Low cost astronomy
-
- Guru
- Posts: 5904
- Joined: Jan 18th, 2009, 1:08 pm
Re: Low cost astronomy
Thinking of getting the Meoptra meopro 8x56 binoculars. Time to get back in to some backyard gazing. Flourite objectives. Pretty good under a grand.
https://www.meoptasportsoptics.com/us/p ... 8x56-3512/
https://www.meoptasportsoptics.com/us/p ... 8x56-3512/
Galileo - In the sciences, the authority of thousands of opinions is not worth as much as one tiny spark of reason from an individual man.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 9220
- Joined: Nov 24th, 2013, 3:19 pm
Re: Low cost astronomy
If you are looking at the sky...get a telescope. There was a nice 12 in Dobsonian on castanet classified for $1000. With that you could recognize someone on a mountain top 50 km awayJlabute wrote: ↑Jul 27th, 2022, 4:36 pm Thinking of getting the Meoptra meopro 8x56 binoculars. Time to get back in to some backyard gazing. Flourite objectives. Pretty good under a grand.
https://www.meoptasportsoptics.com/us/p ... 8x56-3512/
Some may view my politically incorrect opinions as harsh and may be offended by them. Some think political correctness will be our undoing.
AB,SK,MB...are you going to wait until you lose your way of life before you consider getting out of confederation?
AB,SK,MB...are you going to wait until you lose your way of life before you consider getting out of confederation?
-
- Guru
- Posts: 5904
- Joined: Jan 18th, 2009, 1:08 pm
Re: Low cost astronomy
I was thinking big scope at one time. Had an 8" catadioptric years back but sold it. Such a pain lugging around 100 pounds to the middle of nowhere. I suppose a dobsonian is an option, but good binos give a new view of the sky I've never had. I was considering going for giant binos with separate eyepieces but, then it might not be low cost any longer :-) Also would use filters if one wanted. The brain makes fainter objects easier to see in stereo apparently.
Plus, I could use them for birding too.
Plus, I could use them for birding too.
Galileo - In the sciences, the authority of thousands of opinions is not worth as much as one tiny spark of reason from an individual man.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 5904
- Joined: Jan 18th, 2009, 1:08 pm
Re: Low cost astronomy
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Galileo - In the sciences, the authority of thousands of opinions is not worth as much as one tiny spark of reason from an individual man.
-
- Board Meister
- Posts: 596
- Joined: Jun 29th, 2005, 2:20 am
Re: Low cost astronomy
I presume you're talking about giant binoculars like this:Jlabute wrote: ↑Jul 28th, 2022, 11:13 am I was considering going for giant binos with separate eyepieces but, then it might not be low cost any longer :-) Also would use filters if one wanted. The brain makes fainter objects easier to see in stereo apparently.
Plus, I could use them for birding too.

I think this is the same (or similar) model that Yuji Hyakutake used to discover his comet; but the pictures I found of Yuji Hyakutake with his own binoculars are too small and low resolution to be sure of that.
Ideally, I'd want a pair of something like this and a decent telescope.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 5904
- Joined: Jan 18th, 2009, 1:08 pm
Re: Low cost astronomy
^^^ those would be nice Sonny!
Unfortunately, it is not what I bought. I have a pair of Nikon HG 8x42 I picked up on sale. Nice as far as binoculars go, but no where as flexible with interchangeable eyepieces and no where near having 6" objectives. Yet, high quality lenses, small, light, and better than the naked eye. lol.
A telescope will be next, money permitting :-)
Unfortunately, it is not what I bought. I have a pair of Nikon HG 8x42 I picked up on sale. Nice as far as binoculars go, but no where as flexible with interchangeable eyepieces and no where near having 6" objectives. Yet, high quality lenses, small, light, and better than the naked eye. lol.
A telescope will be next, money permitting :-)
Galileo - In the sciences, the authority of thousands of opinions is not worth as much as one tiny spark of reason from an individual man.
-
- Board Meister
- Posts: 596
- Joined: Jun 29th, 2005, 2:20 am
Re: Low cost astronomy
I misunderstood your post a bit, not understanding that you already had a decent pair of Binocs already. I thought you were alluding to what you really wanted (and who wouldn't want this (save for the few hundred pounds to haul around again))?Jlabute wrote: ↑Oct 26th, 2022, 9:07 am ^^^ those would be nice Sonny!
