Broadymike

9 hours ago, Roy Cropper said:

I was born on the Isle, on the Manston road between Manston and Ramsgate (in a house, not on the actual road!) 

I'm a Man of Kent and proud of it, not some lightweight Kentish Man 🤭

I still have family there so visit once a month or so, although I live in Northamptonshire.

I was under the impression - quite possibly mistaken - that people are working at Planet Thanet overnight doing something or other, hence in large part the need for lighting so they can see what they're about. They should be shielding the rest of us from it though, it's a very poor show.

You're right thanet earth there are workers there 24/7. The issue is that they think that putting blinds on the vertical glass walls would be enough to stop the light pollution. They don't however have any blinds on the glass roofs. This is the big issue. As you can see from the photos I posted its ridiculous the amount of light escaping. Hence they are Britain's 2nd worst light polluter. This has been an ongoing issue for a while and they have done nothing to try to rectify it. 

18 minutes ago, clafann1 said:

Hmm, let's see

- I need a way to find if my telescope mirror is parabolic or not (is there a method that can be used?), telescope model is: Bresser Solarix 114/500 (I dont see that model on the list of "to not buy" telescopes, but you never know lol).

- The default eyepieces that came with it were "K9mm" and "K25mm", I assume they're bad quality, but i can't tell for sure. I have a plossl 4mm that I bought separately, but I cant compare with the others since their focal ratios are so different. The 2x barlow that came with it feels very light and cheap, but does its thing.

- I did some rough collimation check, most likely not spot on, need to get a cheshire and center spot the primary.

Definitely upgrade those kellner EPs and the barlow. The ones that come with the scope are most likely terrible. Like I said in my earlier comment I'd be swapping them out for half decent plossls at least. The barow will most likely be worth changing as again they supply cheap rubbish to "get you started". 

Think about it like this decent EPs and barlows can give a reasonable image with mediocre scope, but bad EPs will make even the best scopes give terrible images. 

1 hour ago, d-s-m said:

@Broadymike I'll try that, but slightly concerned it might end up melting due to the heat from the light?

I really wouldn't worry about that too much as LEDs create very little heat. Also looking at the one you have got if you stretched the tape over the opening rather than the lens of the light it would still work and would give an air gap so even less chance of any issues. I used packing tape over an old style torch without LEDs and had no issues even though it technically gets hotter. 

I have a 4.5" newt as well. I was a little disappointed at first with the images I could see. Then I bought some half decent plossl EPs and it made a huge difference. The most important thing  when looking at jupiter/Saturn is not to over magnify. You actually see a far better image at lower power although what you see is obviously smaller in your FOV. As for DSOs like andromeda you probably won't see much more than a faint misty smudge. It's why they're colloquially known as fuzzies. For DSOs aperture is definitely king. I'm currently putting a bit aside each month to get something bigger for DSOs. 

Try some brown packing tape. It'll help to dim the light while retaining the red light.  

3 hours ago, andy fearn said:

Hi Mike, i too live in thanet but on the north coast and totally agree with you about thanet earth. they do have blinds closed but only on the sides of the greenhouses which really doesn't help us astronomers. And agree that blinds on the roof must be more advantageous. Its all about the cost.

You're the 2nd person today on this forum I've seen from thanet. Small world eh lol. Im on the clifftop at stone bay so at least half my sky is over the sea. The only LP I can see to the east is occasionally the oil refinery in Dunkirk. But that's only on a cloudy night. 

They really need to sort something out. Theres already overwhelming evidence that it's affecting the local wildlife. Yourself and a few others have said it's all about the cost but to me that doesn't wash. Thanet earth make huge profits every year. They should be forced to rectify the situation.  

1 minute ago, Ian McCallum said:

Knowing about it and acting on it are two different issues.😧

Well there's only so much that us public can do. Unfortunately our local MP Craig Mckinlay is a terrible politician that I can't see giving a [removed word] about it, as he's more into whipping up anti immigrant rhetoric at the moment to try and keep his seat. I believe that there's a petition about to come to the end of its time (or possibly has already) that when I signed it was already over the threshold to force parliament to dicuss it.  

2 hours ago, Second Time Around said:

Mike, has anyone looked into whether Thanet Earth are breaking their planning permission?

Its actually been quite a big thing locally in the last couple of months. So I certainly know the relevant people are aware. 

2 hours ago, Peteo1 said:

Yeah one of those in manston aswell lol very 

Thanet earth is the site in Manston. Thanet is made up of several towns/villages.  The only upside for me is that from where I am its in the south west which is where just about the worst direction for obstructions like trees and buildings. I live on the clifftop so get uninterrupted views over the channel so anything south east to the north isn't quite so bad. 

The bit that gets me is they do stargazing nights at Monkton nature reserve which is less than a mile from thanet earth. I can't see anyone seeing anything much at all from there.  

