Jump to content

stargazine_ep34_banner.thumb.jpg.28dd32d9305c7de9b6591e6bf6600b27.jpg

Recommended Posts

Since I am very new to this, I struggle a lot. Especially when observing planets and also recently deep sky objects. My telescope is an amateur telescope and its almost 11 years old (The telescope was re used a year ago). During summer of last year I took photos of Saturn,Jupiter and a month ago took photos of Venus and Mars. About 2 days ago I stumbled upon a new thing in the sky, (Unfortunately, I didn't take a picture). It definitely was in the Orion constellation  as I had observed Betelgeuse and the 3 stars that were close to each other. After a couple of minutes later I saw 2 stars next to each other and another two which were on top of the other star, surrounding these set of stars were a blue-ish and grey-ish colour at the same time. I had done some research and many people told me it was the trapezium cluster found in Orion. I honestly don't know. Any ideas? Thanks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Orion Nebula (Messier 42) is located in what is often called the "sword" of Orion, that is a line of stars that come down below the 3 "belt" stars. I've arrowed the nebula in red in this photo and Betelgeuse is indicated by the green arrow:

opo0205b.thumb.jpg.d28cafae1f09910ad0cf46b298ea9b4c.jpg

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jiggy 67 said:

As much as I hate to reply to a Utd fan  😀 It certainly sounds like the nebula, it’s unmistakable when you see it, unlike anything else you’ll see visually 

Haha. Thanks for the info. MANCHESTER IS RED!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, John said:

The Orion Nebula (Messier 42) is located in what is often called the "sword" of Orion, that is a line of stars that come down below the 3 "belt" stars. I've arrowed the nebula in red in this photo and Betelgeuse is indicated by the green arrow:

opo0205b.thumb.jpg.d28cafae1f09910ad0cf46b298ea9b4c.jpg

 

 

Thanks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first looked at the nebula with Binoculas a month or so ago I saw exactly pretty much how you described OP, multiple stars surrounded by a haze of briliant blue and white light. Stunning. It wasn't 'til I took a picture with my phone attached to the binoculars that I could see more colours. Sadly Orion is too low in the nightsky now to observe properly but I'm going to be taking lots of snaps again later in the year. Seems the best time for viewing will be late November here.

Edited by BlueStinger
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Camalajs525 said:

Are they applicable to all telescopes?

The UHC type work better with smaller scopes than the O-III type. The CLS type barely have any effect in my experience. These things only work with nebulae (ie: not galaxies or clusters) and the improvements are subtle rather than startling but the contrast in the nebulosity is improved to some extent.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/04/2020 at 15:49, Camalajs525 said:

 About 2 days ago I stumbled upon a new thing in the sky...

Not unusual to "discover" things? lol. I remember, as a kid, being on holiday in N.Wales
(better seeing) and seeing this "little cloud" in the same place on successive nights... 🤔

Binoculars showed it to be the Pleiades! My eyesight (acuity)
was/is never THAT great - Even with prescription glasses! 🤓

Edited by Macavity
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John said:

The UHC type work better with smaller scopes than the O-III type. The CLS type barely have any effect in my experience. These things only work with nebulae (ie: not galaxies or clusters) and the improvements are subtle rather than startling but the contrast in the nebulosity is improved to some extent.

 

Thank you @John:icon_salut:

I would like to say; that I find the Explore Scientific CLS filter to be a tad better than the Baader Planetarium Contrast Booster filter. Maybe it's just me! Others may tend to agree or disagree as @John has said.

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

Thank you @John:icon_salut:

I would like to say; that I find the Explore Scientific CLS filter to be a tad better than the Baader Planetarium Contrast Booster filter. Maybe it's just me! Others may tend to agree or disagree as @John has said.

The Contrast Booster and CLS filter are quite different to the UHC and O-III filters.

