Mandy D

@alecras2345

Here is another possibility offered by the Open University. This is a free, short course (with a certificate) in the use of remote telescopes and provides access to one of the OU's own COAST telescopes in Tenerife.

You will have to sign up with the OU and for the course, but it is all free:

https://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/astronomy/astronomy-online-telescope/content-section-overview?active-tab=description-tab

16 minutes ago, Zeta Reticulan said:

That's the thing, we only know about Earth. There could be other 'Earths' of course. As a species humans are around 200 000 years old. The evidence for the oldest life on Earth is about 3.7 billion years. The probability that anything else evolved elsewhere within about 4 billion years is the intriguing bit.  

You might like this article that traces human ancestry back to the extinction of dinosaurs.

https://www.inverse.com/innovation/oldest-human-ancestor-fossil-found-in-montana

18 hours ago, DaveL59 said:

so I guess your "seeing" got a bit out of focus by the end too then 😉 

Nope! Thankfully the smoke was going out and upwards and I was down on the ground. 🙂

On 01/08/2022 at 00:35, PaulM said:

First light for my 200p on EQ5 mount

Not had a telescope for over 12 months now and had 8", 12" and 14" dobs previously

Good to be back under the stars after having a heart attack in January and a few more till I had a triple bypass op in March, followed by recovery and rehab and the thought of getting another telescope helped me through this big time and decided on the 200p and EQ5 mount combo and got a good deal from a seller on eBay

So tonight was about getting familiar with the mount and setting the red dot finder and finder scope up

Once setup quickly located M53 then zoomed in with the barlow, then headed over to view M57 and again  zoomed in with the barlow, ended with viewing M81 and M82, by then i was getting tired and experiencing some pain so stopped there, really enjoyed the viewing and getting used to the mount, was also nice to know I still know my way around the night sky

Definitely heading into north wales once the nights get longer as this setup is much easier to carry and move than my last 14" dob

Looks like you are in AZ mode, there. How does it handle that scope? I might try my 200P like that if I can find some tube rings for it. Is yours the 1000 mm focal length version?

Good luck with your recovery.

21 hours ago, Zeta Reticulan said:

It's the probably that is the uncertainty. The universe is about 14 billion years old I believe. Earth is about 4.5 billion, the Sun being about 4.6 billion. It may have taken more than 10 billion years for stars to form that produce complex elements. If this is the case life on Earth could well be among the first life to emerge (if not the first). 

@goddasgirl2021

Population I stars, like our Sun are rich in heavier elements having formed from the remains of earlier stars. >1% elements beyond helium. Hence, since our planets were formed from the same dust cloud, they are rich in heavy elements as well as lighter ones.

Population II stars contain <<1% of heavier elements, thus mainly hydrogen and helium. Probably less likely to have planets and any that are there will be gas planets like Jupiter.

Population III stars are hypothesised to be the first stars and would have been formed from only hydrogen. Any helium in their cores would be as a result of fusion in those stars.

Once a Population III star goes supernova, it will build heavier elements and release them into the Universe where they will "contaminate" the material from which Population II stars and, ultimately, Population I stars will form.

There is an idea in science that around about now is the earliest point in time that intelligent, technologically advanced life becomes possible. Whilst this is based on science, such as evolution and the time scales we know are necessary, it is also based on our knowledge of life on just one planet in a vast Universe.

Nope, no idea! There appears to be another one in the top left corner as indicated on a copy of your first photo. It moves in the same way as the other two through the first set, but does not appear in the second set due to different framing.

1 hour ago, Laurieast said:

Much better. 

Does GIMP have this, or similar? 

 

Select/Inverse, darken the background a little (levels), I can see your pasting or masking.

 

 

I will check later, thanks. Having blindness in one eye issues at present, which does not help focus and contrast in other eye.

1 hour ago, DaveL59 said:

defo a step up, the moons look much better focused in this one 🙂 

Yes, they do, don't they? However, it was not a telescope focussing issue; it was more of a prime weed issue with the occasional cloud of smoke passing in front of the telescope from a neighbouring flat. I didn't touch focus throughout most of my imaging time, after the scope had cooled. First attempt, I rushed to find some good moons, but had 700 images to go through! Many of them had figure 6 shaped tails, due to the smoke.

I found a better set of moons for Jupiter and re-processed the planet in GIMP. Is this getting better?

7 hours ago, Zeta Reticulan said:

I believe the technicians knew it was too cold to launch and advised against it as they knew the rings could fracture. They were overruled for political reasons.  I'm sure Richard Feynman figured out what was wrong. I'm just too lazy to look it up. I'm tired after a pretty decent session with my 60 EDF lol.

