Low cost astronomy

[Jlabute]

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/

[oldtrucker]

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/

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 away

[Jlabute]

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.

[Jlabute]

https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/392500 ... ar-eclipse

Coming blood beaver moon.

Untitled.png

[Sonny Taylor]

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 presume you're talking about giant binoculars like this:



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.

[Jlabute]

^^^ 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 :-)

[Sonny Taylor]

^^^ 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 :-)

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:

[Jlabute]

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:

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.

I am now waiting for some clear skies :-) and/or birds :-)

[oldtrucker]

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?