Rob Sellent

If that means a few Km hike into a camp and staying there some nights, comfortably - unless you're SBS/SAS 😋- you could share an extra 5kg to 10kg related to astronomy. If you mean backpacking serious Km, then I wouldn't consider anything more than a small set of binoculars.

Hiya Lily, Just adding more to the great advice.... It's probably not necessary to say, but just in case, I'd suggest that you buy your first set up from a specialist telescope shop that can provide advice and an ongoing service – not from ebay and not from some supermarket or photographic store where the staff will generally have no knowledge of what they are selling. When looking around at your new potential purchase, although there are excellent reasons to buy a refractor the general precept is that aperture rules and so you'll find that if a beginner asks 'what should I buy?' 99% of those answers are going to suggest the biggest Newtonian (reflector) you can afford and carry about, and more than likely a Newtonian which is Dobsonian mounted rather than GEM (EQ) mounted, simply because the former mounts are easier to use and set up and are cheaper, so in effect you're putting more money into the optics and less into the mount. Another consideration to take into account is that if you start small, say with the 3", or 4", although you may have a plus on portability, you may soon be wishing you had gone for that 6", or that 8" etc. So have a serious think about this as well. You need to weigh aperture against portability. After you've got your scope with its supplied EPs you will probably want to get a couple more eyepieces, but do that after you've practiced a little. That way you'll be able to make a much more informed enquiry and decision. But, if you do decide to buy a Newtonian, your telescope will require collimation. So, you will need a special tool to do this, so you ought to budget yourself for a Cheshire as well. Another thing to look out for are astronomy sketches. If you have a look at the type of telescope from which the sketch was made this is the kind of thing you will see when observing from a telescope of similiar aperture. From time to time folk crop up who are very disappointed with astronomy-stargazing, they thought they were going to see those colourful galaxies and nebulae and wide and super bright globular clusters seen in the photos, only to see a fuzzy in grey, a planet the size of a pea in the palm of your hand. If possible, try to get along to a local astronomy club and size up and look through the type of telescope you think you may purchase and see if the view, weight, bulk etc meets your expectations. Most stargazers will be only too happy to help. I hope this helps a little and please don't hesitate in asking more questions. Oh, and welcome to SGL 😀

I may be wrong but I think it will be very similar to other branded zooms such as TS-Optics', Lunt's. My guess is that it'll have a very similar design, glass, lens to the aforementioned zooms. Moreover, FLO's pricing is outstanding, compare € this with € this. I have purchased a nice number of items from FLO and I find them to be honest, upfront and very knowledgeable. They're not in this game for the quick buck. Why don't you drop them a line and ask what they think about the zoom in your f15?

Aye, with the f15, expensive eyepieces corrected for faster f-ratios are not necessary. However, I do wonder whether +300x would be useful on most nights during the year? Assuming the 180s focal length is 2700mm, I'd be more inclined to go for something around 16mm and use a Barlow on nights of exceptional seeing, for example. With that said, in the long run, it might be more fruitful to look into a zoom eyepiece. This would give you a better idea of what magnifications suit the telescope and the objects viewed before investing - if so desired - in individual eyepieces. The Celestron/Seben 8mm-24mm zoom ought to work well in the f15 and will give you a running magnification from around 110x to 330x. Couple that with your Barlow and you can crazy .

No expert but aren't the Kappa-Cygnids between late July to late August? Do you think the dates given above could have been early examples of the Cygnids?

I use Baader's MK IV zoom in a Lunt 60 for ease of use. With my general seeing conditions I find it a lovely eyepiece for h-alpha.

Do you reckon it was a meteor? I thought they moved pretty swiftly and would cover that section of sky in a fraction of a second.

