Conquer Club

riskllama wrote:every beer bortle i return to the bortle depot is a shiny dime in my pockets.

How much would you get if you returned two bottles?

Check out the link below and look one hour before sunrise the morning of January 11 and see the planets near the moon.

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/this-weeks-sky-at-a-glance-january-5-13/

JP

Light pollution is not the only pollution.

There are also:

• Ordinary pollution (the big brown cloud of nitric oxide, etc., that covers all industrialized countries impairs visibility) and
• humidity (crisp desert air allows more clear images than the air in more humid areas.)

These two also need to be taken into consideration when evaluating a stargazing time and place.

Thanks, Duk. That is why I want to head out West, less pollution and less humidity to view the night sky.

JP4F

Dukasaur wrote:Light pollution is not the only pollution.

There are also:

• Ordinary pollution (the big brown cloud of nitric oxide, etc., that covers all industrialized countries impairs visibility) and
• humidity (crisp desert air allows more clear images than the air in more humid areas.)

These two also need to be taken into consideration when evaluating a stargazing time and place.

Ok Justplay....i find your reply very misleading. There are maybe two other galaxies one may be lucky enough to see. I was referring to what we actually see in the night sky, i.e., celestial bodies in our galaxy. I believe 90 plus % of what we see with the naked eye is less than 1000 light years. Very few very bright objects may be up to 8-16 ly away. And my point was, all we are seeing is like .000003% of the shit in our galaxy. Incomprehensible.

Facts are facts. And what looks like stars are often galaxies. I think it was Hubble who first realized that these "stars" were indeed other galaxies, in the 1920s or 1930s.

You want to talk misleading? Look up Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

You assume that the more distant the object, the less likely it will be seen. That is CORRECT; it is called the inverse square law.

Most of what you see in the night sky is in our Milky Way Galaxy; that too is true.

JP

http://earthsky.org/tonight/can-we-see- ... way-galaxy

One of you wrote:

Are there any stars outside our own galaxy that we can see with just the eye?

The answer is no – unless you count seeing the combined light of many billions of stars. From the Northern Hemisphere, the only galaxy outside our Milky Way that’s easily visible to the eye is the great galaxy in the constellation Andromeda, also known as M31. More about the Andromeda galaxy at the bottom of this post.

From the Southern Hemisphere, it’s possible to see two dwarf galaxies, the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds.

So what are we seeing when we look up? The image at the top of this post shows a hazy band in the sky. This is the edgewise view into our own Milky Way galaxy. Our galaxy is about 100,000 light-years in a diameter, but it’s relatively flat, only about 10,000 light-years thick. So – if we’re looking in a dark sky – when we look toward the galactic disk, we see the starry band of the Milky Way.

And when we look up or down – away from the flat disk of the galaxy – we’re also seeing Milky Way stars. All of the stars we see with the eye alone belong to our Milky Way galaxy.

KoolBak wrote:Ok Justplay....i find your reply very misleading. There are maybe two other galaxies one may be lucky enough to see. I was referring to what we actually see in the night sky, i.e., celestial bodies in our galaxy. I believe 90 plus % of what we see with the naked eye is less than 1000 light years. Very few very bright objects may be up to 8-16 ly away. And my point was, all we are seeing is like .000003% of the shit in our galaxy. Incomprehensible.

How many OTHER galaxies is it possible to see with the naked eye? Two? Three?

Everything else is just reiteration....anyway....on we go.

The dark matter issue is fascinating by the way.

KoolBak wrote:pssst....dimey.....every star you see is the "milky way"

Technically every star you see is in the milky way galaxy (one could also nit pick on the ancient definition of "star") but the "milky way" itself refers to the spirals of the milky way that are towards the galactic center as seen from earth's perspective.

P.S. The Large Magellanic Cloud is visible to the naked eye.

The first recorded mention of the Large Magellanic Cloud was by the Persian astronomer `Abd al-Rahman al-Sufi Shirazi, (later known in Europe as "Azophi"), in his Book of Fixed Stars around 964 AD.

