Amateur astronomy: Space is pretty awesome

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Hobbies, Crafts, & Houses > Amateur astronomy: Space is pretty awesome

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Is there a recommended Android app for finding things in the sky?

# ¿ Oct 27, 2020 01:14

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 12:54

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Thanks, I'm playing around with stellarium and it seems acceptable so far.

# ¿ Oct 27, 2020 19:26

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Enos Cabell posted:

Well poo poo, I hemmed and hawed all morning and by the time I talked myself into it, it was gone.

Sorry! If my wife makes me get rid of it I'll PM you.

# ¿ Jun 17, 2021 01:33

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Enos Cabell posted:

Hah! Glad it went to a goon at least. I hope you and your wife both enjoy it, I'll be ready for the next deal!

Thanks! My wife will complain about how big it is but I hope the kids enjoy it! They love space but my 5yo is poo poo at holding binoculars.

The timing is great, we're going to an Airbnb in the boonies for vacation in a couple weeks. I just need to learn how to use a Dobsonian by then.

# ¿ Jun 17, 2021 01:43

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

AstroZamboni posted:

At least the red headlamp seems ok. Bit on the bright side but ok.

I bought a $25 Costco 2 pack that seems to work well so far.

# ¿ Aug 22, 2021 16:27

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Finally got a decent night to take the kids out and use the new telescope to see Jupiter and Saturn. My 5yo: "we learned about these in school and they're REAL!" :3:

# ¿ Oct 11, 2021 19:58

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

After getting really tired of basically laying on my back to look through the finder scope of my dob, I've decided I probably don't need to see M31 right now anyway.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2021 04:02

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Star Man posted:

You can even see the Galilean moons without binoculars. Maybe. Supposedly.

Good way to test out Lasik.

# ¿ Jan 1, 2022 00:42

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Mods please change the thread title to "PM dob sales to Enos Cabell"

# ¿ Jan 30, 2022 02:49

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

I store my dob in the basement, what a pain in the rear end.

# ¿ Jul 9, 2022 22:18

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Jupiter is creeping on earth tonight, if anyone missed the memo.

# ¿ Sep 27, 2022 02:52

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

I managed to see it with the kids last night, albeit much smaller than that picture, as well as Saturn. The kids had fun anyway, but "don't bump the telescope" is still beyond them for now. Finally got to use my AT 6mm eyepiece too.

PerniciousKnid fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Oct 3, 2022

# ¿ Sep 28, 2022 15:26

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

If my 8" dob came with kellners, how worthwhile is it to replace my 25mm with roughly the same focal length? I know I could get a better FoV (especially going to 2") but is there any other material benefit (like contrast)? I'm debating if I should rush to upgrade before I go camping and look for nebulae etc. So far I've just been concerned with showing my kids the planets, which they're familiar with from school/Magic School Bus.

# ¿ Nov 16, 2022 01:34

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Liquid Chicken posted:

Also if you're looking for nebulas and you haven't yet - invest in a decent UHC filter. The Orion Ultrablock filter is decent one for a budget price. The Lumicon Gen 3 UHC is the one of the best but pricey. I would suggest to go for a 2" model. Your 1.25" to 2" adapter is probably threaded for 2" filters already unless you have one of those unthreaded ones from Sky-Watcher.

That's interesting. My SkyWatcher 200P has threads on the adapter but I don't know if they're in the right place for filters or whatever. Also there's a 2" cylinder, no idea what that's for.

# ¿ Nov 16, 2022 02:41

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Liquid Chicken posted:

Those aren't threads, but just baffles to prevent light scatter or something.

I think I see what you mean but also the 1.25 adapter consists of two components that screw together (1.25 cylinder screwing into a 2" washer of sorts), which I thought might be relevant to filters.

# ¿ Nov 16, 2022 03:29

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Liquid Chicken posted:

The one part that can be removed from the 1.25" to 2" adapter is a T-ring adapter to be used for cameras.

I didn't know I had a t ring adapter. I'm going on a real emotional rollercoaster tonight!

# ¿ Nov 16, 2022 04:18

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Does anyone sketch their observations? It feels like the thread is dominated by the photographers, I'd like to see what everyone else is seeing.

# ¿ Nov 17, 2022 02:44

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Ok Comboomer posted:

Posted this in the other astronomy thread and was sent here.

Currently thinking more toward the 8� than the 10, largely because the 10� does seem that much more unweildy, but primarily due to cost.

