Recent comments in /f/space

MsGorteck t1_j7ck22n wrote

Reply to Serious question by Unable_Region7300

Thank you everybody. The reason I asked is because the Catholic church has a history of not liking new ways of thinking, especially if it could encourage the masses to question it. But those harsh responses had pretty much ceased by this time. To bad the man's originall paper, along with the responses it garnered can't be given more publicly, science might be slightly less under attack.

1

Machanskid86 OP t1_j7b2dy6 wrote

Reply to comment by Momkay in NGC6188 - Dragons of Ara Emission Nebula by Machanskid86

I am not sure to be honest. It doesnt come up with a designation when I search for it. If I had to guess, it is either a bubble in the surrounding gas caused by the solar winds from the star at the centre or it is an imaging artifact from my scope. The stars in the corners of the image are off due to a backfocus issue I had at the time so it might be related to that. Not sure though.

3

mech_man_86 t1_j7asng1 wrote

Reply to comment by St33lbutcher in Serious question by Unable_Region7300

We do science on this universe. Science doesn't really work for things "before" spacetime existed because its whole method requires cause and effect which is a product of spacetime. Just get it man...

1

dirschau t1_j7aqoqh wrote

Reply to comment by fphillips93 in Best telescope? by fphillips93

>So, $300 is like… low end for a good quality one?

Yes, essentially. If it's for a child, I suppose you can go a bit lower still, but keeping within the respected brands (Skywatcher, Celestron, Meade, Explorer Scientific), like this

https://www.highpointscientific.com/celestron-firstscope-76-mm-f-3-95-dobsonian-reflecting-telescope-21024

Nothing to write home about but nice and sturdy, you can mount a phone to it. It wouldn't really do planet that well (because of it's low F-ratio it's better for deep sky), but otherwise hassle free viewing. Good for young kids for when you don't know if they're really into it.

The Astromaster I've recommended is a genuinely a good telescope in your price bracket and a quite a bit more versatile than the above (would do planets while being better overall). Again, EQ mounts require a bit of learning, but they're worth it in the end.

For a complete begginer in the $300 limit I really want to recommend this

https://www.highpointscientific.com/sky-watcher-heritage-130-tabletop-dobsonian-s11705

But the struts flex too much to reliably mount even a phone, IIRC. If you can find an equivalent from the brands I mentioned earlier but with a solid tube. Then you'd just have a choice of "large and simple, but cumbersome" or "small and versatile but more complex". Because a larger tube means better viewing, but at the cost of a dead simple and heavy mount.

Just beware of anything that says "OTA" when looking to buy, because that's just the tube, no mount. So you'll get a better tube for the price but they're not something you freehand, lol.

>Do you recommend any specific brand of camera that pairs well with telescopes?

If you don't already have one, don't worry about it. You can take nice photos with a smartphone. Astrophotography with a camera is an advanced art for when a) you're really into it yourself, willing to put in the time and money and b) already have a good grasp of photography. And conversely, likely already have a camera.

Have fun snapping phone photos, see how you like it, research the subject seriously, ONLY then ask on dedicated astrophoto boards about specific cameras. I don't know enough about cameras to make good recommendations myself.

>Also, if $300 is cheap crap, what should I expect to spend on one I actually am going to enjoy with the kids?

Nah, you only need to go higher if you decide you're really into it and want more capability. The ones I've shown will be good enough for kids. But at that point you'll hopefully have be experienced enough in the topic to be able to make informed choices, or at least ask specific questions for research. Because a setup for photographing nebulas or galaxies is fairly significantly different (and more expensive) than trying to view/photograph Mars.

Quite frankly, if/when you're looking to spend more money, I'd look to get a sturdier mount for the astromaster. It's good enough for a begginer with no expectations or goals, casual viewing and the casual phone photo snap, but you can start to find it's too flimsy once you want solid results (say Saturn photos good enough for stacking). The tube is decent but stability really makes a difference. That's why I put the Dobsonians as an option there. But again, that's when you actually have a good idea of what you want out of your telescope. Because good sturdy EQ mounts cost as much as the tube.

2