[AstronomerXI]

It's my goal to get another telescope to replace the one I lost and get into astrophotography. I know they would not be on a professional level. But I'm so fascinated by Jupiter and Saturn. And Andromeda. Ah...I mean stunning. The skies really are a blessing. The great thing about where I live is the country is close by. Empty fields for miles and miles and really dark knight. So I don't need to worry about light pollution.

If you haven't already, check out the forums at www.cloudynights.com. There's a wealth of information there for the absolute beginner through to the advanced and specialized amateur astronomer. There's a great beginners' imaging forum there that's a perfect place to start.

 

[PBraith]

hell yeah

Xilica is also a challenge to work with.

Forkbeard, a few Kraken and ....

... and danc'in in the street.

 

[bcowen]

So listen to only one channel then? Why the hell didn't I think of that.

What, you don't have any mono recordings? Newbie.

 

[wotts]

Yeah and that is why while I don’t have my MI250 setup again in an observatory anymore (it is NOT a “portable” mount in any way), so I have the AP130 on a DM-6/tripod in office. I can break it down into 3 parts each more easily carried, and at least do occasional visual. I’ve nice solid Bortle 4 skies in my backyard, my entire town has NO streetlights or stop lights (20+ square miles, 1400 people)… I’m still debating a very small roll-off just big enough for the equipment, and do a full-on remote setup (for imaging). But, to do it right isn’t cheap either, and we’ve still a lot of capital investment on this house to do yet (most of the windows need replacing, need to rebuild the deck), we did all the more expensive stuff last 3 years (all new floors, appliances, kitchen counters, hot water heater, well pressure tank, all 3 toilets, internior painting…

My 10” f4.5 Zambuto mirror dob is overdue for a re-coating also (it is an amazing visual scope - but not useable for any AP). Know anyone that might want a Lunt 60/50mm double stack with a BF1200 solar scope? I hardly use it these days…

I waited 10 years to get the AP, I just know if I sold it, I’d regret it, but…

That is something I have been looking at for a while now. I'd try to poach the 130, but I don't think you should sell until you are absolutely sure. Far too rare!!

 

[Senex49]

Not at all a dumb question.

With smaller apertures - binoculars, 6" reflectors, small refractors - you can see beautiful open star clusters, the rings of Saturn, Jupiter and its 4 brightest moons (you can watch them change position over the course of an evening), Many of the 110 "Messier Objects" including the Orion Nebula; you can sweep slowly down through the Summer Milky Way and see dark lanes of dust, star clouds, many open and globular star clusters, and bright nebula; the moon and its myriad craters, peaks, canyons, and more is wonderful to explore from even the brightest city.

I own 8 pairs of binoculars, a 90mm telescope, a 102mm telescope, and a number of increasingly larger diameter aperture 'scopes up to my forthcoming 18" motorized reflector. They all have a purpose and all provide views that never fail to delight, be those views very wide-angle in the smaller apertures or zoomed in at high magnification via the larger aperture instruments.

Not at all a dumb question.

With smaller apertures - binoculars, 6" reflectors, small refractors - you can see beautiful open star clusters, the rings of Saturn, Jupiter and its 4 brightest moons (you can watch them change position over the course of an evening), Many of the 110 "Messier Objects" including the Orion Nebula; you can sweep slowly down through the Summer Milky Way and see dark lanes of dust, star clouds, many open and globular star clusters, and bright nebula; the moon and its myriad craters, peaks, canyons, and more is wonderful to explore from even the brightest city.

I own 8 pairs of binoculars, a 90mm telescope, a 102mm telescope, and a number of increasingly larger diameter aperture 'scopes up to my forthcoming 18" motorized reflector. They all have a purpose and all provide views that never fail to delight, be those views very wide-angle in the smaller apertures or zoomed in at high magnification via the larger aperture instruments.

Thank you for the detailed reply. I grew up near Albany, NY and once went to an observatory in town run by Union University that had a monthly open house. It had a 20 inch optical telescope. It was called the Dudley Observatory. Seems that it burned down in 1970.

The scope was trained on Saturn and you could see the circle and a solid band of ring. I was a kid waiting for the multiple colors and rings like I saw in magazine illustrations. Not to be had. Then again I’m sure that in the intervening 62 years there have been substantial advances in the technology.

 

[RickB]

$40 million for Paul, $20 million for Tyson and chances are the promoter got very rich. 16 minutes of dancing around the ring with little contact.

How much was it for Tyson to throw the fight? /s

 

[Ripper2860]

20 million dollars.