Unfortunately, it is not what I bought. I have a pair of Nikon HG 8x42 I picked up on sale. Nice as far as binoculars go, but no where as flexible with interchangeable eyepieces and no where near having 6" objectives. Yet, high quality lenses, small, light, and better than the naked eye. lol.
A telescope will be next, money permitting :-)
In the past I had a mid-priced pair of 10x50 Binocs that were well aligned, with little distortion, good enough to clearly view Jupiter and the 4 Galilean moons if set on a steady and well aimed surface (Jupiter was still a small disc without further detail, but the moons were obvious). Friends didn't believe me until they looked for themselves on a good night. "Wow, Yeah, I can see them. It's a little Solar System in the sky, bent a little sideways".
A lot like this:

-
- Guru
- Posts: 5904
- Joined: Jan 18th, 2009, 1:08 pm
Re: Low cost astronomy
Oh you are right, I would love a pair of giant binocs. lol. I just recently acquired a small pair of binocs. I was thinking of a large pair, but that would be impossible to hide from the wife, hahahahahaha. It was a tad out of my price range, although 70mm was something I was considering. Well, maybe a future consideration.Sonny Taylor wrote: ↑Oct 26th, 2022, 11:44 pm I misunderstood your post a bit, not understanding that you already had a decent pair of Binocs already. I thought you were alluding to what you really wanted (and who wouldn't want this (save for the few hundred pounds to haul around again))?
In the past I had a mid-priced pair of 10x50 Binocs that were well aligned, with little distortion, good enough to clearly view Jupiter and the 4 Galilean moons if set on a steady and well aimed surface (Jupiter was still a small disc without further detail, but the moons were obvious). Friends didn't believe me until they looked for themselves on a good night. "Wow, Yeah, I can see them. It's a little Solar System in the sky, bent a little sideways".
A lot like this:
![]()
I am now waiting for some clear skies :-) and/or birds :-)
Galileo - In the sciences, the authority of thousands of opinions is not worth as much as one tiny spark of reason from an individual man.
-
- Guru
- Posts: 9220
- Joined: Nov 24th, 2013, 3:19 pm
Re: Low cost astronomy
I don't know where to put this.
I was running numbers for the fuel consumption of the Eagle from the Apollo missions and I realized science fiction space movies like star wars have it all wrong. In star wars and other movies like it that have large 1km plus long starships, and smaller fighter craft that sometimes originate on the large ship.
Star destroyer from star wars...my guess 35 million tons...and the entire aft section dedicated to engines, just like in any other starship from any other genre. Tie fighter -vastly less mass, with vastly less fuel and power. The movies have portrayed the large vessels as slow and lumbering with smaller fighters easily flying faster. It wouldn't work like that. It would be the exact opposite.
Maybe I should just admit that not only was this post nerdy, it was just as pointless as most of my earthbound waste of electrons posts that I'll never put to practical use. What a pointless, stupid waste of time.
Haaay,that leads me to another thought. Would it really be a waste of time if I posted this stuff from just outside of the event horizon of a black hole?
I was running numbers for the fuel consumption of the Eagle from the Apollo missions and I realized science fiction space movies like star wars have it all wrong. In star wars and other movies like it that have large 1km plus long starships, and smaller fighter craft that sometimes originate on the large ship.
Star destroyer from star wars...my guess 35 million tons...and the entire aft section dedicated to engines, just like in any other starship from any other genre. Tie fighter -vastly less mass, with vastly less fuel and power. The movies have portrayed the large vessels as slow and lumbering with smaller fighters easily flying faster. It wouldn't work like that. It would be the exact opposite.
Maybe I should just admit that not only was this post nerdy, it was just as pointless as most of my earthbound waste of electrons posts that I'll never put to practical use. What a pointless, stupid waste of time.
Haaay,that leads me to another thought. Would it really be a waste of time if I posted this stuff from just outside of the event horizon of a black hole?
Some may view my politically incorrect opinions as harsh and may be offended by them. Some think political correctness will be our undoing.
AB,SK,MB...are you going to wait until you lose your way of life before you consider getting out of confederation?
AB,SK,MB...are you going to wait until you lose your way of life before you consider getting out of confederation?