Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_comet_46p_winners.thumb.jpg.b3d48fd93cbd17bff31f578b27cc6f0d.jpg

louizi

what am I doing wrong

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, louizi said:

I didn't see it last night nor early this morning when I came out to look for it... So yes its possible I dont see it tonight and for a few days too.

we ARE near a new moon.... so, it may be Sunday before you see a crescent

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, lenscap said:

Do you  use planetarium software like Stellarium?

It is a free download for your PC.            http://stellarium.org/

You can input your location & any date  & time you like and it  will show all the celestial objects that you can observe.

Cartes  du Ciel is similar.                         https://www.ap-i.net/skychart/en/download

 

Really??

That would b awesome thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, bottletopburly said:

Good luck 😉 I’m sure your skies will be darker than ours unless your i n the city that is 👍 

Thanks...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/12/2018 at 19:49, louizi said:

Iv attached a photo of my telescope.

Well that looks a lot better than I was expecting you to post - I would think you should be able to see something (possibly even a fair bit), in that.  If the erecting eyepiece is causing problems I think I'd try without it you probably won't need an erecting eyepiece when you look at the stars or moon.  You will probably find that you don't need the moon filter either until you have it sorted.  Esp. at times when the moon is only a crescent.  I never use one.  It just makes me think that the fewer bits and bobs you have in the way the least there is to cause problems.  I think I'd also lose the Barlow.  2mm is still quite a magnifying EP - do you have an Eyepiece with a higher number on it, maybe a 10mm or a 20mm.  That would be a better place to start - just the focus tube and a higher number Eyepiece - start with getting the moon focussed in that and see what you can see.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/12/2018 at 04:00, louizi said:

I tink I can get a wood worker to build me a tripod from wood.

And about astronomy in Nigeria, we are still in the dark ages. I know very little myself but when I point to the sky to explain some things to friends they are usually full with amazement or doubt.

Am not an astronomer not even a physicist, am a microbiologist but star gazing, the moon, planets, galaxies and all heavenly bodies have been a kin interest of mine, my difficulty with numbers and calculation was what discouraged me to pursue astronomy. I probably would have been one of the very few Nigerian astronomers . :)

Astronomy is the very oldest of sciences, and ever since people first looked up at the sky at night.  There were and are those who considered and consider themselves astronomers, but they did not and do not have an optical aid like binoculars or a telescope. 

Don't be discouraged by the mathematical aspect.  I'm not one for the numbers myself, and yet I've been an amateur for quite a number of years.  In order to choose just the right eyepieces, all you need to know is the focal-length of the telescope; 700mm in the case of your own.  Eyepieces range from 4mm to 40mm, in general.  That range is pretty much set in stone, for most telescopes.  The most common barlow is a 2x, followed by a 3x.

Let's take a 15mm eyepiece...

700mm ÷ 15mm = a power of  47x

Place the 15mm into a 2x-barlow...

700mm ÷ (15mm ÷ 2x) = a simulated 7.5mm, and for a power of 93x

Place the 15mm into a 3x-barlow...

700mm ÷ (15mm ÷ 3x) = a simulated 5mm, and for a power of 140x

It is around that power and up where the planets are seen larger and well enough to note their details.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Alan64 said:

Astronomy is the very oldest of sciences, and ever since people first looked up at the sky at night.  There were and are those who considered and consider themselves astronomers, but they did not and do not have an optical aid like binoculars or a telescope. 

Don't be discouraged by the mathematical aspect.  I'm not one for the numbers myself, and yet I've been an amateur for quite a number of years.  In order to choose just the right eyepieces, all you need to know is the focal-length of the telescope; 700mm in the case of your own.  Eyepieces range from 4mm to 40mm, in general.  That range is pretty much set in stone, for most telescopes.  The most common barlow is a 2x, followed by a 3x.

Let's take a 15mm eyepiece...

700mm ÷ 15mm = a power of  47x

Place the 15mm into a 2x-barlow...

700mm ÷ (15mm ÷ 2x) = a simulated 7.5mm, and for a power of 93x

Place the 15mm into a 3x-barlow...

