ThePortForum.com

Posted: **21:09 Fri 03 Jan 2014**

LGTrotter wrote:
DRT wrote:
LGTrotter wrote:I happened to notice a low moon this evening, 'frail and faint as a sickle of straw'. It might be a bit thin for your purposes, but I understand that can be an attraction.
Did you notice the name of the file I uploaded, which is the date and time stamp of when it was taken
My moon was more on it's back. Anyway they can't possibly have the same moon covering the whole country.

Come on people, are we all just giving up completely on Owen's grammar? What happened to the good old days of naming and shaming apostrophic solecisms?
Standards are falling.

Posted: **21:16 Fri 03 Jan 2014**

DRT wrote:
LGTrotter wrote:My moon was more on it's back.
Are you sure it was the moon that was on its back?
PS: Camera + telescope optics = things do not quite appear as they do to the eye.

Mine was quite definitely different, it was less pimply.

Posted: **23:51 Fri 03 Jan 2014**

DRT wrote:
LGTrotter wrote:I happened to notice a low moon this evening, 'frail and faint as a sickle of straw'. It might be a bit thin for your purposes, but I understand that can be an attraction.
Did you notice the name of the file I uploaded, which is the date and time stamp of when it was taken

Picture posted on 3 Jan 2014 at 17:38.

Picture taken on 3 Jan 2014 at 18:56.26

Does DRT own a Delorean?

Posted: **23:52 Fri 03 Jan 2014**

AHB wrote:
DRT wrote:
LGTrotter wrote:I happened to notice a low moon this evening, 'frail and faint as a sickle of straw'. It might be a bit thin for your purposes, but I understand that can be an attraction.
Did you notice the name of the file I uploaded, which is the date and time stamp of when it was taken
Picture posted on 3 Jan 2014 at 17:38.

Picture taken on 3 Jan 2014 at 18:56.26 Does DRT own a Delorean?

No. That's the time on the moon.

Posted: **17:00 Sun 05 Jan 2014**

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2726&p=70598#p70598]Here[/url], commenting on an answer to One Quiz, PhilW wrote:
DRT wrote:I'm going to give you that. From 9pm until midnight Jupiter is at its closest point to Earth and the Sun, Earth and Jupiter are in alignment, in that order. It is known as Opposition and is the best time to view Jupiter from Earth, provided the sky is clear.

My completely inadequate photographic capability managed to take this shot a few minutes ago. The large smudge is Jupiter, the four small smudges are the moons Calisto, Ganymede, Io and Europa. Calisto, bottom left, is extremely faint in this picture.

Jupiter_20130104.jpg

How did it look by eye through the 'scope by comparison?

It is difficult to find pictures that look exactly like what you see through the scope because all of the images are either blurry like mine or heavily processed. The closest I could find was this, but what I see is brighter and the bands on Jupiter more distinct.

Posted: **19:58 Sun 05 Jan 2014**

DRT wrote:It is difficult to find pictures that look exactly like what you see through the scope because all of the images are either blurry like mine or heavily processed. The closest I could find was this, but what I see is brighter and the bands on Jupiter more distinct.

Based on that, it sounds like the image you are seeing is pretty good; a decent eyepiece. More photographic equipment next on the shopping list?

Posted: **20:14 Sun 05 Jan 2014**

PhilW wrote:
DRT wrote:It is difficult to find pictures that look exactly like what you see through the scope because all of the images are either blurry like mine or heavily processed. The closest I could find was this, but what I see is brighter and the bands on Jupiter more distinct.
Based on that, it sounds like the image you are seeing is pretty good; a decent eyepiece. More photographic equipment next on the shopping list?

Larger scope first.

Posted: **20:17 Sun 05 Jan 2014**

PhilW wrote:a decent eyepiece

If only it were true that the singular would do

Posted: **20:17 Sun 05 Jan 2014**

DRT wrote:Larger scope first.

Decided what you're going to go for? Or will it require the building of a new shed/garage with sliding/glass roof first?

Posted: **20:19 Sun 05 Jan 2014**

DRT wrote:
PhilW wrote:a decent eyepiece
If only it were true that the singular would do

Heh, I wasn't suggesting that your *other* eyepieces would not be high quality too

Posted: **20:41 Sun 05 Jan 2014**

The box currently contains 4 x Celestron X-Cel LX's, 3 x Skywatcher Plossls, 1 x Celestron Omni Plossl, 3 x Barlow lenses, 1 x Seben Zoom lens and a range of filters. Roughly equivalent £££ to a case of Warre 1970

Posted: **20:43 Sun 05 Jan 2014**

DRT wrote:The box currently contains 4 x Celestron X-Cel LX's, 3 x Skywatcher Plossls, 1 x Celestron Omni Plossl, 3 x Barlow lenses, 1 x Seben Zoom lens and a range of filters. Roughly equivalent £££ to a case of Warre 1970

oosh, that's quite a collection; I'm guessing you have at least an 8" tube to go with that? (Yeah, yeah, double-entendre guy)

