wulfrun

A good deal more than I recall. It's been a while since I saw a Jenolite container but my recollection was 3-5%. Seems I missed out a zero, I'll stand corrected.

I remember my first view of the Galileans, in binoculars. I had to go and check their alleged positions to be sure I wasn't fooling myself. Still counts as one of my first "Wow" moments. I agree with Stu's comments above, you tried and it's something to remember and be proud of. At the end of the day, no amateur can compete with "proper" telescopes anyway, we don't have personal Hubbles etc - which is not be construed that I think amateurs are wasting their time of course.

Yes I remember Jenolite, my Dad's favourite rust treatment in the days when cars' steel was biodegradeable. Jenolite only contains a few percent phosphoric acid though. Full-strength phosphoric is better for killing rust outright but needs to be handled with care. WD40 is something I've always shunned, it's a water-dispersant (clue is in the initials, and the 40 is for "40th attempt") that seems to have gained a reputation is doesn't deserve as a do-it-all wonder fluid. It's pretty good as a water-dispersant and inferior for anything else. It also leaves a sticky film that attracts dirt if you don't clean it off after water-dispersing. I know this from the days when a car often needed help starting - due to cold, wet ignition leads. Ever tried GT-85? Half the price for twice as much of something that actually does do what most people think WD40 does - lubricate and prevent corrosion.

I thought from the thread title you'd enjoyed a clear night. I was going to say "congratulations - send us all one, please!" I managed a quick eyes-only peek through a gap in the clouds about a week ago, caught a view of Mars and a hazy Moon. It was looking quite promising for the clouds to roll away. Half an hour later, change of thoughts as all I can see is the orange glow of the nearby city-centre LP on the low, 100% cloud. It's about 6 weeks since I last saw any actual stars!

I also have this problem - caused by cumulative damage to one of my eye-muscles, from migraines, over many years. It has some fancy name that I think was a "latent squint" (double vision). If I close my eyes alternately my "view" shifts alternately but with both eyes open my brain forces them to look at the same point (mostly). I find it worst when trying to view through an eyepiece of some sort whilst also seeing with the other eye, such as using a camera with both eyes open. I've learned to live with it. I don't think it's uncommon, although in my case the cause is very rare.

Call me a cynic but I suspect it'll be just like environmental issues, climate-change, poverty and dozens of other important things. Lots of discussions, mostly by clueless politicians trying to figure out how to tick boxes and crow about how they've done "more than any other government/country/the opposition party" (delete as appropriate) without actually doing anything useful or spending any money. Their track-record is not good, but I so want to be wrong.

Thro' an eyepiece or how? I'd say a) it's too bright anyway and b) you need to figure out where the reflections are coming from - sorry that's stating the obvious! Could be inter-lens, off a flat surface somewhere (such as lens protective slip - not familiar with the phone but some have them and they get mucky), off the iris (if there is one). A few possibilities. Try some sort of hood arrangement. You may just have to accept the setup isn't suitable but it's worth a try.

Looks suspiciously like flare to me too. What was it taken with? If it IS Jupiter and Saturn, the Earth is in bigger trouble than anyone thinks!

If the info I can find is correct, it's 27.04mm diagonal. Plugging that into the formula says 22 degrees @ 70mm and 7.75 degrees @ 200mm. It may not be exact but it'll be close to that.

What camera and what zoom setting? If you know the sensor diagonal, you can calculate it as 57.3 * D /FL, where D is the sensor diagonal in mm) and FL is the lens focal length (in mm). I hope I got that right!

I'd forgotten that one too - thanks for the reminder! Never tried it in practice, since I mostly had a decent tripod when needed, so I must give it a go.

I don't think you'll be disappointed. I have the same combination (different scope) and it works quite well. Without the barlow you'll get x90 and with it you're just over x200, probably not often usable but nice to have.

Update: I started watching the first episode last night and got about 20 minutes in before giving up. Just too much fantasy involved on the hypothetical worlds and the "science"seemed second-rate too, with some basic errors. The first "world" was said to be twice Earth's size and with twice the gravity making for a denser, more bouyant atmosphere to keep the "skygrazers" aloft. Epic fail on both scores. Twice Earth's size means 8 times the volume (and likely, mass and hence gravity) and a denser atmosphere doesn't allow you to soar indefinitely any better. Couldn't take it seriously after schoolboy errors. I skipped to the last episode, which seemed more tolerable and made a few sentient points about our own possible futures. Still a lot of fantasy in it though. Overall, it may as well have been made as a sci-fi movie. Yes, it's (mostly) possible but it's still 100% conjecture and assumptions galore. I think they could have done better.

