The Future

[albatross]

I`ve been back into astronomy now for nearly two years and thoroughly enjoyed myself, bought lots of observing equipment - Skyliner 300p dob, two large pairs of binoculars on tripods and all the usual stuff and have found most of the deep sky stuff that I wanted to see[100`s of objects]. Given my relatively light polluted skies near cardiff and the limitations of my equipment, I`ve now seen most of the objects that are reasonably seeable and I`m starting to repeat the same things with the changing seasons. You can only look at the M31, M27, etc, etc, so many times!

Short of moving to darker skies with better all round views, I`ve, sort of `done it`, so to speak.

I`ve spoken to several people regarding the `future` and they all say "astro-photography is the next thing for you sir"

Any observations on this possible future path?

[Capricorn]

You don't make it sound as if you are really drawn to astro-photography. Otherwise I suspect that you may have started at it already (maybe you have?)

Also for photography you would need more equipment and not inexpensive equipment. This also depends on whether or not you want to sit at a PC and process the images you get as I suspect that getting an image is just the start. The PC work could be the major part.

I can only suggest that you look at your local society (probably have already) and seeing if that opens up any interests. Ask about astro-photography at least. They might have a good dark sky site at which you could observe more and find out about other aspects.

Would a course such as the OU or UCLAN be of interest? These are two that come to mind, there must be others. Search for "astronomy distance learning".

The idea being, if it interests you, being that you could learn some of the academic aspects behind the observed objects. This is when you point out that you did a BSc/MSc/PHd at Leicester in Astronomy+Astrophysics

What aspects of "professional" astronomy are "Amateur" astronomers involved in? Observing and plotting asteroids. Photography of the night sky to see a supernova (Both astrophotography however).

If not done so already I suspect that visiting a local club or two is the starting point and then find out about other areas of astronomy.

[kniclander]

I know what you mean!!

I'm in London - my last 2 nights out with big bins were M35, M36, M37, M38 and then............... M35, M36, m37, M38...

I still like to look at the same old stuff though. I can't afford to get into astrophotography right now (on many levels :? ) - I'm going to get to know the moon better, look at more double stars and maybe take up sketching ...

I was a bit surprised how much charcoal and pencils cost :shock: but it's a bit cheaper than a ccd, two new scopes and a mount

The other way to freshen things up a bit is, of course, BUY SOME MORE KIT

[russ]

The imaging is a great idea (at least to start with) but it makes some pretty big demands on your budget and time.

And you can only go so far with each step. You could chuck in £1000 now and start imaging the usual suspects but unless you were prepared to throw in a lot more money, you would soon find yourself repeating the same old objects time after time. The imaging broke me and i still hadn't got anywhere near where i wanted to be. You'll need a lot of the £££££ to make it happen.

[scotastro]

Have you tried hunting down comets, there are also one or two brighter than 10th magnitude at any one time. Skyhound is a good source for maps and information.

http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html

I am amazed you have exhausted the possibilities of a 12inch scope even allowing for light pollution. There is so much more out there than Messier - have to tried locating the Herschel 400.

http://www.astroleague.org/al/obsclubs/herschel/h400lstc.html

Astrophotography can be done cheaper. Often overlooked is the Watec 120 astro video camera. This is so sensitive it will give the same view as a much bigger scope and will help overcome light pollution problems. See faint objects in real time on a TV or laptop no messing with image stacking, etc.

Mike

[thing]

I was in the same boat, I'd 'seen' everything worth looking at from my LP sky also. Not that you ever get fed up with it but you need a challenge. So I did two things, I started an OU degree in astrophysics/geology and started imaging.

Imaging wise, apart from the camera, it's not expensive at all. You need the adapter to fit the camera to the scope which is a few quid but all the software I use for processing is free. If you have a half decent DSLR you will be up and running at minimal cost. You don't 'have' to have a Canon 300--1000 which is the popular choice. I have a Minolta (Sony) which is just as good.

The OU thing is really interesting, I know clever stuff about stars and galaxies now, I can read posts from the bright young things here about fyzzics and stuff and not feel like a dope anymore. I can even think 'er, interesting but wrong my son' which makes me glow with a barely contained 'I'm old and hey, I'm not stupid' feeling. Well worth considering.... .

[albatross]

Thanks very much for your replies. Yes, I`ve got Steve O`Meara`s main books, together with a copy of Wil Tirions` Sky Atlas 2000 all of which have proved invaluable in finding those faint fuzzies without a goto in sight! But I`m chasing ever smaller and fainter objects each new search and even with Televue/Pentax eyepieces are still only just visible to the degree that I`m not sure whether I`ve actually seen the object or not!

I`ve spoken to members of my astronomical society who say that astro-photography is the next natural step, but as you all say, it is hideously expensive, particular, to just keep imaging the same objects, etc. This is obviously why very large telescopes are 10.000 feet up and the Hubble is in space.

Once again, thanks for your replies.

Albatross