Ritchey–Chrétien enjoyers thread

[vapid patio]

@harsh matrix Ouch even worse than a rc. Man I wish these companies would just step up and make a good telescope

That’s why I kinda like refractors. I know they are super expensive but they are GOOD and the company’s will fix it if it needs somthing

Like your redcat

[frosty shard]

Well. The RedCat took some effort...

[harsh matrix]

Mine wasnt good either

Actually none of the refractors ive owned have been good

[vapid patio]

but it got fixed thats rare

[harsh matrix]

My redcat still doesn't perform anywhere close to an SQA55 or Esprit.

And forget the Stellarvue lineup

Doesn't come anywhere close to those.

[vapid patio]

not sure

[vapid patio]

HUH

[harsh matrix]

yeah its APS-C field, even 533 field isnt flat, theyre still problematic with coma across most of the field

the only difference is that it does reach good focus on the sensor, it's just not centered and the field is still littered with aberrations

i have not had a good experience with refractors

[vapid patio]

you mean yours? i swear mine is fine

[vapid patio]

its always a lottery

i swear i killed this

bad seeing too

[harsh matrix]

mine before and after the "fix"

also what i mean mostly by coma across the entire field, is that mainly once you look beyond the middle of the image, stars will start to point away from the center, which is normal, but it happens quite soon for what's advertised as a flat field refractor, and what's even more puzzling is that channel to channel, the field actually looks great, it's not until you combine all of the channels that you realize there is an issue

basically all of the stars have fringing/color splitting to some degree

with the exception of where the scope is best collimated

[vapid patio]

ouch

oh well cant win in astro i guess

[frosty shard]

There's no escaping aberration

There's only minimization through quality optical design, good mechanics, and collimation (if applicable)

And there's mitigation with deconvolution and field flatteners and reducers which correct aberrations

At least you can choose which ones you want to deal with.

That's part of the reason I got my RC – since the field is very minimally distorted and there's no coma, it's ideal for mosaic stitching (not to mention the total lack of chromatic aberration)

But there's always going to be astigmatism

Especially since I shoot at native FL

[vapid patio]

@frosty shard i see i see

[tight lodge]

What's this?

[vapid patio]

A virus

Nah a 10” truss tube rc

[tight lodge]

I can't see it because CN forces me to make an account

[harsh matrix]

it's a truss tube newtonian

literally says in the link

[vapid patio]

SHOOT

[tight lodge]

Blasphemy!!!!

[harsh matrix]

https://app.astrobin.com/u/Curiosity_Astro?i=7zpvmk#gallery

[oblique sun]

#1379949653990309978 message

rc users, attack.

[tight lodge]

I'm on it!

[tall summit]

already posted in astro channel, but wth) my most detailed project yet, 10h on CarbonStar RC6 and stock Nikon D5300, no filters. DSS, Siril/GraxPert

[blissful marlin]

uhmm

Its looking like Rc stars but where the hell did all the details go???

And why is it everything so...smushy(?)

[blissful marlin]

Could you maybe share the data?

[harsh matrix]

Smells like siril to me

[tall summit]

it is Siril, I think I've overblown the stars on this one

[tall summit]

This is because my skills suck)

[blissful marlin]

bruh

[tall summit]

Also had to crop it a lot (about 1.2k pixels each dimension), it had a very weird stacking artifacts after 3 nights and meridian flips

[tall summit]

they do, i am new to this)

[frosty shard]

Alright, I gotta point out that I had weird beach ball of death stars when I got data after a meridian flip, and it turns out my secondary mirror was loose

So if this consistently occurs, definitely check on your secondary mirror holder

[tall summit]

I have also moved a tripod a bit as well in between nights, rotation angle wasn't matched

here it is exaggerated

like another frame within a frame, strange

[blissful marlin]

Bruh

[tall summit]

what is it and how do I avoid tgis in a future?)

I expected to lose some corners and edges with rotation, but this is too much i think to be that

[harsh matrix]

@vapid patio admittedly your guiding has been doing better than mine

Lately

[vapid patio]

HOW

[harsh matrix]

Don't really know

I found out last night that the pier extension was actually loose on the 3/8" rod

Not very loose, it was still quite difficult to make move, but it was easy enough that I could jerk it to the side and it would move

I think that very slight amount of play was creating flexture in the system to an extent last night because the RA graph looked like a low frequency Sin wave the whole night

[vapid patio]

Interesting interesting

[harsh matrix]

I failed to mention that there could have been high cirrus clouds all night so that could have been the main factor

[frosty shard]

I want to go out and image but my opponent is this

[harsh matrix]

Yikes thats bad

[frosty shard]

Great sunset but jeez it's smoking like a joint out there

[tight lodge]

I hope that discord compression is responsible for the weird jagged sky gradient

[frosty shard]

Yeah it's definitely compression

Btw, I gotta ask something unrelated: do you use NINA with your Wave 150i?