Sorry just seen that your reply was about the driving range not thanet earth lol. I spose at least the driving range is so close to thanet earth that its keeping the issue in the same area. 

2 hours ago, jjosefsen said:

That picture is wild! Never seen anything like that before. 😵

Like I said apparently it's the 2nd worst LP site in the country.  I think the pics show that quite well. 

I'm a wearer of glasses and have never found a pair of bins that I could use well with glasses on day or night. I've always relied on using the adjustment for the one eyepiece to match the focus of my eyes then use the main focuser to focus on my target. I have astigmatism in one eye but doesn't seem to affect me that much. 

I did however get given a pair of bins a few years ago and struggled to get a good clean image. The problem ended up being one of the tubes had been cross threaded at some point which had thrown the alignment right out. Once I rectified this they have been my goto 10x50s ever since. 

For a start if they're the eyepieces/barlow that came with the scope I would chuck the 10mm and barlow in the bin straight away, the 20mm may be a bit more acceptable. Celestron (as with most manufacturers) supply really cheap eps with their scopes. 

I would replace the barlow for a decent one. Possibly an 8-24mm zoom ep could be an idea as you can try out different powers to find out what works best with your scope and then buy individual eps when you know what works. I got an svbony 8-24mm and it's actually an acceptable bit of kit. Other than that possibly a 32mm ep which will give you a far bigger field of view which makes locating targets much easier. 

When choosing eps try not to get ones which the barlow makes irrelevant.  Basically why have a 20mm and 10mm when a barlowed 20mm is the same magnification as the 10mm. Better of say having 32mm, 25mm and a 10mm. Or something similar.  This with a barlow gives you the equivalent of 32mm, 25mm, 16mm, 10mm and 5mm. This would give a pretty good range of magnifications. Without knowing the exact model its hard to tell what would work. Just remember it's not worth over magnifying as it just makes things fuzzy. As a general rule of thumb twice the aperture of your scope (in mm) will give you the maximum useful magnification. 

Like with all these things your budget will massively affect the quality. If on a tight budget the astro essentials plossls from FLO are pretty good for the price. Both my 32mm and 2x barlow are from them and are good for the price (£45 for the 2 of them) my other eps are all svbony. They all seem to be more than acceptable. Obviously if you're not on a really tight budget like myself (us musicians don't make a lot of money lol) then there are much better quality options out there. Both these budget friendly option were researched so I knew I wasn't buying complete crap. I'd definitely steer clear of cheap "amazon" non branded stuff as you really don't know what you're getting. 

On 07/12/2021 at 17:36, Ian McCallum said:

Like this? 🤔🤣

All joking aside that's exactly what I do! Once I've got my eyes adapted to the dark if I need to go in the flat I really do put an eyepatch on. My flatmate thinks it's hilarious. 

1 minute ago, discardedastro said:

Yeah, it really doesn't look shielded. It should be a legal obligation (though given enforcement rates of, say, waste discharge into rivers, that might not be worth anything these days). Really disappointingly bad.

Don't get me started on waste discharge. Just this summer alone southern water have pumped sewage into the sea off the coast less than a mile from my flat at least 4 times. All the beaches in thanet this summer have had advice not to swim because of this. So if you add this to the LP that's a big chunk of my favourite pastimes (I surf occasionally if we have the right conditions) either diminished or completely ruined. 

23 minutes ago, Astro Noodles said:

You ought to be able to filter out that yellow light with a decent CLS filter. It is utterly appalling though.

Thanks for that I'll look into that. Anything that may help 8s worth a shot. 

2 minutes ago, discardedastro said:

Found this: https://www.thanetearth.com/Content/pdfs/Thanet Earth and lit production 2019.pdf

40MW of lighting! It is apparently shielded, in part, unlike the football stadiums - they have a photo of their blinds. (edit: though apparently not all their greenhouses...)

They apparently generate all the power for this from their own waste on site through a CHP plant, so not as bad as it could be on that front, but still not great or renewable..

As you can see from the pictures I posted there is absolutely no way that they shield the light escaping. There really is no excuse apart from saving money on putting screens/blinds in place. The pictures of the blinds has already been shown in the local press to be a red herring. Apparently according to some staff the blinds are there in a couple of their greenhouses but don't get closed due to lack of maintenence.

Basically in this day and age with the technology we have there is literally no excuse for this. 

2 minutes ago, munirocks said:

Kind of ironic and hypocritical that a place called Thanet earth is destroying planet earth like that. There are now many scientific papers that have linked light pollution to the demise of the insect population. Maybe you can use that angle as ammunition in discussions with the council. Nobody cares about astronomers, but they might care about wiping out nature's food chain on a massive scale.

To be fair I went with the environmental impact approach citing some scientific papers on the effect to wildlife. That's been the main crux of the local argument/petitions. 

8 hours ago, discardedastro said:

Winter growth of plants does need lots of light. Wembley and Twickenham show up on various news places because of their winter grow lights which are incredibly bright - and as with the above, entirely unshielded, they just light up the entire surrounding environment.

