Any Astronomy Buffs Here?

[aimo]

Too many trees, dammit!

[bundabergdevil]

This may be a little bit random but I have it on my life list to go to space. I've got about 40-45 years (assuming average lifespan) for technology to ramp up and prices to come down to the point a consumer trip above the Karman Line would be accessible.

Has anyone run those numbers? Think it'll happen. I think as I near my golden years, the tech will be pretty close and I'm hoping the price point is within my reach.

[DevilHorse]

This may be a little bit random but I have it on my life list to go to space. I've got about 40-45 years (assuming average lifespan) for technology to ramp up and prices to come down to the point a consumer trip above the Karman Line would be accessible.

Has anyone run those numbers? Think it'll happen. I think as I near my golden years, the tech will be pretty close and I'm hoping the price point is within my reach.

I'm not sure what you think you're average lifespan is, but a child born today will have an average lifespan over 100. You could argue that sitting on a rocket could, on average, shorten that average lifespan though

Larry
DevilHorse

[bundabergdevil]

I'm not sure what you think you're average lifespan is, but a child born today will have an average lifespan over 100. You could argue that sitting on a rocket could, on average, shorten that average lifespan though

Larry
DevilHorse

Oh, nice. The first person to respond is the Physics PhD w/ the NASA grant and he promptly craps on my dreams. C'mon, man!

Aren't tourist trips to ISS on SpaceX already offered? I'm middle-aged and crossing my fingers that my discretionary wealth and the private space travel cost curve will intersect sometime in the next 45 years or so, which would put me mid-80s.

[DevilHorse]

Oh, nice. The first person to respond is the Physics PhD w/ the NASA grant and he promptly craps on my dreams. C'mon, man!

Aren't tourist trips to ISS on SpaceX already offered? I'm middle-aged and crossing my fingers that my discretionary wealth and the private space travel cost curve will intersect sometime in the next 45 years or so, which would put me mid-80s.

I apologize if that was a bit heavy. The emoticon was intended to soften it a bit.
We are living longer, and folks like Virgin Galactic are on the 'verge' of offering seats into space.
SpaceX is delivering cargo and astronauts to the ISS.
That's great.

But just last week I watched the SpaceX experimental Mars ship, had trouble landing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLw4TB0xvHM

OK, that is not what they are using to the ISS.
But it still gave me the willies when thinking about MY stepping on one of these rockets for real.
These are the same guys, and I imagine similar/same technology, doing the SpaceX astronaut deliveries.
I imagine if you want to go up in a spaceship, you'll want to come down too?!
Perhaps this is just the rocket boosters, but still..

You're not the only one who has thought about it.
That was the mindset I was in when I posted.

Larry
DevilHorse

[bundabergdevil]

I apologize if that was a bit heavy. The emoticon was intended to soften it a bit.
We are living longer, and folks like Virgin Galactic are on the 'verge' of offering seats into space.
SpaceX is delivering cargo and astronauts to the ISS.
That's great.

But just last week I watched the SpaceX experimental Mars ship, had trouble landing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLw4TB0xvHM

OK, that is not what they are using to the ISS.
But it still gave me the willies when thinking about MY stepping on one of these rockets for real.
These are the same guys, and I imagine similar/same technology, doing the SpaceX astronaut deliveries.
I imagine if you want to go up in a spaceship, you'll want to come down too?!
Perhaps this is just the rocket boosters, but still..

You're not the only one who has thought about it.
That was the mindset I was in when I posted.

Larry
DevilHorse

Oh, it’s fine. I was laughing.

Like I said, I’m hoping for a price point and safety improvements, even for just a quick pop out of the atmosphere, by the time I’m in my 70s or 80s when I might be more inclined to take a higher risk...like GHWB taking up skydiving late in life. FWIW, I know there’s considerable risk, my father was at NASA during Challenger.

[DevilHorse]

Oh, it’s fine. I was laughing.

Like I said, I’m hoping for a price point and safety improvements, even for just a quick pop out of the atmosphere, by the time I’m in my 70s or 80s when I might be more inclined to take a higher risk...like GHWB taking up skydiving late in life. FWIW, I know there’s considerable risk, my father was at NASA during Challenger.

