Jump to content

Astronomy / The Universe


graygo

Recommended Posts

The post about the SKA in South Africa is interesting.  Why will it take better images than Hubble?  We all know that Hubble gets good images because it doesn't have to contend with the distortions created by the earth's atmosphere.  To say that earthbound SKA images will be 10,000 times better than Hubble is quite a claim.  Not a hundred times, or a thousand times ... but 10,000 times better?   Hmm.

 

And why is the SKA so superior to the existing VLA in south western United States? My interest is tweeked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 668
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • maroonlegions

    121

  • Maple Leaf

    56

  • ri Alban

    48

  • deesidejambo

    40

maroonlegions

The post about the SKA in South Africa is interesting.  Why will it take better images than Hubble?  We all know that Hubble gets good images because it doesn't have to contend with the distortions created by the earth's atmosphere.  To say that earthbound SKA images will be 10,000 times better than Hubble is quite a claim.  Not a hundred times, or a thousand times ... but 10,000 times better?   Hmm.

 

And why is the SKA so superior to the existing VLA in south western United States? My interest is tweeked.

 

SKA is being built for one purpose and that is it will capture images in the radio spectrum, that changes the game so to speak, it will not be inhibited by distortions by the earths atmosphere i think.

 

Who said it was superior to the VLT in Chile , the SKA will be superior to all known RADIO telescopes.

 

Radio telescopes can capture better images because they are operating  in the radio spectrum was my understanding when i spoke to her last.     

Link to post
Share on other sites

The post about the SKA in South Africa is interesting.  Why will it take better images than Hubble?  We all know that Hubble gets good images because it doesn't have to contend with the distortions created by the earth's atmosphere.  To say that earthbound SKA images will be 10,000 times better than Hubble is quite a claim.  Not a hundred times, or a thousand times ... but 10,000 times better?   Hmm.

 

And why is the SKA so superior to the existing VLA in south western United States? My interest is tweeked.

 

SKA is a radio telescope, so that probably is why--it'll receive extremely low frequencies compared to the optical spectrum which won't be as subject to interference, and I imagine they'll also have interferometry built into it since the site stretches across a kilometre of distance.

 

I'm absolutely just speculating though.

 

Edit: What maroon said!

Edited by Justin Z
Link to post
Share on other sites

SKA is being built for one purpose and that is it will capture images in the radio spectrum, that changes the game so to speak, it will not be inhibited by distortions by the earths atmosphere i think.

 

Who said it was superior to the VLT in Chile , the SKA will be superior to all known RADIO telescopes.

 

Radio telescopes can capture better images because they are operating  in the radio spectrum was my understanding when i spoke to her last.     

 

I think we're getting mixed up in our terms.

 

The VLA in New Mexico (nothing to do with Chile) is a RADIO telescope, and I asked why the SKA is better than that.  I'm still curious.

 

Hubble is not a RADIO telescope; it takes pictures.  To say that a RADIO telescope will take 10,000 times better images than a VISUAL telescope is misleading, probably even wrong. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked for a telescope for Christmas a few years back. Got a LIDL telescope. Didn't work, despite all the hours I spent trying to see stars.

 

I googled the model and the problem was that it was shite. You need a good one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
maroonlegions

Oh well. Thread ruined.

 Grow up you.  :5643:

 

 

 

How is it ruined.  :sleepy:

 

Or are you out to shit stir.

 

No comment on the SKA in my post then, :sleepy:  you would think you could  act  a bit more mature  and look past the link snippets.. :placate:   mmmm, Oh well you seem uninterested in this branch of astronomy regarding the SKA, strange as you clearly stated you love space and astronomy.

 

You do realise  that comments like that tend to get responses and end up ruining threads, oh the irony eh.  :lol:

 

Looks like its because i posted it you will not comment on it,  at least you are transparent i will give you that.  :65:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're getting mixed up in our terms.

 

The VLA in New Mexico (nothing to do with Chile) is a RADIO telescope, and I asked why the SKA is better than that.  I'm still curious.

 

Hubble is not a RADIO telescope; it takes pictures.  To say that a RADIO telescope will take 10,000 times better images than a VISUAL telescope is misleading, probably even wrong. 

