Astronomy

[krummholz]

Will try for Uranus later as well, which at least has the decency not to be so damn close to the Sun.  Will need my binoculars, but it's in a rather dull bit of sky, more or less midway between Aldebaran and Aries.

I've just seen Mercury, possibly for the first time ever (although I was very keen on astronomy as a child, so may have seen it then - or may equally have lied about seeing it (I was also very keen on lying as a child)).  It involved a trek across muddy fields, although I then discovered I could have seen it from my kitchen window.  I had to come back and check that it wasn't Saturn, but Mercury is the brighter of the two at the moment, and slightly higher in the sky today.

Nice! I believe I spotted Mercury once last year, but I've never been 100% sure. It's difficult to spot, and we in the northern hemisphere never get an opportunity as good as the best southern hemisphere apparitions, due to the way Mercury's and Earth's orbits are aligned now.

[DaveF]

A good evening for Mercury tonight.

[steve ridgway]

A good evening for Mercury tonight.

You got it!

[steve ridgway]

Having tried a bit of astrophotography and considered my options, I think I'm going to stick mostly to the Moon🌛.

The Moon and Venus, Jan 3.

[LKB]

Having tried a bit of astrophotography and considered my options, I think I'm going to stick mostly to the Moon🌛.

The Moon and Venus, Jan 3.

While I'm an AA who prefers DSOs since the 1970's, I can still appreciate a terrific " neighborly " image like that one - well done. 

[steve ridgway]

While I'm an AA who prefers DSOs since the 1970's, I can still appreciate a terrific " neighborly " image like that one - well done. 

Thank you . I can see the attraction of DSO hunting but don't have the patience nowadays.

[LKB]

Btw, I'm seriously considering exploring the legendary Questar 3.5". That scope has intrigued me for decades, and I even got to try one for a couple days around 1982 ( unfortunately, poor seeing prevented me from giving it a proper audition ).

I've been reading up on some fairly recent reviews of both a 1965 model, and a more recent version which accepts standard 1.25" oculars. It would seem that there is a solid consensus favoring the instrument, over 70 years after it first entered the consumer market. It can hold its own with instruments sporting a slightly larger objective, and doesn't seem to really have any competition with anything else in its class regarding quality, portability or convenience.

Still, $6k isn't exactly a trivial sum for me, though I suspect this instrument isn't at all overpriced. And it is, after all, a true classic. Arthur C. Clarke owned one, and there is an example in the permanent collection of the Smithsonian Institution.

So, any Questar fans here?

[DaveF]

You got it!

Thanks - I was so pleased, I inserted it twice (seriously, never inserted an image before, so not sure how that happened).

[steve ridgway]

Thanks - I was so pleased, I inserted it twice (seriously, never inserted an image before, so not sure how that happened).

You don't need to insert an image if you attach it.

[relm1]

A good evening for Mercury tonight.

Very nice!  Where are you...that primal earth that opens 2001: A Space Odyssey?

[relm1]

Having tried a bit of astrophotography and considered my options, I think I'm going to stick mostly to the Moon🌛.

The Moon and Venus, Jan 3.

Go for astrophotography!

[relm1]

Btw, I'm seriously considering exploring the legendary Questar 3.5". That scope has intrigued me for decades, and I even got to try one for a couple days around 1982 ( unfortunately, poor seeing prevented me from giving it a proper audition ).

I've been reading up on some fairly recent reviews of both a 1965 model, and a more recent version which accepts standard 1.25" oculars. It would seem that there is a solid consensus favoring the instrument, over 70 years after it first entered the consumer market. It can hold its own with instruments sporting a slightly larger objective, and doesn't seem to really have any competition with anything else in its class regarding quality, portability or convenience.

Still, $6k isn't exactly a trivial sum for me, though I suspect this instrument isn't at all overpriced. And it is, after all, a true classic. Arthur C. Clarke owned one, and there is an example in the permanent collection of the Smithsonian Institution.

So, any Questar fans here?

You can buy A LOT of scope for that price.  I am often asked for advice on first telescopes from friends and family.  My response is generally, what do you want to do with it?  No one scope can do all things.  Generally, the more expensive the scope, the better it is at a single thing.  For example, my scope can't really do planets.  It has too low focal length.  That's fine because I do astrophotography of deep sky objects mostly. 

Isn't this scope basically just as good as the Questar for a 10th the price?

https://www.celestron.com/products/nexstar-4se-computerized-telescope

[DaveF]

Very nice!  Where are you...that primal earth that opens 2001: A Space Odyssey?

Pretty close, actually - well, the hill you can see in the distance (about 7 miles away) is The Blorenge at Abergavenny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blorenge (the name is probably pre-Celtic, since no-one knows what it means).  So, being very rural, we do enjoy lovely dark skies.

[steve ridgway]

Btw, I'm seriously considering exploring the legendary Questar 3.5". That scope has intrigued me for decades, and I even got to try one for a couple days around 1982 ( unfortunately, poor seeing prevented me from giving it a proper audition ).

I've been reading up on some fairly recent reviews of both a 1965 model, and a more recent version which accepts standard 1.25" oculars. It would seem that there is a solid consensus favoring the instrument, over 70 years after it first entered the consumer market. It can hold its own with instruments sporting a slightly larger objective, and doesn't seem to really have any competition with anything else in its class regarding quality, portability or convenience.

Still, $6k isn't exactly a trivial sum for me, though I suspect this instrument isn't at all overpriced. And it is, after all, a true classic. Arthur C. Clarke owned one, and there is an example in the permanent collection of the Smithsonian Institution.

So, any Questar fans here?

I just read a Review of that and like the idea of just buying one very well made, compact kit and being done with it. I presume then that the mirrors stay shiny for decades?

[LKB]

I just read a Review of that and like the idea of just buying one very well made, compact kit and being done with it. I presume then that the mirrors stay shiny for decades?

Within the last year I've read a review of a Questar 3.5" from 1965 ( I'll link it if l can find it again ). While l don't recall the author specifically mentioning the mirrors, he seemed fairly impressed overall by the 'scope's performance.

As all Cassegrains are closed optics I would expect the mirrors to stay healthy for decades, barring any misfortune.

[relm1]

Pretty close, actually - well, the hill you can see in the distance (about 7 miles away) is The Blorenge at Abergavenny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blorenge (the name is probably pre-Celtic, since no-one knows what it means).  So, being very rural, we do enjoy lovely dark skies.

Ooh, that's interesting! 

[relm1]

Just a reminder, there is a lunar eclipse in two weeks (March 14) that will be the last one till 2029.