Ahhh, the Challenger disaster. A very scary chapter.
My experiment was partly funded by a NASA grant through the PACE program - Physics and Chemistry Experiments:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19810061654
As were many other interesting experiments that exposed phenomena and properties that experienced gravitational effects.

When Challenger 'happened', and the space shuttle program was suspended for a time, a large back-log of experiments happened, and funding impacts as you can imagine. Funding dried up, Students moved on, Experiments never escaped the bonds of mother earth..

Larry
DevilHorse

[duke79]

This may be a little bit random but I have it on my life list to go to space. I've got about 40-45 years (assuming average lifespan) for technology to ramp up and prices to come down to the point a consumer trip above the Karman Line would be accessible.

Has anyone run those numbers? Think it'll happen. I think as I near my golden years, the tech will be pretty close and I'm hoping the price point is within my reach.

My guess is that you will make it to "space". I would bet that within 10 (or maybe 15) years, trips to space (i.e., above a certain level in the atmosphere) will be more common than people might believe today. Technological improvements are happening fast and there will be commercial demand for such flights.

[CameronBornAndBred]

My guess is that you will make it to "space". I would bet that within 10 (or maybe 15) years, trips to space (i.e., above a certain level in the atmosphere) will be more common than people might believe today. Technological improvements are happening fast and there will be commercial demand for such flights.

Given that it was really only 30 years from the time the Wright brothers flew until commercial flights were carrying multiple passengers in cabined airliners, I'd say the future agrees with you.

[sagegrouse]

Cleared up today and saw the duo tonight. Quite an experience to see the two most remarkable objects in the solar system in the same field of view. Watched with my venerable Questar at about 50x.

[DevilHorse]

Cleared up today and saw the duo tonight. Quite an experience to see the two most remarkable objects in the solar system in the same field of view. Watched with my venerable Questar at about 50x.

Interesting thought. What is remarkable to view in our solar system? Definitely in the eye of the beholder (pun intended):

• We give the moon no credit as being remarkable because it is so omnipresent and ho-hum. Responsible for tides (important for those of us near the coast), eclipses, and a hazard to astronomical viewing part of the time when bright. It was once the object of 10 years of our space program in the '60s I recall. They better account for it when planning a shot to Mars or they may accidentally hit it (bad planning is everywhere .. brought to you by the people who don't convert from english to MKS units).

• As a class of objects, comets (as denizens of the ecliptic and the solar system) have held more fascination for me. Kahoutec; Hale Bopp; Haley's. Sometimes easier to view without aid, sometimes with binoculars, sometimes a telescope. You never know when a new one will be discovered. Nothing in my lifetime will beat the Shoemaker Levy 9 event we were able to witness (break-up of the comet that crashed into Jupiter, and the impacts that were observed). Absolutely incredible TV coverage and real-time observation as the impacts (on the far side of Jupiter) revolved around the planet.

• Seeing a large bolide (exploding meteor/meteorite) is something I've seen twice. Once it was scary big. I had seen the Blob and was wondering if something was going to come for me. More silent than the Cherabinsk 2013 Meteor that broke all of those windows in Russia, but it made an impression. The unexpected observations are a treat.

• I haven't seen the Aurora Borealis, but I understand that it is spectacular. It counts as somewhere between Astronomical and Terrestial I suppose. They have them on other planets too.

In general, I like Nebulae. Orion is really cool to view. Tough to see without good light gathering power, but on a dark night you can see it if you look when you don't look directly, but view with the side of your eye because that is more sensitive to light. But then, that is outside the Solar System, but covers more area of the sky than a planet.

Larry
DevilHorse

[CameronBornAndBred]

Interesting thought. What is remarkable to view in our solar system? Definitely in the eye of the beholder (pun intended):

• We give the moon no credit as being remarkable because it is so omnipresent and ho-hum. Responsible for tides (important for those of us near the coast), eclipses, and a hazard to astronomical viewing part of the time when bright. It was once the object of 10 years of our space program in the '60s I recall. They better account for it when planning a shot to Mars or they may accidentally hit it (bad planning is everywhere .. brought to you by the people who don't convert from english to MKS units).

