I’m lucky enough to be living in a place where light pollution isn’t much of a problem. Tonight was the first night this year that the sky was clear enough and the temperature clement enough to drag out my telescope.
Six unmistakeable moons visible around Jupiter, and the brightest of them lined up ruler-straight on either side of the planet.
I’m conservative in my use of the word “awesome”; I refuse to squander it describing a good slice of pizza–but this…is awesome. The only thing better is Saturn, which hasn’t risen yet, and it’s not that warm yet; maybe in the next few days.
Do yourselves a favor; if you can see any night sky at all, take a minute to look at it, even a pair of binoculars pointed through smog and streetlights at the moon can take your breath away.
I ain’t saying this’ll do anything for religion or atheism either way, but it sure can do a number on solipsism and hubris!
–Alan Q
Q.E.D.–
It’s an old off the shelf Tasco refractor–475x60 if memory serves (I couldn’t find the book on it just now).
It might just be this clear high desert air as opposed to NJ, or it might just be an overactive imagination, but try as I might, I’ve never seen canals on Mars!
Did you build yours youself? It’s got to have a bigger field of view than mine; I go nuts trying to manually track my target, especially at high magnification.
–Alan Q
All things being equal, refractors are better light-gatherers than reflectors. And yes, there’s considerable light-pollution where I am.
If you see canals on Mars, you’re seeing things, like Shaiparelli did. They don’t exist. The canals were just a trick of the light, so to speak.
Yes, I built mine. A friend gave me a 4.25" primary and a 1.25" secondary. I bought an objective rack-and-pinion focusing assembly and a 5mm Plössl eyepiece, and constructed everything else.
I should have been more clear–What I meant was, “If those other two moons are just wishful thinking or an overactive imagination, I should have seen those canals by now!”
–Alan Q
Maybe the other two moons were faint stars that happened to coincide with the position of Jupiter.
It would be a fair effort to see six moons of Jupiter with a 60mm refractor.
I have a 8-inch dob, and I can only pick out the four Galillean moons.
-Oli
It’s going to be a great year, with Mars historically close (and occulted by the Moon in July), two full lunar eclipses, and the transit of Mercury if you can get somewhere where you can see it.
I can only see the four moons, too. I haven’t taken my telescope out in ages, though. First it was too hazy, then it was too rainy, then it was too cold.
Starman, Q.E.D., RickJay;
Sadly, you guys are almost certainly right–that’s what I meant by “wishful thinking and an overactive imagination”! I may just have been giddy at having the 'scope out for the first time in months.
dwc,
I’m surrounded by mountains, so anything close to the true horizon is tough, but that approximate direction is the river valley, so I’ll take a look–thanks!
Some writer said Mercury should be special to pianists; an 88 day year.
It’s gonna be a great year for skywatching, and to paraphrase my OP–you don’t need a telescope to be awed!
–Alan Q
I got an 8" Dob also, and I’m trying to bag Pluto with it, but it’s almost impossible to find it being in the suburban city lights. What the hell, It IS Impossible!
You were definitely seeing only 4 of Jupiters Moons (Galilean moons). Once you get past those, the brightest moon is Amalthea at mag 14.1, which is pretty close-in to Jupiter and would be difficult to see even with a much larger scope because of the brightness of Jupiter itself. After Amalthea, Himalia is at mag 14.8, and that might be visible under just the right conditions by a scope in the 10"-15" range - maybe. The remaining moons are fainter yet - fuggetaboutem.
Jupiter right now is over near the Beehive Cluster, and as such, there are a lot of background stars in the area.
I’m not surprised. What sort of magnification do you take it up to ?
I would be interested to know if you can see anything at 475 - theoretical perhaps, but totally impractical with such a small objective lens.
I have a 10" reflector (F4.3 - amazing wide field of view) and rarely use anything past 100 mag. 200 for planets, but then I’m more of a deep-sky kinda guy.
ChalkPit,
It’s raining here today, and I’m feeling too lazy to go out to the garage and check the numbers on the lenses, but at my highest magnification I only seem to be able to get wonderful things in focus before they drift out of sight; I have some “Barlow tubes”, but when I put them on, if I so much as breathe in the direction of the 'scope, it jiggles.
I’m guessing that most of you who responded to my OP realize that I’m pretty much a tyro in the field of telescopes, most of the stargazing of my youth was either naked-eye observation or binoculars–
Yeticus Rex–Thanks for the tip! Larry Niven, in one of his novels, said something along the lines of “if you ask an amateur astronomer about Saturn, he won’t just tell you, he’ll drag you out to his telescope and show you”.
The first time I saw Saturn, I was looking for Mars, and when I upped the magnification and saw those rings, I was close to incontinence and hyperventilation!
I know that there are programs and motor driven 'scopes that will automatically track relative motion, but until I can afford an upgrade, does anyone out there has any tips on how to maximixe my Gallilean observations?
My scope doesnt have any form of motor drive, but if you set up the tripod exactly enough (it has a secondary scope built into the mount for lining up with the pole star) you only need to track with right ascension. Also of course, at the low powers I use (typically 40 and 100) the effects arent so bad.
If you want to take your astronomy further, and you seem pretty keen, I would recommend getting yourself a decent second-hand 6" reflector. A good starting point and not too expensive.
Ditch the Tasco, you will open up a whole new world if you get a 6" with a decent mount.
