Re: A reason to get up early
Posted: 09:30 Fri 06 Dec 2013
I was waving!DRT wrote:+20mins the cloud lifted. Mars was low in the sky and decidedly bright and red, but I couldn't see Daniel.
A place for those passionate about port, and for those new to it. We hold lots of Port tastings: please join us!
https://www.theportforum.com/
I was waving!DRT wrote:+20mins the cloud lifted. Mars was low in the sky and decidedly bright and red, but I couldn't see Daniel.
Not waving, but drowning.djewesbury wrote:I was waving!DRT wrote:+20mins the cloud lifted. Mars was low in the sky and decidedly bright and red, but I couldn't see Daniel.
This is a remarkably reasonable investment. And it is your tool of choice? I may have to get on to Santy.DRT wrote:I own a Skywatcher Heritage 130p Dobsonian (purchased from that site) that I find to be easy to use and to give good results when pointed upwards. I have not pointed towards anyone's window so can't comment on its performance for watching showers of a non-astronomical nature. I bought this scope after many, many hours of research and it seems to do what it says on the tin. More research has persuaded me to purchase higher grade eyepieces which I will be road testing on Jupiter this evening.
I think it was very good value, but good eyepieces cost 50% of the price of the scope, each! By the time I have a decent set it will add up to around £400, which isn't too painful when compared to some other hobbies.LGTrotter wrote:This is a remarkably reasonable investment. And it is your tool of choice?
Observation:LGTrotter wrote:This is a remarkably reasonable investment. And it is your tool of choice? I may have to get on to Santy.DRT wrote:I own a Skywatcher Heritage 130p Dobsonian (purchased from that site) that I find to be easy to use and to give good results when pointed upwards. I have not pointed towards anyone's window so can't comment on its performance for watching showers of a non-astronomical nature. I bought this scope after many, many hours of research and it seems to do what it says on the tin. More research has persuaded me to purchase higher grade eyepieces which I will be road testing on Jupiter this evening.
I caught it in Brighton. Draw your own conclusions.djewesbury wrote:Observation:
The only people I've met who say Santy are Irish. And I've lived in Ireland for 20 years. Is Santy a common term in zummerzett?
I don't know whether or not you know anything about golf, but you could think of the telescope as a driver (i.e. it gets you in the game) and the eyepieces let you work with fine-tuning of distance and accuracy, just like a golfer's irons.LGTrotter wrote:Dumb arse question time; why spend more than twice the price of the thing itself on eyepieces and why more than one?
My telescope not powerful enough and I would be very surprised if any earth-based scope could see that. I have yet to view Saturn.jdaw1 wrote:But your telescope can’t see the hexagon.
I think both have their merits, and looking in would definitely be warmer than looking out.LGTrotter wrote:Is it better to look out or look in?
Ison is dead.AHB wrote:So I take it that all this chat simply means no-one has seen Ison.
I think "batsman" would probably do.djewesbury wrote:I'd have said top order batsman. Due to Bell, the middle order's average is a little higher.
Done.LGTrotter wrote:This belongs in another thread.
NASA wrote:On Dec. 10, 2013, researchers presented science results from the comet's last days at the 2013 Fall American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco, Calif. They described how this unique comet lost mass in advance of reaching perihelion and most likely broke up during its closest approach, as well, as summarized what this means for determining what the comet was made of.
!
When Comet ISON was first spotted in September 2012, it was relatively bright for a comet at such a great distance from the sun. Consequently, many people had high hopes it would provide a beautiful light show visible in the night sky throughout December 2013. That potential ended when Comet ISON disrupted during perihelion. However, the legacy of the comet will go on for years as scientists analyze the tremendous data set collected during ISON's journey.
Do you need other add-ons and what might these be?LGTrotter wrote:This is a remarkably reasonable investment. And it is your tool of choice? I may have to get on to Santy.DRT wrote:I own a Skywatcher Heritage 130p Dobsonian (purchased from that site) that I find to be easy to use and to give good results when pointed upwards. I have not pointed towards anyone's window so can't comment on its performance for watching showers of a non-astronomical nature. I bought this scope after many, many hours of research and it seems to do what it says on the tin. More research has persuaded me to purchase higher grade eyepieces which I will be road testing on Jupiter this evening.
Don't try and fob me off on the astronomers. You're stuck with me.DRT wrote:please visit http://stargazerslounge.com/ and ask lots of questions before ploughing in
So should you buy a bigger tube in the first place?DRT wrote:I am about to spend all of that again on a bigger tube:
That depends on your budget and your expectations. A small scope like mine will give stunning views of the moon, interesting but small views of the planets and fuzzy views of DSO's (Deep Space Objects). Trading up from a £130 to a £500 tube will make all of those things better, but will not make anything look like a Hubble long-exposure spectacular view of a distant galaxy.LGTrotter wrote:So should you buy a bigger tube in the first place?DRT wrote:I am about to spend all of that again on a bigger tube: