Best skywatching equipment at my disposal:
Displaying poll results.20128 total votes.
Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8470 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 6386 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
We're not supposed to complain about choices . . . (Score:4, Informative)
And . . . shouldn't the last one be . . . I run the "Observatory"??? . . . I'd think the guy that ran the Planetarium . . . was limited to the presentations someone sent them.
Re: We're not supposed to complain about choices . (Score:5, Funny)
The best optics I have available are rifle scopes.
Re: We're not supposed to complain about choices . (Score:5, Funny)
Re: We're not supposed to complain about choices . (Score:2)
*whoosh*
Re: We're not supposed to complain about choices . (Score:2)
me too! Hell, my Bushnell 6-24x56 Ballistic beats the snot out of my Celestron 90AZ...
Re: We're not supposed to complain about choices . (Score:2)
Shoot for the moon! :)
Re: We're not supposed to complain about choices . (Score:2)
Shooting stars. Literally.
Re:We're not supposed to complain about choices . (Score:4, Interesting)
"I'd think the guy that ran the Planetarium . . . was limited to the presentations someone sent them."
For a while I had the opportunity to "run the planetarium". Yes, mostly I showed someone else's presentations, but I also did live shows where I could do things like advance the seasons, change the latitude, precess the earth so the North star wasn't any more. Seemed to impress people. Reseting the projector after all that was a bit of a challenge ...
Re:We're not supposed to complain about choices . (Score:2)
Though he's still correct - a planetarium, regardless of what you are doing, is still "ceiling watching", not "sky watching"...
Not that it wouldn't be cool to mess around with one! Especially if it also does Laser Floyd ;)
Re:We're not supposed to complain about choices . (Score:3)
The plane'arium at the college I work for has both a star machine and a projector. Projector takes in mpeg-1 at 30fps and 1024x1024 ... Several good shows (The Wall, Dark Side of the Moon, Led Zepplin, etc) have been purchased, and I'm working on the graphic design program to get students to do stuff using the music freely available on archive.org (mostly the Dead concert recording stuff...)
Re:We're not supposed to complain about choices . (Score:2)
You did *live* shows that advanced the seasons?
What's really impressive is how you put the seasons back afterwards. Hardly anyone on the planet even noticed!
Boring Show (Score:2)
You did *live* shows that advanced the seasons?
No, what's impressive is that they managed to get people to hang around that long to watch it it all.
Re:We're not supposed to complain about choices . (Score:2)
But I will anyway.
Since when weren't we supposed to complain about the poll options? That's like a third of all traffic for the comments section to polls. I'm not really all that convinced that that's not why they're so shoddy much of the time, though Hanlon's Razor applies.
Friends have better gear (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally I've got two eyes, some eyeglasses, and varying qualities of binoculars, which have been useful for watching comets or lunar eclipses, and I might still be able to find the dark-film eclipse-watching glasses. I've also got a hand-held collapsible telescope, but the optical quality is somewhere between "looks cool sitting on the fireplace mantel" and "goes with the parrot on my shoulder, yarrr!"
I do have friends who are more serious about astronomy, though. One of them built a fairly large reflector scope which folds up into the trunk of his Miata (this was some years ago; don't know if he still has the car.) Another has a backyard observatory shed, 8-foot sliding roof, computer-controlled motors for the scope. ("Engineer with lots of time on his hands after he retired?" Yup. He can do some really cool stuff with it.)
The most interesting astronomy gear I've seen the results of recently are from a Pentax digital SLR camera that does image stabilization by moving the sensor, and has a GPS in it. Apparently there's a mode you can use to tell it to track the sky for a really long exposure, so my friend who had it was able to take some good galaxy pictures.
Re:Friends have better gear (Score:2)
I was going to say missing option, Camera with telephoto lens.. but your post covered it. Long exposure and a good camera results in light sensitivity better than my eyes.
Re:Friends have better gear (Score:2)
I use the Hubble Space Telescope via google searches.
I have found google to be a much better telescope than any meat space version I care to purchase.
Sad i know...
Re:Friends have better gear (Score:2)
It's not sad at all. There's a large publicly available database of existing quality images (e.g. from surveys or the HST). Check out APOD [nasa.gov] and you'll see some of these images that have been stylistically enhanced. It wasn't till much (um, much) later that I enjoyed going to the observatory. In graduate school I preferred programming simulations on the computer and matching the results to someone else's images.
Re:Friends have better gear (Score:2)
Well, love always has a payment of some sort too.