 

Ah okay, I see.  Well, regardless of what frequency a telescope is looking in, it's still all light.  So accounting for those differences I think it's possible to make a claim that a certain radio telescope has 50x the resolution of certain other optical telescope.  But obviously it'll be looking at things in a much different way.

 

Also, a lot of the images we see taken by Hubble are composite--the same image viewed in various wavelengths, including infrared, UV, x-ray, etc., and then each of them assigned a colour and merged into one "false colour" image.  Honestly, the whole thing confuses me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
maroonlegions

I asked for a telescope for Christmas a few years back. Got a LIDL telescope. Didn't work, despite all the hours I spent trying to see stars.

 

I googled the model and the problem was that it was shite. You need a good one.

 

Wasted hours trying to see stars through a shite telescope.. :laugh4:

 

Worse was when i was young using a pair of binoculars.. :laugh4:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Grow up you.  :5643:

 

 

 

How is it ruined.  :sleepy:

 

Or are you out to shit stir.

 

No comment on the SKA in my post then, :sleepy:  you would think you could  act  a bit more mature  and look past the link snippets.. :placate:   mmmm, Oh well you seem uninterested in this branch of astronomy regarding the SKA, strange as you clearly stated you love space and astronomy.

 

You do realise  that comments like that tend to get responses and end up ruining threads, oh the irony eh.  :lol:

 

Looks like its because i posted it you will not comment on it,  at least you are transparent i will give you that.  :65:

 

maroon, I took it as a joke by deeside with no ill intent, I think you're overreacting a bit mate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
deesidejambo

Grow up you. :5643:

 

 

 

How is it ruined. :sleepy:

 

Or are you out to shit stir.

 

No comment on the SKA in my post then, :sleepy: you would think you could act a bit more mature and look past the link snippets.. :placate: mmmm, Oh well you seem uninterested in this branch of astronomy regarding the SKA, strange as you clearly stated you love space and astronomy.

 

You do realise that comments like that tend to get responses and end up ruining threads, oh the irony eh. :lol:

 

Looks like its because i posted it you will not comment on it, at least you are transparent i will give you that. :65:

Six smileys in one post. You need to try harder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked for a telescope for Christmas a few years back. Got a LIDL telescope. Didn't work, despite all the hours I spent trying to see stars.

 

I googled the model and the problem was that it was shite. You need a good one.

Even a good home telescope will not let you see images of stars.  They're too far away, and will always be nothing more than points of light to the home astronomer.

 

Home telescopes are mainly for viewing the moon and planets.  If you have proper filters (VERY important), you can also see sunspots.

Link to post
Share on other sites
deesidejambo

Back on topic. It looks like a clear night so those lucky spuds with telescopes get a shot at Venus and report back.

Shite it's just clouded over. Anyway Mars is near Venus on the ecliptic also so if it clears up you could get both. I seem to remember Mars you can make out the polar regions with a scope but it's a long time since I had one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
deesidejambo

Even a good home telescope will not let you see images of stars. They're too far away, and will always be nothing more than points of light to the home astronomer.

 

Home telescopes are mainly for viewing the moon and planets. If you have proper filters (VERY important), you can also see sunspots.

Telescopes will do galaxies remember.

Link to post
Share on other sites
maroonlegions

I think we're getting mixed up in our terms.

 

The VLA in New Mexico (nothing to do with Chile) is a RADIO telescope, and I asked why the SKA is better than that.  I'm still curious.

 

Hubble is not a RADIO telescope; it takes pictures.  To say that a RADIO telescope will take 10,000 times better images than a VISUAL telescope is misleading, probably even wrong. 

 

 

 

 

I thought you meant the VLT that is based in Chile.

 

here;  http://www.eso.org/public/teles-instr/paranal/

 

Radio telescopes takes data  in the radio spectrum,  SKA will be more sophisticated in its detection in the radio spectrum and  from these images can be built up i think.

 

They can by that definition detect further than telescopes that take pictures, not in the visual but in the  radio spectrum as SKA will doing.

 

Radio reaches further than the visual spectrum and thus is what it gives the edge on Hubble and also  most other  radio telescopes . 

