[ Home ] [ wiz / dep / hob / lounge / jp / meta / games / music ] [ all ] [  Rules ] [  FAQ ] [  Search /  History ] [  Textboard ] [  Wiki ]

/hob/ - Hobbies

Video game related hobbies go on /games/
Email
Comment
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

  [Go to bottom]   [Catalog]   [Return]   [Archive]

File: 1741969782120.jpg (2.94 MB, 2580x2580, 1:1, moon.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

 No.68866

Anyone interested in astronomy? Particularly direct observation with a telescope or binocular.

My interest in astronomy has expanded recently to direct observation instead of just reading books and editing Wikipedia articles. I found an old Nikon 8x42 (basic bird-watching equipment) in a drawer the other day and decided to give it a shot. I know better than to punch above my weight, and you can pretty much forget about deep-sky objects or even other planets when you have a simple binoculars for terrestrial observation, so my best shot is to focus on the closest astronomical object from Earth. I got a couple of lunar atlases online, a couple of lunar calendars, and read the basics about selenography.

It's basically impossible to do any serious astronomical observation by simply holding the binoculars in place, even if you're sitting down. It's just way too shaky, so I strapped the thing to the top rail of a chair, placed that chair over another one and basically made a makeshift tripod. Works perfectly and I have both my hands free to check the lunar atlas or stellarium.

It's amazing how much one can observe with a stable binoculars, some patience and a lunar atlas at hand. The more familiar you get with the lunar surface, the more you'll be able to see, and even though I have only gazed at the moon for about 5 hours total so far, it's fairly easy to get familiar with its basic features. Having the atlas close by to consult just what the heck you're looking at helps immensely. Under certain light conditions, even a shallow, small crater will create an enormously long shadow that you can observe easily.

Picture attached is all the stuff I was able to observe and firmly identify so far. Two days worth of observation. The picture is not accurate to what I was actually seeing, as the moon was waxing when I was looking at it, and this picture shows a full moon, though I'll use this to update everything I manage to identify. For example, the crater Clavius is quite distinct during certain lunar phases, but in the picture it's barely visible. Seas and oceans (basaltic plains) are the most obvious stuff, and you usually begin with those since it's so distinct and easily identifiable. Then you start noticing the bays (recesses of the seas), craters and recently I managed to observe a lunar swirl, though it took me a minute to realize it. Btw if you're located in the northern hemisphere, this picture is inverted for you.

I've been keeping a very simple journal in order to keep track of my observations and also it's what I look up when updating the picture I attached. The process is very straightforward, it's an 'entry per day' type of thing. Here's an example from yesterday.
-
Date:
13th March, 2025
Lunar phase:
14th day, (4th phase) waxing gibbous
Time of observation:
19:30 - 21:00 (rain at 21:00, no visibility afterwards)
Craters:
(3 total) Grimaldi (dm. 173.49 km), Aristarchus (dm. 40 km), Pythias (dm. 20 km)
Seas:
Mare Humorum
Oceans:
Procellarum
Bays:
Sinus Iridum (dm. 249 km), Sinus Roris (dm. 202 km)
Montes: -
Lunar Swirls:
Reiner Gamma (dm. 70 km)

The one pain about astronomical observation is the weather. I began trying to watch the moon 10 days ago and only got clear skies for a couple of days so far. It's been really cloudy lately.

 No.68869

File: 1742060155681.jpg (29.81 KB, 669x669, 1:1, b705fed87a12eef9a7018736fc….jpg) ImgOps iqdb

>Mare Nubium…

Rifle scopes are a good for looking at the moon.

 No.68870

I don't have the type of autism that makes studying dents in the moon fun. Wish I did. Good luck with that.

 No.68873

>>68870
>any interest in anything at all is a result of AUTIZM
Stop

 No.68882

I had a shitty telescope a while back, and I could never see shit. The moon looked cool, but to point to a specific star or planet was almost impossible. And when I got to point to anything all I could see was a white dot. Besides, there was a bit of light pollution where I lived then so I couldn't see much in the sky sometimes.
I liked to look at the constellations, however; I like astronomy and I wish I had the time to learn more about it, and to work out calculations on my HP-48.