IIRC, according to Feynman's own account, he was sat next to a general, whose name I forget, who clued Feynman in on the cold affecting the O-rings. Feynman somehow got his hands on a piece of the O-ring material and, during the hearing requested a glass of ice water and dropped the sample in it to demonstrate it's brittle state.

I could never figure why the general fed this information to Feynman rather than delivering it himself. It always looked suspicious to me. He may simply have felt that it looked better with the information coming from a scientist rather than the military!

2 hours ago, vlaiv said:

Why do you want that?

You seem to have ASI178mm.

Use that to practice and to see what is possible with your scope. You already have barlow that you can use with that camera. Just aim to get a bit below x2 and that should work fine. Much better than with DSLR.

Aim for 5ms exposure length, use 640x480 roi, capture as many subs as you can. Use gain in 260-300 range.

As far as recommended OSC for planetary imaging - go with ASI224 or ASI385 - depending on how much money you are willing to spend and if you need larger sensor (ASI385 is larger sensor which is useful for moon). Although, for moon, you can simply use ASI178. It is largest and you can capture lunar images in mono, so you don't even need filters for that (or you can just use green or red filter to help with seeing a bit).

 

Yes, I have ASI178MM. I've just set it up in my living room with a 30 mm lens and focussed it on the ceiling as totally clouded over here tonight. I've set gain to 280 and exposure at 5 ms. At 640 x 480 the detail on my ceiling is unreal. You can see the brush marks in the paint with the camera on the floor!

Should I be running the camera at 8 bit or 16 bit for planetary?

I guess that videos should be two to three minutes long each, from what I have read because of fast rotation of Jupiter.

As you suggest, for now I will practice with the ASI178MM, but look towards getting a colour camera later. I am quite happy to spend up to about £500 on a new camera, so the ASI385 is comfortably within reach. Is there any point in spending more within my budget?

I did explain my logic behind the 3x focal extender previously as a stop gap for use with my DSLR until I can get my full imaging rig to a location where I can safely set up with a laptop and everything I need. With currently being unable to drive, I am stuck at home and imaging from the street. I have to carry everything out in one go as I can leave nothing outside to go back in for the rest.

Thanks.

4 hours ago, vlaiv said:

Main reason to go for planetary with dedicated camera is ability to take large number of exposures in sequence (frames) - in Raw format.

If you already have ASI178 - then I'd try with that first - just to hone your technique.

For planetary imaging - you don't need to drive to dark location - you can do it from your back yard. Light pollution is not an issue there.

It would be best to get regular barlow for that. You don't want to bin data if you don't need to - as that increases effective read noise with CMOS sensors. For planetary imaging - low read noise is essential.

Both of your scopes will have diffraction limited field over such a small sensor and you don't need any additional optics, but I would avoid using RC for planetary.

It has very large central obstruction, and although, one can image planets with it - results won't be as good as scopes with smaller central obstruction (even SCTs).

Anyway, for ASI178 you'd need ~F/10 scope. Get this barlow:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/barlows/astro-essentials-125-2x-barlow-with-t-thread.html

It has detachable barlow element that you can use to dial in magnification for your 200p.

Magnification of barlow element depends on distance to sensor and you can use some sort of variable length extension to attach it directly to camera body via T2 and then use 2" camera nose piece to fit it inside focuser. This way you can dial in magnification to get F/10

 

Yes, this looks like a pl... (the first part of a plan!).

I didn't mean that I need astro-dark skies for my planetary imaging, I just need to get away from the uber-bright LED streetlights for the sake of my eyes. I have no chance when pointing due south of avoiding being blinded. From my garden, I have a very narrow window to the south which allows me a few minutes on the Moon or planets per night, then another narrow window to the west, so no chance of doing any serious planetary imaging from my own property. However, I do have a couple of sites away from home with no street lighting and clear views of the south and west horizons that I like to use. I really do not want to set up a laptop next to my scope on the pavement. Hence, my preference to stick to DSLR imaging at this point in my life. I am sure you understand that I am not rejecting your very good advice, but simply putting it into perspective for my situation.

I have a an inexpensive 2x Barlow already, so will give that another try and see where we get once I have some clear skies, again. That still leaves me wanting for a 3x Barlow for the DSLR and 200P, but that can wait for now. I'll leave the RC for this endeavour and keep persevering with the 200P. It seems to give reasonable results, anyway.

What camera do you recommend I consider for planetary? I'd like to stick with ZWO if possible and am not yet ready to buy, but it will help me budget.

Thanks again.

3 hours ago, Laurieast said:

Questions are good! 

