Ags

I have made the PDF version of the new edition of the Northern Hemisphere double stars book available, and I would appreciate any comments. The main changes are (1) new maps covering the near southern sky, (2) coverage extended from 179 doubles to 300 doubles, (3) SAO/HIP numbers added to all doubles. Discovering Double Stars In addition, early drafts are available of the Southern Hemisphere book and All-Sky book: Work in Progress And I have three entirely new books available - log books for the Caldwell and Messier catalogs, and a generic log book without finder charts. I burned through a number of test books to get these right, and i had lots of issues with text and graphics shadowing through the pages onto the opposite side. Stargazer's Logs

I have not made any progress on this, so I am interested to see if you make any progress.

Hi and welcome. For a first scope I would spend less, and go for the dob. But why stick to a 6" dob, when an 8" won't take much more storage space (it will be a lot heavier)?

I thought the typical eyepiece curves opposite to the telescope, so surely a flat eyepiece is likely to be an improvement?

Did you see sny color in M57?

Genius! The only problem is I don't get on with binoculars. @badhex I have been thinking of getting some Starbase orthos for fun.

I foolishly made an eyepiece case with 12 slots, and now I am struggling to fill it! Empty slots are not acceptable! My telescopes are a small F6 refractor and a small SCT, which is usually F6.3. If I add a telescope, it might be a 102mm F7 refractor. From left to right, top to bottom: Vixen NPL 30mm, ES 68 20mm, Speers WALER 13.4mm, Speers WALER 10mm, ES 82 6.7mm, Speers WALER 4.9mm. I have only two slots to fill - something around the 24mm mark, and something around the 3.5mm mark. Note the 4.9mm Speers WALER does double duty as a 3.1mm with an extension ring, but it doesn't seem sharp in that configuration. I was thinking about the APM UFF 24mm as a widefield dark sky workhorse - does the "ultra flat field" mean the field curvature of my Zenithstar 66 will be less apparent? For the other slot I am considering the Nirvana 4mm and the TS-Optics XWA 3.5mm. I had a Nirvana 16mm that I most definitely did not like, but I hear the 7mm and 4mm are better eyepieces. The TS XWA would let me play with 110° AFOV and would show a full degree of sky with my Zenithstar. It would also have to go in the case lying down, which means I will need to do more carpentry and several empty eyepiece slots will be blocked, which will be a mercy. But assuming I fill those slots, how can I fill the remaining slots? I think there would be at least one slot, maybe four? I've tried SLVs and plossls, but the AFOV is too narrow. Maybe a zoom?

I am a fan of the Explore Scientific 82° and 68° lines. The optical quality is high and the prices are reasonable. In terms of what eyepeices to get, I always aim for a set with 1.4x difference between the focal lengths, which means extended objects (and the light pollution) double in brightness with each step longer in focal length. So with my current set I have 4.9mm, 6.7mm, 10mm, 13.4mm, 20mm and 30mm.

An EQ mount is quite bulky and can be a bit awkward in practice. A typical EQ mount is much heavier than a comparable AZ mount. I have fallen out of love with goto, in my experience it malfunctions and misses, and adds a lot of effort to a session. There's plenty of objects to see in the vicinity of bright stars, particularly under dark skies. In my opinion a good finderscope is a better investment than a goto system.

Well, you could use both cameras in a dual scope setup.

That's a nice crop of Pegasus doubles.

I wish I had that problem, I need sunglasses at night here 😎 But isn't it easier to clear the noise floor with a CMOS than a CCD?

I certainly think @dmki has a point, not laughable at all. With CMOS sensors favoring more, shorter subs, clearly demands on the mount are less. Of course you can get a good picture with 1 minute subs with a modest mount and any camera, but when you are in order of 5 or 10 minute subs, the mount requirements are unforgiving.

With my C6, I have used the 6.3 reducer on planets, mostly due to laziness. I didn't see any reflections introduced by the reducer, which seemed to improve the overall image quality somehow. The C6 has internal reflections of its own - arc-like ones you can see when Jupiter off axis. I think that's due to the unflocked internals.