Posted: **20:47 Sun 05 Jan 2014**

PhilW wrote:
DRT wrote:The box currently contains 4 x Celestron X-Cel LX's, 3 x Skywatcher Plossls, 1 x Celestron Omni Plossl, 3 x Barlow lenses, 1 x Seben Zoom lens and a range of filters. Roughly equivalent £££ to a case of Warre 1970
oosh, that's quite a collection; I'm guessing you have at least an 8" tube to go with that? (Yeah, yeah, double-entendre guy)

Not yet. I am building up the bits and bobs and then going for one of these when the bonus arrives

Posted: **20:56 Sun 05 Jan 2014**

DRT wrote:
PhilW wrote:I'm guessing you have at least an 8" tube to go with that? (Yeah, yeah, double-entendre guy)
Not yet. I am building up the bits and bobs and then going for one of these when the bonus arrives

veeeery nice; straight to 12" with goto and tracking. It could be high-dynamic-range CCDs next...

Posted: **21:04 Sun 05 Jan 2014**

PhilW wrote:It could be high-dynamic-range CCDs next...

I very much doubt it. Having read lots of stuff on the net and looked at some of the images people produce with thousands of pounds worth of equipment I am not seeing the attraction of plunging into that pool. I really enjoy looking at the images in the eyepiece. Looking at a picture on a laptop is much less fun.

A good analogy between observers and astro-photographers would be people who taste VP versus people who talk about tasting VP. I know which camp I want to be in

Posted: **00:18 Mon 06 Jan 2014**

PhilW wrote:I'm guessing you have at least an 8" tube to go with that? (Yeah, yeah, double-entendre guy)

I have had second thoughts and have ordered one of these to test the step-up in size. I decided that going from 5" to 12" in one go would be challenging for any man so have gone for the intermediate 8" to ease my way in.

Posted: **01:50 Mon 06 Jan 2014**

I am delighted that astronomy, not noted for its sexy profile, has been needlessly sexualised in this way. Brian Cox *snigger* would be especially pleased.

Posted: **01:57 Mon 06 Jan 2014**

LGTrotter wrote:I am delighted that astronomy, not noted for its sexy profile, has been needlessly sexualised in this way. Brian Cox *snigger* would be especially pleased.

If I'm honest, it was "The Cox" that got me into it.

Posted: **10:19 Mon 06 Jan 2014**

DRT wrote:
PhilW wrote:I'm guessing you have at least an 8" tube to go with that? (Yeah, yeah, double-entendre guy)
I have had second thoughts and have ordered one of these to test the step-up in size. I decided that going from 5" to 12" in one go would be challenging for any man so have gone for the intermediate 8" to ease my way in.

I bet you decide to go to 12", especially given the track facility on the larger scope, within a year.

Posted: **12:09 Mon 06 Jan 2014**

PhilW wrote:I bet you decide to go to 12", especially given the track facility on the larger scope, within a year.

I'm still planning on buying one at the end of March. This interim step is simply to confirm that increasing the size of the scope results in a materially better viewing experience. It is a no-lose experiment as the scope I have just ordered sells for almost full price on Ebay. The experiment might cost me £50, but could save me £1300 if I find I am unhappy with the results

Posted: **19:27 Thu 09 Jan 2014**

Northern lights may be visible tonight, even as far south as Cotswolds.

Posted: **23:57 Thu 09 Jan 2014**

Dimly visible in Belfast for the last hour or so.

Posted: **12:27 Sat 11 Jan 2014**

Woo-hoo!

: 2014-01-10 19.48.35.jpg (35.49 KiB) Viewed 5558 times

Posted: **15:37 Sat 11 Jan 2014**

If you really need to inspect the ceiling that closely, wouldn’t a ladder be, well, cheaper?

Posted: **17:20 Sat 11 Jan 2014**

But look what I found on my ceiling...

: 2014-01-11 17.50.40.jpg (98.78 KiB) Viewed 5546 times

This picture was taken in daylight at approximately 16:10 today. I have now fixed the time stamp on my camera.

ThePortForum.com

A reason to get up early

Re: A reason to get up early

Re: A reason to get up early

Re: A reason to get up early

Re: A reason to get up early

Re: A reason to get up early

Re: A reason to get up early

Re: A reason to get up early

Re: A reason to get up early

Re: A reason to get up early

Re: A reason to get up early

Re: A reason to get up early

Re: A reason to get up early

Re: A reason to get up early

Re: A reason to get up early

Re: A reason to get up early

Re: A reason to get up early

Re: A reason to get up early

Re: A reason to get up early

Re: A reason to get up early

Re: A reason to get up early

Re: A reason to get up early

Re: A reason to get up early

Re: A reason to get up early

Re: A reason to get up early

Re: A reason to get up early