Could almost be a Goya in his darker moments or a Turner on a creative role. Lovely image 👍

@davheiToothpick! Genius 😀 Inspirattion comes from all corners but you have found it and applied it to your own art and it has come off a treat 👍

Rather than being solely a function of aperture, seeing colour in DSOs is predominantly a function of the eyes' sensitivity which differs in each individual. While some observers may see hints of colour in brighter emission nebulae, for example, others won't see any colour regardless of how big their telescope. My advice, then, is to use fairly low powers in your 8" and to observe the brighter regions of nebulae per se and see if you see any colour. Clear skies 😀

Lovely work, Davhei and a joy to see some stars on these rainy days in Spain ⛈️🌧️⛈️ Think you've worked your technique with the diffraction spikes to a tee 👍

The poet Ted Hughes once asked himself about the purpose of writing. He answered, "It's about trying to take fuller possession of the reality of your life." By like manner, we could ask ourselves, "what is the purpose of visual astronomy?" And we could simply paraphrase Hughes and answer, "It's about trying to take fuller possession of the reality I see." To my understanding there is one essential feature to this 'possession taking' in visual astronomy: observing. Observing is not just looking-at something. Observing requires active engagement with what is being observed. It is a style of concentrated looking, of picking out features and textures, of training the eye to see more. As @Paz says above, it is 'purposeful practice'. A useful method for observing in this fashion is to simply adobt what great writers, poets and artists have already done. Turning away from mind chatter and instead asking questions about the object being observed: what is there? what do I know about it? what does it look like? what shape does it have? where does it sit in relation to the other objects in the eyepiece? If observers wanted to go a step further in honing these skills, they could write about what they see, or talk into a recorder about what they see, or sketch what they see and it makes no difference which method they choose, so long as the objective of such practice is to strengthen their stargazing eye, their observational skills. This technique is no different to that of any decent artist, writer or poet. Miró, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Nietzsche, Kandinsky, Henry James, Darwin, Monet, Ted Hughes, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Marx, Picasso, Dickens, to name a handful, all used notebooks full of observations. So long as the observers are recording what they are seeing to the best of their abilities, they are training their eye and brain to see more. It is for this reason that this type of observing has nothing to do with imaging or ticking off objects from some list. Observing is an entirely different experience. It means spending time at the eyepiece to really look at what you can see, training your eye to ever greater detail. If good eyepieces and a seat can add a virtual inch or more to aperture, then concentrated observing must surely help augment that even more. I feel that although this practice looks simple on paper, in reality it isn't. I too struggle with simply observing! For one, it can be exhausting. It can also be boring if we want to 'get on with things' and see more objects in our session. Another problem is that actively engaging with what we observe can and does slow us down, so it may appear we're not being that productive. A pernicious condition of modernity is to live life as if it were a continuing series of tasks, chores or emergencies to be dealt with, but it is impossible to develop observational powers if we're rushing around. To observe more we just need to slow down a little and simply try and observe that which is before us.

To my understanding there are two essential features to visual astronomy: finding the object. observing it. The former involves star-hopping and reading star maps, the latter requires you to actively engage with what is being observed. It is a style of concentrated looking, picking out features and textures. With this kind of observing you are training the eye to see more. Useful methods for observing in this fashion is to ask yourself questions about the object, write about what you see, talk into a recorder about what you see, or to sketch what you see and it makes no difference what method you choose, so long as the objective of such a practice is not to produce a work of art or some ode to the cosmic wonder being observed, but to have strengthened your stargazing eye, your observational skills. Sketching or writing about what you are observing is an iterative, mechanical process: you look through the eyepiece, you sketch or write a little something, you compare, you look again, sketch or write a little more, compare, and on and on you go. If you find you are getting bored, you relax, you take a little break, and when you are ready, you return again. Night after night after night if needs be. If you can couple this technique with the tools of good grammar and vocabulary or with drawing skills, so be it, but, again, it doesn't make a lot of difference, so long as you are recording what you are seeing to the best of your abilities. This is the way you train your eye to see more. It is for this reason that this type of observing has nothing to do with imaging or ticking objects from some list. There is no doubt that these are also great ways of enjoying one's sessions but astronomical sketching or detail writing is an entirely different experience. It means spending time at the eyepiece to really look at what you can see, training your eye to ever greater detail and in turn taking the fullest advantage of your telescope and gear. If good eyepieces and a seat can add a virtual 1" or more to aperture, then sketching or detailed writing will help augment that even more. There's no correct way or rule for recording your observations. White paper, blending stub for nebulae and galaxies etc and pencil for stars is one method. It is common - but not necessary - to invert these images on principles of aesthetics and to help future observers with an idea of what they are likely to see through similar aperture scopes. The chalk and black paper method is refered to as the Mellish Technique. Scott Mellish was an extremely talented Australian observer who passed away about ten years ago. I feel that due to the inherent complexity, subtlety and general difficulty of the medium renders this approach less popular than a simple pencil and blending stub - especially in less than ideal weather. I consider this an even more dedicated approach than a 'simple' sketch scanned into the computer and one that renders a gorgeous aesthetic if done well. Not only has the observer taken the time to make a sketch, but has also taken the time to note the subtle colour of stars, their differing magnitudes and the possible affects of optics, seeing and so on, on the given observation. They've then taken this sketch, scanned it into Gimp type software and tweaked those further observations into the scanned image. One of the best proponents I've seen of this technique is of Peter Vercauteren, an extremely dedicated Italian observer who sketches using an 18" Bino-Dob. Yes, that's right. Two 18" Dobs glued together to create one gigantic binoscope. I'd feel one would need one mighty argument to say there's only one way to do this and that that way is the only correct way to do it. So long as you're enjoying yourself, training your eye to see more and trying to record what you see as you see fit, helping yourself and others along the way, who cares about rules? The web is full of great links but here are a few I think worth going through: SGL Sketches Youtube Intro to Sketching Sketches & Sketching Resources The Mellish Technique Youtube Mellish Technique Nice Guide to Sketching M27 Youtube Peter Vercauteren Guide More Tutorials

