Zermelo

Hello, and welcome to SGL. There are some useful links for choosing a first telescope contained in this thread: https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/378404-telescope-starting This website also has a lot of useful information, but presented from a newcomers' perspective.

I love the top right version. Mrs. Z often complains that the objects I show her look nothing like their names would suggest, constellations in particular. I see a role for this tool in "making good" any discrepancy between an object's appearance and name. As well as inventing entirely new ones, of course.

At one point, I did think about trying to use the latitude and longitude in the table to map each location onto a scheme of country timezones, supplement it with a database of local daylight saving regimes, and so calculate the UTC offsets. I thought about it for all of three seconds.

It should reflect whatever you have set as the UTC offset in column P, for your selected location. For UK in BST, that should be +01:00, but I chose to save all the values as 00.00 as I didn't want to have it reflect the time of year that I posted it.

I’ve updated the spreadsheet (v1.2) to deal with UTC offsets correctly. Apologies, I’ve no idea how I didn’t spot that. The system tester has been taken out the back and shot. I took the opportunity to include a button to set the alignment date and time to the current values with one click, and defined a print area on the Print sheet to exclude the buttons. Slightly amended versions of the User Guide (1.1) and Design Notes (1.1) are also included.

UTC functionality: just a note to say that, since the change to BST, I've noticed that the local<>UTC conversion is wrong! I have fixed it, and will post an updated version imminently, but for now if you keep the UTC offset for your location as zero, and enter alignment times in UTC, it will continue to work. The possibility of a clear evening may take precedence over my updating the documentation.

Just got in after a surprisingly good three hours with the Mak 127 (surprising, because of the big bright thing). The forecasts all featured some cloud, but I didn't see any, perhaps just a little high haze. The seeing was noticeably improved on last night, though it did seem to deteriorate a little at the end. I started off on Venus, just because I've bought an ADC and wanted to try it out (it worked, though I couldn't see any detail on the disc). From then on it was doubles all the way (and 12 Lyncis for a triple). The colours in 24 Comae Berenices and 35 Sextantis held up well in the glare. HR 1669 at 1.6" was the tightest split. The Svbony 3 - 8mm zoom performed well again, only marginally surpassed by the 6.5mm and 9mm Morpheus. I did finish with the moon, though it was a bit wobbly by then. There was a nice crater on the terminator with the central peak illuminated, my atlas suggests it was Lagrange T.

First time out since March 9th, and just a short one. Conditions were mediocre, so my first attempt with the binoviewer was probably not a fair one. The moon was boiling a bit, but there was some nice detail between Mare Humorum and the terminator. Schickard looked good, half in shadow. Mars is small now, though I think I could just see some albedo detail in the Svbony zoom at x375. M36 and M38 were OK, though a bit washed out, even away from the moon. And some doubles: HR 1847, SAO 114265, and HR 1902, the best at 1.2". Hoping for more tomorrow.

I listened to this today. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the host was more interested in the standup comedy than the mathematical physics, but it was a good listen. And I'm guessing that it's the only episode that has ever discussed the Bortle scale.

This comes up fairly regularly. Apologies @bosun21, you may have already done your research on the following, but for others looking at this, three more points: (a) Lab tests have shown that significant numbers of imported lasers exceed the 1mW UK limit, even where the specs says they don't. Some are massively over. (b) Be especially careful if ordering the 532nm variety, as these use frequency doublers on IR lasers to get to the green output. The potential problem is that the efficiency of the conversion falls in cold temperatures, leaving substantial amounts of IR output. There is supposed to be a cut filter to remove it, but some don't work very well (or are missing). Your eyes can be damaged, and the blink reflex won't cut in as it's mostly IR. 520nm lasers are inherently safer as they don't use this mechanism, but most of the cheaper imports are not of this type. (c) In the UK at least, the legislation now makes shining a laser at a plane (or other vehicles) a strict liability offence, i.e. they don't need to prove that you did it deliberately to ensure a conviction. I do understand the appeal of using lasers on scopes, and I have several times thought about trying to find a "safe" one, but always decided against it.

Hello, welcome to SGL. One advantage of having the same true field of view at a higher magnification (i.e. the ES 24mm in your example) is that it reduces the effect of light pollution in the background sky, helping with the visibility of fainter, extended objects like galaxies. Were you particularly wanting the 82 degrees? There are the various "ultraflat" clones at 24mm/65° and 30mm/70° - for example the Stellalyra versions, or those by APM and Altair. These are very well corrected, even in fast scopes. The Superviews are cheaper, but do show aberrations towards the edges. I wrote up a quick comparison of the Altair UFF and Superview 30mm here. The 24mm UFFs are in 1.25" format, hence the limitation on the field compared with the 2" EPs. Some more discussions: https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/400497-wide-field-eyepiece-for-fast-scopes-any-suggestions/#comment-4295371 https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/403780-celestron-ultima-edge-30mm-apm-uff-stellalyra-uf/

Sounds like a good evening. I think you meant to type "M3 was underwhelming"?

