't bother. But some university study at least. Next was Green: The eye is most sensative to green so need less brightness. Sort of half sensible. Next was (oddly) Cyan: No idea why but it was the next option. Finally: Dim white. Equally some sense as the eye is polychromatic so white but dim seems half reasonable. Basically use the eye in the manner to which it has evolved over the last half million years or so. So a reasonable Google search sort of helped not at all. Will say in military applications have not seen Red used, Amber and Green yes, Red no. Does make you question how many astronomers have been effectively burnt at the stake for not having a red light. Throw in the now common use of a computer/tablet/phone screen which is certainly not red and perhaps a small rethink is required.

I would say wait for that rare event - a clear night. Then just get outside and start identifing a few convenient constellations. Ideas like M45 really need you to know that M45 is in Taurus, and then you have to be able to work out where Taurus actually is. As it is well to the "right/west" good chance that by most reasonable times it is a bit too low now. To find Taurus the easy option is find Orion then head right along the belt to Taurus. So now you have to find one, amble across the sky and hope to bump into the second. And the bump into M45. Then throw in that the view you experience doesn't quite match the apparent movement of the scope. Usually all targets are small, and have read they tend to hide when you look through a scope at them. Get a wide low power eyepiece and rather low key go look at the moon. But first just go out, look, and start identifing a few basic constellations, then you can look for targets in them.

Depends on what you expect and want. Take the RSPB Garden Birdwatch, spend an hour observing, identifing and counting little feathered fiends. At a guess 98% of the people observe through a sheet of rather mucky glass. So observing is possible. But for rather exact astro observing the result at your eye will not be great. So Yes, just don't expect high quality. Additionally your angle of view will be constrained. Straight out might be half, or a quarter, reasonable. At say 30 degrees off the normal then blurry. And the zenith is usually impossible. Something called a roof or ceiling.

As best I recall the GTi mounts are quoted as 5Kg load, and scope, camera and guide scope and camera would seem to come very close to that suggested limit. Especially as for imaging it is best to reduce the actual load by 25-30% and you will have other items besides the bare equipment weight - cables and items. And of course potential future additions.

I would say that with a Mak it needs to be initially pretty well aimed at North (NCP). Luckely magnetic North and NCP are close to each other for the UK. Reason is that the focal length of a Mak means a fairly narrow view at the eyepiece and the mount starts out assuming that it is perfectly aligned and slews to the first alignment star on that basis. If you are 1 degree out then the first alignment star is likely out of vision and you probably don't know which way you have to move. A well aligned finder helps. As ever the better set up the easier your life will be. So try and determine North as best you can and align the finder as accurately as you can. It is worth a bit extra time. I gave up with a Mak I had because of the alignment - and a quirk with the mount.

As Carbon Brush says there appears to be a train strike on the 3rd, the Friday. Also it seems the 1st as well. Local station says that people can expect morning trains on the 2nd and 4th to be running some odd times until they get things back on synch. A Friday Astrofest visit could be problematic as the underground doesn't extend too far out and not even sure if some of those will be affected. Guess I could get to either Kings Cross, Euston nor Liverpool St on the main line services. Not sure which ones are presently classed as Underground either - gets a bit fuzzy atsome locations, but they are south of me. What I could work out was which group is striking and so the potential impact.

Better add if you want more serious then I suggest it means a Skywatcher EQ5 Goto. The HEQ5 is not exactly small, and convenience is a much ignored aspect.

For camera use I would say the Skywatcher AZ/Gt mount or variant. The original is Alt/Az so not directly for AP. However the Eq wedge to enable AP is not costly, think mine was around £60-65 from FLO. Will take a camera easily. Now I suspect a bit better is the one that is dedicated to EQ operation. Looks more compact and again will handle a camera with relative ease. Not sure of the cost of the EQ version. Reasonable I think but also unsure if they are actually easily available yet. They were not when I looked last. Hence I bought the Eq wedge item. Doubt either will easily handle a 127 Mak for AP. Sort of pushing your luck a bit. That is likely the least cost entry, and should keep you occupied. AP can be a bottomless pit in money terms. Where are you, as in add a location. Often helps.

Once read that that the best all round and easiest scope was an 80mm refractor. And I tend to agree. BUT they do everything pretty good and do not not excel in any one field alone. A 10" reflector collects more light, an 8" SCT give a greater focal length and so greater potential magnifications. An 80mm refractor is the classic "Jack of all trades, master of none". The AzGT is a nice small mount, but I wouldn't put a 125 SCT/Mak on it. A small (60-80mm) refractor yes. Set up is fairly straight forward. Except for centering the alignment stars. You use a phone/tablet and when looking through the eyepiece you have no idea where your fingers are on the touch screen to move the mount. As they say "Been there, done that". Also best set up is Synscan to align, and Skysafari to goto targets. Skysafari Plus is more then adaquate. Think it has about 3 million stars in it, how many do you want??? For visual the Alt/Az version is easiest, just won't do AP, without a couple of bits - Eq wedge, which isn't actually that costly for the mount (think ~£60). At least that way you have both options. Your decision. I have the Alt/Az one and the Eq wedge to convert. But may buy the full Eq version if I decide AP is worth half serious bit of playtime. The mount needs a half decent Li rechargeable battery, and a couple of cables. Putting the battery in a reasonable place is still something I haven't really sorted - only had it about 4 years, still working on that aspect. One day..... as they say. What do you means by "deepsky". M31 is deep sky and a small refractor will do that. Will also do M33 and assorted others. The clusters at the end of Leo has lots of galaxies, but they are all small dots/discs almost immaterial of the scope used. Was said here I think that with a bigger scope you see more small disks, but they are still just small disks. "More" is a bit ambiguous in its meaning.

If you decide on a Redcat, then the early ones were triplets at the front and flattener (or whatever) at the rear, again a triplet lens arrangement. They have collimation and set up issues. Basically I suspect just too complicated. Good when sorted, bit of a pain to get sorted. Newer ones are doublet at front and corrector/flatter at rear is still a triplet arrangement. They are easier and as good. Relevent if you buy used items. Concerning the SW 72ED, I have one and will likely give it away. Just don't get on with it. Really a case of it works but only just. There seems no spare tolerance in it to make life easy. Had to have a diagonal machined slightly just so I could look through it and get a focus. Don't know what mount you have but for AP that is most important, and as ever the mantra is "BIG". And a big mount is not user friendly.

At this time all that anyone can say is: We have no evidence of advanced live elsewhere. Often stated is there are lot of stars and so planets so there must be. However consider if there are 12 requirements for live to flourish and each requirement has a 10% chance of existing then there needs to be 10**12 planets. Assuming one suitable planet per star that is 10*12 stars and the milky way has "only" 10**11 stars. I recall one well presented talk where the presenter listed something like 22 "things" that had to be right. And the presenter wasn't out to be for or against life, just what they had identified as likely criteria. Have to also remember that 1 million years is a very short time, and if the next life were 1 million years behind us. Then no chance of them having a radio or anything. Homo sapian didn't exist 1 million years back. The previous does sort of assume that we were the first to climb out of the slime and develop technology, but someone has to be the first out of the slime. Why not us. 😄