Lunar eclipse and supermoon this month

If I'd driven 100 miles down to Phoenix, I might have found a clear spot.

I had it all planned out to drive over to the west side of the Great Salt Lake, but the weather guessers were predicting heavy cloud cover. As it was I happened to look outside about 8:30 and found a bright moon in a nearly clear sky, with the eclipse starting in just a few minutes. It was a rush to get things set up, and then the clouds began to move in and the wind to blow while the eclipse was underway. Still, my results were better than at the University (USU), which was totally clouded over. I'm told the chair of the Physics Department has a print of one of mine over his desk today. :rolleyes:

Hurrah! I'd pay for Sony to unlock their cameras. Other companies have done that, restricted to a particular camera.

 

You don't need a tracker for visual observation, but you may need to readjust frequently to keep the object in view. the earth's rotation amounts to 4 arc-minutes per minute. Nor do you need tracking if your exposures are short enough. The general rule is 500/FL (or less, for high resolution sensors). 10 seconds, using a 25 mm lens with a 42 MP sensors, stretches star images about about 3 pixels. You need to "peep" to see that effect.

 

The telescope above is relatively inexpensive, and has pretty much everything you need to get started. It includes two eyepieces (52x and 130x), a star diagonal (for easier viewing), and a handy carrying case. I bought the 102 mm (4") because it is the largest telescope I can use with the tracker, yet easily portable. It gathers about 30% more light than the 90 mm (3.5") version. When I was in high school, a similar telescope cost over $1000 ($5000 in today's money). Popularity and improved manufacturing methods have greatly reduced the cost. The mirrors and corrector plate use spherical surfaces, and may be molded, rather than ground, to shape. It sure beats spending three weeks grinding a parabola into a 7 pound piece of glass and mounting it in a carpet tube (or newsprint core).

 

The camera and T-mount cost an additional $25. It mounts directly on the telescope, without an eyepiece.

 

(star watcher) 102mm | B&H Photo Video

 

This is something I've wanted to do since elementary school, but never had the money or the time. I didn't want to pour money into this project until I knew it was something I'd like, and small enough and easily assembled to take with me on a whim. You don't need high power. Most objects in the sky are bigger than you think. The moon is 0.5 deg, the Orion nebula is 0.7 deg, and the Andromeda galaxy (M31) subtends over 2 degrees. Planets need higher magnification to see any details, but you can barely see the rings of Saturn, the Galilean moons and bands of Jupitar, and the polar ice caps on Mars at 50x.

I've got that telescope in my shopping cart. I get some nice views facing east over Lake Michigan without too much light pollution looking out my window. That type of telescope doesn't need collimation?

To be clear, the 25 mm lens was a camera lens, not an eyepiece (which would yield 52x on this scope). Unlike a Newtonian or simple Cassagrain (with a spider), you don't need to collimate this telescope. It's closed at both ends, except for an opening for an eyepiece. Focusing is internal, by shifting the mirror. There is no noticeable wobble when you do that, indicating tight construction.