 

Sure this is why it will be more effective than Hubble, Hubble is still very valuable in the data it collects, is just that it collects it mainly in the visual spectrum  but SKA is being built for the radio spectrum.  

 

That is my layman's understanding the last time i spoke to her.   :laugh4:  

 

There is no misleading here at least not from her.  :laugh4:

 

You do realise that i am not in the mould of my wifes cousin who is working on this SKA :scholar: .

 

Another point to point out is that this new SKA will be in operation by 2020. 

 

SKA is being built to look for RADIO galaxy's not VISUAL like Hubble. 

 

They are confidant once its operational it will produce better results that the present radio telescopes because of the technology it will have.  

 

No point in counting the chickens until they hatch.

Edited by maroonlegions
Link to post
Share on other sites
maroonlegions

maroon, I took it as a joke by deeside with no ill intent, I think you're overreacting a bit mate.

 

Thing is one can get over protective when one is on the receiving end  a lot mate. :laugh4:

 

Cheers for the clearing  up your part in the joke though. :laugh4:  

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to recommend the book "Turn Left at Orion" for anyone that has a telescope, or even binoculars. Great beginner's guide that shows you what you'll actually see from a small telescope, rather than disappoint you with photos from Hubble when all you can see is cloudy wee dots.

Link to post
Share on other sites
maroonlegions

Loving this image of an exo planet that was captured by the VLT or very large telescope in Chile.

 

1,200 light years away in the 25 Orions group, slightly northwest of the famous Orion's belt.

 

This is a first for a exo planet to be captured.

 

The small dot to the upper left of the frame is the planet.

 

The big blob is it star.

 

potw1624a.jpg

 

Would love one of these bad boy telescopes and the land to put it on.. :laugh4:  

 

Link for study paper;

http://www.eso.org/public/archives/releases/sciencepapers/potw1624/potw1624a.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
maroonlegions

I have to recommend the book "Turn Left at Orion" for anyone that has a telescope, or even binoculars. Great beginner's guide that shows you what you'll actually see from a small telescope, rather than disappoint you with photos from Hubble when all you can see is cloudy wee dots.

 

Good post.

 

Like your CRASS avatar. :2thumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bloody remote control on this thing needs 8 batteries which I didn't realise. :ahhhhhhh:

If it's anything like my Celestron telescope, forget trying to run it from AAs. It won't work at all with rechargeables and eats duracells in an hour. You really want to get a power pack, basically a small car battery and charger built in.

 

Some tips:

Leave your telescope outside for 30 mins before using, so that it can cool down. You get a much clearer view that way.

 

If you want to look at nebulae or galaxies, you need about 15 mins in pitch darkness for your eyes to dark adapt properly. After that, you can use red lights only if you want to keep the dark adaptation (one flash of light will ruin it). The big planets and star clusters can be seen without dark adaptation.

Edited by wbm1874
Link to post
Share on other sites
maroonlegions

Here we have Galaxy images from the GAMMA survey in the image provided below.

 

They are in the following frequencies.

 

Optical, Near-Infrared  Mid-Infrared Ultraviolet. Far-Infrared

 

Interesting to note that the SKA , soon to be *worlds largest radio telescope* as described below is mentioned, this was from an article from 2015 that appeared in the "International Astronomical Union publication". 

 

Note that the team of researchers hope to "EXPAND" the work , using a swathe of new facilities, including the soon to be SKA radio telescope. 

 

In short when SKA becomes operational it will provided a much larger framework through its usage of the radio frequency  and with better results.

 

Astronomy and other scientific disciplines can only benefit as was mentioned in my wifes cousins articule.

 

*The team of researchers hope to expand the work to map energy production over the entire history of the Universe, using a swathe of new facilities, *including the world?s largest radio telescope, the Square Kilometre Array,* which is due to be built in Australia and South Africa over the next decade.*

 

 

 

iau1509a.jpg

 

link for study paper;

http://www.eso.org/public/archives/releases/sciencepapers/eso1533/eso1533a.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
maroonlegions

If it's anything like my Celestron telescope, forget trying to run it from AAs. It won't work at all with rechargeables and eats duracells in an hour. You really want to get a power pack, basically a small car battery and charger built in.