Beautiful timepiece, Jon, and lovely story . I don't know why but I tend not to wear watches, but my older brother would love to see your timepiece. He retired from programming in his fourties and ever since has been an amateur horologist. Because many of the small parts, the faces or hands are hard to track down or no longer in production, he makes many of them himself and even the tools used are things of great beauty and intrigue. A most fascinating world.

What's your budget, Bungle ? At a guess with an f7 apo-triplet, you can't go wrong with looking at a little Green and Black as @Philip Rsuggests 😋

@MimasDeathStargreat buy and hope you enjoy your new toy 😀 These rich field scopes will open you to a world of low power viewing which is especially nice under dark skies. I use a slightly longer TV-76 and with something like a 24mm Panoptic, you'll be able to achieve almost 3º of sky. If the optics are up to scratch - I have no experience - you'll also be able to get nice views of the Moon, Jupiter and Saturn although I have found it virtually impossible to see Cassini Division in my small 3". Regardless, a very affordable and easy to grab n go/ drive with scope

I've dug out an old report of Moistons from the science magazine Gadzooks. It pretty much goes over what we've said already but there were a few more pics that I thought might help illustrate the phenomenon.

I think anything more complex would just 'do my 'ead in', Ed. I'm quite a simpleton at heart and don't like faffing too much. AZ mount, decent frac, a few eyepieces and map in hand, and off we go I've got a sneaky feeling you're a man of similar convictions which as far as I can gather is just another way of saying, great minds think alike

I was digging around in my astro-boxes and came across an oldish TS 8x50 RACI which happens to fit perfectly in the old Vixen 😀 I have no idea where that RACI came from and I don't ever recall buying it but then again I said something very similar when I found £50 in one of my socks some months ago.... I worked on the focuser, filing down and placing in little washers and although it did smooth it out a little, it was still not to my liking. To be honest, the TV76's focuser isn't that special either but then I mainly use it for low-power viewing. However, the Vixen deserves more, especially as I think the limiting factor will be my eyes and the skies rather than the optics themselves. I spoke to FLO and they're going to send me through a Moonlite just as you've suggested. It won't arrive for a good few weeks but there's no hurry. We're currently enjoying crazy weather here in Spain with floods, tornadoes, gail force winds and hailstones the size of golf balls Stu, what made you move on your Vixen and do you have any opinions on the scope you owned?

Perhaps as they discover more about this type of gamma radiation, light will be shed on Fermi's Paradox?

