Search Results for 'espin telescope'

[Robin Leadbeater]

Hi Roger,

I saw a comment suggesting a Be star on the TNS discovery entry where it is AT2021ziw. I uploaded my spectrum there to eliminate that suggestion

https://www.wis-tns.org/object/2021ziw

but at the time the gaia team uploaded their discovery there it had only brightened by around 0.4 mag so I would have said the possibilities were pretty wide open at that point. That’s why a spectrum is useful.

Not sure why a brightening Be star  would be singled out as a likely possibility, (there must be many mechanisms that can produce such an upward drift in brightness) but my first spectrum clearly eliminated that possibility and that given it looked like a pretty average K class star, probably many other alternatives. The shape and symmetry of  the light curve now pretty much seals it as microlensing and my second spectrum supports that. (Only a microlensing event or eclipsing binary would be expected to leave the spectrum unchanged through a significant change in brightness)  

I see there is now another spectrum in TNS, taken using the 3.8m Seimei telescope. Although higher resolution the features are the same as in my spectra. (There is a bit of difference in continuum slope, possibly down to my choice of reference star.) 

Cheers

Robin

[Michael E. Marotta]

The Science and Art of Using Telescopes, by Philip Pugh, Springer, 2009. 

The essence of the book is given in the opening. Get past the beginner stage by finding new interests; specialize in subbranches of observational astronomy (page 2; page 4). After that, the writing devolves into a rambling monologue directed at knowledgeable amateurs. The information provided serves more as reminders of what we know, rather than providing new learning or directing us to important resources. Early on and throughout, the author tells us to find out about the current markets for instruments and accessories by referring to “monthly magazines” none of which he names. In point of fact, Popular Astronomy from the SPA appears bi-monthly, and the independent Amateur Astronomy comes out quarterly. 

Author Philip Pugh does name his favorite brand of equipment, Sky-Watcher. He cites them 16 times (as “Skywatcher”), which is as often as he mentions Meade (7), Celestron (6), Takahashi (2), Astro-Physics (1) , and Tele Vue (1) combined. Other labels are similarly passed over with brief mentions. 

In fact, the references to Astro-Physics and Tele Vue underscore the fact that this book is poorly edited. The brand names are misspelled as Astro Physics (page 250) and indexed as Astro physics; and Televue. Takahashi is misspelled as Takashi (page 28) and Takahasi (page 250). Plossl (never, as proper, Plössl or Ploessl) appears in the index as two lists: Plossl and Plossl eyepiece. 

Those small errors reveal the lack of professional proofreading. That speaks to the painfully obvious fact that this book reads like a first draft. The author loves (even in parenthetical comments!) exclamation points! Pugh just wrote this off the top of his head and Springer accepted it for publication. 

As an indication that the author did not have his manuscript fact-checked by an independent reader or even check his own work, the definition of ED (extremely low dispersion glass) is wrong, and wrongly stated. He calls ED “extra dispersion” throughout the book, and in the Glossary: “An extra dispersion lens is an improvement in the achromatic objective lens theme where it uses extra dispersion flint glass to improve performance.” (page 368).  

Perhaps the hallmark of his style is that he avoids unequivocal statements. Pugh cannot discuss telescopes (pages 6-8) without digressing to his preferred choices among binoculars, even though “Choosing Binoculars” is the next section after “Choosing a Telescope.” Paradoxically, that section is not at all about choosing a single telescope but argues very well that you need more than one. The author’s apparent fear of absolute statements results in meaningless advice. “While it is true that the Usual Suspects (see the appendix) can sometimes look better under clear conditions, some gems such as M81 in its full glory have to be enjoyed while the chance is there.” (page 41). That sounds like good advice: whatever your skies right now, take the opportunity to view what you can. But if you read the words carefully, Pugh is saying that M81 can be seen in its full glory even though not under clear conditions, which contradicts the opening clause. 

That example is from the section “Too Cloudy to Go Out?” (page 40-41) which is about why is it not really too cloudy to go out because telescopes can often cut through poor seeing conditions. Faint clusters, dim companion stars, and more can all be viewed under bad conditions. I get the point, but an editor would have retitled the heading. 

Aversion to unequivocal assertions delivers many instances of “however.” 

“Unguided exposures at long focal lengths can be troublesome on some mounts because of tracking errors. However, you will find that auto-guiding can compensate for this very well. Celestron offers a version of this mount. Moving up in quality and performance, companies such as Astro Physics, Takahasi [sic], and Software Bisque manufacture excellent mounts. However, considering the typical cost, they are not mounts for a beginner!” (page 250). 

Why are such mounts not suitable for a beginner who can afford them? He never says. 

 

Attachments:

1. 