It's here! It's here! My eyepiece is here! The UPS guy even dropped it off in between the doors. I'm pretty excited.
Now I just need to layer up and make some hot tea or something.


https://www.telescope.com/32mm-Orion-Si ... p/8728.uts

The source I quoted says only those 3 galaxies are visible to the naked eye (assuming good viewing conditions, of course). And of course they are the 3 closest to the Milky Way.

Dark Matter cannot be SEEN by ordinary means of detection because its properties (it is theorized) will not allow it to interact with matter or E-M radiation (visible light, microwaves, UV, IR, etc.) It makes up (again, based on theory) some 23% of the known universe. Long live MACHOs and WIMPs.

So 76-82% is Dark Energy, leaving a paltry 4% for ordinary matter (stars, planets, and dust). THAT is incredible and rather difficult to fathom.

JP

KoolBak wrote:How many OTHER galaxies is it possible to see with the naked eye? Two? Three?

Everything else is just reiteration....anyway....on we go.

The dark matter issue is fascinating by the way.

Let us know what you see. You can set it up to view some 2nite/tomorrow morning. The Conjuncture the morning of Jan. 11 SHOULD be great viewing, based on what I read. ENJOY and have FUN viewing.

JP4F

2dimes wrote:It's here! It's here! My eyepiece is here! The UPS guy even dropped it off in between the doors. I'm pretty excited.
Now I just need to layer up and make some hot tea or something.


https://www.telescope.com/32mm-Orion-Si ... p/8728.uts

Now it's cold out and cloudy.

only read the first page, getting late, and i need sleep. but i wanted to chime in.

my mom bought my dad a telescope when i was little, it looked ok i guess. they took it back the next day and that was it.

i knew that the really bright stars were planets for a while. but not much more. one day about 10 years ago, i told a friend and he didn't believe me so i went home and started research.

my first telescope was a 5" celestron dobsonian with a pretty flimsy equilateral mount. i paid about 140 for it, it did ok. after seeing the moon and whatever planets were available i got bored. i bought a few books and after about 5 hours of searching i finally found the ring nebula one night. that kind of hooked me.

what i've learned since then, a 5" scope is not a bad start to see if you would be interested. but the main component that you need is a good laser sight. and you don't need to worry so much about magnification. aperture is the key. seriously the laser sight is the most important thing to get, look at the moon, sight it in, and put in like a 25mm lens and there's things to see. and research how to set up the tripod, it takes the earth spinning out of the equation.

i now have a 10" orion. it stands about 5 feet tall. it was 500 bucks or so, it's ok, i guess. but i wish i would have just bought a 16". i can't remember the brand but there is a company out there that makes one collapsible for about $1800 or somewhere in that range. that's kind of the limit i would spend. above that and they get exponentially ridiculous. i think a 20" will run you like 15k

the most productive book i found was "the national Audubon society; field guide to the night sky'... or something like that. learn how to use it and the sky's the limit. (pun?)

you can get automatic scopes, and manual. to each his on there. i prefer the manual because most of my enjoyment comes out of locating the object and knowing where it is. using an automatic is not much of a thrill. you just type it in and poof there it is. you'll never really learn that way in my opinion. one thing is the automatic version of my 500 dollar scope is about 1800 dollars.

if you don't want to start with a large investment, just buy a nice pair of 10x50 binoculars and learn the different constellations. you can see a few items with binocs, and that Pleiades star cluster is a pretty neat view. you can also make out the Andromeda galaxy, but it's not really much to see. just a whispy haze that you probably won't recognize right off. it will at least give you an idea of what you want to do.

Too bad about the clouds. The day I saw the Galilean moons and the rings of Saturn had been re-scheduled 2x because of rain and clouds. Those things happen, and is part of viewing the sky.

Hopefully tomorrow morning (1/11/18) will be a better one for you and for viewing. That is supposed to be a really good time for the viewing.

JP

2dimes wrote:Now it's cold out and cloudy.

Thanks for sharing; there are good insights there, WILLIAMS5232

JP

Whoa, Williams, welcome aboard.

I'm kind of surprised at how much better things have got since I went from. "Wow, I want a telescope because I'm a little kid and have no idea what I'm doing." To "Uh, that's all you can see? Boring." To "I can buy a telescope that actually kind of works with a good stand for $60? I' in!" To now.