 No.68884

File: 1742391022349.png (127.24 KB, 723x454, 723:454, t1.png) ImgOps iqdb

>>68882
The most common type of telescope, and possibly the one that brings the most frustration (because they are usually purchased without much thought or a specific goal in mind), is the refractor telescope. I'm guessing you had something like the one in the picture. That's a 70mm aperture refractor telescope. The 70mm refers to the size of its primary lens, which is located at the end of the tube. This type is often chosen for children or as a first telescope because they are inexpensive and most brands offer one for sale. They are also incredibly easy to use. You simply point it at your astronomical object of choice, look through the eyepiece, and that's it, minimal adjustments are required.

Still, you can fall in love with a 70mm refractor IF you are aware of its capabilities and limitations. As I mentioned in the original post, if you try to punch above your weight when equipment is concerned, frustration will usually ensue. Even with excellent lenses, 70mm refractors are not all that suited for observing stars and deep-sky objects. They will improve your visibility significantly, but stars, nebulae, and deep-sky objects are quite far from Earth, so they will still appear as bright points in the sky.

70mm refractors are primarily for objects within the solar system. If you know how to use them and have some patience while waiting for a clear night, you can, for example, see the rings of Saturn, the moons of Jupiter, comets, and so on. Of course, you can have a lot of fun observing the Moon; many features of its surface will be visible. Again, you can use it for objects farther away, but keep in mind that they won't look like the pictures from NASA. Still, there's a lot of enjoyment to be had with a 70mm telescope.

In fact, I'm currently shopping around for one. They are perfect for what I want to do. The key is to purchase one from a reputable brand like Celestron. Having a very good 70mm telescope is far better than having a poor-quality 130mm one. The quality of the lens is crucial. There are many issues that can arise with inferior lenses, such as chromatic aberration and fuzziness caused by poorly adjusted components inside the telescope. So, opt for a small aperture with good quality.

Now, you are correct that astronomy is mostly about geometry. Actually SEEING objects is a relatively small part of the overall experience, and I'm afraid not many people realize this. However, since you mentioned your calculator, so you know what's up. There's a VERY good book I recommend: Celestial Calculations: A Gentle Introduction to Computational Astronomy. It's a beautiful book and incredibly enjoyable. You don't need more than high school math to appreciate it, and it includes many exercises.

I've mostly been going through some lunar atlases and studying geometry on the side while I wait for clear skies in my area. That's why I haven't updated this thread; clouds are currently making any observation impossible. I'm checking weather predictions, and it seems this will continue until the end of the month. Let's hope for better conditions soon.

 No.68893

>>68884
Thanks for the book rec! I had actually found it, and it was one of my favorites on the list (along with Smart's spherical astronomy, and Jean Meeus' Mathematical Astronomy Morsels.)
If I get my hands on that telescope again, I will definitely look at the moon more attentively. We take so much for granted in life.

 No.68898

File: 1742520861797.jpg (1007.17 KB, 1027x4000, 1027:4000, Untitled-1.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

So this night was more or less clear, 34% humidity, some clouds but good, clear windows between them for longs periods of time. Not in the right places to see the moon but I decided to just focus on whatever I could see. A large area from the Southern Cross was quite visible, particularly the "backyard" of Mimosa, the second brightest star in that constellation. I was not focusing on Mimosa specifically, instead, just around that area, it's possible to spot a star cluster called Jewel Box (NGC 4755). It's visible to the naked eye as a fuzzy bright spot but using binoculars or a telescope you can actually see it's a collection of stars. If you're patient and keep looking at it, your eyes will adjust, as well as your focus will increase, and you'll be able to detect several different stars within the cluster. As you get used to stellar scintillation, you'll be able to distinguish more and more features. You'll be amazed how much you're be able to see if you keep at it for an hour or so, instead of just taking a peek.

Here's an useful picture. 1 is their location on the star chart. I circled its location in pink. 2 is the Stellarium graphic. I circled all the stars that was distinct enough for me to identify. 3 is a picture of this cluster taken by an observatory. 4 is closer to how I was actually seeing it through a 8x42 binoculars, which is a birding binoculars but it's the equipment I have for now.

>>68893
Happy gazing anon.



[Go to top] [Catalog] [Return][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ Home ] [ wiz / dep / hob / lounge / jp / meta / games / music ] [ all ] [  Rules ] [  FAQ ] [  Search /  History ] [  Textboard ] [  Wiki ]