I would be guessing if I answered that, I have never used one. I have a cheap 1.25" 2x Celestron barlow, a 1.25" 3x SV Bony barlow, which is good, but with your sensor maybe not, and a 2" 2x ED barlow https://www.firstlightoptics.com/barlow-eyepieces/skywatcher-ed-deluxe-2x-two-inch-barlow-lens.html

There is an informative thread here about focal extenders: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/665643-difference-between-focal-extender-and-barlow/

It looks as though it gives a flatter field, but if it would work with your kit 🤔 , it would be good if @vlaiv saw this and may have some better answers.

 

Thanks for your response. Great job on brightening my Jupiter image. It does look improved.

I've had a read through the Cloudy Nights thread and found some helpful information. I just need to firm up my ideas, now.

3 hours ago, vlaiv said:

If you really want to use D800 for planets, then based on pixel size which is 4.88, you'll need F/19.52, so yes, x3.25 is needed.

However, I think that it would be better to invest in planetary camera rather than focal extender for D800.

I would also advise against using focal extender for both 200p and RC6 for DSO imaging. Both scopes have enough focal length and don't need one.

For last question - don't use field flattener/reducer with barlow / focal extender. Not much point in doing so - you first reduce focal length only to extend it. If you just use field flattener and barlow / focal extender - it is also not necessary. Field flattener is often needed for outer part of the field - central 1/2 of the field does not need it.

With barlow, you magnify image and you just take central part of image (1/2 or less of it) and you spread it over whole sensor. That part of the image does not need flattening anyway.

Thank you of the input. It is greatly valued.

I already have a ZWO ASI178MM (2.4 micron pixel size), which could be used as a planetary camera, albeit mono. With 2x2 binning, the 3x focal extender would be a good match if I have my numbers right, so I could use it with both the D800 and the ZWO. Would this potentially be a good starting point? If I get on with it, I could then buy the colour version or filter wheel, although I'd prefer one-shot for planetary.

Right now, I really need to stick with the DSLRs for my imaging as I am out of action for driving and don't want to set up a full imaging train with laptop next to the pavement outside home. Later, when my eye is better I will be able to throw all the kit in the Land Rover and head for dark skies where I can set up properly.

So, I am thinking that the 3x would be a sensible investment now as it would work for both the D800 and the ZWO.

I take on board your advice to not use the flattener with the extender.

So, I have the 200P which is working great for planetary. Would the RC6 offer any advantage over it? Obviously, I would lose aperture, so I would not be able to go the the same focal long lengths for either camera. I also assume, from your comments regarding flatness over the small area of field required for planetary, that I would not gain anything here, either, with or without the flattener.

5 hours ago, Laurieast said:

Yes, a little, try with curves adjustment. 

With your second image imposed on top of the one with the moon's.

maybe a bit bright 🤔

Thank you, that looks a lot better. So my next problem is to increase the image size and, from what vlaiv has said elsewhere the limit for my 200P with 1200mm focal length and a D800 camera is about 3.3x. I am considering an Explore Scientific focal extender at 3x, here, https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/explore-scientific-focal-extender-3x-508mm2.html. I want to go with 2" to better match my full frame sensor so I can image stuff other than planets. Is this one a good option? Will it be OK with both the 200P and the RC6? I guess it might be a bit much with the RC6, but I do have a reducer / field flattener for it. Can I use both together.

Sorry for so many questions.

1 hour ago, Laurieast said:

Well done you! Progress! 😀

Yes, the second one dose have the edge over the first one.

Thank you. Do you think it needs to be brighter?

3 minutes ago, DaveL59 said:

I'd have been very happy to end up with an image like that one, maybe one day I'll try hooking the dslr up to the TAL100RS, just haven't felt the motivation to do that so far and just enjoying the views instead 🙂 

Thank you, that really means a lot to me!

I've just stacked 50% of my second run for a total of 190 frames out of 381 taken in 3 minutes. I think it is a tiny bit better.

OK, I know the image is small, but I was working at native focal length and imaging with a D800, so only got 60 pixels across Jupiter. I suspect, from what I've read in here, that I need to barlow my scope to about 4000 mm FL with this camera. I was working with the 200P last night and this is my first stack of 40 still images of Jupiter combined with a single exposure for the Gallilean moons, Ganymede, Io, Callisto and Europa from left to right.

Hopefully, with a little (a lot of?) help from you good people in here, I can improve greatly on this result in the future, but I'm happy with it as a first attempt.