Exactly what I meant but perhaps didn't express clearly. Like most forums I inhabit, SGL does have a lot of people at all levels who are happy to share their expertise. I meant the stupid question is the one you fail to ask because you though you'd look stupid.

If you put a finder near the back end of a long-tube scope, it means that when pointing near the zenith the finder will be on the floor and somewhat problematic. Mount the scope higher and you'll need a ladder for a newtonian's eyepiece. By the way, my idea of a stupid question is the one you are too embarrassed to ask the experts and hence pay the price. As a newbie myself I'd hope I don't fall into that trap.

Like most such stuff, it's guesswork. I don't think anyone's counted the grains of sand on Earth and apart from "a lot" no-one really knows how many exoplanets exist. I think it's just meant as a figure of speech.

It may have been in use for inspection and just coincidence it was there - it'd be an ideal, safe way to see what the state is. The footage looks very steady and zooms out a long way, it may even be mis-labelled and a remote CCTV of some sort and not actually a drone, who knows. Whichever, it's interesting how it shows the sequence of the failures pretty clearly.

Very painful to watch, especially as it's also fascinating - you almost feel guilty watching a mighty structure collapse. Looks from the drone footage that one or two wires ping and that triggers the total failure, it must have been teetering on the brink prior. Just glad it was a drone, the whip from those wire ropes could have gone in any direction.

I'm open to be corrected on this since I'm something of a newbie myself but I suspect you may find it less useful on DSOs. It's a long focal length, so getting a low power & wide-field view could mean you can't fit a DSO in, depending what exactly you're attempting. I have one and so far I've found it pretty good at higher magnifications. Yet to try it on anger on much in the DSO targets due to interminable cloud cover! Might be worth looking at the "P" or maybe "PDS" instead of "PL"? I'll let the experts weigh in though so don't decide just on what I said.

He'll bring it back quick enough when he finds out everything's upside-down - no good for twitchers! Edit: on second thoughts, EVERYTHING is upside down in Aus so he'd be ok

900 tons falling 450 feet - I bet there was some bang from that. Tragic loss, a very sad day but as said above, not unexpected. Doesn't look like it will or could be rebuilt either. Good job there was some suspicion and it wasn't unexpected, so at least no-one's hurt.

Not quite, the heritage is a 750mm f/5 and the skyliner is 1200mm f/8, so I think the mirrors cannot be identical. The heritage should have the edge for low magnification, wide-field use (DSOs etc) and the skyliner should have the edge at higher power (where FOV is compromised) for such things as Moon/planets/double-stars. I have the same tube as the skyliner but on a different mount and it is pretty good. Neither would be a poor starter scope though.

As a newbie myself, my advice would be limited. However, I think your budget will get you something decent, provided you don't want to do astrophotography (£££). First I'd be doing a lot of homework (I did it) and think about where you want to start. What interests you in terms of what objects? What sky quality do you have at home or nearby and easily accessible? Does it need to be highly portable or can you have a huge lump that just sits in one place? Simple to set up or are you OK with powered and computerised gear? If you answer some of those questions the experts on here will narrow it down to a decent fit for your needs - IF you can actually find it in the current supply climate! Remember to consider that most budget scopes come with mediocre starter eyepieces and your budget needs to consider either expanding or allowing for the inevitable upgrades. You won't get a do-it-all scope that'll have you set forever but it would give you a good start. You could do worse than the suggestion above. Edit: the other sage advice I've seen a lot is to start with a reasonable pair of binoculars. They won't show you everything but they will show you a lot and they are highly portable. I'm guessing that nearly all astronomers own at least one pair.

I stick my head out of the back doorway - then I know what my local, short-term forecast is. Just lately it's been "not tonight then" almost entirely, sadly. I bought a second-hand scope almost a month ago and have used it twice, plus a couple of additional times out with the binoculars to peer through the gaps in the clouds. Ironic really, we have an ongoing pandemic which limits possibilities, appears to have driven demand for astro gear up and supply down so people are chasing stuff that they can't actually use. Once we get through it, whenever that may be, I wonder if there'll be a net increase in astronomers or just a glut of cheap, second-hand and little-used gear!

Unfortunately, most of the grades of stainless steel that actually live up to the name are difficult to work with, from a machining etc perspective. Grades like 304 and 316 would be nice to have but would you be willing to pay the price for something as simple as a weight?