/sci/ - Science & Math

I'm planning to purchase my first ever telescope soon and begin making some observations, but I have no idea what I'm doing. Can somebody give me some pointers re: what type of telescope to buy, best weather conditions/locations for astronomy? Cheers in advance my fellas

I think I saw a star relatively recently.

>>11096594
I suggest a budget refractor or a 6-8" reflector to start. Refractors are good to go out of the box; reflectors need collimating/alightment.

>>11096619

>>11096651
>you can tell them apart because this ones a big blue dot and this ones a big blue dot and this ones a yellowish dot but this ones a big blue dot and this ones another yellow dot

>>11096693
Anything to contribute to the thread?

>>11096574
Check out my first jab at astrophotography :)
Anyone know the cluster on the bottom-right?

>>11096761
If your NH and that's Cassiopeia in the top right then bottom right cluster is likely the Pleiades.

>>11096574
>managed to view Messier 1
Here's my picture of it. It's annoying when you observe it visually, you want to look directly at it but as soon as you do that it disappears.

>>11096761
>Anyone know the cluster on the bottom-right?
Pleaides

>>11098611
>>11099359
Sweet

>>11099476
Andromeda is visible in your image.

>>11099574
Oh damn that's awesome

>>11099359
>>11098611
pleiades are the reason i got hooked

>>11099574
If you have a small telescope, like 3-4 inches diameter, which can handle at least 50x magnification, try NGC 7662 in andromeda.
Nice and very underestimated planetary nebula.
Haven't used my telescope in years though, since my job makes me tired every night...

>>11099598
>try NGC 7662 in andromeda
Oh yeah, the blue snowball. I'll have to check that one out when the weather and moon allows for it.
The only planetary nebulae I've looked at through my telescope is the ring nebula, crab nebula and the owl nebula. The ring nebula was the coolest of the three.

>>11096742
imagine getting assblasted over stars

>>11099626
no u

>>11099655

>>11099677
hah gottem

>>11099681
im calling moot

What is that moon sized collection of 7-8 stars to the far right of the big dipper?

>>11096651
> ywn use your spaceship to fly to the set of greenedraw.com, where Zerg from Rigil Kentaurus is producing another contender for the intergalactic porn oscar

>>11099733
>ywn know the method the rest of the galaxy is using to share interstellar porn
>everyone is laughing at us for thinking our beamed out radio transmissions mean anything

>>11096574
How much is the nightsky changing with satellites?

Last i saw a perfect clear greens and purple milkyway was sailing in 2016. I could see satellites then and the ISS ofcourse and the novelty was cool but the super constellations have me worried.

>>11099931
>being too casual to satgaze the Musk swarms
Speed up old timer

>>11099617
>moon allows for it.
don't wait for the moon
NGC 7662 is small and bright, moon doesn't harm it much. You just need higher magnification to distinguish it from an ordinary star.

>>11101538
>You just need higher magnification to distinguish it from an ordinary star.
I have an 8inch reflector so viewing it won't be a problem. Damn, now I'm really
Keen to go out and do some stargazing. It was a while since I did some visual observations, I've mostly done astrophotography.

/p/ also sometimes has some cool astro stuff

How much would I have to spend to be able to see some interesting stuff in outer space? And preferably take nice pictures.
This was a childhood dream.

>>11103108
Just to see cool stuff? 600 for an 8-inch dob and all the stuff, photos are overrated, rarely ever compete with your eye unless you wanna fork over more than a thousand for tracking mounts and stuff

>>11103108
a decent binocular is a good start

>>11099342
is that fake? I unironically haven't seen more than 3 stars in years

>>11096594
If you don't know the sky, you won't know where to point the scope. My recommendation: buy a big pair of decent but cheap binoculars (suggest Celestron 15x70s), a tripod adapter, and a tripod. If you find the sky is boring, you'll still have good binocs. Also buy the book "The Stars: A New Way To See Them" by H. A. Rey (of "Curious George" fame). It's as little $4 on EBay. Learn the sky with the book and binocs, then consider a scope. Try going to a star party to get an idea of what they do before you buy.

>>11096574
Wow I didn't know that Jupiter is basically as bright as the moon in the rural sky
>>11096651
>All these cool (hot) stars
>You will never get the chance to visit them all
It hurts bros

>>11096761
You've got pretty much this going on. So you're in a very southern state and you took this about 7 PM.

>>11103342
Thanks. That's a lot for a start, but I'll save up for it.