8 hours ago, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:

Had a go at Jupiter between clouds (and with choppy seeing). I used the old Celestorn C8, Vixen flip-mirror, ZWO ADC, Siebert Optics 1.3x tele-centric Barlow, and ASI183MC. A quick stack of 30% out of 90s worth of images (some 2000 out of 6000 frames) in AS!3 followed by sharpening in Registax yields this result:

Not too bad given conditions, but the moon on the left looks like there is some internal reflection going on (maybe in the ADC?). The effect can be processed out by deconvolution, but it is a bit of a pain. Will process  the rest of the data tomorrow, and maybe make a little animation

Your image is coming out nice. I still have to try stacking mine from last night. I see you also caught Callisto a while after it came out of eclipse. I noticed it first appearing as a tiny bump on the edge of Jupiter and then separating. It looked a little strange coming out at that angle when the rest of the moons were in a nice straight line across the sky.

1 hour ago, Zermelo said:

Never mind the Bortle rating, tell us which wine that is!

French wine. A good red. I don't recall, probably because I drank too much of it and addled my brain. Hic!

54 minutes ago, Barna20 said:

Thanks for answering. I think I'll stick to canon then.  The only thing to decide is that which one body I'll buy.

Yes, I did consider some dedicated astro cameras, but in my mind, the first stepping stone of a natural progression in astrophotography is a DSLR on a star tracker.
Then buying a telescope and after that, an astro cam, then a better mount and the list goes on. But I might be wrong tough.

Do you intend to use the new DSLR for other photography, such as landscape, or are you keeping the Panasonic for that?

Do you want the camera to be stand-alone or are you happy to drag a laptop along with an astro-camera?

Of course, a dedicated astro-camera is ultimately the better device, but comes with baggage. I started with a DSLR, which I still use, but now also have a ZWO ASI178MM, which is currently very under-utilised. I'd like to do more with it but it is impractical for me to drag a laptop and the ZWO out to an observing site and set up.

Just now, maw lod qan said:

I'm going to have to keep an eye on you. You could be considered a malcontent and trouble maker, just like me!

Welcome to the club!

I think we'll get along just fine, then!

20 minutes ago, col said:

Iv been reading a lot of people mentioning their Bortle number, and was curious what mine is.

So after googling it, I found out the Clear Outside site actually lists it at the top of the page for that nights cloud cover. I had no idea it was that easy to check.

Im in a Bortle 5 area after being convinced the light pollution for me was worse than that.?

So in reality Im not in as bad a  situation I thought I was.

Saying that, sometimes the school behind and next to the back garden fence has the security lights on all night facing towards me. but thats  not been that often lately.

And i can see the glow from the estate and town over the rooftops.

But it gives me hope for deep sky on good nights possibly.

 

Yes, Bortle 5 here at home in UK. Uber-bright LED streetlights and I can still comfortably image the planets and their moons. In France, Clear Outside gives me Bortle 3, yet I cannot see our house across the street when staggering home from the neighbours after a glass of wine. I walked a quarter mile past the recycling bin one night thinking I really didn't need to put the outside light on, because I knew where I was going! To be fair, that Bortle 3 is for the village a mile down the road, and not our hamlet which has no street lights.

On 09/08/2022 at 12:24, maw lod qan said:

Any four year old knows if you hold your hands up with your thumb out, the one making an L is LEFT!

Just tried that: The one making an L is my right!

Oh ... You meant to look at the backs of my hands. Why didn't you say so! Too many ways to interpret this one for it to be a solution! 🤣

10 minutes ago, Knighty2112 said:

Well of course it’s has got to be binoculars for ever!
 

Kind of funny but I have just for the 1st time last night ever watched the 1964 movie “My Fair Lady”, and was amused in some small way between the snobbish and priggish linguistic Professor Henry Higgins, and Cockney flower girl Eliza Doolittle. As for the English language (in its many variations around the world) evolves constantly, else we would all still be talking the stilted English of yesteryear.  In my lifetime I have seen/heard many words that back when I was a child had a totally different meaning than they do in todays English. New words have been added in, and some old words dropped totally (for good or bad). Now I am no English language expert and would never claim to be (this is my opion only and don’t expect everyone to agree with it) but would I like the English language to only be dictated down to us poor, uneducated masses by erudite people like Henry Higgins who would favour that his version of English be set in stone forever, and the voices of the likes of Eliza (i.e you and me, or is that you and I? ) be silenced? Eye thunk ya’ll no me ansa ta that as a big fat Nooooooo Guvna!  

Unfortunately, much of the time, the English language tends to devolve, rather than evolve. Today, we seem to be heavily influenced by American TV and movies. English grammar is "you and I". It is the Americans that suggest that "me and you" is correct.