Re:Friends have better gear (Score:2)
The most interesting astronomy gear I've seen the results of recently are from a Pentax digital SLR camera that does image stabilization by moving the sensor, and has a GPS in it. Apparently there's a mode you can use to tell it to track the sky for a really long exposure, so my friend who had it was able to take some good galaxy pictures.
Does your friend post any of these pictures? I'd love to see some.
Re:Friends have better gear (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Friends have better gear (Score:2)
Re:Friends have better gear (Score:2)
I'd be interested in your friends setup. That sounds fantastic (my cheap Canon mini can expose the night sky very well, my 3/4ths system Panasonic DSLR cannot accurately focus to infinity in star light - and the lenses don't have indicators and can be turned in either direction forever, never resulting in a focus on infinity).
Re:Friends have better gear (Score:2)
Here's a review of what he was talking about:
http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=5480&review=pentax+O-GPS1+astrotracer+pentax+k-3+astrophotographer+made+easier+and+less+expensive
Re:Friends have better gear (Score:2)
Actually, I wish it were multiple choice, because I'd choose "friends have better gear" and "access to institutional scope"... a friend works at the Lick Observatory on Mt. Hamilton, which may not be the best telescope, but is definitely one of the best tours of a 130+ year old telescope (especially at midnight carrying around a 6-pack of beer...)
Google Sky not an option? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Google Sky not an option? (Score:2)
Re:Google Sky not an option? (Score:2)
Stellarium works well in live mode and it's open-source; give it a try. I do all my observation planning with it. I find I have a bunch of tools as each one has strengths and weaknesses. We are fortunate to have so many digital tools at our disposal these days; a paper sky wheel 50 years ago worked, but you needed a couple of reference books on hand when observing; now it's all on the tablet in night mode. And GOTO mounts?!? We truly live in the future. Now, if I only could cut down a few trees and a lamp post or two...
Re:Google Sky not an option? (Score:2)
Stellarium works well in live mode and it's open-source; give it a try.
$2.65 is too much for an app that is "an experimental branch built on an incomplete library and is not yet ready for public consumption".
We are fortunate to have so many digital tools at our disposal these days; a paper sky wheel 50 years ago worked...
I've recently become fascinated by Sextants, Astrolabes, Nocturnes and other similar instruments; Astrolabes in particular. I'd like to find, or make one. I've read a brief mention of an instrument that is simply a tube and a string with a weight. Sight the North Star through the tube and the weight slides along the string to your latitude. Then somehow you can use the markings on the tube and further sightings to determine the time.
Now, if I only could cut down a few trees and a lamp post or two...
This site [husqvarna.com] might have an "app" or two that may help with that.
Re:Google Sky not an option? (Score:2)
Since it is an open source program, here is Stellarium for free on Aptiode [aptoide.com].
I don't know if it is the same version as the paid one on Google's App Store, but it works fine for me.
Re:Google Sky not an option? (Score:3)
"I've recently become fascinated by Sextants, Astrolabes, Nocturnes and other similar instruments; Astrolabes in particular. I'd like to find, or make one."
The book "Latitude Hooks and Azimuth Rings: How to Build and Use 18 Traditional Navigational Tools" has some very interesting plans for inexpensive antique navigation instruments - really cheap to build and don't require a whole lot of building skills. The Astrolabe in there is pretty good, and they all are pretty accurate. It's on Amazon for less than $20; check out the "Look Inside" feature for all the instruments and required tools. I've used it often over the years; it still holds up, in my opinion.
I use Stellarium on a laptop and I wasn't aware of a charge for a mobile version. I believe that there are free mobile versions of Stellarium; check SourceForge. I use "Mobile Observatory" on my Nexus 7 at the 'scope; it was worth the $6 to me, but I still use Stellarium when planning my night's viewing.
The "Husky" joke was good; I have over a 100 trees on the property and no interest in really cutting them down, but it does get frustrating at times on really good viewing nights; I have a small sky window to the south and one to the east so I have to tie my observations to the seasons. The street lights, though...
Re:Google Sky not an option? (Score:2)
Planetarium? (Score:3, Informative)
You can't view the sky with a planetarium. You can only pretend.
Re:Planetarium? (Score:2)
You can't view the sky with a planetarium. You can only pretend
Maybe it was on purpose, to be snarky ot the pretenders. But I'm not sure, as I haven't heard wooshing sounds yet.
Re:Planetarium? (Score:2)
Maybe there is a hole in the roof?
I'm waiting for Neil deGrasse Tyson (Score:5, Funny)
I'm waiting for Neil deGrasse Tyson to show up and be all like:
"All of the above, you insensitive clods!"