The telescope dealer here that actually knows things is kind of snobby. They won't even bring in the eyepiece I just bought. I don't blame them, if I was single with a paying gig I might have skipped it. I think my next eyepiece will be over $100 from there but I don't think I'll be buying a $900 one. It might be a while before I get another. I'm not sure I can justify buying that for my low cost current set up. I'm not using my gear enough to talk my wife into upgrades yet.

The automated scopes definately look good currently, since I need to learn the sky, instead of getting apps like my wife who has no night vision suggested.

jusplay4fun wrote:Too bad about the clouds. The day I saw the Galilean moons and the rings of Saturn had been re-scheduled 2x because of rain and clouds. Those things happen, and is part of viewing the sky.

Hopefully tomorrow morning (1/11/18) will be a better one for you and for viewing. That is supposed to be a really good time for the viewing.

JP

I just peeked out the window with the thermometer, it's -30 or so right now. The sky is a pretty bright white glow, reflecting back at me from the clouds over our cities class 9 bortle scale light pollution.

I have to admit, before I saw that, I was over excited and actually thinking of giving my new eyepiece a try.

You seem to be pretty happy to go out when bare skin will freeze to metal, lenses fogging and all the other things that happen at those temperatures. I'm just not that hearty anymore. Maybe I should have tried harder to get together with that nurse friend Susan wanted to set me up with in 1999, she lived in Hawaii.

I did put on long johns etc. to take my son out tobogganing on Monday but I'm just not into being out there for very long. I don't think tinkering with the telescope will be much fun if I need to put on too many layers with my big mitts and I'm not keen on getting it wet when it switches back to melting temperature.

Living in the foothills of the Rockie Mountains makes the weather odd. It basically snowed a foot twice before Christmas and was cold, then we had a couple chinooks, obviously it was wet with slush everywhere as two feet of snow melted. Then it cooled off and the remaining slush froze, so there was snow, ice and some bare patches. Now it's -30 and snowing again.

I don't even remember how it feels wanting to go outside between November and April anymore. I had to quit snowboarding because my back went out. That was the only reason I can remember that motivated me to bundle up and go out.

I'm probably going to wait until things warm up. I dread trying to figure out where in the ice and snow to set up and things will be a bit easier if I buy a folding table to lay everything out on. I would also prefer it to melt and dry a bit.

I'm probably going to observe this mostly until June.
https://cam01.sci.ucalgary.ca/AllSkyCam ... tImage.JPG

2dimes wrote:It's here! It's here! My eyepiece is here! The UPS guy even dropped it off in between the doors. I'm pretty excited.
Now I just need to layer up and make some hot tea or something.

Now that's impressive. I wish they had eye pieces like that when I was younger.

tzor wrote:Now that's impressive. I wish they had eye pieces like that when I was younger.

I know and it's not even a good mid quality one now days. You should check out the fancy Teleview brand units. Problem is they start at just over $100cad.

I tried it and it's really nice except there is a spot where the angle mirror is, because it's too wide a field of view for my baby dobsonian which I don't mind, since that means I can probably see the maximum field of view the little thing is capable of.

I bought a pelican case today for $114cad. Now I can protect my lunar filter, the new eyepiece, the two crappy eyepieces and any more stuff I buy. If I quit telescopes, I can use it for something else.

how many beer bortles can it hold?

Probably a few here's the site if you want to check the specs, http://www.pelican.com but I have to put beer in a cooler unless we have the wife's trailer then they might be in the fridge. Plus the fancy case is to keep liquids away from the delicate gear.

One thing is for sure, unless it's a European draght with the floating widget, beer tastes better cold and out of a bortle.

agreed. and yet, i almost always end up buying cans...

Safer, keep a steady temperature and on sale more often?

This isnt a gun thread....

Not yet, currently it's a beer thread.

I saw the moon, Jupiter and Mars; I will now look for 2 more planets:

Very far to their lower left, near the southeast horizon, use binoculars to help find Mercury and Saturn as dawn brightens. They're only about 1° apart. Mercury, on the right, is the brighter of the two.

JP