Posts Made By: Andrew Sorenson

Gosh guys, can I come over and play? It has been a month since I have made a drawing or gotten a decent pix of Mars. The seeing has been really rotten. (Iowa) I can't wait to get some good air and sky out again.

Drew Sorenson

Hi all,
I am new to this so my son helped me put up a pix of Mars I got tonight. I thought I finally had a good night for seeing so I went to get a better eyepiece, pencil and paper. I tried taking a pix with the higher power and it wouldn't focus worth a darn. It has been weeks since it has been good enough to make a drawing. I don't know how I am missing out so much on better seeing. Your drawings have been great. The pix was through an 8" f/10 Newtonian, but I prefer my 6" refractor, for which I need to build a new mount, or a 6" MakNewt. Any advice on how to process a pix like this, do I send in unprocessed pix; and are simple drawings of Mars useful? I don't know how to figure some of the requested information on the forms. Like magnitude. Earlier in the summer I finished a drawing of Mars after sunrise. Would faintest magnitude visible be something like -2?
Thanks,
Drew

Hi Guys,
Does anyone know who made the lens for the older Meade 90mm f/11 refractors, I think the model number I have is 396? Thanks, Drew

Hi Guys,
Does anyone know who made the lens for some of the older refractors? I have a model 386D and like the lens. I was hoping to find out where it came from. Thanks, Drew

Hi Gretchen,
I am rather new to this also (communicating by forum) and didn't see your request for information, but I'd like to put in a couple thoughts. If you live where there is a fair amount of light at night, a small reflector might have trouble picking up fainter objects like galaxies and nebula. I am a refractor nut and would suggest a good used Long refractor (maybe a Vixen, if you can find one) you might find on Astromart. It might be a lot better for looking at the moon and planets which will suffer less from light pollution. If you are out in a fairly dark site, and new to this, maybe a longer 6" or 8" reflector would be good for a lot of different objects. Most refractors and larger reflectors are too short in my opinion and suffer different problems. If you have a particular type of thing you want to see, or a particular place where you are Likely to use the scope, that might affect what type of scope you might want to get.
Good luck.
Drew

Hi Chote,
I couldn't read the Thai but as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. I am currently using a handheld digital camera for lunar and planetary pix. (No clock drive) I want to get into webcam imaging and have a QC3000. Very interesting comparison. When I get some extra cash and time I will probably start looking for a TUC. I was surprised there was such a difference.
Thanks for the comparison !
Drew

I found the papers for it and the model number is 386D.

You might also try a search for Stewart Beveridge. He is from Australia and I know he had a 6" f/22 refractor transportable. The tube broke down into 3 sections.

Geez Alan, that is Really neat !! Hypnotizing !! Is there a sound track? (maybe strong winds, or lightning from Jupiter, or Holst's "The Planets", Jupiter?) Can't wait for the sequel. (March 27-28?) Thanks for putting that up.

Timothy,
You mention a 'Meade 4.5 mirror' and 'unique' in the same sentence. On what grounds are you canning homemade optics?
(Sorry)
Drew