Re:I'm waiting for Neil deGrasse Tyson (Score:2)
Re:I'm waiting for Neil deGrasse Tyson (Score:2)
It might be both.
Re:I'm waiting for Neil deGrasse Tyson (Score:2)
I voted and yes, and yes, I did run the planetarium for part of a summer.
Re:I'm waiting for Neil deGrasse Tyson (Score:2)
Well, I voted for the option above that, though my stepfather does the local state college planetarium show regularly. I can have easy/regular access to the school's 16-inch Cassegrain scope, if I want.
Re:I'm waiting for Neil deGrasse Tyson (Score:2)
Count me as one... http://planetarium.poincinaste... [poincinastem.org]
Re:I'm waiting for Neil deGrasse Tyson (Score:2)
No, I'm Neil Tyson! And so's my wife!
Missing Option: Opportunity (Score:2)
Radio telescope - not exactly "skywatching" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Radio telescope - not exactly "skywatching" (Score:3)
I've recently observed with the SMT (remotely). It's a good telescope and you all do a great job running it!
Re:Radio telescope - not exactly "skywatching" (Score:2)
Re:Radio telescope - not exactly "skywatching" (Score:2)
@NixieBunny - You truly have a career to envy!
Re:Radio telescope - not exactly "skywatching" (Score:2)
Cool!
What is the typical angular resolution you get - how much can you "zoom in" on a single source? Also, does it vary significantly accross the frequency range you're interested in, i.e. that longer wavelengths are collected from a larger slice of the sky than shorter wavelengths - and does it matter for the stuff you're doing?
Oh, and judging from the control room pics on Wikipedia: It does indeed run Linux :)
Re:Radio telescope - not exactly "skywatching" (Score:2)
Re:Radio telescope - not exactly "skywatching" (Score:2)
Thanks! That's pretty nice - about the size of Jupiter in the sky then [1]. Since there is a x2 difference in beam width, are there ever any problems with the low-frequency bit of a spectrum being aquired from a larger piece of sky than the high frequency bit? /me Is just asking amatourish questions, working with RF design for X-band accelerators myself so quite different field - but Maxwell still applies :)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Radio telescope - not exactly "skywatching" (Score:2)
The temperature scale on the graphs (temperature = signal strength) gives you an idea of the absurdly high sensitivity of the system. Some of those graphs are in milliKelvin!
Re: Radio telescope - not exactly "skywatching" (Score:2)
institutional (Score:2)
http://www.cincinnatiobservato... [cincinnati...vatory.org]
While you're at it, you can meet the co-host of Star Gazers.(No relation)
dinog
I am Reminded of a Song (Score:3)
"I can see Uranus through my window tonight. I don't need a telescope to show me the light..."
Ah, my misspent youth listening to Dr. Demento.
Missing option (Score:2)
Re:Missing option (Score:3)
Re:Missing option (Score:2)
You just need better filters
Please mod funny.
Modded Redundant? Do you really think most people (even on Slash) have any idea that you can filter light pollution when viewing? Hmmm. I think I need to move to your neighborhood. Even the well-educated folks I know mostly think I'm looking in the wrong end of my Newt. I guess I gotta get smarter friends.
Re:Missing option (Score:2)
I voted monocular/binocular, as I do have a camera and lens which let me capture things like this without even resorting to a tripod: http://fatphil.org/images/moon.jpg , which I'd say is more than the eye can see (at least my crappy old eyes).
Re:Missing option (Score:3)
Re:Missing option (Score:4, Interesting)
We did that trek for pretty much every lunar eclipse, meteor storm, high aurora activity, and comet religiously for about a decade. Every freaking time there was heavy cloud cover. Clearly an elemental conspiracy.
So being in the smog (no joke, plenty of wood-fired heating here) really isn't that much worse. However, as you can tell from the fact that I did head out so often, I don't need a spark to be planted, I already have that flame. Fortunately my g/f has star-gazing connections back in the middle of dark-skies USA, so we get star porn e-mailed to us occasionally, which makes up for some of our failures. (And pre-release ISS porn too, they're good connections
But your point is a good one, and not wasted on me.
Re:Missing option (Score:4, Interesting)
How about a capital city. Right in the centre too. I guess I can see 20 stars on a typical good night. (Totally clear sky tonight, I guess I could tally 100, but at -13C out, I'm not going to put that to the test.)
