starbrewer
Full Member
God can go to hell
Posts: 226
|
Post by starbrewer on May 28, 2009 15:03:00 GMT -5
Myself and Star Cluster will be your guides!
2009 is the International Year of Astronomy. In 1609, Galileo first pointed a spyglass at the night sky, and soon after was hated by the church. Nowadays we have space telescopes, because the atmosphere can be a bitch.
First some things about telescopes:
Refractors: objective lens and eyepiece. First telescopes were refractors.
(Newtonian) Reflectors: they are the least expensive scope for any given aperture. Although the optics are simple and cheap, they are the only scope that can be placed on a Dobsonian mount. If you are good at collimating, they aren't too bad.
Catadioptric: the folding of light makes for a shorter tube that is easier to mount. Expensive!
Things to look for:
Venus: brightest planet, sometimes visible in middle of day. Goes through phases like the moon, but because of all its clouds, it's featureless.
Mars: comes into opposition every 26 months. Big, bright, reddish, fun to look at. Next opposition is 29 January 2010. Last opposition was 24 December 2007.
Jupiter: Next brightest after Venus. Can see colored cloud bands. If you have enough aperture, you can see the Great Red Spot, and four Galilean moons. Opposition is in August.
Saturn: The funnest planet to view. Rings! This year, the rings are plane-crossing, and will appear flat. Give it seven years, and they will be at maximum tilt. Opposition was in March.
Uranus: If you know where to look. Magnitude is 5.8, which puts it at the borderline of nakedeye visibility.
Also, moon, Pleiades, Andromeda galaxy, summer Milky Way.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on May 28, 2009 15:06:00 GMT -5
Why do you people hate Pluto so much?
|
|
|
Post by Star Cluster on May 28, 2009 15:39:42 GMT -5
Why do you people hate Pluto so much? Because Pluto just kept hanging around pretending to be a planet when we all know, as Carico pointed out, it was only a star. It's uppity self had to be put in its place or other bodies in our solar system might try to gain planetary status. And we just couldn't let that happen. ETA: /sarcasm and Actually, Pluto is now classified as a dwarf planet and isn't even the largest of those. There are several dwarf planets in the Kuiper Belt and one discovered in 2005, and since named Eris, is the largest of these and surpasses Pluto in mass by approx. 25%. Eris is, on average, about 3 times the distance from the sun as Pluto and has a highly elongated and erratic orbit at about 45 degrees to the solar plane. So it was either classify all these new larger bodies in the Kuiper belt as planets, or reclassify Pluto as a dwarf planet. And since Pluto's "moon" Cheron is almost the same size as Pluto itself, and they actually orbit a spot located in the space between them, the reclassification of Pluto just made more sense.
|
|
nuitarihw
Junior Member
What's holding up is a mirror
Posts: 90
|
Post by nuitarihw on May 28, 2009 16:07:28 GMT -5
Ah, I love my telescope, seeing Jupiter's red spot and four moons, along with Saturn's Rings made for a great summer last year when I pulled it out. Any tips on finding Uranus? Never thought to look for that one. Would Neptune be a possibility to spot with a decent telescope?
|
|
|
Post by Star Cluster on May 28, 2009 16:20:29 GMT -5
And starbrewer. Neptune is also visible if you have a telescope with a large enough focal length. You would probably need a FL of 1500 or more in order to see it's distinctive blue tint. It's next opposition will be mid-August, '09 and should have an apparent magnitude of 8.
And, yes, I have seen it through my telescope.
For those that don't know, when speaking of apparent magnitudes, the lower the number, the brighter the object. On average, the dimmest objects that can be seen with the unaided eye is 6 and with an amateur backyard telescope is 12, although sky conditions, light pollution, and some other factors have a lot to do with it. The brightest starts (Sirius, Vega, etc) have magnitudes of around 0(+/-1,) while the brighter planets can have magnitudes from -2 to -5. A full moon has an apparent magnitude of -12.6.