>>11103342
>>11104671
On Amazon : Sky-Watcher 8" Collapsible Dobsonian Telescope for 455$
You may get at least a 7mm-21mm zoom eyepiece for
easily track and watch (60$).
A laser-collimater is also advised for a Dob (around 30$).

>>11103986
>is that fake?
Nope, and it's not even my best picture. This picture of M51 would be one of the best images I've taken. My camera takes monochrome images but I produced this color image by snapping three pictures with a red, green and blue color filter and then combining the three into one final image.
In truth I don't just take three images because each color set consist of a dozen exposures. Galaxies and nebulae are very dim objects so the signal will be on the same level as the noise that the camera sensor produces. So to get rid of the noise and get a clearer picture you can take many pictures and then average out the noise.
When I created this image of M51 I took 16 images with the red filter, 10 with the green and I was planning to take 10 with the blue but unfortunately the battery that powers the camera was starting to lose its charge so it couldn't provide enough juice to power the camera which resulted in it producing fucked up pictures. The first exposure came out fine but the rest had these black lines going across the image which was a shame because then I couldn't filter out the noise on the blue channel which is why the background isn't completely black. It's more blueish and noisy.

>>11105806
>The first exposure came out fine but the rest had these black lines going across the image
Here's an example of one of those exposures that came out wrong due to the battery. It made me really worried because I first thought the camera was broken and I had spent a lot of money on the damn thing. Luckily it was just the battery.

>>11105806
>So to get rid of the noise and get a clearer picture you can take many pictures and then average out the noise.
Here's an image that shows what stacking images can do to the noise level.

>>11105806
Fucking hell I need to get me a telescope, care to post your setup?

Awesome pic

I always wanted a telescope, nut never knew what to look for. Any tips?
Is magnification the most important thing too look for?

>>11105833
>care to post your setup?
Here it is. The biggest challenge with astrophotography is to keep the object completely still as you're taking the exposure. I usually do 5min exposures and if the object isn't still it will produce blurry images.
My telescope is mounted on a motorized equatorial mount and if the mounts rotational axis is exactly parallel with the earths then in theory you would only need to rotate one axis to follow objects in the sky but it's almost impossible to reach that level of precision which is why I have a smaller telescope attached to the larger one. The larger one is the one that's taking the photographs while the smaller ones job is to keep track on a single star and if it notices that the star deviates from the center it will send correction commands to the mount and bring it back to the center which also results in the object being photographed to be completely still.

>>11096628
Any collimation tips /sci/? I have watched the YouTubes and I think my collection mirror is straight. I don't have a cap, cateye, or laser, as I would like to be able to collimate without. I own a Meade Polaris 130. I can't seem to get the aberrations (rainbows and starbursts) out. I mostly view planets, and I know this scope is better for nebulas etc., and my backyard is 7 transitioned to 4 (live behind a mountain blocking city lights). I have used Meade Plossls and the Chinese Asperics. Is it just a shitty 'scope?

>>11105875
>The larger one is the one that's taking the photographs

How does that work? I mean, does the telescope has a camera integrated or is the laptop taking the pics?

What operative system is needed for the laptop's program? Windows?

>>11105854
>Is magnification the most important thing too look for?
No. High magnification is useless in small telescopes since everything will be blurry due to the angular resolution being reached.
Imagine you have two stars in the night sky that is separated by a tiny degree and you have two telescopes which have the same magnification but different mirror sizes (lenses if we're talking about refractor telescopes). In the small telescope the two stars will look like one single dot while in the larger one you will see two sharper dots with a gap between. In the small telescope the angular resolution has been reached while in the bigger one it has not so what you want to look for is aperture size but the downsize to that is you will lose portability so you'll have to find a balance point.
I would recommend that you read up on different telescope types, how they work and operate, things like that.

>>11105888
>I mean, does the telescope has a camera integrated or is the laptop taking the pics?
The camera is just mounted on the focuser of the telescope with a filter wheel in between. The laptop is what I use to control the imaging camera, mount, and guide camera.

>What operative system is needed for the laptop's program? Windows?
I use Windows 7

>>11099743
>105,700 light years
Didn't realize it was this bad.

>>11105888
>>11105941
Here's the camera and filter wheel.

>>11105883
>I don't have a cap, cateye, or laser, as I would like to be able to collimate without.
The most accurate way to collimate a telescope from what I understand is by star testing. Putting a star out of focus. I guess it's a hard technique to master but a good one to know as an amateur astronomer, also you need no tools.

>tfw metropolis
one day...

>>11105941
>>11105962
Nice, thank you for the info, I'll start investigating from these

>>11105951
Bad?