The "postman" left his red van at the depot today, and instead arrived in a Caterham Super 7 to deliver these for me (accompanied by a helper). These are my first binos, so I'm looking forward to a new experience. (The BBC thinks there may be some clear spells tonight, CO says no chance)

I hadn't realized he was still with us, until I saw that he wasn't. I expect many will have heard of Moore's Law, even if they couldn't remember quite what it said. https://m.slashdot.org/story/412369

That's understandable. Start by getting to know the sky, the way it moves through the evening and changes from week to week. Even if you have the scope out on an evening, spend some time just trying to identify the more obvious constellations with the naked eye. If you have some binoculars, try sweeping the sky and see what you find. As you get to know the sky, you will be better placed to navigate with the scope and find objects that aren't as obvious as the planets. There is plenty that you can see with a 150p. https://britastro.org/2018/star-hopping https://lovethenightsky.com/what-is-star-hopping/

Unless you have really specific tastes, there's always something to look at (if the skies ever clear). What scope have you bought, and how dark are your skies? You can get some ideas for targets in this recent thread:

... or else, if no-one wants to be editing comments on a Friday evening:

I've just signed. Only 9,813 to go! I fear we are still a way off any such measures, but it all raises the profile, so thank you. (Then again, I'm old enough to remember when you couldn't expect to work in an office without breathing in your colleagues' cigarette smoke, and I never thought that would change in my lifetime)

I believe that's already in the list of requested future features, just below the flying pigs.

Send Reduced app ?

It's clear here just now, I'm not observing but I just went out back to see if the shields are having any effect on the light reflecting off the sides of the houses. It is noticeably better, so it was worth putting in the request.

An update on my recent experiences with LED street lights being fitted in my area. As I wrote in the top of this thread, all of the low-pressure sodium lamps in my road were replaced with LEDs before Christmas. Since then, I've been trying to decide how much of a difference it's making. On the one hand, the colour - while now white - is not as blue-rich as some others I have seen, and their intensity is not as bad as it could have been. I have had difficulty assessing the effect on my back garden viewing location, because of the infrequency of clear nights with no moon since then, but it seems to me now that there is a clear increase in the light spilling around the houses (reflected off walls - I have no direct line of sight view of the lights when I'm observing). We have also noticed more light coming into our bedroom. I have read reports, from other forum members, of successful applications to local councils for the installation of shielding, so I tried it myself. I thought hard about whether to mention the effect on our observing, but decided instead to lead on the amount of light coming through the bedroom window, since this seems to have been the most successful tactic in other cases. I did also say, though, that I thought the colour balance was wrong and the intensity was higher than necessary. Today, only 8 working days after my request, a van appeared across the road and work commenced. In my submission I had identified two lamps in particular that were most likely to be the source of the reflected light (and of the direct bedroom illumination). One of these was oriented "sideways" to us and the other "lengthways". An exacerbating factor for all the lamps in our road is that the bulbs were just swapped out for new ones, but the existing fittings were situated two or three inches beneath the reflector (I think you can see this in some of the photos). The inevitable result is that light can spill out horizontally, and even slightly above. I was pleased to see that the shields fitted to the two lights were selected and positioned to block the light coming towards us, affixed at the near end of the one cover, and at the side of the other: It would be interesting to see what would happen if all my neighbours also decided to make similar requests from their own perspectives - how much of each lamp would be left uncovered? After dark, this was how it now looks from upstairs: The "sideways" lamp is now noticeably less bright ... (compare it with the unshielded light on the right, which is further away). It's interesting to note that, even though the shield was obscuring all of the bulb from this viewpoint, there is still a fair amount of light escaping around it. I assume this is scattering due to the LEDs' brightness. The other lamp that is lengthways on to us has been attenuated less by its new shield: I've not been able to see what effect this has had on the light getting through to my back garden, as it's currently raining and blowing a gale. I suspect it will be some improvement, but won't return it to the levels it was with the sodium lights. So, my local authority and its contractor have been responsive to my request, for which I am grateful. The remedies seem to have made some difference, but not enough to make up for the LED brightness/spectrum. And of course, this remedial action does nothing to deal with the other light being projected into the sky by the other lamps in the neighbourhood, which is now broad spectrum. Perhaps if more people request shields for nearby lamps, it will raise the profile of the overall issue with the authorities. Meanwhile, I have had some success with my neighbour's new motion-activated searchlight (mentioned in some other post - it was impossible for me to walk to the end of the garden without it coming on). I had a word with him and he has redirected it so that I don't set it off now.

This seems to have sparked some comment recently. Something to bear in mind for future SGL imaging challenges? https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/samsung-space-zoom-fake-moon-photo-galaxy-s23-ultra-b2299947.html

I'm not sure that Ernest has a magic ruler, though.