 

Some tips:

Leave your telescope outside for 30 mins before using, so that it can cool down. You get a much clearer view that way.

 

If you want to look at nebulae or galaxies, you need about 15 mins in pitch darkness for your eyes to dark adapt properly. After that, you can use red lights only if you want to keep the dark adaptation (one flash of light will ruin it). The big planets and star clusters can be seen without dark adaptation.

 

 

Great tips. :2thumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great tips. :2thumbsup:

Cheers. Happy to encourage anyone to have a look out a telescope. While everyone's now waiting for Amazon to deliver Turn Left at Orion, here's a list of some things to look at that are quite easy to find:

 

Jupiter - my favourite thing to look at. Different every time you look. You need to look in the early evening right now.

 

Saturn - looks like a comic book drawing. As my mate said when he first saw it: "that's Saturn-y as ****!". Early morning for this.

 

Venus - this shows phases like the moon, it's half dark right now. Early evening.

 

The other planets are just coloured dots really, Mars is just a dull red disc right now.

 

All these things should be visible all night:

 

Albireo - bright orange and blue double star. You need high magnification to see both stars, but good to show anyone that doesn't think stars can be brightly coloured.

 

Andromeda Galaxy - you need to use "averted gaze" to see this best (you have to look down the telescope with the side of your eye, rather than looking directly down it). It's a bit of a dull smudge really, but huge.

 

Ring Nebula - averted gaze again. Might be too dim for a small telescope. The Dumbbell Nebula is nearby and about as bright.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thing is one can get over protective when one is on the receiving end  a lot mate. :laugh4:

 

Cheers for the clearing  up your part in the joke though. :laugh4:  

 

:thumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
All roads lead to Gorgie

It is incredible what us city dwellers miss with light pollution. I have camped out in the Cairngorms and in other remote places and the depth of stars visible blows the mind. The Milky way, The Orion Nebula are much clearer as are passing satellites and meteorite activity when the sky is so unaffected by town lights. The dark sky areas in Northumberland and Galloway are an excellent idea to draw people into an exciting hobby.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kalamazoo Jambo

I have a Celestron NexStar 6SE which is a great telescope. Portable(ish), but good enough to see Jupiter and its moons, and Saturn's rings, on a good night. I'm in the suburbs so viewing isn't always the best due to light pollution. One day I'll take my telescope to a dark sky park to get a decent view :thumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I had waited a few days before starting this thread so that I had something to contribute but good to see the level of interest and some good tips for when I get going :thumbsup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since readin this thread I've started pricing a half decent telescope. Not bad prices at all. May well have to invest

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain America

Since readin this thread I've started pricing a half decent telescope. Not bad prices at all. May well have to invest

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have been doing the same thing.

 

This thread has definitely peaked my interest. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll never forget the first time I looked through my telescope and saw Saturn's rings, or the mountains on the moon.  It was incredible.

 

Saturn's rings are not always visible, of course, and the best time to look at the moon is during the 1st or 3rd quarter, when the sun is off to the side.

Link to post
Share on other sites
zoltan socrates

Does anyone know if the electronics can be retro fitted, have a celestron reflector but its manual, you need to line up with the pole star and go from thre, tracking is akward until you get used to it, electronics would make things easier and allow me to find these elusive planets

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if the electronics can be retro fitted, have a celestron reflector but its manual, you need to line up with the pole star and go from thre, tracking is akward until you get used to it, electronics would make things easier and allow me to find these elusive planets

If it's planets your after maybe use an App and zero in from there? You can't possibly miss Venus tonight and Mars is close by, both easily visible with naked eye.

 

The Apps sometimes go off if the calibration is affected by nearby metal I think so don't stand near cars when using them.

 

Hope this helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites
zoltan socrates

If it's planets your after maybe use an App and zero in from there? You can't possibly miss Venus tonight and Mars is close by, both easily visible with naked eye.

The Apps sometimes go off if the calibration is affected by nearby metal I think so don't stand near cars when using them.

Hope this helps.