|
|
|
Post by DarkfireTaimatsu on May 28, 2009 16:25:29 GMT -5
Why do you people hate Pluto so much? Because Pluto just kept hanging around pretending to be a planet when we all know, as Carico pointed out, it was only a star. It's uppity self had to be put in its place or other bodies in our solar system might try to gain planetary status. And we just couldn't let that happen. ETA: /sarcasm and Actually, Pluto is now classified as a dwarf planet and isn't even the largest of those. There are several dwarf planets in the Kuiper Belt and one discovered in 2005, and since named Eris, is the largest of these and surpasses Pluto in mass by approx. 25%. Eris is, on average, about 3 times the distance from the sun as Pluto and has a highly elongated and erratic orbit at about 45 degrees to the solar plane. So it was either classify all these new larger bodies in the Kuiper belt as planets, or reclassify Pluto as a dwarf planet. And since Pluto's "moon" Cheron is almost the same size as Pluto itself, and they actually orbit a spot located in the space between them, the reclassification of Pluto just made more sense. Pluto will always be a planet in my heart. =< And what does this mean for Sailor Pluto?
|
|
|
Post by Star Cluster on May 28, 2009 16:25:57 GMT -5
Ah, I love my telescope, seeing Jupiter's red spot and four moons, along with Saturn's Rings made for a great summer last year when I pulled it out. Any tips on finding Uranus? Never thought to look for that one. Would Neptune be a possibility to spot with a decent telescope? Ah, you posted this while I was typing my last post. When at opposition, Uranus and Neptune both will be in the SE sky at about 45 degrees or so. The best way to find them if you don't have a "go to" scope is to obtain a copy of an astronomy program such as Starry Night. Then you can look up where each planet is on any given night, note the stars around them, and find them that way.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 28, 2009 16:37:35 GMT -5
My telescope sucks, when I point it at anything, all I see is a slightly larger white dot.
|
|
|
Post by Star Cluster on May 28, 2009 16:47:01 GMT -5
My telescope sucks, when I point it at anything, all I see is a slightly larger white dot. What are the specs on your 'scope? Do you know the size of the objective and what the focal length is? Are the white dots solid or do they look like donuts? If they look like donuts, you are not achieving focus. This could be caused by a defective focuser, but usually it's from using the wrong sized eyepiece. Try using a lower powered eyepiece if this is happening. If the dots are solid, then that's what stars will look like, even if they are in focus. If you are only seeing one or two at a time, again, you probably need a lower powered eyepiece so you can get a larger field of view.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 28, 2009 17:04:35 GMT -5
I've pointed it at what I was pretty sure were planets.
But I haven't used it in forever, & I don't really know anything about telescopes, so I can't really answer your questions.
I just felt like bitching, because I remembered there was some event I wanted to see with it way back when, & it wasn't cooperating with me.
|
|
starbrewer
Full Member
God can go to hell
Posts: 226
|
Post by starbrewer on May 28, 2009 17:15:37 GMT -5
Aperture is the width of the objective lens or curved mirror. It is the most important aspect of a telescope. It determines highest useful magnification, which is 50 times aperture in inches or 2 times aperture in millimeters. Go beyond this magnification, and images become fuzzy, no details, no Cassini division in Saturn's rings, no red spot on Jupiter, no colored patches on Mars, no dust and star lanes in galaxies. Magnification is focal length of objective or curved mirror divided by focal length of eyepiece.
|
|
|
Post by Star Cluster on May 28, 2009 17:16:47 GMT -5
I've pointed it at what I was pretty sure were planets. But I haven't used it in forever, & I don't really know anything about telescopes, so I can't really answer your questions. I just felt like bitching, because I remembered there was some event I wanted to see with it way back when, & it wasn't cooperating with me. Oh, okay then.
|
|
starbrewer
Full Member
God can go to hell
Posts: 226
|
Post by starbrewer on May 28, 2009 19:06:24 GMT -5
200x is often the highest useful magnification, because of atmospheric instability. If you can get a stable sky, move to the desert or on top of a mountain, then go beyond 200x.
EDIT: highest useful magnification, regardless of aperture
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on May 28, 2009 19:11:27 GMT -5
"Any tips for finding Uranus?"
Damn, this site is getting naughtier by the day.
|
|
|
Post by Shano on May 28, 2009 20:09:39 GMT -5
Whoever asked about "uranus" I would assume that torefer to me. Sorry to disappoint you. I am a pitcher, not a catcher. But I would certainly like to play with your telescope... the longer the focal length is the better, but I would prefer average diameter. I would most certainly prefer it to pointed to the zenith btw.
|
|