Printable View
on Friday, October 9, at 7:31AM Eastern/4:31AM Pacific NASA is launching projectiles into the moon to look for signs of water.
from:http://gizmodo.com/5376774
"The effects of the impact—a plume projected to bethirty miles high—will be observable from Earth using telescopes larger than 10 inches."
Anyone have any any idea if anything at all will be viewable through a 300mm lens? on a 1.6 crop body? I'd like to see it, but i don't want to get up at 7AM unless i have to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gbc
No, I don't think that will be enough. 1200mm or so would be better, IMHO.
My Minolta 600mm f/6.3 yields excellent results with a 2x extender, too bad my camerais broken....[:@]
The discussion thread that follows the article had me in stitches.
Thank you so much for sharing.
Note to all... Read the thread - insanity and sarcasm at it's best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gbc
Is the size of the telescope measured in diameter? I have access to a telescope with a diameter of about 4 inches, and it is about 14 inches long.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShutterbugJohan
Unfortunately yes. I got all excited only to have my dad share that reality with me haha. Oh well. I guess it'd be hard to see anyways over here on the East Coast. By that time, the sun will have risen. Looks like I'll be youtube-ing it or catching replays on the news.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodger
Yeah, I'll have to do that, too. [:(]
Quote:
Originally Posted by gbc
Most of the time the atmosphere, not aperture, will limit what you can see with telescopes in that size range. I'll try and get up and have a look tomorrow morning :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Burkett
Priceless!
If you missed it and wanted to see it I recorded it and have uploaded it to my blog:
<span style="color: #800080;"]http://blog.maleko.co.uk/news.php?item.37.1
ell, I got up at 4am yesterday morning and wasn't able to see the collision.
However, the telescope had been outside for five hours and the scope had cooled completely and the view of the moon was extremely steady. The image was sharp even over 500x.
So I figured, collision or not, I might as well try a picture. I would have liked to get a wider view but the 5DII won't come to focus in the 12 1/2" without a barlow.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.93/moon-wide.jpg[/img]
5D II with starmaster 12 1/2" dob 3175mm @ f/10 1/40 sec iso 400
The above is cropped to full frame equivalent of about 6400mm. Below is a further crop.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.93/moon_2D00_2.JPG[/img]
Aweosme shot there jon!
Hey, a macro of the moon, very cool
Thanks!
No extension tubes needed :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Cool Shots Jon.
I must confess, I had to wiki "barlow".
Fantastico!
Thanks!
A barlow is just a diverging lens. Unlike extenders for lenses, there is little or no image quality degridation associated with them. Not sure why. Maybe it is because with telescopes people seem compare like fields of view rather than 1-1 crops. ie, they do the equvelant of comparing the 1200mm focal length scope with a 600mm one cropped so it has the same field as the 1200mm.