Mandy D

Nice! I like how you get crater details near the terminator when the Moon is at 99% and it still looks full.

Very nice result, @Barv.

7 minutes ago, GasGiant said:

Lots to learn 😀

The various rotations and mirror views of the different scopes, coupled with the rotation of the sky when not using an equatorial mount really adds to the complications. When imaging, I rarely bother to rotate the image to match it's standard orientation and prefer to leave it as seen. It's all about artistic interpretation for me, unless there is  good reason to correctly orient my imges.

Have you got a copy of  Turn Left at Orion? It shows drawings of the various views of common objects in the different types of telescopes. It may help more than Stellarium.

@GasGiant I took these snapshots of M42 back in November. I've cropped and rotated the first one and left the colours alone, so it should look something like what you saw. The second image is better exposed and shows more of the detail and a wider field, without being rotated. I think your drawing pretty much matches what is in my first image. It is a beautiful nebula that is worth spending some time on. Congratulations on finding it and producing an accurate sketch.

7 minutes ago, Stu1smartcookie said:

Why include the two pathetic EPs ( you know the ones you get with an st80, and why do we have to suffer the cheapo 2”diagonal which seems to be thrown together using a couple of pieces of old iron?

What? You get eyepieces and a diagonal thrown in for 'free'? 😁

I'm surprised, on a scope of this calibre, that you get any of that. My iOptron RC6 had none of that and not even a finder of any type. I actually prefer that they do not supply me with these cheap accessories, so I can put the money saved towards quality ones. I understand supplying the complete kit when it is a beginner scope, but this really isn't.

Hopefully, you will enjoy it.

1 hour ago, GasGiant said:

Filters to combat Chromatic aberration ?  Sometimes I see a thin blue line around the moon but Im not sure its there all the time i've looked previously? Why ?

This is likely atmospheric aberration when the Moon is low in the sky, normally blue and orange, but cannot remember which way up. When you view the Moon higher up with a reflector, you will not see it. The cause is pretty much the same as any other chromatic aberration, except this is caused by the atmosphere, not the glass.

@Duotwr This may help:

@Bugdozer I can do no better than to give it you from the master himself, Thierry Legault:

http://www.astrophoto.fr/obstruction.html

@Ouroboros I'm not on FB, so they are definitely not winding me up. Whether it is a wind-up is open to debate. The only reason the post has been reported is due to copyright infringement of my image.

2 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

Oh dear, I was just about to make the same joke.  

It’s a good image though. Interesting. 

I'm glad you like my image.

The Flerfers are very tedious and have been reported as I noted above. I totally agree that, at first glance, the lower trail appears to pass behind the Moon, but if we look closely, it is possible to see a faint trace of it crossing the maria. Of course, flerfers will fail to see anything that contradicts their world view.

On 21/01/2024 at 01:24, Steve Ward said:

Lovely capture there ... 

So sorry to see that the image attracted so many idiots over on FB ... 

Thank you.

Of course, they have offered an explanation for the two trails, saying that they were caused by two separate aircraft; one flying in front of the Moon, the other behind. I have reported the theft of my image to FB, but I doubt any action will be taken.

12 hours ago, Bugdozer said:

I don't understand your explanation. The OP is trying to use it visually as far as I can tell. By default, the telescope should be engineered to work properly for visual observation. I understand the need for extension tubes etc with things that require a specific distance for the focal plane such as photography, but this doesn't appear to be that situation. Or am I missing something? If a scope requires extension tubes in order to be used for visual observation, then they should come as part of the scope when you buy it, not have to be purchased separately. 

OK, the point is that to achieve sufficient inward focus for my Nikon DSLR to achieve focus requires me to wind the focuser in an additional 46.5 mm just to make up for the fact that the sensor is buried so deep into the camera's body. We could, theoretically, achieve this by using a focuser with a lot more travel than you generally see fitted to Newtonians, but, then the focuser would intrude into the tube further and block precious light.

I have absolutely no argument with you about the fact that extension tubes should be supplied where necessary to focus with any supplied eyepieces. But, the end user has the option to buy other accessories (eyepieces included) that require more extension (or none!). Why should the telescope manufacturer supply everything that everyone will ever want to use with the telescope?

Try purchasing an imaging scope, like my RC6. You will rapidly find that accessories are absolutely required beyond those included with the OTA. Hell, it didn't even have a single eyepiece or finderscope included! I bought an additional pair of 50 mm spacers for mine.