I managed to count about 5 last month, and was really pleased. Central London isn't a good place for stargazing. ("From brightly lit Midtown Manhattan, the limiting magnitude is possibly 2.0, meaning that from the heart of New York City only approximately 15 stars will be visible at any given time." -- presumably about the same)
Stars are something I look at abroad: http://mnras.oxfordjournals.or... [oxfordjournals.org] -- it's probably around 6 hours travel time (by land) to get somewhere that map classes as dark.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Missing option (Score:2)
Define "best" (Score:4, Insightful)
My eye has the largest field of view of any of those options, and is the most portable. However, I went with my binoculars because they are better for viewing the Andromeda galaxy than my naked eye (or a telescope). I live in a large city and have to go on camping trips in order to stargaze, so binoculars are by far the best equipment for my needs. A couple of my friends have telescopes, but they are nearly useless in town, and too large to take camping.
Re:Define "best" (Score:2)
Being in town doesn't significantly affect viewing of the moon and brighter planets, so telescopes aren't useless in town.
Best is subjective (Score:5, Interesting)
I live in a small town, and after 10 minutes or so of my eyes adjusting to the dark, I can easily make out the arm of Milky Way. We have a hot tub, and I love sitting out there, with the lights off, floating and just looking up at the sky. We see satellites usually every night and the ISS occasionally. Jupiter and Uranus have been really bright the last week or so as well. There's no telescope or other equipment that could enhance that experience.
Just so relaxing to be out there, especially in the winter when the air is cold and clear on a moonless night.
Re:Best is subjective (Score:2)
I could not agree more. For the first time in my life, I live out in the real woods in a forest and far away from the city. To go outside and look up, and see... *everything*. Its really fantastic, and it really starts the brain thinking. It wasn't long before I started thinking "bigger". Its a wonderful experience.
Re:Best is subjective (Score:2)
Uranus gets brighter and shinier the longer you sit in the hot tub.
Re:Best is subjective (Score:2, Funny)
There's no telescope or other equipment that could enhance that experience.
Let me know when you can see a 13th magnitude body from your hot tub then we'll have reason to talk.
A hot tub and being able to see all those beautiful stars makes me think that he can get to see any magnitude body he wants.
Impossible where I live (Score:2)
I live in the downtown of a fairly major city. Even on a good night, anything dimmer than magnitude 2 is invisible. And on a bad night? No stars at all, just the moon. And all the jets and helicopters that seem to be constantly flying around.
I settle for setting Hubble images as my desktop wallpaper. I've got a rather nice one of the Orion Nebula up right now. And of course I follow several astronomy-themed blogs to get my spacewatching fix.
When I was a kid (Score:2)
Define "convenient" (Score:3)
My biggest scope is an 18" dob, made by the now-defunct Starsplitter. It looks a lot like an Obsession 18" [obsessiontelescopes.com], and uses Obsession accessories.
While large, with the wheelbarrow handles it's easy to move around and set up. When I bought it I refurbished it, including redoing the teflon bearings in the mount. A local industrial plastics shop sold me an offcut of real virgin GE sheet teflon. The result is pure dobsonian: rock steady, stays where it's pointed. And perfectly balanced: it moves with one finger.
Jupiter's moons are different colours and are non-stellar. Titan is an interesting colour. M13 has a friend, NGC 6207.
...laura
University (Score:2)
Missing option: car (Score:2)
Gotta drive out of the city first. I can barely make out the Big Dipper most nights.
What sky? (Score:2)
I live in Seattle, you insensitive clod!
Re:What sky? (Score:3)
Heh. Clouds aside, I find the star gazing is rather good for a large city. Well, being in West Seattle behind a hill helps too...
missing options (Score:2)
1. JVC DV camcorder with night mode. Great for extreme zooming (32 optical, 800 digital) streamed live to a netbook - which means I'm inside and the camera's outside on a remote controlled mount!
2. Panasonic Lumix London 2012 Edition compact digital camera. Does a great job with wide field down to mag. 5, picks out M42 and M45 with ease.
3. Samsung PL-22 compact digital camera. Same as the Panasonic though a slightly more manageable noise floor.
Big effing missing option (Score:2)
Digital camera.
Seriously, even unguided, a DSLR like a D7000 with 50mm 1.8 can catch so much at a dark location.
For example, simple 50mm shot of the Andromeda galaxy
10s exposure at ISO 6400 F1.8 (Hence some CA)
http://tanveer.smugmug.com/Tra... [smugmug.com]
Re:Big effing missing option (Score:2)
Get a Vixen Polarie. :)
I'm just getting back into astro photography, with a newer Canon 6D. A polarie will help for the dimmer objects.
Re:Big effing missing option (Score:2)
The scope on my rifle ... (Score:4, Funny)
I did feel a bit like a redneck astronomer, though.
Re:The scope on my rifle ... (Score:3)
Shoot for the moon.