It�s an almost 40% jump from $800 to $1100, and I think by the point I�m spending $1k+ on a big scope I probably want it to not have a big honking smartphone caddy sticking out of it (or maybe I do? Ed Ting says that people are buying the cheaper StarSense newtonians/refractors to harvest their caddies + software keys to put on their own bigger scopes)

But I welcome any criticism and advice, if anybody thinks I should go with a cheaper scope minus the StarSense feature or if the 10�/something similar might be a better long term investment/more versatile.

I know all of Jack and poo poo, but I�ve been vicariously watching the hobby astronomy and astrophotography spaces for years. Thinking 2023 might be the year I finally pull the trigger on some worthwhile beginner glass.

What is the smartphone thing? Is it different from just sticking a $20 smartphone holder on the focuser?

# ¿ Dec 19, 2022 04:59

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Yooper posted:

I know the full moon can prevent it from plate solving position. It warns you if it thinks it'll have issues. Its been a few years since I've lived in town, but I recall if I was pointed in the vicinity of a street light it could have a hard time solving.

They just replaced the street light bulb in front of my house and it's an LED throwing about 6 billion lumens.

# ¿ Dec 20, 2022 01:52

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Liquid Chicken posted:

Your smart phone needs to be in the dock as the dock has a piece that direct light to you phone's camera. The app then uses that image to plate solve and know where the telescope is pointing.

That's interesting. Is there a technical reason an app can't do that with a normal eyepiece adaptor?

# ¿ Dec 20, 2022 01:54

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Star Man posted:

Which is more pathetic--someone saying that a satellite is moving through Leo Minor; or listening to that and knowing what they're talking about?

It's awesome, unless the satellite in question is Deimos or something.

# ¿ Dec 27, 2022 05:46

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Jewmanji posted:

It doesn't seem like there's any consensus on what magnifications are a good starting point, is that fair to say?

I found this essay helpful, it seems to encapsulate most of the common beginner advice.

quote:

1X / 2X / 3X Magnification Protocol for eyepiece choice

Most beginner telescopes come with a single eyepiece. Thinking that most beginners would want something more in the way of power than the lowest possible power (which yields the largest true field of view), the manufacturers provide an eyepiece that, charitably, is a "jack of all trades and master of none"--too high a power to have the largest field, and too low a power for high power views of the Moon and planets and not quite high enough a magnification to make a decent medium power eyepiece. So the first thing a beginner looks for is a "set" of eyepieces for the scope. And, indeed, there are many such sets, though they typically contain some eyepieces with focal lengths so short they're generally not usable, and some color filters not useful for anything.

Well, I'll save the beginner a little bit of shopping by talking about a Magnification Protocol I'll call "1X / 2X / 3X"
Let me explain what that means:
First, everyone needs a low-power eyepiece with a large field of view for the biggest objects in the sky--star clusters, asterisms (stars arranged in patterns), large nebulae, the Milky Way, etc. Call that 1X.
On top of that, since most objects in the night sky are NOT that large, a medium-power eyepiece is nice to show most objects well in context with the area of the sky in which they sit, and at a high enough magnification to see details in the objects. The background sky gets a little darker as the magnification increases, so the image is often more aesthetically-pleasing, especially in an urban or suburban setting, where the sky isn't particularly dark to begin with. This is 2X.
And last, for the smallest of objects, like the planets (which will be the tiniest things you look at in a telescope), or for high-power views of the Moon, close double stars and small planetary nebulae, a high-power eyepiece is essential. This is 3X.
But Seeing conditions (the turbulence in the sky) don't often allow REALLY high powers to be used because as you increase the magnification, you also magnify the turbulence. At some point, the image just becomes blurrier as you raise the power. Where that magnification point is will vary from night to night, so it's desirable to have your high power eyepiece be a low-enough power to still produce a decently sharp image, even when the seeing is mediocre.

Which is where I came up with 1X / 2X / 3X, where X= a particular power geared for the particular scope. We can just call them Low-Medium-High power, but be aware that higher powers are possible when the atmosphere is quiet and not scintillating. Now, larger scopes are capable of higher magnifications. The reasons for this relate to how light diffracts as it passes through the scope. Bigger apertures resolve smaller details at the same power, and can handle higher magnifications before they get into the "high power blur" territory. So, whereas a 4" telescope might use an X=33power, a 16" scope can handle an X=80 magnification even easier.
I do have some suggestions for backyard instruments: 4" scope, X=35 power 8" scope, X=50 power 10"scope, X=60 power 12"/12.5"scope X=70 power Above that size, the owners of scopes usually have accumulated enough eyepieces to yield whatever powers they want. 12" seems to be about as big as it gets for a first scope.

