stephend
14-01-2008, 12:36 AM
I finally got time to point the new 10" Dobsonian at the afternoon sky.
Spent 15 minutes trying to latch onto the crescent moon. Couldn't see a darned thing except fuzzy blue, even when I pointed it at my feet. Figured there was something wrong in the setup but suddenly there it was, by accident, the little crescent moon with all it three dimensional craters. It was just amazing. The little mountains in the middle of the craters are the best thing.
Then tried Mars. Mars was very, very disappointing - with a 10" aperture you should be able to see a lot of detail, right? ... and all I was getting was a single point of light through all three lenses ... but then I realised it was Aldebaran.
Real Mars was also disappointing. A fairly large obvious planetary disk glaring at me, but no detail at all. The last time I saw Mars through a telescope was at the you-beaut observatory at Faulconbridge, Blue Mountains. You could clearly see the polar ice cap and other surface detail. All I got was a red rubber ball that appeared to be burning, with glare and various streaky lines shooting off to the left. Still looked great and I guess I fiddled with various eyepieces and focussing for an hour or so, very happily.
Last I looked at the Pleiades. This used to attract me when I was a kid, when in virtually zero artificial light conditions that prevailed then and there I could see 14 stars in the "Seven Sisters". I think they used to say that if you were really good you could see 16 stars. Nowadays in Mayfield with permanent orange night skies due to Onesteel and other co-creators of the modern situation, I can see about four sisters, with averted eyes. With the telescope I could see about 500. I am absolutely gobsmacked and think I might just become a Pleiades observer. There is one little string of same-brightness stars that drops down and finally curls around in a bit of a hook, that is unbelievably neat and pretty.
Technical problems I need to investigate include:
The Meade 10" Dobsonian focal length is 1270mm and the smallest focal length eye-piece that came with the deal was 15mm. This should have given a magnification of 84x.
The 20mm should have given a magnification of 63.5x.
And the 2" deluxe 26mm eyepiece should have given a magnification of 48x.
Basically they all looked the same and though Mars stood there like a not so small moon, only red, there was no surface detail.
The telescope came with a very clever finder device which shows a red circle (or cross or whatever option you choose) superimposed on the sky. You would think this would be severely compromised by the position of your eye but in fact if you plant your face too far up or down or left or right you see nothing. If the red image is visible, it's always close to exactly dead centre. However, I found it didn't respond to adjustments. I could unloosen the up-down screw as much as I liked, but the red image would never close on the target. The left-right adjustment seemed to work better. Never mind, I got used to planting the red image about 3 degrees above the target and a fraction to the left, and it was all so easy.
What a buzz. The last big buzz I got from the sky was in 1977 when I witnessed a bright greenish meteor shoot across from south to north; about mid way it split in two; the main object continued in about the same path, the offshoot veered off at about 15 degrees and quickly burnt up. That was great.
Any comments on my magnification/detail probs greatly appreciated (!) . I know you can't expect too much when the seeing is dismal. We have industrial yellow smokey skies most nights, plus a lot of sea haze.
Spent 15 minutes trying to latch onto the crescent moon. Couldn't see a darned thing except fuzzy blue, even when I pointed it at my feet. Figured there was something wrong in the setup but suddenly there it was, by accident, the little crescent moon with all it three dimensional craters. It was just amazing. The little mountains in the middle of the craters are the best thing.
Then tried Mars. Mars was very, very disappointing - with a 10" aperture you should be able to see a lot of detail, right? ... and all I was getting was a single point of light through all three lenses ... but then I realised it was Aldebaran.
Real Mars was also disappointing. A fairly large obvious planetary disk glaring at me, but no detail at all. The last time I saw Mars through a telescope was at the you-beaut observatory at Faulconbridge, Blue Mountains. You could clearly see the polar ice cap and other surface detail. All I got was a red rubber ball that appeared to be burning, with glare and various streaky lines shooting off to the left. Still looked great and I guess I fiddled with various eyepieces and focussing for an hour or so, very happily.
Last I looked at the Pleiades. This used to attract me when I was a kid, when in virtually zero artificial light conditions that prevailed then and there I could see 14 stars in the "Seven Sisters". I think they used to say that if you were really good you could see 16 stars. Nowadays in Mayfield with permanent orange night skies due to Onesteel and other co-creators of the modern situation, I can see about four sisters, with averted eyes. With the telescope I could see about 500. I am absolutely gobsmacked and think I might just become a Pleiades observer. There is one little string of same-brightness stars that drops down and finally curls around in a bit of a hook, that is unbelievably neat and pretty.
Technical problems I need to investigate include:
The Meade 10" Dobsonian focal length is 1270mm and the smallest focal length eye-piece that came with the deal was 15mm. This should have given a magnification of 84x.
The 20mm should have given a magnification of 63.5x.
And the 2" deluxe 26mm eyepiece should have given a magnification of 48x.
Basically they all looked the same and though Mars stood there like a not so small moon, only red, there was no surface detail.
The telescope came with a very clever finder device which shows a red circle (or cross or whatever option you choose) superimposed on the sky. You would think this would be severely compromised by the position of your eye but in fact if you plant your face too far up or down or left or right you see nothing. If the red image is visible, it's always close to exactly dead centre. However, I found it didn't respond to adjustments. I could unloosen the up-down screw as much as I liked, but the red image would never close on the target. The left-right adjustment seemed to work better. Never mind, I got used to planting the red image about 3 degrees above the target and a fraction to the left, and it was all so easy.
What a buzz. The last big buzz I got from the sky was in 1977 when I witnessed a bright greenish meteor shoot across from south to north; about mid way it split in two; the main object continued in about the same path, the offshoot veered off at about 15 degrees and quickly burnt up. That was great.
Any comments on my magnification/detail probs greatly appreciated (!) . I know you can't expect too much when the seeing is dismal. We have industrial yellow smokey skies most nights, plus a lot of sea haze.