The CB and CLS are broadband filters. The UHC is a narrowband and the O-III is a line filter. More on these classes of filters here:

https://www.prairieastronomyclub.org/useful-filters-for-viewing-deep-sky-objects/

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Gerr
      The 6th January was clear and still and so at last a good night for imaging (not perfect as Moon was still waning).
      My 8" SW 200P Reflector was wanting to be used and so it was carefully mounted onto the HEQ5 and payload maxed out with the imaging train.
      Yeah I know - this combination is a big ask for the job (but an EQ6 is beyond me at the moment!). Anyway with careful balancing and hardly any wind it was worth trying!
      Nebula were best targets and again new ones for me.
      These were the Bubble Nebula, Cave Nebula and Monkey Head Nebula. The Optolong L-eNhance Dual Narrowband Filter was used for all images.
      Usual calibration frames and dithered instead of Dark's. Other 'Astro Stuff' is in my signature. 
      Any constructive criticism's welcome.
      Gerr
      Images:
      Bubble Nebula (Sharpless 162) 15x240secs (1 hour of data).
      Cave Nebula (Sh2-155) 7x240secs & 23x300secs (2hrs 23 mins).
      Monkey Head Nebula (NGC 2174) 44x240secs (just under 3hrs).
       
       
       



    • By Jananas07
      Hi! So Ive found some pictures from an arxiv report in a database which I need for my project and converted them to fits files (The picture on the left). The one that was used in the arxiv report (picture on right) is a zoomed in picture of a galaxy in that picture, where its clearly visible. However when I try zooming in on the exakt coordinates of the galaxy in the fits image, its just plain black. I want the picture "raw", that's why I saved it as fits and not their pdf picture from report. Someone suggested first stretching the image for a more detailed image but some filters had to be used though... the only thing I can find on the tables of the images is that filter F160W was used. I have no idea how to move forward now, completely stuck. Would appreciate some help! 
    • By AstroM1
      Andromeda Galaxy Group
      Nikon D5100 -- Nikkor 70-300 at 200mm
      60x30 sec + DOF
      Star Adventurer
    • By AstroM1
      Nikon D5100 + WO ZS73 II Star Adventurer Pro 150 x 30 sec + DOF
    • By Hena
      Hello all, 
      I have come to you all with the "too much asked question". 
      I have been using the telescopes from local Astronomy group since few years, and now during these Corona times, it is harder. So now I have decided to invest some money on getting myself a scope, and would so sooooo would love your inputs. My main concerns are:
      I may use it only once a month or so, I wanted something that I can handle (maybe >10kg). 
      I don't own a car, usually I use a bicycle with a carrier to get around the city.
      (I had a look at the second-hand (5-7 yrs old) Skywatch MAK 127 Cassegrain that my friend was selling with its mount and accessories. I felt it was too massive for me. Especially if I am getting it to a park and setting it up alone).
        I would like to have a look at celestial objects and also at deep space. 
      As far as I know for deep space, I would need a f5 or something with similar focal ratio, and for planetary object a higher focal length (f10 or more) is better.
      I looked into MAK 90-1250, but felt like it might have very narrow FOV. So I am lost here.
        My budget is small (I know that is the biggest problem). I can spare maybe 200€ to 250€. I know its not enough, so I am hoping to start with a decent one (not awesome) and then work my way up. I so need your advice on what might be good parameters to look for
      - I was thinking Newtonian around f8 or so
      - Since its my first scope, maybe get something small and something that I can get comfortable with and use with a bit of ease before getting expensive ones.
      - Also definitely not a Dobsonian mount, I need something that I can set up on lawn or pavement. 
      https://www.bresser.de/en/Brand/Bresser/BRESSER-Venus-76-700-AZ-Reflector-telescope-with-Smartphone-Camera-Adapter.html 
      Is this a good one to start with? Look at planets and maybe some deep sky ones
        https://www.astroshop.de/teleskope/celestron-teleskop-n-127-1000-starsense-explorer-lt-127-az/p,65881#tab_bar_1_select
      I also has my eye on this, but I cant find much reviews  Any other options are quite welcome.
      I tried to setup and use the telescope in the picture, it was quite hard to do it alone and move it around.
      Thanks a lot. Sorry for the saga... 
      Hena
       
      1417b25b-42c8-4909-b731-25c88c7dce42.jfif
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.