Still waiting for the test copy of the Caldwell log book. In the mean time I have been working on the Southern Hemisphere double stars book, which led to re working the Northern Hemisphere version. I extended the coverage for each hemisphere further beyond the celestial equator (better for people at moderate latitudes), and - because the two guides overlap - extended the target lists to ensure there is sufficient unique content in each book. With the overview maps redistributed, the number of doubles stars in each section went out of whack so I had to add more doubles to plug the gaps. I just finished reworking the Northern Hemisphere version and it is now up to 300 doubles (up from 179 in the initial version) - hopefully it won't be too heavy! The Southern Hemisphere book has 259 doubles, with maps reversed for south-at-top. The two books overlap by about 150 stars (because the equatorial regions are largest area of the sky). The coffee-table hardback with pretty pictures and all doubles from the whole sky has just over 400 doubles. I'll put up PDF previews of the books this week.

I don't get the random landscapes he teleports between. The landscapes used to be analogs for alien worlds, but in this series they just seem to be very expensive Zoom backgrounds.

If you play Cox at 150% speed, you get Patrick Moore.

We could detect them indirectly because we can detect the dark matter gravitationally. So Force X pulls the dark matter, and the dark matter pulls us.

So, if I understand correctly, dark matter does not interact with electromagnetic fields. Is there any evidence that dark matter interacts with fields and forces our type of matter doesn't? We think of four fundamental forces, but that's only because we interact with those forces. Presumably dark matter beings would have theories based on the THREE fundamental forces, unless there are additional forces they interact with that we don't...

Agreed but you can build a sense of awe by eloquently deploying information, or you can just pump up the music and CGI. I think "Universe" does the latter.

Just gave the first episode a try. Its. So. Slow. More facts please!

The clouds are invisible at ground level. That's why FLO struggle to keep them out the boxes. The moisture only condenses into droplets at altitude.

@Sunshine Owl Cluster (C13) was one of my misses. Not sure why as it is pretty easy to find and has some bright members. The night was difficult - even the W of Cassiopeia didn't stand out very well. I will have a go at these with more aperture. I should get the same FOV with my C6, a 6.3 reducer, and the 20mm 68° eyepiece, with a larger exit pupil of course (but 3mm should still be tolerable).

I use the 178MM with a C6.

Tonight is the first clear night in a while without a troublesome moon so I thought I would try to spot some clusters around Cassiopeia. Despite Bortle 11 skies (okay, Bortle 8 actually), my scope of choice for the evening is my Zenithstar 66, kitted out with an RDF and a 50mm RACI finderscope. The finderscope is fitted with my new ES 98 degree 20 mm eyepiece, giving a 6.5 degree field of view. Gonna find that stuff! Eyepiece for the main scope is my Speers WALER 13.4 mm, giving 30x magnification and about 3 degrees field of view. On a garden table is Stellarium in red mode. First up is Almach and I immediately hit a problem! The Speers WALER is so infernally long it blocks the RDF... I reluctantly changed to 6.7 mm eyepiece, giving 1.5 degrees FOV and 60x magnification. Almach is a pretty sight as always, but I remember it being more colorful. I hopped over to M31 and I got a surprisingly bright view of this monster. Just the slightest hints of wings either side of the core. I have never seen M33 but I tried again tonight - not a target for Bortle 8 but anyway. With the RDF added to my setup I was absolutely certain I was pointing in the right direction, and there was a patch of darkness with a different texture to the other darkness, confirmed by tapping the scope. I will put M33 down as a "probable". Working my way into Cas, I started at the bottom with the Double Cluster - all clusters should look like this! So radiant and eyepiece filling. Moving on to Caldwell 10 and NGC 654, both new to me and they fitted into same eyepiece view, much dimmer than the Double Cluster but still satisfying. M103 is nearby but I forgot to look. A string of disappointments followed. Caldwell 13 should have been visible but no luck. NGC 129 is unmissible, being located midway between Caph and Navi and being relatively bright, but even after extensive searching I could not see it. Nearby NGC 225 was also hiding. I consoled myself with a view of superb Achird and Polaris, although I could only spot Polaris' companion with averted vision. Still, a successful evening as M33 (maybe) and Caldwell 10 and NGC 654 were all new to me. As was the neighbor's new security light!