700mm ÷ (15mm ÷ 3x) = a simulated 5mm, and for a power of 140x

It is around that power and up where the planets are seen larger and well enough to note their details.

 

Thank you so very much for this info and the encouragement. Am grateful. But I have a small issue, I only have a 20mm, 12.5mm and SR4mm eyepiece

And a 2X Barlow and a 1.5X erector eyepiece.

Can 700mm÷ (12.5mm ÷ 2X)= 6.25 and a power of 112x help me see details of the planets?

Secondly, is this calculations below correct?

1.5X erecting eyepiece placed into a 2X Barlow then a 12.5mm eyepiece placed inside the 1.5X eyepiece = 12.5 ÷ (1.5 X 2) = 12.5 ÷ 3X =4.16mm

Therefore 700 ÷ 4.16 = 168x power?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, JOC said:

Well that looks a lot better than I was expecting you to post - I would think you should be able to see something (possibly even a fair bit), in that.  If the erecting eyepiece is causing problems I think I'd try without it you probably won't need an erecting eyepiece when you look at the stars or moon.  You will probably find that you don't need the moon filter either until you have it sorted.  Esp. at times when the moon is only a crescent.  I never use one.  It just makes me think that the fewer bits and bobs you have in the way the least there is to cause problems.  I think I'd also lose the Barlow.  2mm is still quite a magnifying EP - do you have an Eyepiece with a higher number on it, maybe a 10mm or a 20mm.  That would be a better place to start - just the focus tube and a higher number Eyepiece - start with getting the moon focussed in that and see what you can see.

Thanks JOC,

I have a 20mm, 12.5mm and a 4mm

2X Barlow and 1.5X erecting eyepiece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great profile photo of you and your new scope. You look very proud and should be. Once you get things sorted, you’ll be loving spending time under the stars with it.

I’d recommend just sticking to the 20mm eyepiece to start. You’ll find things much easier and be able to bring them to a sharper focus. Once you feel confident, then start increasing the magnification. The most important thing, first of all, is to ensure you have your finderscope well aligned. i imagine you have, based on your daytime shots, however it may still be a little out. Make sure you have a particular very small section of that electricity pole centred in both the finderscope and the eyepiece to ensure it is at least roughly aligned. Simply having the pole in the finder and also in the eyepiece at the same time doesn’t mean it will show you what is in the finder through the eyepiece at night, as the pole is a lot larger (visually) than many of the things you’ll be looking at in the sky.

Best of luck and I look forward to reading that you have everything under control and are loving the views!!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am grateful for your interest in helping me find my way to becoming an a mature astronomer. I will definitely update my experience on this platform as I become better.

Thanks again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, louizi said:

Thank you so very much for this info and the encouragement. Am grateful. But I have a small issue, I only have a 20mm, 12.5mm and SR4mm eyepiece

And a 2X Barlow and a 1.5X erector eyepiece.

Can 700mm÷ (12.5mm ÷ 2X)= 6.25 and a power of 112x help me see details of the planets?

Secondly, is this calculations below correct?

1.5X erecting eyepiece placed into a 2X Barlow then a 12.5mm eyepiece placed inside the 1.5X eyepiece = 12.5 ÷ (1.5 X 2) = 12.5 ÷ 3X =4.16mm

Therefore 700 ÷ 4.16 = 168x power?

 

Yes, at 112x you can certainly make out the planets' basic features; the moons of Jupiter, the rings of Saturn.  Mars would probably be featureless.  Venus is the third brightest object in the sky, after the Sun and Moon.  Venus is always featureless, regardless of aperture and magnification, however it exhibits phases just like the Moon: a crescent, quarter-phase, half-phase, gibbous, and full, but it would need magnification to see the phases clearly.  The planet may also need to be dimmed in order to see the phases, due to its overwhelming brightness, and with a filter attached to the bottom of the eyepiece, like so...

183100629_variablepolariser7.jpg.b822d701680f7efd0439e995b73d30c1.jpg

But it's at about 150x and above before the planets really become worth the while. 

I don't understand how you would insert a 12.5mm eyepiece into a 1.5x erecting-eyepiece.  Do you mean a 1.5 erector, like this one...

