Stu

Finally got some clear skies and got the Vixen GP out for its first ‘light’ for me. Great to have simple tracking back for both solar and lunar observing.

I had forgotten what observing was like somehow, especially solar! Quite gusty out there, and the seeing isn’t great but nice to be out. I finally got a chance to use the Vixen GP mount, very good to have simple tracking with minimal setup back in my life 😊. The mutt has a habit of dropping her ball against the tripod leg so I don’t forget she is there 🤪🤣

Yep, nice shot. Good focus and exposure 👍

Working fine here, on my phone.

I think with an SCT that makes sense. Bob’s Knobs make collimating easier but you are likely to have to do it more often. If you get it accurate, and nice and tight with bolts then it should hold better.

Please stop it! We seem to have fairly constant cloud, or when it’s sunny I’m doing DiY!! 🤪☹️🤣

If you mean this green artefact at 1:16 then that is a ghost image of the partially eclipsed Sun, not a real image. Of course there are brief moments when it seems you can actually see the partially eclipse Sun with silhouetted Moon visible, when the cloud cuts the exposure down so it is not over exposed, as here: None of that takes away from the fact that all you are seeing is a partial solar eclipse behind slowly drifting cloud, taken by someone who can’t control exposure nor keep his camera steady. End of. Now, I have better things to do with my life, like going to play with the traffic so I shall lock the thread to prevent any more nonsense.

With due respect, you have joined our forum to ask a question, have been given correct opinion and are now rejecting that, rather bluntly. The video is clearly a hand held shot of the Sun behind slow moving cloud and the whole image is moving around because the camera is not being held steady. It does look like some form of stabilisation is in use due to the slow ‘swimming’ type motion rather than lots of jiggles. The view is then jumping between various zoom levels so that at times you see the Sun appearing to move more rapidly but it is just a more highly magnified view of the clouds moving past the Sun. I don’t see the Moon anywhere, but I do see a ghost image of the partially eclipsed Sun moving around at one point. Actually the person filming is not being very sensible as they are likely looking at the Sun and it is not totally eclipse so I hope they are wearing eclipse glasses.

As I recall, the 925 uses an f2.5 primary vs f2 for the rest of the range, that’s why it is so much longer than you expect it should be.

@Richard_ just wanted to say a big thank you for writing all this up for the benefit of others. Not sure why you didn’t get any responses, perhaps there aren’t too many out there, but I do hope it has been useful for some. It is not relevant for me as I don’t own this scope but I still found it an interesting read 👍

See this thread:

Absolutely agree John. I do think the Jetstream forecast is useful for planetary observing, but if it is overhead and clear then obviously it’s still worth getting out and looking at different, lower power targets. I find Sat24 a much more useful tool than any forecast so tend to ignore anything else; just looking out of the window also works 🤣 Theory is all very well, but as I think I’ve tried to put across to @Flame Nebula in previous posts, there is no substitute for putting in the hard yards to build up experience of what works for you and your observing site.

Outside doing all you can to counter local seeing issues, the position of the Jetstream is probably on of the most important things. I use this site for the Jetstream forecast: https://www.netweather.tv/charts-and-data/jetstream When overhead, planets can look like they are under a running stream of water. Best to observe planets when it is elsewhere. Locally, you can ensure you avoid observing over houses, near central heating flumes, preferably on grass etc etc. In addition, particularly during winter, observing in the small hours often seems best as the land and buildings have cooled, and convection currents are at a minimum. Only other advice is observe for as long and as often as you can to catch the best seeing, and spend time at the eyepiece as them you catch the best moments and over time build up a much more detailed picture than with a quick look.

Just shows that there are so many variables at play; seeing, scope, eyepiece, observer etc Even with the same scope, the eyepiece makes an enough difference to make F visible rather than inconclusive as in this report I made using my FS-128.

Lovely place, I know it well from previous visits staying in Ashburton. The Rugglestone Inn is very nice as I recall.

Lovely images @Type1Turkey 👍 You are not a million miles from me, and I do fancy getting to some darker skies on Dartmoor at some point. An pointers for good locations? I used I take my children camping near Dawlish for a few years, had great fun down there.

Agreed Ollie, the TV R&P focusers are lovely; buttery smooth and hold loads well. I’ve never tried taking the Genesis on a plane, suspect it might be too long these days and I’m a bit precious about it taking a knock as the collimation is spot on.

I would agree with that, TV102 f8.6

It’s about all they are good for at the moment!

I hadn’t heard of those before, interesting to hear if anyone has used them. A quick google shows a few Cloudy Night threads on them.

Perhaps some of the more challenging lunar targets. Hadley Rille is a good one, plus counting Plato Craterlets and seeing the Alpine Rille. Plenty more but those are the better known ones I guess.

Yes, the Horsey is definitely one on my list. Need to get it before my eyes go completely 🤪

Some fun ones: Seeing all seven planets in one session Observing a close passing asteroid which can be seen moving in the eyepiece Spotting a SuperNova

This is a useful visibility calculator. That said, it indicates 12.2 mag for a 5” scope which doesn’t tie up with 10.3 being an issue. There is the nebulosity to take into account too but not sure how much impact this has. https://www.cruxis.com/scope/limitingmagnitude.htm It’s a complex issue with many factors involved.

Here comes the stuck record again… Seeing…. Seeing…. Seeing…. Seeing…. Seeing…. with a bit of sky brightness and scope aperture/collimation/cooling thrown in. I think scope type is lower down the list. Best views I’ve had of E & F have been through an AstroPhysics 130GTX (not mine unfortunately as it was/is a gorgeous scope) and more recently my 16” truss dob. Couldn’t be more different but both views were excellent with the two additional stars visible easily without any effort. The common factor was excellent seeing. On other occasions when seeing is less good the results are quite different ie E is normally easy enough but F can be much more difficult or impossible. It’s all related to seeing. I’ve seen them in the 128mm apo though yet to catch excellent seeing with this scope, and also the 4” but I find this much more difficult. I think light pollution does play into this aswell and as a result, aperture/limiting magnitude, possibly even transparency. The E & F stars are mag 10.3 and 10.2 respectively and are embedded in the nebula so if your limiting magnitude is below that level then you won’t see them whatever the seeing conditions are like. My 8” f8 is more than capable of catching these, and Sirius B but to be honest I have never knowingly seen the Pup in any scope in over 20 years observing and haven’t caught E and F under excellent conditions with the 8”. So, again, I think your questions are good but without definitive answers. My lack of success with the Pup is as much about patience and perseverance (or lack of) as anything else. I don’t particularly enjoy looking for a tiny speck of light amongst the mess of seeing around Sirius, so I don’t put the hours in on it. I feel differently about trying to spot a faint star or galaxy for some reason. Do you have any possibilities of getting to a club and trying out some different scopes? So much depends on your preferences which will potentially only become obvious with experience.