New answers tagged

1

LBV stars are very powerful, very large and bright, and even though they may be near the end of their life, still young - since they don't survive for long. These are problematic. Their powerful solar winds will clear the region around them, meaning that planets are less likely to form close to the star. It is much less likely for a LBV star to be aligned ...


4

In terms of steadiness of the air and hence stability of the image (ie ability to see fine detail on planets or split close double stars), it could go either way, depending on the atmospheric conditions, including wind speed and direction, and the local topography. In contrast, valleys can sometimes provide better seeing because they provide some protection ...


0

There is a discussion of this at http://cosmoquest.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-107733.html In summary, the perseids occur on the same date of the sidereal year, which differs from the tropical year due to precession. This causes a change of about one day in 70 years to the date of a meteor shower. 2600 years causes a change of about 37 days compared to ...


6

With an 8" scope, a filter will very likely give you better results than observing without a filter. Although a filter does block light, the crucial aspect is that a filter increases contrast (by blocking light pollution and extraneous wavelengths of light more than the nebula), thereby allowing you to spot low contrast diffuse nebulae (like IC59 and IC1318) ...


0

Okay, this turned out to be quite a long answer describing a few arguments I've com up with. The short answer is: maybe, maybe not, but I think it's possible. There are arguments to be made for either side of this discussion, and I don't think you you can ever be absolutely sure unless you find an expert on both astronomy and Chinese folk tales (which I don'...


0

Grip the binoculars as far out as you can. Shake is actually angular movement of the binoculars. Abstractly speaking your binoculars are a single-sided lever with the swivel-point where the eye-pieces are pressed against your face, while the hands cause angular movement. The longer the lever is, the smaller the angular deflection for a specific movement of ...


1

For binoculars, your best option isn't just a simple tripod, but a parallelogram mount (link for representation only, not a product recommendation) on a tripod. While many standard to slightly larger than standard binoculars will have an adapter to attach them to a standard tripod; except for looking at things near the horizon it won't be comfortable to use....


2

I always recommend a good tripod. That said, there are a few tricks to stabilizing binoculars in human hands. Hold your elbows together, under the binocs and pressed up against your belly. This reduces the leverage that the binoculars have on your stable body by half. Hold something heavy on/under the binoculars. In the army I would take to full M-16 ...


7

Tripods are good, as are monopods. These aren't as stable as tripods but are easier to lug around. When using a monopod you form the other two legs of the "tripod" to create the stability. Other options: Lean your elbows on a wall or something else at the right height. This is more useful when looking at terrestrial objects, but you should be able to ...


3

Ideally a tripod as Journeyman suggests. Another idea is to use a different grip. Use both hands to hold the right hand objective housing. Allow the left hand objective to rest on the back of your left hand/wrist. Also if possible hold your elbows in closer to your body (this is really only possible if you're not looking very high up.) This means your two ...


16

Don't hold the binoculars in your hands. Humans are made of meat. wobbly wobbly meat. There's apparently devices that let you mount binoculars on tripods - (this google search would be a start). Those and a tripod would probably be helpful in decreasing shake. I suppose it would affect mobility a little but that's a tradeoff.


3

From before the dawn of history people naturally assumed that the sky was a solid dome above the flat earth. The dome was assumed to rotate once a day, so the stars were assumed to be lights attached to the dome. Anyone who assumed that the sky dome was opaque had to assume that the sun and the wandering planets were nearer than the sky dome. I think ...



Top 50 recent answers are included