• As a class of objects, comets (as denizens of the ecliptic and the solar system) have held more fascination for me. Kahoutec; Hale Bopp; Haley's. Sometimes easier to view without aid, sometimes with binoculars, sometimes a telescope. You never know when a new one will be discovered. Nothing in my lifetime will beat the Shoemaker Levy 9 event we were able to witness (break-up of the comet that crashed into Jupiter, and the impacts that were observed). Absolutely incredible TV coverage and real-time observation as the impacts (on the far side of Jupiter) revolved around the planet.

• Seeing a large bolide (exploding meteor/meteorite) is something I've seen twice. Once it was scary big. I had seen the Blob and was wondering if something was going to come for me. More silent than the Cherabinsk 2013 Meteor that broke all of those windows in Russia, but it made an impression. The unexpected observations are a treat.

• I haven't seen the Aurora Borealis, but I understand that it is spectacular. It counts as somewhere between Astronomical and Terrestial I suppose. They have them on other planets too.

In general, I like Nebulae. Orion is really cool to view. Tough to see without good light gathering power, but on a dark night you can see it if you look when you don't look directly, but view with the side of your eye because that is more sensitive to light. But then, that is outside the Solar System, but covers more area of the sky than a planet.

Larry
DevilHorse

Good list.I love looking at the moon through my scopes; it is never taken for granted in my back yard.

Moon.jpg

MoonClose.jpg

On my wish list are some solar filters, I'd love to check out the sun. My favorite always will be Saturn, it's just so trippy to see those rings. When someone looks through the telescope who has never seen them before, it always brings back my very first "WOW" reaction when I looked through one.

[DukeDude]

I was stunned when I got Saturn into focus and could see the rings with my son's telescope. I was also unaware at how quickly they would move out the the view. Only my 1 boy and I saw the rings. My wife and other boy missed it, and I wasn't able to get it lined up again.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I was stunned when I got Saturn into focus and could see the rings with my son's telescope. I was also unaware at how quickly they would move out the the view. Only my 1 boy and I saw the rings. My wife and other boy missed it, and I wasn't able to get it lined up again.

Sighting what you are looking for in a telescope can be so frustrating! I have red dot laser sights on both of mine. Depending on who you ask, there is a love it or hate it relationship with them. I'm in the former, but it took me a while.
Tricky part is to get them configured, so that what you are looking at in the target matches what you are looking at in the scope, especially at higher magnification. Once done, it pays off big time! Both of mine are now essentially point and shoot. What I see in the finder shows up very nicely through the eyepieces.

Off that subject, my girlfriend got us an alt-azimuth tripod today, which will come in handy when we want to use our astronomy binoculars. They are too heavy for her, and after a while they tire me out as well, so having them stable on three legs is going to be a welcome experience.

[bundabergdevil]

I might have already asked this but I didn't see it in the last few pages if I did.

Anyone have recommendations for good, easy-to-use amateur telescopes for beginners?

[CameronBornAndBred]

I might have already asked this but I didn't see it in the last few pages if I did.

Anyone have recommendations for good, easy-to-use amateur telescopes for beginners?

It depends on what you are wanting to do, and how much you are wanting to spend. I've got 2 scopes. One is a Celestron 130EQ (EQ for equatorial mount) that I paid under $300 for, https://www.amazon.com/Celestron-310.../dp/B000MLL6RS the other is an Orion 8" Skyquest dobsonian that I paid around $450 for. https://www.amazon.com/Orion-8945-Sk.../dp/B001DDW9V6.

I've read less than favorable reviews for the Celestron, but personally I have loved it.

Both have their pros and cons, which is why I've held onto the EQ after thinking I would sell it. I can add a motor mount and track the sky for photography with it, which is impossible with dobsonian. However, the dob is so easy to find my targets with, and setup takes like two seconds, and the 8" viewing is amazing. (I have a variety of eyepieces that fit both.)

If you are really just looking to get your feet wet, a table top smaller dob could be a great choice. A 4" mirror would mean much less cost, greater portability, and easy to move around. (My 8" is close to 5' tall when standing vertical, and the 130EQ requires a minor in engineering to figure out the tripod).

Of course, I'm talking only about reflector telescopes, so I'd look into refractors as well. I think you get more bang for your buck with a reflector.

[bundabergdevil]

It depends on what you are wanting to do, and how much you are wanting to spend. I've got 2 scopes. One is a Celestron 130EQ (EQ for equatorial mount) that I paid under $300 for, https://www.amazon.com/Celestron-310.../dp/B000MLL6RS the other is an Orion 8" Skyquest dobsonian that I paid around $450 for. https://www.amazon.com/Orion-8945-Sk.../dp/B001DDW9V6.

