The Sky at Night - Sun 9 Jan 2022

[Pixies]

For those with iPlayer access: 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0013c9c/the-sky-at-night-dark-skies

 

That was the best one I've seen for ages. Actual astronomy content!

[cajen2]

Yes, I saw it....actual amateur telescopes involved! Depressing about the huge spread of light pollution, despite the few dark sites.

[AstroNebulee]

Yes was excellent to see some actual amateur astronomy on it last night 👍

[NGC 1502]

Oh bother, missed it !!   But I was doing astronomy in the back yard……proper astronomy with a telescope that is…..
 

Thanks for iplayer link 👍

[Deadlake]

It would of been good if they had allowed @GavStar to of narrated one of his YouTube tours of the sky using NV. Then for once you would get a feeling for what is possible and indeed out there.

[GavStar]

2 hours ago, Deadlake said:

It would of been good if they had allowed @GavStar to of narrated one of his YouTube tours of the sky using NV. Then for once you would get a feeling for what is possible and indeed out there.

That’s tv for you! 😃And I was on the BBC television centre balcony for 4 hours for that!! 🤣

[JeremyS]

Was a cracking episode. As said above, it was a pleasant change to have more amateur astronomy on. 
 

[Pixies]

When you are watching the start of the programme and it comes up with "and with Pete Lawrence", does anyone else go:

"Yay! Pete's on!"

[johninderby]

About time they did a proper Sky @ Night episode. Thought they had forgotten how to. 🙂

[DaveS]

Yep, a cracking episode, and good to see the Baker Street Irregulars get a mention, with our own @GavStar.

Depressing about the light pollution though.

[AstroNebulee]

1 hour ago, Pixies said:

When you are watching the start of the programme and it comes up with "and with Pete Lawrence", does anyone else go:

"Yay! Pete's on!"

Definitely 👍

[kirkster501]

2 hours ago, Pixies said:

When you are watching the start of the programme and it comes up with "and with Pete Lawrence", does anyone else go:

"Yay! Pete's on!"

Yes, I do.  I like him and his style.

[Craney]

8 hours ago, Pixies said:

When you are watching the start of the programme and it comes up with "and with Pete Lawrence", does anyone else go:

"Yay! Pete's on!"

Yes, I make a mental note of what equipment he is using ..... just in case one day the chance may arise that I can buy a shiny new piece of kit, at least I know it is something favoured by the cognoscenti.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Craney

[Laurieast]

2 hours ago, Pixies said:

When you are watching the start of the programme and it comes up with "and with Pete Lawrence", does anyone else go:

"Yay! Pete's on!"

Best of the team by a mile, and the YouTube presentation of What to see in the night sky is great.

He also has an excellent name 😁

Edited January 10, 2022 by Laurieast

[Pixies]

54 minutes ago, kirkster501 said:

Yes, I do.  I like him and his style.

He used to be on here, wasn't he?

[ScouseSpaceCadet]

That was a good one. More grass roots stuff is welcome. Although the Baker Street segment failed to mention the mad cost of night vision gear. I can imagine a mass of curious watchers last night, "Ooh that looks great.. Mary, google NV monocular"... A couple of minutes later, "What? How much?! Turn those lights off!"...

 

[PeterW]

If everyone optimised the use and distribution of the lighting they used then we’d all have a far better view and wouldn’t have to spend so much money on cameras/filters/NV/petrol…. Think of the combined CO2 savings.

Peter

PS If I had a £ for everytime someone complained about the cost of NV (without actually seeing what it could deliver) I’d be living on my own private (dark) island by now) 😉

[Deadlake]

9 minutes ago, PeterW said:

If everyone optimised the use and distribution of the lighting they used then we’d all have a far better view and wouldn’t have to spend so much money on cameras/filters/NV/petrol…. Think of the combined CO2 savings.

Peter

PS If I had a £ for everytime someone complained about the cost of NV (without actually seeing what it could deliver) I’d be living on my own private (dark) island by now) 😉

A 24" dob will cost the same and show you less than NV, and thats a middle of the road Dob, not a SV or Lock wood...

[PeterW]

Shhh…. Don’t tell anyone, but you can see quite a few of these hydrogen nebulae and galactic cirrus with mere binoculars (and magic filters)…. 
 

Peter

[AstroKeith]

8 minutes ago, Deadlake said:

A 24" dob will cost the same and show you less than NV, and thats a middle of the road Dob, not a SV or Lock wood...

Ah, but sometimes 'less is more'.

I think today comparing direct visual with NV, is like comparing a live concert to a phonograph. Its all possibly there but not quite as nature intended. However given time I'm sure the fidelity will greatly improve.

But on the the hand, my eyes are deteriorating quite fast, and so I may yet use more NV. For outreach and the visually impaired NV is a great boon.

(and yes, I do have an NV eyepiece!)

[GavStar]

7 minutes ago, AstroKeith said:

Ah, but sometimes 'less is more'.

I think today comparing direct visual with NV, is like comparing a live concert to a phonograph. Its all possibly there but not quite as nature intended. However given time I'm sure the fidelity will greatly improve.

But on the the hand, my eyes are deteriorating quite fast, and so I may yet use more NV. For outreach and the visually impaired NV is a great boon.

(and yes, I do have an NV eyepiece!)

Interesting- what NV eyepiece do you have? Mine do provide a very natural “glass-like” black and white views with very good resolution and sharp stars.

[AstroKeith]

Mine is home made (I used to design military optics). Its fine on stars, but no help at all on my current list of Arp galaxies.

I think its down to dynamic range, the eyepiece view may have a range of 10,000, but a screen (photographic or NV) can only achieve say 1000 at best.

Edited January 10, 2022 by AstroKeith

[Deadlake]

1 hour ago, AstroKeith said:

Ah, but sometimes 'less is more'.

I think today comparing direct visual with NV, is like comparing a live concert to a phonograph. Its all possibly there but not quite as nature intended. However given time I'm sure the fidelity will greatly improve.

But on the the hand, my eyes are deteriorating quite fast, and so I may yet use more NV. For outreach and the visually impaired NV is a great boon.

(and yes, I do have an NV eyepiece!)

In what way, NV is mono chrome so is scotopic vision?

See @GavStar below video, some thing like this would of been good on last nights program.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Deadlake

[GavStar]

32 minutes ago, AstroKeith said:

Mine is home made (I used to design military optics). Its fine on stars, but no help at all on my current list of Arp galaxies.

I think its down to dynamic range, the eyepiece view may have a range of 10,000, but a screen (photographic or NV) can only achieve say 1000 at best.

Is it Gen 1 technology? The gen 3 technology shows a really good range and resolution, and picks up faint galaxies nicely. In particular, it really shines on nebulae with an appropriate ha filter.
 

I’ve recently posted some phone photos of an observing session I had at the weekend on the EAA discussion section.

 

Edited January 10, 2022 by GavStar

[PeterW]

There is no NV “Galaxy filter”, they do show up nice (but small, unless you have a huge, fast scope), but the only help you can give is a long pass filter. The galactic type and star burst regions can make some galaxies more impressive with NV, but they tend to be a nice add on, rather than the main reason to invest in NV.

 

Peter