>>11105985
Your picture looks like from maksutov whose collimation isn't a thing for an amateur.
Ordinary newtonian is on the other hand ment to be collimated by an ordinary owner.

>>11106014
I suppose it just means there's so much more to be explored. Doesn't matter because we'll all be dead anyway.
>tfw born 800 years early

>>11105962
>>11106012
The camera also has a peltier cooler so that you can cool down the sensor which will significantly reduce the sensor noise. I think it can reduce the temperature by 20°C below ambient temperature. Really nice feature.

>>11106025
>Your picture looks like from maksutov
Yeah, it's from a maksutov or a schmidt cassegrain. I just wanted to use a picture togheter with my post.
>whose collimation isn't a thing for an amateur.
It's a little trickier I would think but I would not say it's outside the limit of an amateur. Collimation by star testing is doable even with catadioptric reflectors.

>>11106012
You're gonna spend a ton of money for a very intensive and frustrating hobby. Hope you're ready.

>>11106069
I imagine it is not going to be cheap, but I have so much shit going on that I can't get into this right now, I'm seeing it as long term project, the information provided by this anon >>11106031 seems to me as a good head start

>>11106069
>frustrating hobby.
Air humidity is my worst enemy. It's so annoying watching the exposures getting darker and darker as the dew builds up on the mirrors. After that you can't do anything but dismantle the whole rig and call it a day (night).
I'm not so keen on using heat bands since that would probably introduce air turbulence in the telescope tube since I'm using a reflector.

>>11106026
Imagine being those first lucky few who make it
Getting to ramble on about the old days when people died in less than a century

>>11104671
If you want really cheap then you can buy a 4.5in tabletop telescope called starblast that can do some good.

>>11105903

Thanks!

>>11099592
There's a little public observatory with telescope pads near Joshua Tree NP, and when I was younger my dad and I stopped by there on a road trip for one of their public stargazing nights. One guy had his scope on the Pleiades, and was encouraging people to stop by and look because the view was great- it was a perfect clear and dry night.

I can confidently say that it was and is the most beautiful thing I've ever seen.

>>11096628
Love those dobsonians, easy as hell to pull out, not too heavy, basically all one piece. Hard to screw up if you're a beginner, and you can see some good things.

>>11096651
Why not the brightest star in the night sky: the sun?

>>11106744
>night sky
>the sun

>>11096574
i saw the orionids last week
also a flock of glowing birds

9 here and not even inner city. Think I saw jupiter once.

>>11099931
Will utterly destroy Astronomy and Stargazing as we know it if we don't act now.
Write to your local representatives, get in contact with local environmentalist groups, urge local astronomers to join the anti-sat movement
Band up! Resist!

>>11108302
If human activity in space is rampant enough to ruin amateur stargazing, that's a good thing.

>>11096574
So I am probably dumb but I traveled out to the desert and waited 45 minutes and it was so dark I couldn't see my hand in front of my face. Why couldn't I see stars? It was just dark. Am I dumb?

>>11108320
Was it overcast, maybe?

>>11106069
>buy telescope when I was 16 after watching Stargazing Live
>oh boy I'm going to explore the galaxy
>everything is speck
>mars looked like a very very slightly red speck
>well this is interesting
>sell the telescope

>>11108340
I don't think so. I actually checked to make sure there were not going to be clouds. It was just super dark and I thought maybe it would take time to acclimate but I never saw any stars. I joked with my girlfriend at the time that the sky wasn't loading.

>>11108584
it was probably cloudy and you didn't realize

>>11108649
Thanks for the replies. I will give it another shot within the next few weeks. Very interested in seeing stars and I know I should be able to do so at some point.

>>11106744
I'm pickle rick

>>11096574
I got a telescope (Celestron Astromaster 130EQ) about 2 months ago, and since then I've observed the Moon, Jupiter, Saturn, and Venus (currently only as a dot, but I wanna try again when it gets closer to Earth). I'm gonna try for Mars, the ISS, and possibly Mercury and Uranus. I'm in a suburban environment so I can't really do DSOs.

Unfortunately, I found out not too long ago that that specific model of telescope uses a spherical mirror rather than a parabolic one, which limits its useful magnification to about 60x. I got it fairly cheaper than retail price so I don't exactly regret buying it, but I'm definitely gonna be looking to upgrade once I can afford it (probably when I start working in a few months). Unfortunately, all large-diameter (200 mm or so) telescopes I've seen are dobsonians, but I think I'd prefer an equatorial mount. Anyone got recommendations?