Cheers dee, im looking at what i think is venus atm in the ssw area if the sky, certainly the brightest object in that area, but zeroing in is murder, ive swapped all the lenses out for the maximum widefield view but feck me, as soon as you change to the more magnifying lenses its gone, tweak here, tweak there nowt

 

Using a celestron powerseeker 127

 

Moon views are epic btw

Edited by zoltan socrates
Link to post
Share on other sites
maroonlegions

Ignoring any derogatory comments from the usual trolls my wifes cousin has assured me that we aint seen nothing yet. :laugh4:

 

After all she is working on it and is apart  of SKA and its developments in finding and studying radio galaxies.   :scholar:

 

A wee reminder of the significance of SKA and once it is fully operational it will be a significant contributor to astronomy, physics and sciences views of other galaxies and our universe.    :cool4:

 

 

MeerKAT/SKA.
The 64-dish MeerKAT Radio Telescope in South Africa is so powerful that in a test run using only 16 of its 64 dishes, it was able to detect 1,300 galaxies where only 70 were previously known to exist. All 64 of those dishes are expected to be in place by the start of 2017, so we can expect big discoveries from this telescope. As if MeerKAT isn?t impressive enough, it?s actually just a small part of an even bigger project, the Square Kilometer Array (SKA). 

 

 

As for Hubble it is due to be replaced by the James West Space Telescope ,(JWST).

 

James West Space Telescope,(JWST).
Just in case the potential for super-Earth discoveries in 2017 isn?t enough, NASA?s Hubble replacement, the James Webb Space Telescope, will join the hunt for exoplanets orbiting nearby stars in 2018. This telescope took 20 years and $8.8 billion to build, and it was designed with a view 100 times the size of Hubble?s. Supposedly, it is so powerful that it can detect a bumblebee on the Moon, so hopes are high it?ll be able to find more super-Earths.

 

 

 Aperture Spherical Telescope,(FAST).

The 500-meter (547-yard) wide Aperture Spherical Telescope (FAST), nicknamed Tianyan (Eye of Heaven), holds the world record not only in size but in sensitivity: it?s about twice as sensitive and between five and 10 times as fast in surveying as the previous record holder. This device went live in September this year, so it?ll likely contribute to many discoveries in 2017. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignoring any derogatory comments from the usual trolls my wifes cousin has assured me that we aint seen nothing yet. :laugh4:

 

After all she is working on it and is apart  of SKA and its developments in finding and studying radio galaxies.   :scholar:

 

 

That's all very well mate and I'm not meaning to be rude or trolling you but I hoped that this thread would be kept at the novice / home user level.

Link to post
Share on other sites
maroonlegions

Looks like we have a astronomer on the surface of Mars, no not Martians but NASAs  MRO or the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Curiosity who captured this stunning picture of earth and our moon from the surface of Mars shown below.

 

Curiosity captured this image  from its on board High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment ,(HiRISE), camera.

 

At the time of this image taken by the MRO earth was an estimated 127 million miles away said NASA.

 

This stunning new photo was actually from a composite of two separate exposures take to calibrate HiRISE.

 

Remember reading on NASAs web site that HiRISE is so powerful that its able to resolve features as small as 3.3 feet ,(1 meter i think), across on the Martian surface  from MRO"s orbital perch or some thing along those lines.

 

That brown splodge on the centre of the  earth is Australia.  

 

 

earth-moon-from-mars.jpg?interpolation=l

Edited by maroonlegions
Link to post
Share on other sites
maroonlegions

That's all very well mate and I'm not meaning to be rude or trolling you but I hoped that this thread would be kept at the novice / home user level.

 

Forgive my enthusiasm  mate and i do apologise but i am no astronomer my self , just wanted to add some info in layman's terms.

 

Will be adding any up dates on SKA i get from my wifes cousin, if that is alright, will keep it simple or get her to communicate  it in layman's terms. 

Edited by maroonlegions
Link to post
Share on other sites
zoltan socrates

Looks like we have a astronomer on the surface of Mars, no not Martians but NASAs MRO or the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Curiosity who captured this stunning picture of earth and our moon from the surface of Mars shown below.

 

Curiosity captured this image from its on board High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment ,(HiRISE), camera.

 

At the time of this image taken by the MRO earth was an estimated 127 million miles away said NASA.

 

This stunning new photo was actually from a composite of two separate exposures take to calibrate HiRISE.