635786891_erector1_5x.jpg.b6ba233bacfd774984efa62f3860c67d.jpg

I would need to see clear, close-up images of your eyepieces and accessories to answer your last question; the top of the erecting-eyepiece and its specs-label in particular. 

I'd also like to see the focusser of the telescope, and without anything inserted into it; no caps, no eyepieces, like so...

focusser3a.jpg.7d0dcc75367b6d0e87aa57d6f224f19d.jpg

...if it's not too much trouble.

 

Edited by Alan64

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the help...

These a pictures of what you asked for.

Hope its detailed enough.

IMG_20181210_000818.jpg

IMG_20181210_000414.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The eyepieces, the 1.5x erector, and the Moon-filter, their diameters, appear to be of the .965" format, but I can't be certain.  The barlow, however, looks to be 1.25" in diameter, the capped opening at the top at least.  The focusser looks to accept 1.25" eyepieces and accessories, but again I'm not certain.  Have you measured the diameter of those openings, and that of the chromed barrels of the eyepieces and erector?  That would help to clear up the mystery.

Eyepieces for telescopes were born of those for microscopes, back in the day, as medicine was more important than stargazing I suppose.  Wide fields-of-view were not considered necessary for microscopes, and apparently not for telescopes either.  I have a few, older .965" specimens.  These are from my first telescope, there on the right.  The 20mm Kellner was usable; but I couldn't make much use of the red one, the 6mm Huygenian, as its eye-lens was just too tiny to look through comfortably, not to mention the tight eye-relief where you would have to place your eye right up to the lens to see anything...

comparison5.jpg.a855e6be909a6bc01915a1a7d946021f.jpg

The red one would be a nightmare for those who must wear prescription-eyeglasses whilst observing.

Those two on the left are of the 1.25" format, with their wider barrels enabling a wider view.  1.25" is still the current standard.  There are also 2" eyepieces out there in the marketplace, and with even wider views possible.  Even 3" eyepieces are coming into being.  I have only one 2" eyepiece, and for low, binocular-like views, but I rarely use it, as the 1.25" format is more than adequate, for myself, and others.

1x magnification is not a magnification at all.  Our own eyes are at 1x.  1x = 0 in that regard.  But when anything is added to it, as in 1.5x, then you have that 0.5x to use, therefore when combining the 1.5x erector with the 2x barlow, I would guess that you'd have a 2.5x multiplier for the 12.5mm; a guess that is.  Hence...

700mm ÷ (12.5mm ÷ 2.5x) = a simulated 5mm, and for a power of 140x, again.  But don't hold me to it, as I may be wrong.  In any event, I wouldn't combine all of that in the first place.  An erector-lens is for daytime/terrestrial use; for land targets: birds in trees, ships at sea, and the like.  The field-of-view would also be quite narrow.  I would place an eyepiece into either the 1.5x erector during the day, or into the 2x barlow at night, and be done with it; although you certainly can experiment as you please, and as I do with my own bits and pieces.

The 12.5mm focal-length among eyepieces is probably my most favourite, as I like to ramp up the power when observing.  Telescopes, in the first place, are for seeing faraway objects up close.  I have this 1.25" 4mm, an orthoscopic...

409876759_4mmOrthoscopic7b.jpg.a7e6fc0867309b93a24587a8d06c06d5.jpg

Despite its being a 1.25", it has a tiny and tight eye-lens, too.  I can use it, but it's much more comfortable and pleasant when I combine my 12mm with a 3x barlow instead...

12mm-3xb.jpg.1211a43e3060822e23be773869a15532.jpg

...12mm ÷ 3x = 4mm, yet with a larger eye-lens through which to observe, and with improved eye-relief.  That's one of best things about a barlow, in enabling that very thing.

I got these with a recent purchase of a kit...

accessories3.jpg.54643ac442de3e4793712e58ee7c4f26.jpg

...but the images are grainy, and two-dimensional.  Whilst I was testing them, I also brought out others that I have, and with those giving a more satisfying view; no graininess, and near 3D.

