Ags

I have learned from this trip that local glare is annoying but it is the wide area sky glow that makes a real difference.

Is an alternate explanation possible that there is no expansion at all but "light gets tired" and over the course of billions of years simply shifts to a lower frequency, just like neutrinos change between different types as they travel?

"If you can understand the answer, you haven't asked the right question."

If the star is 50 solar masses, we won't have to wait more than a few million years at most... Grab your popcorn!

I have a cheap uhc filter at home, but I have never seen it improve a view unfortunately...

I will give the towel trick a try. I tried keeping my eyes shut, but that dimmed the stars too much 😀

Yes, true. I should have said "when will we see the supernova?"

Since I was a kid in South Africa I was fascinated by the Owl Nebula and since I came north and acquired a telescope I tried and tried to spot this nebula but no luck from 12 years of trying. Easy to find, but not easy to see from a city. I remembered this elusive target tonight when @Laurin Dave posted a great widefield of M97 with M108, another DSO with impenetrable stealth technology. I decided to try once more as it is a dark and clear night here in La Palma. Although the sky was good, and most lights are switched off at midnight, the lights in the hotel that remained on were north of any likely observing spots, so my efforts were complicated by beams lancing into the corners of my eyes. Despite the issues, you can imagine my delight when I found the arc of three brightish stars separating two fuzzies, the fuzzy nearest Merak being elongated M108 and the other rounder fuzzy being - FINALLY - M97. I could not glimpse the owl's eyes, I guess that needs less local light annoyances and a little more aperture. By the way, M97 is an inclined open ended tube, and the eyes are the open ends. M97 was easier to spot than M108. @juno16 posted a great widefield of M106 and I realized for the first time tonight that M106, Phecda, Dubhe, and M81/M82 are equally spaced along a line, so I thought I would go for M106 which I can't recall having spotted previously. Maybe in my goto era, where things were quickly found and quickly forgotten. M106 was really easy to locate and relatively bright and definitely elliptical. Of course I went to the other end of the line and took in M81 and M82, very bright with well defined shapes. All observing with a 66 mm refractor, 20 mm plossl, AZT6 head and travel tripod.

A great widefield!

A lovely and unexpected view. I wish to emulate this, with a reduced ZS66 and ASI 485 MC.

What I want to know is - what's the apparent magnitude, and when does it go supernova?

Nice report and quite a haul!

Here are some sample pages from the book (I stress, it is still being edited and may contain typographical and astrographical inexactitudes). First up is the overview of DSOs by constellation (can you spot the glaring error on the page?): These are the overview pages: And the detail pages: Finally I also include some Bortle estimator charts: I don't include charts for Bortle 1 because Bortle 1 is just a myth, there's no such thing. 😀 Seriously, if an astronomer is in Bortle 1, they feel it in their bones. I have a few things to take care of: some stars are classified as variables when they could be better categorized as carbon stars, I need to add a page describing the convoluted spectral types for carbon stars; maybe I need to indicate objects with more informative symbols (eg cluster/galaxy/variable/carbon/planetary/diffuse nebula); directions to objects are done by algorithm but I need to review these and write better ones for the more difficult cases; I also need to work on the introduction. But these are all small things.

@Starwatcher2001 thanks for the feedback! Well, I have some good news. The book is written and is now in its first edit. I've been working hard on it the past two weeks. I'll put up some sample pages later.

I had my doubts about the AZT6 and it sat on a shelf for ages. I tried selling it at one point. Now however it really works for me, especially when I use a 1 kg counterweight. Strangely it seems smoother when I put the C6 on it! I think someone on the forum mentioned it favorably, so I gave it a second chance. Glad I did!

I have this: https://www.amazon.com/-/es/Trípode-carbono-trípode-portátil-ARTCISE/dp/B08M5YW1YG It is far better for travel than the Berlebach and more than adequate for my 66 mm f6 refractor both for visual and photography. I don't think it would cope with a 102 mm refractor however.

It's not adjustable, it just has 3/8" thread connectors:

I have the Berlebach Report 112 (astro version) too and I am very happy with it. I have an Artcise carbon fibre tripod rated for about the same load, but the Berlebach is by far more stable especially when using my SCT (only a 6 inch, but still 1500 mm focal length). For extra height I have a Berlebach Uni extension column that Berlebach kindly made to a custom size for me - 30 cm. As the combination is super stable, I am toying with trying a 50 cm extension tube too. I used to observe sitting but now I find I like a bit more height (easier to use the red dot finder). As I am not seated, I am of course on my two wobbly feet and I simply steady myself by resting a couple of fingers on the top of the tripod - this doesn't cause vibrations or degrade the views! I have travelled to the Canary Islands a couple of times with the 112 and it fits in hold luggage only, so be aware of that. It also takes up a fair amount of space in the suitcase. I am currently travelling with the Artcise CF tripod - it is stable enough with my travel scope, much lighter of course, and folds up to half the size.

I am quite interested in this, although I am a bit disappointed the payload capacity is still 5 kgs. The RA gear is upgraded vs the star adventurer, polar alignment is much simpler, the wedge is integrated (good if it is good, bad if it is bad!), and it can ge used in AZ mode too. Most important for me is that the software has to be right this time, AZ-GTi has been unforgivably glitchy.

We are all travelling through time, most of us at the same speed. ISS crew travel a little faster through time than the rest of us. So time travel (in a forward direction) is an everyday occurrence, if you count a few nanoseconds of forward travel by astronauts 😀

It's gotta be both. I would simply stay out longer to fit it all in. If I have skipped an old favorite, or failed to try to locate a previously unseen target, I feel disappointed.

It is a foggy night on La Palma but some stars shone through. During a clear patch I stole a few glimpses M46 and M47. I was particulary trying to spot the little planetary hiding in M46 but got nothing definite. I hoovered up M41 and M93, just practicing their locations. M42 was very bright too, the outer loop was clearly visible. Running Man was visible as a formless glow in averted vision.

Took a bus trip up to the La Palma observatory today. There was a storm last night and the bus driver had to keep stopping to roll boulders off the road. When we hit the cloud layer it started sleeting and blizzarding and the precipitous mountain road was white with ice. The guide said we were aborting the mission but there was nowhere to turn so we kept going up. Eventually we were at the top of the mountain and I caught a glimpse of a telecope dome through the howling snow, but that was it. We beat a retreat down the other side of the mountain which was thankfully free of ice. I did feel sorry for some of my fellow travellers who were wearing shorts and sandals despite all warnings.

The 9 and 20 mm plossls have performed well on this trip, but if I had thought more carefully before travelling, I think I might have packed my Speers WALER 13.4 and 4.9 mm eyepieces. They are cheap and good, but a little fragile (have you ever had to collimate an eyepiece?).

The Evolux wouldn't be bad at anything I expect, but the other two would be better RFTs.