   Pugh-Science-and-Art-of-Using-Telescopes-m.jpeg
   

[Robin Leadbeater]

https://www.wis-tns.org/object/2021aefx

A potentially bright supernova in a nearby galaxy for southerly observers (or those with robotic telescope access) to keep an eye on perhaps. Caught early so currently quite faint. The sub type is unclear from the initial spectrum but in the absence of IS extinction a type Ia could potentially reach as bright as mag 11 if the distance (10 Mpc but with high uncertainty) in NED is correct.

Cheers

Robin

[Alan Snook]

S&T didn’t worry about making a political statement when they took a cheap shot (Dec 2020 p21) at Patrick Moore. They criticised Patrick’s politcal and social opinions which were not especially unusual for his time. I felt this was not simply a failure by the author but a full editorial failure. If the author could not write the article without denigration then it should not have been written at all. I doubt they would have attacked a living person or an American citizen in this way. I wrote to S&T but received no response. Much later they printed (Apr 2021 p6) a letter from a British Columbia reader which did little more than merely note the aberration. This wasn’t sufficient retraction in my book and so they have lost a 25-year subscriber. For these reasons I counsel all of you to shun S&T. 

[Michael E. Marotta]

Grant Privett wrote: “…  before the venture capitalists got their grubby mitts on it?”

I object to the irrelevant political adjectives in a science forum. If for some reason, some notable entity in the astronomical communities were making a decision for what to an outsider appeared to be a bad choice for ROI (return on investment), for instance building a new research facility within a nation-state likely to nationalize it, then that could be a topic for discussion. 

More disturbing was the fact that it went unaddressed by the BAA discussion board moderators. 

To answer the question: Sky & Telescope is doing well because of the investment by the American Astronomical Society, which rescued it from the bankruptcy of its publisher.

[Peter Carson]

I own and operate a 315mm Dall Kirkham reflector on a remote site in Spain. I moved the telescope from my back garden to its remote site just over two years ago and it has functioned superbly. It hasn’t had a human finger touch it in around 19 months as (touch wood) it has worked so reliably.

I think the BAA owning and operating a remote based telescope is a practical option although there a number of issues to overcome. For instance each morning after a dewy night I open up the observatory, move the telescope into the Sun to dry it out etc., who would do that? I am also familiar with the myriad of of controls that would puzzle a casual user. A User interface similar to those on a rental telescope would probably be required, but that would make it less flexible.

Despite obstacles, it could be made to work and even a single telescope would provide significant observing time provided it was located on a favourable site,

[Stewart John Bean]

David

I have experience of both the iTel and SLOOH telescopes as I do not have my own kit.  I do not have my own kit because of the hassle of looking after the site, the dome, the telescope, insurance, computer hardware, software, internet access etc. I can understand why people might be concerned about setting up a BAA telescope from scratch. If it must be a BAA telescope  then I would probably recommend an existing telescope farm to cover most of these hassles at , I think, about £300-400 a month. That still leaves the issue of organising how individual users will get time on the instrument.

The other option is to subsidise members using iTEL or SLOOH ( or others). SLOOH offers five targets per night for $300 a year with various filters depending on their eight telescopes. I do VS observing.  Sites are available in both hemispheres. This route seems to be the lowest risk to get started as there is an easy way to bail out if it all goes wrong.

The AAVSOnet instruments do run well for periods but then stop for a long time as equipment goes down. Its a bit mixed in my experience.

Stewart Bean (SLOOH member and ex iTEL member)

[Eric Watkins]

David,

it is good to read that the idea of a BAA remote telescope is not closed.  I had been under the impression it had been ” kicked into touch”

Eric

[Eric Watkins]

Robin a good suggestion.  Some  access to the southern skies would be useful as would be these use of a spectroscope.  The underlying question would be how much finance would be available to purchase suitable equipment that could be hosted at  existing rental sites.  The telescope could be  set up and maintained by the site hosting staff.  After set up there would be fees for maintaining the equipment.  When not in use the equipment could be “rented out” to bring in additional income.  The purchase of equipment could possibly be supported by gifts, discount and advertising by equipment suppliers.  Discounts could be given to members wishing to use the telescope for non-research or approved imaging.

I’m sure there would be useful input for the general idea amongst the membership.

Eric

[Robin Leadbeater]

A remote spectrograph in the southern hemisphere could be productive and is not something that the existing “telescopes for hire” provide. There is 2SPOT, a proof of concept dedicated remotely operated spectrograph on a telescope farm in Chile run by an amateur group, funded from commercial donations, individual personal investment and crowd funding. (The equipment was shipped out and commissioned on site and is maintained locally)

https://www.deepskychile.com/fr/

https://2spot.org/FR/

https://www.helloasso.com/associations/2spot/formulaires/2

[David Arditti]

Be assured that this idea is still under consideration and nothing has been finally decided, nor any possibility rejected.

We did subsidise members’ access to commercial remote telescopes in the past, for projects approved by Section Directors. The take-up was very low.