How do you figure out what focal lengths of eyepieces yield these powers? Easy. Divide the focal length of the telescope by the magnification you want, and it will yield the focal length of the eyepiece that produces that power (you can approximate +/- a millimeter or so).

What if the Seeing conditions are so good there is no scintillation visible in the high-power eyepiece? Well, you can go higher. Without having to invest a lot of money in eyepieces you may not use that often, the purchase of a decent 2X Barlow lens will be all you need for those nights. That 2-power Barlow will yield "4X" with the "2X" eyepiece, and "6X" with the "3X" eyepiece. That's yet another reason not to make the magnifications too high for your basic eyepieces--you'd never use the barlow lens at all.

OK, now you have the 3 general use eyepieces for your scope. Where do you go from here? Well, see the eyepiece discussions on sites like cloudynights.com and other forums and see what people think. It's rational to get a "lowest possible power/widest possible field of view" eyepiece for the really enormous objects, and it's rational to have a "highest power" eyepiece that yields 25 times per inch of aperture (assuming you still have a Barlow lens to yield the highest possible 50X/inch that's usable one night a year...maybe). And you'll notice my protocol does not talk about apparent field of view or eyepiece types, or eye relief. Those are topics for another time.

Don Pensack

https://www.eyepiecesetc.com/1X_2X_3X_Magnification_Protocol_p/ep-selection-1x-2x-3x.htm

# ¿ Dec 31, 2022 00:54

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Jewmanji posted:

Thanks! Was a bit confused when I opened the link and saw some handguns but I get it now lol.

Sounds like you're not serious about protecting your eyepieces.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2023 02:48

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Achmed Jones posted:

same. im in the suburbs, there's a good amount of light pollution, and i saw a little smear when i pointed the telescope at where the comet was supposed to be. underwhelming, but not unexpected.

I spent some time staring through my neighbor's tree before I gave up. Maybe next comet.

# ¿ Feb 3, 2023 05:04

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Star Man posted:

Most people just think that any light pollution means they can't see anything at all, and don't even bother trying to look.

Not that there's much to see because it's a dim object, the weather's lovely, and a full or gibbous moon fucks things up.

It just saddens me that only freaks with strange hobbies can find the Big Dipper without an app.

How much of the population can even see the big dipper?

# ¿ Feb 3, 2023 20:32

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

I saw Hale Bopp at an astronomy club event through somebody's fancy scope so I definitely was ruined for other space crap for a while.

Star Man posted:

More than people think. A lot of the issue is that people don't even know what they're looking at or for. But I think people just don't ever look up in the first place, even where light pollution isn't bad.

In the suburbs I feel like I can barely see the whole thing.

# ¿ Feb 4, 2023 03:22

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Yooper posted:

Some random dude hit me up on CloudyNights and asked me to print an adapter for his 14" Dob. I hope Celestron eventually offers the SSE setup as a standalone, but they'll sure sell a lot of 80mm refractors in the mean time.

I really enjoy the one on my 8" Dob, especially comapred to how lovely the push-to encoder setup was.

Quoting to ask for more details someday when my kids aren't keeping me up all night.

# ¿ Feb 10, 2023 04:44

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

My big dream is to make a barn door mount for my phone so I can use it to take pictures.

# ¿ Apr 3, 2023 16:11

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Star Man posted:

You cannot get people to look up. It's just impossible. It's an insular group of people going out and using just their two eyes and nothing else because no one cares. It's the same for getting people to read. No one cares, no one has the time, no one has the curiosity.

Nobody knows the names of the plants in their yard either. It's sad.

Star Man posted:

I have to strap people to a stretcher and hold their eyes open just to get them to look at the moon.

But I don't think you should do this.

# ¿ May 29, 2023 00:35

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Kalman posted:

Stellarium has an iOS app with a lifetime unlock available; I personally like StarMap 3D+ Plus, which has a terrible name but works well (and has a single time unlock for more stars for like 2 bucks.)

How good are the dlc stars?

# ¿ Sep 8, 2023 23:51

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 12:54

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Golden-i posted:

I really do like to see how people's artistic interpretations of the data come out when given the chance. This can be both a science and an art, and it's up to the one processing the data to decide exactly how much they want to lean into either.

All photography (or just vision) is interpretation, intentional or not.

# ¿ Dec 18, 2023 03:28

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Hobbies, Crafts, & Houses > Amateur astronomy: Space is pretty awesome