 

Remember reading on NASAs web site that HiRISE is so powerful that its able to resolve features as small as 3.3 feet ,(1 meter i think), across on the Martian surface from MRO"s orbital perch or some thing along those lines.

 

That brown splodge on the centre of the earth is Australia.

 

 

earth-moon-from-mars.jpg?interpolation=l

Great image, great to see what we look like from elsewhere, although a composite id image scale is bang on so it demonstrates how far away the moon actually is

 

Edit? Ok so composite is exposure, learning

Edited by zoltan socrates
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great image, great to see what we look like from elsewhere, although a composite id image scale is bang on so it demonstrates how far away the moon actually is

The moon is much further away from earth than that picture suggests.  The diameter of earth is about 9,000 miles, and the moon is 250,000 miles away.  The picture suggests that the moon is about 4 earth diameters away ... it's actually about 28 earth diameters away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
zoltan socrates

The moon is much further away from earth than that picture suggests.  The diameter of earth is about 9,000 miles, and the moon is 250,000 miles away.  The picture suggests that the moon is about 4 earth diameters away ... it's actually about 28 earth diameters away.

Which is amazing in terms of what gravity can do

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers dee, im looking at what i think is venus atm in the ssw area if the sky, certainly the brightest object in that area, but zeroing in is murder, ive swapped all the lenses out for the maximum widefield view but feck me, as soon as you change to the more magnifying lenses its gone, tweak here, tweak there nowt

 

Using a celestron powerseeker 127

 

Moon views are epic btw

Yes that's Venus. Remember it's moving South-west so once you have it In focus it will move down and to the right. So you have to keep moving the scope or get one of those fancy ones that track the image.

 

Mars is less bright but is distinctly red and is to the north east of Venus. Both probably almost set by now.

Edited by deesidejambo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is amazing in terms of what gravity can do

OK, one comment about how amazing gravity is, then I'll shut up.   :wink:

 

If we reduced the sun to the size of a basketball, the earth would be a grain of sand orbiting the basketball 60 meters away.

 

Saturn, the furthest out planet, would be the size of a small pea, orbiting the basketball 1.8 kilometres away.

 

Pluto, and other small bodies in the Kuiper belt are almost invisible dust, and are about 3-4 kilometres away from the basketball.

 

And all are held in orbit by the sun's gravity.  It must be magic!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in a fairly rural location, and I usually walk my dog most evenings. Sometimes, away from the glare of the street lamps, I often see some staggeringly good night skies.

 

 

On occasion, I can just stand there looking up, and stare in awe at the number of stars, and even the cloudy spiral of our Milky Way suburb.

 

 

That is all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For this interested (not conspiracy theorists), heres a treat.

 

Its about 18 minutes long but to me its compelling watching for anyone interested in space stuff.

 

It looks a bit complicated but in essence its the whole landing, including both radio loops.  There is an alarm midway through and in the end they almost run out of fuel.  

 

By identifying the craters passing by underneath them, Armstrong calculates in his head that they are off course and takes over the controls and lands manually to avoid boulders.

 

The end result is one of mankind greatest ever achievements (to me anyway).

 

The other five landings are also on video but this was the first and imo the best as it had the alarms, fuel, and off-course issues, all of which were dealt with calmly by two great people.

 

Note to Space Mackerel - its all faked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
maroonlegions

After a one on one discussion with the Mrs and a promise  from me that i will be a good boy until my birthday she has agreed to get me a telescope for my birthday.

 

 Of course i was right on the web looking for one within the budget we agreed,(well mostly  her), on, found this one or something similar along its design. 

 

There is one going for ?109 , second hand probably.

 

Still five months to my birthday though.. :sob:

 

The Celestron Powerseeker. :laugh4:

 

 Sounds like its straight out of a Marvel comic.. :laugh4:

 

 

 

 

  • Explore the universe and the world around you with this Newtonian reflector telescope;
  • Capable of up to 269 times magnification (using Barlow Lens) to see to Jupiter and beyond; :laugh4:
  • Comes with two eyepieces (20mm and 4mm) and a 3 times Barlow lens to customise your telescope for the best view.
 
Edited by maroonlegions
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...