Hey someone had to say it :)
Big honkin' 10 inch SNT (Score:2)
With 30 lbs counterweights (oof!), German equatorial mount, tripod (which seems to ring like a bell) and two cases of eye pieces, finders, defogger, red flashlight, etc. Also, a big flashlight, which runs on lead acid batteries to also power the scope (the main beam makes a heck of a Light Sabre on hazy nights!)
It's a lot to haul. I need a smaller Dob I can take and set up quickly.
Re:Big honkin' 10 inch SNT (Score:2)
...German equatorial mount...
Along which latitude does the German equator run?
iphone + app (Score:2)
It's not designed to assist in seeing something in space as much as it is for Finding something in space. There are tons of apps that allow you to overlay a map on the sky as you hold the phone up. Great for finding the planets, constelations, ISS, etc.
I'm not going to name off any of the apps as there are dozens of them from free to cheap, I switch back and forth between them.
Re:iphone + app (Score:2)
I saw the iFamily app Sky Guide in action this weekend, makes me wish I still had an iPhone. I'm going to purchase it for the iPad though, I'm interested in seeing whether the Night Vision (red) mode is effective, prior iApps would kill my night vision while I was trying to find my target in the sky (red headlamp and paper based star maps are my current setup - night vision takes longer to adapt as I've grown older)..
Missing aoption (Score:2)
My own telescope, currently pointed at neighbor's wife
Astral projection (Score:2)
rifle scopes (Score:4, Funny)
I have a 3-9x power scope on my deer rifle, but I wouldn't want the martians to misinterpret my skygazing.
Easy . . . (Score:2)
I use a microscope to observe the galaxy held in a trinket dangling from the collar of my cat, Orion.
8->
My friend's Maksutov-Cassegrain 4Kmm focal lenght (Score:2)
Re:My friend's Maksutov-Cassegrain 4Kmm focal leng (Score:2)
Can you prove that the Universe does not contain some part which exactly matches what you can see on KSP? We only need to find where it is, but I leave this work to people with better telescopes and more time to search.
The Minnesota Astronomical Society is awesome (Score:2)
There's the building with the permanent mount refractor. I think it's about 8". There's the building with the 16" reflectors with permanent mounts, computer control and refractor with astrocam riding one of them, there's the little hydrogen sun filter scope and the 24" dob. And the classroom building/clubhouse. That's just the facilities at the _main_ site. Not their biggest dob, not the biggest refractor. Hell, people with enough interest should MOVE here.
Hubble (Score:2)
I've rooted the control systems for the Hubble Space Telescope...
Don't try to outwierd me, three-eyes. (Score:3, Funny)
I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal.
--Zaphod Beeblebrox
Re:Don't try to outwierd me, three-eyes. (Score:3)
And interestingly a random poll of slashdot readers reveals that nearly 25% claim to have access to large telescopes inconvenient to carry or ones with even more light grasp and mass.
So that makes us different to the rest of the population - apart from not having a girlfriend and living in a basement of course....
So Slashdot is actually 'News for Nerds and backyard astronomers' from the sound of it.
Well I think its entirely understandable that the technologically interested have their own tools for accessing space.
I wonder if the same could be said of microscopes, I have one, but its nothing like the array of telescopes that seem to have come to live in the spare room..
Re:Don't try to outwierd me, three-eyes. (Score:2)
Yup space. Watching space. Planets and stuff. That's what we use our telescopes for. Not for peeking into windows. No sir. Not at all.
Re:Don't try to outwierd me, three-eyes. (Score:2)
Not having a girlfriend isn't abnormal, more than 50% of the population doesn't have a (romantic) girlfriend...
Re:Uhh... (Score:2)
Where's the option for touch? Cosmic braille - the only way to get a true feel for the awe and majesty of the universe.
Re: Uhh... (Score:2)
I'm blind you insensative clod!
Re:"I run the planetarium" (Score:2)
Digitalis Education Solutions (yes, I work for them) has sold around 500 fully digital planetarium systems in the last decade alone. About 65% sold are portable planetariums with most of those costing between $10k and $70k depending on model and when we sold them. We also develop the open source project called Nightshade which is used by dozens if not hundreds of DIY planetariums out there.
If you include the old and busted Starlabs still out in the world (old cylinder based planetariums that did little more than spin the same starfield over and over) and the other vendors, you're looking at probably 2,000-5,000 planetariums in the world.
Re:Missing option (Score:2)
Yeah, there are many fine instruments up there, and every one of them has a staff to operate them. Nothing like sitting up at 4am watching a remote disk for incoming image files, being the first or second person on Earth to see history-making planetary science images!