Eyepieces are not accessories.  You cannot use a telescope without eyepieces, and you can't use the eyepieces without a telescope, therefore the two are as one, and inseparable.  You don't have to have a barlow, nor a filter, but you do have to have the eyepieces.  Else, either the telescope or eyepieces by themselves are as bricks, and useless.  Indeed, many find that they spend more on eyepieces than they did on the telescope itself.  Or, if an amateur images in addition or instead with a camera in place of an eyepiece, the camera takes the eyepiece's place, and the camera too can easily cost more than the telescope; far more when you consider all of the accessories to go along with it.

Your telescope, in and of itself, should be quite capable in viewing the brighter and brightest objects in the sky, which is why I had suggested the wooden legs for the tripod.  The telescope is a 76mm f/9 Newtonian, and with a spherical primary-mirror.  It has a rather small secondary-mirror, there near the front of the tube, and a good thing, in that the smaller the obstruction the less degradation of the image seen.  If the telescope is well collimated, which is easy to accomplish at f/9, then at the higher powers the images should be sharp.  The higher in power you go, the telescope has to work harder, the collimation to be as precise as possible, and all of the optical components involved in the light-path to be of at least decent quality.  Per the 50x-per-inch-of-aperture "maxim", you should be able to realise up to 150x with the telescope, and even higher when observing the Moon.  The Moon is relatively near to the Earth, therefore it will take more magnification before the image turns to a blurry mush.  The atmosphere will also play its part, in either allowing or not allowing for sharper views; the "seeing".

We can't do anything about the atmosphere.  We're at its mercy.  But we can place our hands on to the telescopes, and improve them. 

Edited by Alan64
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow... Thank you so very much sir, iv learnt so much from you and on this site. I would say am very luck to be hear.

I will continue to practice with my telescope until am used to it and fully understand how it functions and hopfully soon I also would post pictures of celestial bodies I see from my telescope.

Thank you again alan64, am so very grateful.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There would appear to be a picture of your telescope on this amazon page https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00426KOQI/ref=asc_df_B00426KOQI57398951/?tag=googshopuk-21&creative=22146&creativeASIN=B00426KOQI&linkCode=df0&hvadid=309904628344&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=13747329887413422808&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9044925&hvtargid=pla-561393173186

If you look at the one of the telescope set up and hover over it to get the zoon up you will see a silver tube under the eyepiece that appears to have ridges along it.  Can you confirm that your telescope has a similar fitment - if so then, just like the picture, just place the 20mm eyepiece that you have directly in that and that should provide you with something that you can focus accurately on the moon with.  If you can achieve something that looks like the picture in that setup with the silver ridged turret and a 20mm EP that is what you need to be using IMO - if you don't have the silver bit can you get hold of it?

A picture of a very similar scope on this page https://oypla.com/sports-leisure/binoculars-telescopes/performance-700-76-astronomical-telescope-fx-700-series?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIvJypjvmU3wIV04jVCh15Xg2DEAQYAiABEgJdNPD_BwE shows what appears to be a different setup with those tall extenders in place and no ridged silver bit in the set up.  The silver extender is really what you want so that you can go directly from the focus tube to the Eyepiece without needing all those extra bits and pieces in place - I would certainly not be tempted to use all those extenders and Barlows with anything other than the 20mm eyepiece until you have that sorted and they will probably be far too much for the lowest number mm eyepieces that you have anyway.  It worth bearing in mind that many cheaper telescopes are sold with kit claiming to give x,y,z magnification just to charm the buyers into thinking they have a superb bit of kit - in reaity conditions on earth rarely permit most of the cheap and cheerful extenders etc. to be used to achieve the claimed magnification and most are never used - at this stage the KISS principle applies - keep it simple.  In the photos on the first page here you say you are using the 2mm eyepiece.  This is not the one to use - this is the hardest one to make work and it will never succeed in the night sky with all those Barlows and extenders in my opinion.  That is why the images are such poor colour - that telegraph pole should have been the same colour as your eye could see it, but it wasn't because it was too magnified with an eyepiece that wasn't letting in enough light - get rid of the two millimetre eyepiece and work with the 20mm until you have things sussed out.  More magnification is the bane of many beginners - as I discovered expensively you don't need it, it often doesn't work and thing are much better at lower magnification, so for the moment put all the eyepieces except the 20mm on the top shelf out of reach until you can see the moon successfully through the 20mm (that's twenty and NOT two!! LOL)