Strikes me that the all-party parliamentary group on dark skies could propose this as a really easy win on light pollution - put a bill in that expressly requires operators of these sorts of lighting systems to take measures to prevent light from escaping into the environment. It's quite mad this is allowed.

Apparently a few years ago when thanet earth was first built and was half the size it is now they promised to put blinds up to stop this. Not a thing has been done about that and they slowly keep adding the odd extra greenhouse still with no blinds. 

I've already mailed my local MP about it although he's about as much use as a chocolate teapot. Will try and find some info on the parliamentary dark sky lot and see if I can bring this to their attention. 

At least Wembley and Twickenham are basically in quite badly polluted skies already. This was built on farmland well outside town. 

5 minutes ago, Space Hopper said:

Why do they need lights on all night ??

What are they growing.....cannabis ??

Whatever it is its appalling.

If it was cannabis I might be a little more forgiving lol.

Its actually fruit and vegetables. Even if they do feel the need to have the lights on all night why can't they put blinds up to stop the light escaping?  

I live on the very tip of the Kent coast (thanet). The LP maps reckon I'm in a bortle 5 area so not great but not appalling either. I always thought as half of the night sky that I can see is over over the English channel so no real LP from the east for 30miles that this may improve my LP levels. Its just come up though in the local news that a couple of miles down the road there's a place called "Thanet earth" even though it sounds like it might be an environmentally friendly business its actually just a complex of massive greenhouses witch have lights on all night and no blinds or anything to stop light escaping. Thanet earth as I've just found out is the 2nd worst culprit of LP in the whole of the UK. The only good thing is that I'm on the other side of the island (Thanet used to be cut off from the mainland and is still known as the Isle of thanet) so I'm a little distance away but nowhere near enough distance lol. I have friends that live a lot closer and they've informed me that other than the moon and maybe saturn/jupiter they haven't seen any stars for a few years now even though their house is basically in the middle of a field that is on the cliffs. Luckily there is a big campaign/petition locally to try to get them to sort this out, but with our local authorities I don't hold that much hope lol. 

Well thats my rant over! Was just wondering if others have had similar issues with local big businesses wrecking their enjoyment of such a fascinating pastime? Also if anyone is from a high LP area do they have any tips/advice on any filters etc that may help my situation? Also I'll post a pic here to show the extent one selfish businesses effect on our local night sky. 

8 minutes ago, Astro Noodles said:

I was thinking of some sort of wooden frame around the bottom with fastenings for the legs. Anything permanent and I run the risk of upsetting her. Also, I'm getting the yard re-paved this year.

Well if you can make do until you repave the yard you could always have some flush eyes put in at the same time. 

1 minute ago, Astro Noodles said:

That's a good idea. I'll keep that in mind. Although I don't have a garden but a paved yard but I'm sure I could come up with some method of securing it.

If you own the property you could always use some fixings and install some steel eye bolts to tie one to. If not buckets of water or bags of sand work well to secure gazebos if there's no grass around. 

I have a similar issue where I am. The solution I came up with was to put my gazebo up in the garden with 2 sides on but no roof. It's a dark green textile one rather than the white plastic type. The 2 sides do an amazing job of blocking out the direct light that was causing me issues. The only downside I have found is occasionally one of the poles that make the frame may get in the way, but seeming as though everything is moving up there its not a real issue. Also if its on the windy side I can put all the sides up and give myself a bit of shelter. Just need to make sure it's secured down if using it for wind protection lol. 

Glad you have it sorted. I would definite recommend a finder as they are essential really. Also another vote for a 32mm EP. On my 70mm refractor I use a rigel quickfinder. Because there is no magnification or flipping of images its very intuitive to use. Also having the concentric illuminated rings can really help with star hopping. Once you have your target in the finder move to the 32mm and you can then fine tune and swap out to higher power eps if necessary.  

On my 5" newt I use basically the same set up with the addition of a 9x50 RACI (right angle correct image) as well. The RACI is like an intermediate view between the non magnifying rigel and the higher magnification of the 32mm ep. Also the RACI can help to find fainter objects in the sky as it gather more light than your naked eye can. For example in my location I can't see andromeda with the naked eye. I use the rigel to get to the approximate area of the sky, this doesn't necessarily mean that I can see it through and eyepiece. I then use the RACI and through that I can now start to see andromeda in the fov. Centre in the RACI and I'm now aligned for using eps. 

Basically there are many options for what kind of finder set up you use. It's just working out what works best for you.  

+1 for the rigel/telrad and using together with a 9x50 RACI finder. Having the circles on the rigel really helps with star hopping and getting in the right general area and the RACI is great for zeroing in more precisely. Using the RACI has 2 advantages over a lot of normal finders. First is it is far more comfortable to use than a straight through finder and 2nd it keeps everything in the same orientation as the rigel which makes the locating process far more intuitive.