Posts Made By: Doug Scobel

You mean there's a time when you *don't* need more astro gear? I didn't know that was possible.

Doug

Bob, check out this image of M51 off a NASA site. There are a couple foreground stars in about the position you described. Could one of those be it?

Doug Scobel


http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0207/m51_hallas_big.jpg

Inge, in my 13" I've found that most planetary nebulae are bluish-greenish, but the "Ghost of Jupiter" NGC 3242, and the "Saturn nebula" NGC 7009, are both a very striking green color.

Doug Scobel

Thanks for the kind remarks, everyone.

Sketching isn't that bad in the cold. What I did was quickly put in all the field stars, taking the glove off just long enough to draw one or two. Once those were done, I then quickly put in the comet, in very "rough" form. Once inside the house where it was nice and toasty, I cleaned it up.

There is a danger when observing in such cold temps, though. I had my glove off and grabbed a 2" eyepiece. My finger and thumb tips started to actually burn. I immediately put it down, thinking that I was freezing some skin cells. The lesson? Don't touch bare metal without your gloves or mittens!

Doug

Verrrry nice, Paul!

Global warming my a... er, I mean derriere!

Hey, Daryl! Not much better here near Ann Arbor. I feel your pain! I'm sure you have it worse there near Lake Michigan, though. );

FYI, our offer still stands as far as you coming down to observe with us Lowbrows. Here's something you might be interested in - you'd be more than welcome!

http://www.astromart.com/messages.asp?message_id=162728&page=

Doug

Floyd, the 12.5" has about 31% less light grasp than the 15". That's less than a magnitude. Both focal ratios are nearly the same. So, if other factors are equivalent (or nearly so), such as coating reflectivity, relative size of secondary mirror, thermal management, then visually I would expect:
- Stars will look a little less bright then in the 15", but not by much. For example, globulars won't look quite as good.
- With the same eyepieces, extended objects (like nebulae, galaxies, planets) will have about the same brightness, but will appear a little smaller.
- With the same eyepieces, the sky background will have about the same darkness.
- Real FOV in your eyepieces will be a little bigger.
- At high magnifications, the larger Swayze mirror ought to give better resolution, but you probably won't be able to tell except on nights of exceptional atmospheric seeing. Of course, if the Meade mirror is a dog, then you may notice more of the time.

Wish I had your kind of problems (we won't talk about the kind I do have, tho!).

Good luck,
Doug Scobel

Ivan, ever since around 1970 all I’ve done is what you stated you used to do. That is, nearly exclusively visual. I’ve done a little wide field photography with a barn door drive, but that’s about it. All of my scopes are homemade, no drives, just star charts and star hopping. I’ve always wanted to do photography, but I’ve never been willing to spring the cash I would need for a good astrophoto setup. Maybe what your saying is that I should thank myself for not going that way? Maybe so. For instance, I found that observing and sketching Mars last summer and fall with a new homemade scope was extremely rewarding.

OTOH, those that go whole hog into imaging probably do it as much because they love playing with technology as they do astronomy. It’s as if astronomy gives them the “excuse” (not that one is needed) to play around with the hardware and software that they need to come up with their images. I for one am really glad that they do – what one now sees coming out of the amateur ranks is often nothing short of stunning!

So wherever you land, like a strictly visual dinosaur like me, or those who go the technical route, or those that are somewhere in between, don’t feel guilty. Just enjoy it. Diversity is good, no?

Thanks for the observation, Tim. I hope to get out and observe it this new moon cycle, if I get any clear weather.

My scanner is a cheap one also (Lexmark 73), but I can have it scan in color, B&W, and grayscale. I find that I get the best results in grayscale. I think that it's nearly impossible to get the relative brightness right, though. The eye has way more dynamic range than what one can capture on paper.

Thanks for sharing!
Doug Scobel