I've read less than favorable reviews for the Celestron, but personally I have loved it.

Both have their pros and cons, which is why I've held onto the EQ after thinking I would sell it. I can add a motor mount and track the sky for photography with it, which is impossible with dobsonian. However, the dob is so easy to find my targets with, and setup takes like two seconds, and the 8" viewing is amazing. (I have a variety of eyepieces that fit both.)

If you are really just looking to get your feet wet, a table top smaller dob could be a great choice. A 4" mirror would mean much less cost, greater portability, and easy to move around. (My 8" is close to 5' tall when standing vertical, and the 130EQ requires a minor in engineering to figure out the tripod).

Of course, I'm talking only about reflector telescopes, so I'd look into refractors as well. I think you get more bang for your buck with a reflector.

Excellent, thank you for all this! Would spork, cannot spork.

[sagegrouse]

Excellent, thank you for all this! Would spork, cannot spork.

There's another direction. We had a local astronomy professor come over for a demo in a darkened parking lot at our club (very dark, indeed). He had a reasonably sized reflector -- I dunno if it was 6 inches, but maybe. But he had electronics on it. He would do a manual sighting on a bright star (say, Vega) and then on one other bright star (Antares?). Based on these two stars, he could find anything in the sky. I used to be a big astronomy guy when I was a teenager, but this was the first time I ever saw Uranus -- and he just dialed it in.

"What's all this cost?" someone asked, referring to the optics, the tripod and the electronics. He said, "About 12 hundred dollars." Whoa!!

Anyone here had experience using electronically driven scopes with a data base of everything in the night sky?

[CameronBornAndBred]

There's another direction. We had a local astronomy professor come over for a demo in a darkened parking lot at our club (very dark, indeed). He had a reasonably sized reflector -- I dunno if it was 6 inches, but maybe. But he had electronics on it. He would do a manual sighting on a bright star (say, Vega) and then on one other bright star (Antares?). Based on these two stars, he could find anything in the sky. I used to be a big astronomy guy when I was a teenager, but this was the first time I ever saw Uranus -- and he just dialed it in.

"What's all this cost?" someone asked, referring to the optics, the tripod and the electronics. He said, "About 12 hundred dollars." Whoa!!

Anyone here had experience using electronically driven scopes with a data base of everything in the night sky?

As with any hobby, it can get addictive and very expensive. $1,200 is a pretty good price for an automated setup. For about $400 less, you can make it happen but that's way entry level, and I stay away from "cheap". One day, that's on my bucket list, since I do like the idea of exploring astrophotography with a better kit than I have.
That being said, it depends a lot on what you are looking to see. If you want to check out galaxies and nebulae, then it's a great idea. But if you want that, be ready to pay lots more. Like three times as much. Deep sky viewing gets pricey. And it requires a dark sky.
If you just want to check out the solar system (including Uranus), then less is ok. You can see planets easily with light pollution and a smaller scope. Anything beyond, not so much.

[DevilHorse]

There's another direction. We had a local astronomy professor come over for a demo in a darkened parking lot at our club (very dark, indeed). He had a reasonably sized reflector -- I dunno if it was 6 inches, but maybe. But he had electronics on it. He would do a manual sighting on a bright star (say, Vega) and then on one other bright star (Antares?). Based on these two stars, he could find anything in the sky. I used to be a big astronomy guy when I was a teenager, but this was the first time I ever saw Uranus -- and he just dialed it in.

"What's all this cost?" someone asked, referring to the optics, the tripod and the electronics. He said, "About 12 hundred dollars." Whoa!!

Anyone here had experience using electronically driven scopes with a data base of everything in the night sky?

I saw Uranus once with a 16" telescope; was not tempted to go back again.

Would always go back to look at Saturn (the rings) and Jupiter (the spot/moons), whenever they were up in the sky. Venus (gray) and Mars (angry) not quite as exciting, but interesting. Just observing has a few limits. I tried just looking at the Andromeda Galaxy and was unimpressed, but took a 15 minute plate and saw nice structure; the same for the Orion Nebula. The moon is ultra impressive through a telescope; so bright!!

Larry
DevilHorse