And do you ever have issues with meridian flips not being automatically executed?

[tight lodge]

Yes I do

[tight lodge]

I never had an issue with the meridian flips. They happened exactly how they were programmed. 10min after meridian

[frosty shard]

Now I have another question for you: Do you use PHD2 for guiding?

And if so, have you checked the box for "Reverse Guide Output After Meridian Flip"

[tight lodge]

Yes I do

[tight lodge]

I don't have that checked

[frosty shard]

What mount control software do you use?

[tight lodge]

GSS

[frosty shard]

Hold up

What is wrong with my configuration then

I think NINA doesn't know what side the mount is on

It might be getting told that it's automatically been flipped somehow?

[tight lodge]

In your sequence, do you have meridian flip checked?

[frosty shard]

I do!

[harsh matrix]

does the wave 150 run through eqmod?

[frosty shard]

I'm also using Green Swamp - @tight lodge and I have basically the same config

But I've thought about trying EQMOD

I don't have my rig set up to test this out, though I'll probably be setting it up tomorrow regardless of the smoke

[tight lodge]

There have to be some messed up settings somewhere

What's the time for you right now?

[harsh matrix]

ah

[frosty shard]

02:27:41

[tight lodge]

Ok, will you be online around 12:00 in the noon?

I can go tough my NINA and GSS settings and compare them with yours

[frosty shard]

Yeah but I'll be at work.

Unlikely but feel free to ping or I can let you know if I'm available

[tight lodge]

Then I'll probably screenshot every tab and ping you

[tight lodge]

@harsh matrix Check this abomination that I shot a while ago. the power of a refractor is unbeatable

[harsh matrix]

@frosty shard its supposed to be clear tomorrow night but like you just experienced, im going to have heavy smoke

I may throw on my 533 and shoot through the smoke with my NIR filters just to give the world the finger.

[harsh matrix]

Yeah you can't possibly beat that chromatic aberration

[harsh matrix]

Literally as bad as humanly possible

[undone sedge]

can't deal with smoke taunting you if the clouds beat it first!

(shoot me)

[harsh matrix]

https://tenor.com/view/monster-versus-vs-alien-monster-vs-alien-gif-16037253809360562033

[undone sedge]

the good news is sunday wont get above 70 degrees!!
the bad news is i cant really enjoy it because i'll be working

[harsh matrix]

yo guys

turns out, if I use Moffat or Lorentzian functions to calculate my FWHM, it is probably more accurate than assuming it is gaussian

especially with the astigmatism of my scope, these two are probably much more accurate

so using that knowledge

my M16 data has a FWHM of 2" with a maximum delta of like +0.4"

that is why it is so god darn sharp

i have been sitting here like, why the hell does my data look so sharp without any sharpening but my FWHM looks so bad

turns out using gaussian to calculate it is probably not the best idea

[oblique sun]

what's your pixel scale

[harsh matrix]

0.719"/px

[oblique sun]

i overlayed your m16 onto mine

to compare sharpness

im at 0.8"/px

i did this too

i have no idea if yours is sharper

i think they're the same tbh

[harsh matrix]

hard to tell through the compression

[oblique sun]

you have an 8" tho don't you

i have a 6" with bad collimation

[harsh matrix]

was the image you grabbed from me a full on post of the image or a screenshot of it?

and the process you used is weeks old and like half the total integration now

turns out my stack had a FWHM of about 2.23"

[oblique sun]

it was a png

[harsh matrix]

my screenshots are PNGs too

also is your's blurx'd?

im assuming so

id compare raw data and not blurx'd data

[oblique sun]

yes

[harsh matrix]

yeah that's not really a good test

[oblique sun]

i didn't process my raw

[oblique sun]

i thought yours was too when i made that

[harsh matrix]

uh oh

mine was not by the looks of things

[oblique sun]

but it's an ai even if both were it's not a good comparison

[harsh matrix]

i think mine is raw

yeah im sure it is now

i see noise still and the stars have astigmatism

mine is raw

so your's blurx'd is almost the same as mine raw

[oblique sun]

🔥

[harsh matrix]

and that's not even the full stack i dont think

[oblique sun]

tomorrow ill try mine without blurx

[harsh matrix]

where did you grab mine at?

here?

and was it a recent post?