 

[Paladin79]

How much was it for Tyson to throw the fight? /s

At 58 he probably did the best he could. He tried hard early but ran out of gas the second round. IMHO, I believe he got $20 million win or lose.

 

[Ableza]

What, there's no death metal christmas music?

There is. It sucks too.

 

[mjstealey]

At 58 he probably did the best he could. He tried hard early but ran out of gas the second round. IMHO, I believe he got $20 million win or lose.

It was pretty evident that Tyson's legs couldn't keep up, and his balance wasn't anywhere close to what it used to be.
Not sure what people expected to be honest, but I was glad to see him not get KO'd as that could have easily happened anytime after round 2.

Hopefully Tyson got what he wanted out of it, besides the money, it's not a spectacle I'd care to see again.
As for Paul ... on to his next gimmick / pseudo celebrity influencer role / boxing payday - seems to be enough people still willing to go along for the ride.

 

[Lavcat]

Not at all a dumb question.

With smaller apertures - binoculars, 6" reflectors, small refractors - you can see beautiful open star clusters, the rings of Saturn, Jupiter and its 4 brightest moons (you can watch them change position over the course of an evening), Many of the 110 "Messier Objects" including the Orion Nebula; you can sweep slowly down through the Summer Milky Way and see dark lanes of dust, star clouds, many open and globular star clusters, and bright nebula; the moon and its myriad craters, peaks, canyons, and more is wonderful to explore from even the brightest city.

I own 8 pairs of binoculars, a 90mm telescope, a 102mm telescope, and a number of increasingly larger diameter aperture 'scopes up to my forthcoming 18" motorized reflector. They all have a purpose and all provide views that never fail to delight, be those views very wide-angle in the smaller apertures or zoomed in at high magnification via the larger aperture instruments.

When I was in the camera business we offered a Peltier cooled camera model specifically for astronomy. Astronomy Magazine gave us perhaps the most positive review I have seen anywhere of any product. I was called out by name for exceptional customer service. Those were the days.

My avatar is a picture I took with a 1000mm lens that I used as a telescope until I could no longer lift it, let alone its tripod. I employed the same lens to photograph the 2004 transit of Venus from my bedroom window.

 

[Paladin79]

It was pretty evident that Tyson's legs couldn't keep up, and his balance wasn't anywhere close to what it used to be.
Not sure what people expected to be honest, but I was glad to see him not get KO'd as that could have easily happened anytime after round 2.

Hopefully Tyson got what he wanted out of it, besides the money, it's not a spectacle I'd care to see again.
As for Paul ... on to his next gimmick / pseudo celebrity influencer role / boxing payday - seems to be enough people still willing to go along for the ride.

If you saw the earlier fights they were quite good. The fight reminded me of Geraldo Rivera and Al Capone’s vault. A big build up and nothing there.

 

[Ripper2860]

So kinda like every Cowboys season since I can't remember when?

 

[Bowmoreman]

This is going to be a reeeallllly dumb question but can you see anything other than a little illuminated dot with the consumer grade telescopes? I know you guys are both passionate about this but I’m wondering what you actually see in the optic.

Depends on:

1) what you are looking at
2) how dark your skies are

After that, it really varies a lot… Planets are always going to be limited - visually - mostly due to atmosphere and darkness… in good visual scopes, you will see naked eye colors (many), and much detail. But it will be SMALL. Real, but small. Other targets like nebulae, or galaxies, are different… need darker skies… but they are much, MUCH bigger… as in bigger than the moon (by 10X in some cases)…. That said, none of them will ever be “in color” (naked eye).

Using CCD/DSLR cameras changes *everything* (except YOUR retina’s actually processing in real-time the actual real photons from the real source) and gives you amazing (color!) discernment.

It’s mostly an “OMG - I am in awe of it all” kinda hobby… whether optical or photographically.

Think high-end audio on steroids (and optically instead of auditorilly)…

Edit:

That all said: consumer grade (aka a decent 4-6” dobsonian) will easily show colored bands of Jupiter, and it’s moons / shadows… do NOT ever go for any sub $200 telescope kit/package/excrement-that-looks-like-a-real-telescope, and for all that is holy by any religion or creed, do not succumb to mass-advertised 300(or greater) “power” telescopes of ANY provenance, for ANY money. Just no. Anything that even mentions power or magnification is excrement. Take that to the bank.

 

[Bowmoreman]

I have original vinyl first pressings of Volumes I and II on Liberty with the rare foil covers.

Very Merry!

Aaaalvin!!

Now THAT is cool!