Edited by JOC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, louizi said:

PhotoGrid_1544397475766.jpg

Louis, I would like to expand upon your eyepieces and accessories there.  During the day, you can place the 20mm into the 1.5X erector, for a simulated 15mm and a power of 47x.  That will be the lowest power for daytime use.  If you want to see something particularly close, you can place the 12.5mm into the 1.5x erector, for a simulated 8.3mm and a power of 84x.  However, when night falls you can use the 20mm(35x), the 12.5mm(56x), the 20mm combined with the 2x-barlow(a simulated 10mm for a power of 70x), and the 12.5mm combined with the barlow(a simulated 6.3mm for a power of 111x).  The 4mm may not be to your liking, but that's for you to decide.  I would try the 4mm out on the Moon, and for a power of 175x.  You can certainly try it out on other, brighter objects.  You'll never know what you might see until you try; or miss if you don't.

Edited by Alan64

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alan64 said:

You can certainly try it out on other, brighter objects.  You'll never know what you might see until you try; or miss if you don't. 

Smiling... Thank you so much sir, I wil do that tonight...

Its just unfortunate the moon is not out yet, I long so much to see the surface of the moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JOC said:

that's twenty and NOT two!! LOL) 

Yeah.. Its 20mm, I can't even see anything with the 4mm...imagine what 2mm will be like.

 

6 hours ago, JOC said:

If you look at the one of the telescope set up and hover over it to get the zoon up you will see a silver tube under the eyepiece that appears to have ridges along it.  Can you confirm that your telescope has a similar fitment -

Yes it does have similar fitment, i lowered it in the picture I sent earlier. I have used the 20mm eyepiece without the 2X Barlow but with a moo filter, that is an image of the view, it only appeared green because of the moon filter.

IMG_20181206_122301.JPG

Edited by louizi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, louizi said:

Yes it does have similar fitment, i lowered it in the picture I sent earlier. I have used the 20mm eyepiece without the 2X Barlow but with a moo filter, that is an image of the view, it only appeared green because of the moon filter.

Ah!  You have that image labelled as 2mm on the previous page!  Hence my confusion.

OK, moon filter allowing that isn't bad of the telegraph pole, if you can manage that you should be able to use the same set-up for the moon.  I'd still start off without the moon filter though and just see how you get on.  It will need quite an adjustment to go from looking at the telegraph pole to looking at the moon, but you should be able to achieve a similar level of focus if you twist the focus wheels enough.  If you find you still can't then come back and let folks know, but I would hope if you twist the knobs enough that you can get the moon in focus if you can get the scope to sit still,  The only other thing I can think of that might be leading to a blurry view is if you are getting the glass covered in condensation.  If you hit dew point and the glass fogs you might just as well give up for the night, but you should be able to see if that has happened if you shine a torch onto the surfaces before you give up for the night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, louizi said:

Smiling... Thank you so much sir, I wil do that tonight...

Its just unfortunate the moon is not out yet, I long so much to see the surface of the moon.

You're very welcome, and thank you.  It's my earnest desire that everybody gets the very best out of their kit.  

Oh, the Moon will be out soon enough, and there may be a time in future when you wish that it didn't.  There's no need to summon it beforehand.  I suspect that you will upgrade someday.  You might get a 150mm, or a 200mm telescope, and that will enable seeing the dimmer objects in the sky: galaxies, nebulae, globular star-clusters; and the planets like you've never seen before.

I have this 70mm f/13 achromat...

898418024_70mmf13achromat3.jpg.e0284e98f0032d6e14c23c9a507dc67d.jpg

Of all the telescopes that I have, that one is the closest to that of your own in performance; the very near equivalent of your own even.  I've had it up to 225x, with a simulated 4mm, and whilst observing the North Star, Polaris.  Albeit dim at that high of a power, I nonetheless could see the first-diffraction ring about the main star, Polaris A, and quite sharp.  Polaris is actually a triple-star system...