I'm guessing that the OP has bought this kit used and does not have all the original accessories. In any case, it is a simple matter to acquire the necessary parts, as I have explained in my reply to him.

I hope this helps.

14 minutes ago, Bugdozer said:

Question: why do manufacturers make telescopes that are intrinsically impossible to focus without an additional device? That seems crazy. 

No, it's not crazy. You cannot gain extra inward focus without re-engineering your telescope. It is for things like imaging with DSLRs and for accessories to be fitted for imaging that require more back-focus.

@takaeri Yes, you often need extension tubes to bring a Newt to focus. If you cannot get focus on the Moon with the focuser fully racked out, try sliding the eypiece backwards out of the focuser. You may need more extension than you have available. You can buy them readily. Get focus on a distant object in daytime first as it is far easier than fiddling in the dark. Then, at night, aim for the Moon as it is bright and easy to work with. Good focus on the Moon will be fine for everything else in the night sky. Start with the 25 mm eyepiece, no barlow. The 10 mm is probably not going to be very good and I would forget the barlow that comes with these telescopes, altogether.

@GrumpiusMaximus I wholly concur, but I suggest finally launching into orbit, then TSI (trans-solar injection) for final cremation! I use A3 laser printers, now, as they are more durable and never get clogged up like inkjets and they are much faster.

@Paul M Thanks!

I hadn't even thought about scale! But, i do recall spotting Ganymede with the naked eye during an evening astronomy session after school when I was about thirteen. The physics teacher asked me where it was before I looked through the telescope to confirm I'd seen it!

I've also just noticed that Earthshine is visible on the night side of the Moon, too.

The close alignment of Jupiter and Luna on 2024 01 18, 17:20 created an opportunity to capture 5 moons in a single exposure. The sky was not playing nicely, so I ended up with a haze around Earth's moon, but some serious pushing of the image resulted in clearly defined points for (left to right) Callisto, Ganymede, Io, Europa and an expoure for Luna (top right) that shows some detail. With clearer skies, I am sure this could have been a lot better.

Nikon D800, 300 mm f/4 prime lens. 1/125s, f/8, ISO-200. Final processing in GIMP to adjust the exposure curve. Nothing else.

You may have to zoom in to see Jupiter's moons.

1 hour ago, badgerchap said:

OK. I've found something that fits. No idea what they are, but that old jar of screws in the shed yielded success! Finally! 

Excelent! Just for reference, 4BA is about the closest non-metric size to M4 with an OD of 3.62 mm.

You can do this in Videopad.

@fluxfluid The 6 inch mirror will only gather 33% more light than the 130 mm, so objects will appear 33% brighter at the same magnification. Will you actually notice this? Most of the time, probably not. Will you be able to see fainter objects or resolve final detail? Yes, but probably not enough to notice. You will be able to go to magnifications about 15% greater, but it won't look that different. It is generally considered that a 50% increase in aperture is the minimum that is worthwhile, so you would want a 200 mm to reap the benefit.

@JamesGlasgow glad to help. Tell your wife it is part of his education!

@Nik271 I noticed last night that we heading for a conjunction, but I've seen nothing in the usual places to notify us. Tonight they were nicely positioned and I grabbed a similar shot to yours. Nikon D800, 600mm, f/8, 1/125s, ISO-200. You must have been at ISO-100, then.

@janemc40 Some time between about 5 and 6 p.m. today, there was a train of bright Starlink satellites passing above the Moon, which were moving quite rapidly. In you images I can see the Moon, with Jupiter below and slightly left, but you also have some imaging artefacts present, due to internal reflections. Your last image appears to show a couple at about the correct separation above the Moon.

@lukebl I was imaging the conjunction of Jupiter and the Moon as they went over. I thought about turning the camera to them, but I would have needed to swap lenses. Nice to see that you captured it.

1 hour ago, JamesGlasgow said:

Thanks a lot, a picture paints a thousand words. The one I bought is only around 3cm high, I was just confused now I sort of know. Are the ones in the pictures around 2 inch’s high, just so I buy the correct one. As the telescope didn’t come with any, the person I bought it off used 2” eyepieces 

My 1.25" adds about 37 mm and the 2" adds 48 mm. It is very handy that the Skywatcher Newtonians need these adaptors to reach focus with an eyepiece, as it makes them so easy to use for imaging with a DSLR which has the sensor buried deep in the camera body. For Nikons it is 46.5 mm, IIRC. If yours are too short, you can just pull the eyepiece out a bit and lock it with the screw until you get the right one.