Any insistence on ‘research only’ is also likely to lead to very few people using any facility that is set up.

Variable star, cometary/asteroid and planetary research all have rather different hardware and software requirements.

So the whole thing is not straightforward, and, as has been pointed out, there are plenty of risks and pitfalls. But they could possibly be overcome.

In the next few months I wish to gather together ideas such as this, suggested by members, for ways of spending our funds to benefit observers. Ultimately Council will make a choice, and decide which, if any, projects to pursue.

David (President)

[Andy Wilson]

I must admit to having mixed feelings about the BAA setting up a remote telescope. I’m torn as I think it is a fabulous idea but could easily go horribly wrong unless you have someone experienced in setting up remote observatories running the project. If such a person or even better a group of people could be found then I’d have much more confidence in such an endeavour.

I wonder if a first step would be to partially or fully fund access to existing remote observatories for members. I think this existed in the past but I am unsure how well it was used. If that proved popular or couldn’t provide what members want such as a scientific photometry capability, then look at our own remote setup.

Another thing to consider with a remote setup. It is not just getting it up and running and serviceable onsite. It is also setting up a way for members to access the telescope including time allocation. The existing providers have solved these problems.

Unless anyone has any objections, I propose we move this into a thread on project proposals or remote observing, rather than under the heading of the “AGM Livestream”. I can have a go at sorting a switch early next week.

Best wishes,

Andy

[Roger Dymock]

Setting up our own robotic telescope in a good observing location with access for both members and e.g. schools would be a good use of our money in my view

[Eric Watkins]

Roger in many respects I’d agree, particularly if the whole set up was geared towards science rather than pretty picture imaging as many of the remote robotic private enterprises are. I have some reservations with regard to schools etc they already have access to the Faulkes telescope set up. There seems to be little available to the “scientific amateur astronomer”. That said, some availability to schools, colleges and local astronomical societies could be used in attracting or supporting financial funding or grants, e.g. the national lottery grants.

The idea has apparently been mooted and discussed within the decision making circles of the BAA and been rejected. An alternative could be to provide financial assistance to approved projects from members for time on remote robotic telescopes. This has been done in the past, and I have received such assistance for which I am grateful. However, this facility has been suspended and left apparently dormant.

I note that the AAVSO has access to a number of professional observatories with reasonably sized telescopes; a route for variable star observers?

Regards,

Eric

[Tim Haymes]

My thanks to the nine observers who indicated they would be attempting this, but were clouded out !   I had set up a second telescope  (8″ F/4) in the garden to make a duplicate observation by video.  This could be compared with the CMOS camera.

What i found were a few technical problems with the video setup, which I was able to correct. So this was helpful at least.

Tim

[Andy Wilson]

I must admit to having mixed feelings about the BAA setting up a remote telescope. I’m torn as I think it is a fabulous idea but could easily go horribly wrong unless you have someone experienced in setting up remote observatories running the project. If such a person or even better a group of people could be found then I’d have much more confidence in such an endeavour.

I wonder if a first step would be to partially or fully fund access to existing remote observatories for members. I think this existed in the past but I am unsure how well it was used. If that proved popular or couldn’t provide what members want such as a scientific photometry capability, then look at our own remote setup.

Another thing to consider with a remote setup. It is not just getting it up and running and serviceable onsite. It is also setting up a way for members to access the telescope including time allocation. The existing providers have solved these problems.

Unless anyone has any objections, I propose we move this into a thread on project proposals or remote observing, rather than under the heading of the “AGM Livestream”. I can have a go at sorting a switch early next week.

Best wishes,

Andy

[Eric Watkins]

Roger in many respects I’d agree, particularly if the whole set up was geared towards science rather than pretty picture imaging as many of the remote robotic private enterprises are.  I have some reservations with regard to schools etc they already have access to the Faulkes telescope set up.  There seems to be little available to the “scientific amateur astronomer”.  That said, some availability to schools, colleges and local astronomical societies could be used in attracting or supporting financial funding or grants, e.g. the national lottery grants.

The idea has apparently been mooted and discussed within the decision making circles of the BAA and been rejected.  An alternative could be to provide financial assistance to approved projects from members for time on remote robotic telescopes.  This has been done in the past, and I have received such  assistance for which I am grateful.  However, this facility has been suspended and left apparently dormant.

I note that the AAVSO has access to a number of professional observatories with reasonably sized telescopes; a route for variable star observers?

Regards,

Eric

[Roger Dymock]

Setting up our  own robotic telescope in a good observing location with access for both members and e.g. schools would be a good use of our money in my view

[Stewart John Bean]

Got a few images now from the AAVSOnet SRO telescope in the USA on CG Dra. It has been down for some time.

Hopefully more will follow.

Stewart

[Nick James]

David – That is a really interesting story. V476 Cyg is sitting at around 18.0 tonight. I think you’d need a pretty big telescope and dark skies to get the shell.