 Polaris_system.jpeg

The ring appeared thin and delicate, and resembled a whirring circular-saw blade.  It was rather dim however, as a 70mm collects only so much light, and Polaris isn't that bright in the sky to begin with.  Here's a shot I took from the north door of my home one night...

Polaris.jpg.ff9c2a03209459a43cb09be6a6cfb29a.jpg

So you can imagine how dim it was at that high of a magnification(225x), but still it was quite recognisable, and just shy of being tack-sharp.  It most certainly was not an instance of so-called "empty magnification".  To wit, work that telescope for all it's got.  Again, you'll never know what you might see, and might have missed. 

Incidentally, I tested one of my telescopes, one day a year or two ago, and similarly in the manner in which you've tested your own...

transformer2.jpg.efab3a6b645a23d19ca67bd4af05bfa4.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With my telescope I peered into the everlasting darkness of the night skies.
Slowly I caught the brightness from a corner and I manoeuvre till it was centred this brightness I caught.
Focusing, my heart ski pped a bit, two bits and the third...
Then I saw,
The moon,
In her splendour...
It was like looking at the face of god.
She was grey,
She was bold,
She  was beautiful...
I love grey but...
Who would have though t
That grey can be so beautiful.
I was overwhelmed
By the enchantment of the moon.
And I heard myself saying
After a long moment of lunarhypnosis.
'I've seen the moon,

and the moon sees me...'

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2018 at 17:26, JOC said:

Ah!  You have that image labelled as 2mm on the previous page!  Hence my confusion.

OK, moon filter allowing that isn't bad of the telegraph pole, if you can manage that you should be able to use the same set-up for the moon.  I'd still start off without the moon filter though and just see how you get on.  It will need quite an adjustment to go from looking at the telegraph pole to looking at the moon, but you should be able to achieve a similar level of focus if you twist the focus wheels enough.  If you find you still can't then come back and let folks know, but I would hope if you twist the knobs enough that you can get the moon in focus if you can get the scope to sit still,  The only other thing I can think of that might be leading to a blurry view is if you are getting the glass covered in condensation.  If you hit dew point and the glass fogs you might just as well give up for the night, but you should be able to see if that has happened if you shine a torch onto the surfaces before you give up for the night.

Thanks so much sir, am sorry for replying late, iv been having network issues due to the weather.

I have manage to see the moon, it was an intriguing moment... I wish I was able to take a photo but I found it impossible because she was always moving and my telescope unfortunately is really shaky... But none the less... Am glad I saw the surface of the moon.. Its real what we see on TV... Its no science fiction...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2018 at 17:44, Alan64 said:

there may be a time in future when you wish that it didn't

Lol... Am pleased to tell you sir, that I have been able to view the moon with my telescope. I saw details like what I see on TV.

I've been studying the skies more since I got my telescope and iv been able to identify some very few constellations like Orion, and some planets like Mars, Venus and I think Uranus.

What sir do you think I can look for with my telescope next?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, louizi said:

Lol... Am pleased to tell you sir, that I have been able to view the moon with my telescope. I saw details like what I see on TV.

I've been studying the skies more since I got my telescope and iv been able to identify some very few constellations like Orion, and some planets like Mars, Venus and I think Uranus.

What sir do you think I can look for with my telescope next?

A good show that must've been.  Actually, I welcome the Moon each and every time time it appears in the sky.  There's a lot to see of the Moon, from phase to phase.  These are snapshots I took simply by holding a small camera up to the eyepiece...

1970096722_LunarPhases.jpg.65e506d32ba8ebe025269b14d36b0dd1.jpg

Next?  Orion...

101915b.jpg.00d2678ada1a200c0960e0519277cb39.jpg

...specifically, the Trapezium, a cluster of several stars; three to four should be visible to you within the nebula, the brightest of them...

https://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/star-trapping-in-orions-trapezium/

M13, the great globular-cluster in Hercules...

M13a.jpg.61f7e56e931f6cb4caf6af5bd39ee688.jpg

That's the brightest one in the northern hemisphere I believe, which is why I was able to take a snapshot of it; and that of Orion within the image above it.

https://www.universetoday.com/36477/top-five-celestial-objects-anyone-can-see-with-a-small-telescope/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.