At least one US astronomer refers to Moistons. I'm not sure of the exact science involved but it seems that most astronomy gear, especially when it's new, emit Moiston molecules. These Moistons group together to form huge clouds. The full Moon is capable of absorbing Moistons and thus giving us relatively clear nights but reemits them as it ebbs towards becoming new again. Moistons also collect inside unopened telescope boxes and are released into the atmosphere whenever a newly purchased telescope is opened. This is the reason why professional companies such as @FLOsupply their telescopes with the warning: Although there is still much to be discovered, many astronomers believe Moistons look something like the image below. A fluffy, cute but on closer inspection mean looking oxygen with two hydrogens for punchy fists:

Naa, I reckon in your current scope the Hyperion ought to perform just fine It's a nice working magnification, exit pupil is still sweet, your scope's focal ratio isn't too demanding, so I figure that so long as the f8 is reasonably collimated the Hyperion shouldn't exhibit any aberrations. Be interesting to read a brief report on your own findings, when you get a chance to test

Looks like some twisted joke for the visual observer; clear skies, full Moon 😋 But good luck with the filter testing Here, I'm bracing myself against quite significant drops in temperature and storms for about a week. And yes, the forecast really does suggest only 3hrs of clear skies to see the Sun in about a week 😯:

@MimasDeathStarThe Baader solar film (there's visual grade & imaging grade) is excellent for white light. It is of excellent quality, gives good contrast and is cheap. Many observers claim that there's visually no difference between the film and wedge. For a good couple of years I used Baader's solar film until I was sure that 1) I really liked using refractors and 2) enjoyed solar observing, and only then did I purchase a wedge. For me the Herschel wedge has the advantage that it does not deteriorate, can be used on different aperture refractors without having to get new filter sizes and is safely in my hands rather than fitting over the tube end which always made me a little nervous. Image quality is extremely good, it is sharp and contrasty but perhaps it is only better-better than the film under very good seeing conditions. For the cheap price of the filter while adding another dimension and knowledge to astronomy, I really think every observer should have the Baader filter. And as you so rightly say, with this solar slump the only way is up 🙂 - - - @StuJust wanted to say thank you to Stu for kindly setting up this thread, so as not to disrupt or derail the original OP in sketches

@MimasDeathStarthere is absolutely no reason to apologise when seeting up threads like this. It's what makes SGL such a nice place to be. Good questions and good replies. Anyway, with a budget of around £300 my preference would be this. The Dob will offer you 8" of aperture and so in terms of resolution should resolve detail more than any other scope within this price range - and pricier! It will give you low-power rich field viewing and it won't have what some consider unpleasing narrow-field views a la Mak. It is very good on general deep sky observing and with reasonable dark skies you'll be able to view galaxies, nebulae, globulars, and so on. It will train you in the relatively simple art of collimation which will stand you in good stead if you ever fancied a Mak or SCT. You will get more than sufficient magnifications on objects (limited like all the other scopes on atmospheric conditions, seeing and aperture), it already comes with a good solid mount so you don't have to buy one, or be worried about wobbles at high magnifications. Like a refractor it isn't susceptible to dew formation, so techniques such as dew shields and heater strips become unnecessary as they would necessaily be for Maks and SCTS, but unlike an achromatic refractor you will have significantly more aperture and no chromatic aberration. Furthemore, it won't take as long to cooldown as a Mak or SCT and although perhaps not quite as sharp as a achromatic refractor or Mak, on most nights it should give really nice contrasty views on planets. If this weren't enough inch for inch it's also the cheapest option and fits right in your price range 😀. There are a couple of downsides to the Dob. Some folk find collimation annoying but to be honest, it's really no more than a little tweak of the mirror every session. Some folk don't like diffraction spikes when viewing bright objects like planets and with a focal ratio of f5 these scopes are more demanding on eyepieces, so you will probably have to spend a bit more on quality eyepieces than you would if you had a longer +f10 scope and you will have less exit pupil for any given eyepiece. However, 1mm exit pupil is still comfortable to view with and even this will give you 200x which is more than enough on most objects. Inch for inch, then, Dobs are a lot cheaper than Refractors, Maks or SCTS and because you can afford more aperture for less, you're getting more resolution, brighter images, and the possibility of going deeper and seeing more. For a first time, all round, general purpose scope to help you enjoy the wonders of the night sky, I really don't think you can go wrong with an 8" Dob. Hope that helps a little