ask me anything astronomical

Right but it doesn't happen simultaneously. The umbra is only a few thousand miles wide, and sweeps across the globe in the course of an hour or so . . . Afternoon in africa, sunset in vietnam, say.

Ok, here's one. I and my daughter have been looking for a scope but it's not easy at all. What is the best scope for beginners in the 200-300 dollar range who want to see planets and nebulea?

I'd suggest reading through this thread, so you can familiarize yourself with telescopes a bit more, plus it should answer a lot of your questions: Astronomy: Telescopes.

Now, to answer what you asked directly...

Orion SkyQuest XT4.5 Dobsonian Reflector - $229.95
Orion SkyQuest XT6 Dobsonian Reflector - $259.95

Though, I'd really reccommend splurging for something in the 8-10" range. Also, if you're in an area of bad light pollution (anywhere within 30 miles of a large city), it'll worth it.

On top of that, please don't expect Hubble-esque images. Another thing is, the longer the look at the object the more you'll see, and looking right above and below the object helps too, as that portion of your eye is more sensitive to light.

[edit on 7/31/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]

Thanks, we have been looking at the xt6 believe it or not (I put us on Orions mailing list). Several of the sites I've been to suggested it. I guess we'll give it go.

Don't forget to buy some charts or some books telling you where to find stuff. Also, don't get discouraged if you can't find what you're looking for or get it to focus properly when you do. Finding things is hard and takes quite a bit of practice. Focusing can be even harder, as everyone's eyes are different and, on top of that, you can really get some poor viewing quality from the atmospheric conditions.

So are you suggesting I get the intelliscope? I realize that sometimes it's better to do it on your own but is it really that hard? I'm leaning towards intelliscope because if we don't get one and we don't see anything but the moon, she may get disinterested.

Is star, planet and nebula finding that hard?

[edit on 2-8-2006 by notbuynit]

[edit on 2-8-2006 by notbuynit]

I really don't know what to tell you. I grew up with telescopes, and so I know how to use them and find things very easily. It's pretty much a second nature for me. Honestly, it was harder for me to figure out how to use the Intelliscope and find stuff with that.

I get mixed reviews on it from people new to telescopes, as well... Some say it makes it easier, some say they find it easier to go the old fashioned route. Either way you'll still see what you're looking for, though doing it on your own you'll probably feel like you're getting more out of it. Besides, not all scopes are going to have the keypad, and if you come along one without you'll just be at a loss.

It may be hard to find what you're looking for, and aligning the finder scope, and just generally getting used to the way the optics work (moving the scope up makes what you're looking at move down, left is right, etc...), but, like all things worth their while, practice makes perfect. If you go out and use it for even a few hours a week, after a month you should be pretty proficient at it.

[edit on 8/2/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]

Holy thread revival, Batman!

I've learned a bit in a year. Let's do this thing!

How long does it take for an astronomer to eat five batteries?

Welcome back buddy!

Oooh! Me, me, me! I've got one!

What do you think is in the Eridanus Supervoid?

reply to post by spacedoubt


Hard to say, I've been gone about 15 months, best I can figure, and I know I was working on it even before I left. It may yet become one of those age old questions akin to "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" Or "If a tree in the forest falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Or maybe, just maybe, "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop?"

Thanks, mate!

[edit on 11/12/2007 by cmdrkeenkid]

reply to post by Beachcoma


Hmm... An empty space comparable to that only to those of the contestants on the show "America's Most Smartest Model?"

Voids are a tricky thing, as to why there are no galaxies and the CMB is much less, I really can only begin to speculate.

Perhaps it's just what happens as Superclusters of galaxies interact on a multi-galaxy scale and pull together to form. For example, the Southern Local Supervoid is located near our own Local Supercluster, while the Northern Local Supervoid has it's own Superclusters associated to it. As for what the Eridanus one is doing there, maybe we're just seeing another one. I can't think of any Superclusters in that general region, but there are surely some there.

The voids could even be the sources of dark matter, and that's why it appears that there is nothing there.

EDIT: I really like the way to reply to a specific quote. Makes it a lot easier to respond to someone in particular, for sure. Well done!

[edit on 11/12/2007 by cmdrkeenkid]

That sounds quite reasonable. So what you're saying is that the voids could have formed because the superclusters close to it basically sucked all visible matter out of the region?

Off topic: America's Most Smartest Model? Now that's something new to me. Also sounds like an oxymoron.

reply to post by Beachcoma


Yeah, it's only a half-thought out hypothesis. Who knows though, right?

As for the show, I am yet to see it personally. I haven't actually watched television in about two years. When I was first told about it I thought it was a complete joke, but apparently the people on it are of the most vapid sort.

Okay, I have got another one. Actually I've got two questions, unrelated to each other.

1. How are molecular clouds of alcohol and sugar formed?

2. If nothing exceeds the speed of light, how come the universe appears to expand faster than the speed of light?

reply to post by cmdrkeenkid


Hi. How are you? I have a question. What's the deal with the Chinese?

I see its been a while since anyone posted here .. hope its still read ..

Well here goes ..

First off my knowledge of space the planets
and travel in space are very basic .. as in
school stuff and stuff read online or watched
on tv etc .. but i have had this thought for a
while now .. i read that if you could travel
at the speed of light say to Mars, by the time
you got back to Earth everyone would have
dramatically aged more than you .. i sort of
get that .. but my question is .. if someone
travelled to Mars at the same speed as the
rovers that are there would the same thing
apply if they returned ?? or does that theory
just apply to travelling at the speed of light ??
The reason i ask is because if you answered
that yes people would age more when you return
after travelling to and from Mars at the same speed
as the Mars rovers .. well wouldn't the signals we send
to these rovers at present, to make them move
, dig etc, wouldn't we be sending them back in time ??

Hang on i recon i've hurt my mind thinking
that one .. but see if you can get your head
around what i'm saying ..

Regards

satellite1