[oblique sun]

i think so

[harsh matrix]

wait @oblique sun it was this wasnt it?

[oblique sun]

yes

[harsh matrix]

AHA

yes see

it's raw

that was not blurx'd

i can tell just looking at the stars

and it's one night shy of the full integration

[oblique sun]

should i ask someone to run mine on correct only

[harsh matrix]

i wouldnt

mine has aberrations too

now compare this one to yours

this was me doing the Lukamatico Me vs Hubble challenge with the latest set of data i got

[harsh matrix]

BRUH

you know what else I see?

[oblique sun]

gah dayum

[oblique sun]

hallucinations?

[harsh matrix]

look at this area in yours vs mine

it is insanely more detailed in my image IN THE RAW VERSION

[harsh matrix]

nah

i cant see stuff on that fine of a level through the compression

[oblique sun]

i think that's just me lacking int

[harsh matrix]

the fact that i see this fine detail in mine through it is impressive enough

[harsh matrix]

could be...

could also not be...

[oblique sun]

there is some

hold on

look at the top of this blob in mine vs yours

[harsh matrix]

OH

UHHHHH

that is in fact blurx hallucinating

or like

undoing detail

[oblique sun]

lmao

[harsh matrix]

lol look at down here in yours vs mine

i see 2 bok globules in mine that arent here in yours

[oblique sun]

where is that

base of Pillar?

[harsh matrix]

yeah right side base of the pillars

you are definitely lacking int tho

[oblique sun]

i don't see anything

[oblique sun]

that's a big reason im switching to f/4

[harsh matrix]

this is supposed to be visible in yours and it's barely even there

[oblique sun]

i get very little time to image and my transparency is often very shit

[harsh matrix]

there's more than just the 2 boks missing

but that's the work of resolution and aperture

[oblique sun]

i think that's just processing

[harsh matrix]

mine aint even processed 😭

[harsh matrix]

@vapid patio Whooptie is trying to talk me out of the RC8

[vapid patio]

What do you mean

[harsh matrix]

He is saying my stacks arent very sharp

[vapid patio]

I mean what else are you gonna do lol

[harsh matrix]

My seeing was supposed to be better than it appears to have been according to the forecasts

[vapid patio]

And that’s the telescopes fault?

[harsh matrix]

But, if seeing is supposedly not the factor, it could be the quality of the mirrors

Thats the only other explanation

[vapid patio]

Big maybe

[harsh matrix]

I've seen some buzz online that the wavefront error of GSO's mirrors arent as good as they claim

2 to 3 times higher than they claimed

Which would impact my images to the extent I am seeing if true.

[vapid patio]

And what are you gonna do?

New mirrors?

Quit Astro?

[harsh matrix]

ONTC 8" imaging newtonian

Or 10"

Idk depends on how much money I get out of selling everything that needs to go.

I have 2 other scopes I dont use enough as is so I dont care if im out of a huge scope.

[vapid patio]

Well well well a newt

Well if you get one ima get one

I want a 8”

[harsh matrix]

Go for it

Im beginning to become extremely suspicious of GSO at this point

[frosty shard]

There's a thread somewhere on CN about how GSO RC mirrors were actually testing pretty well under dual pass autocollimation

I would highly recommend having a look through the eyepiece at a bright star. It's much, much easier to evaluate your optics with a star test

[harsh matrix]

[frosty shard]

As opposed to a camera

I've rigorously tested my RC and it is probably the most optically perfect scope I've ever used. But even 5 mm of backfocus adjustment had a small but noticeable effect on the star test

[harsh matrix]

Hm

What am I looking for with a visual optics test on this scope?

I can try this tonight assuming the smoke isnt so thick that I can't even see the moon

[frosty shard]

your intrafocal and extrafocal defocus patterns should be identical

and of course there should be no coma on axis, but that is obvious with a camera

[frosty shard]

If this isn't the case, you should be able to fix it by adjusting the mirror spacing, which I actually found to be pretty easy

If adjusting the mirror spacing doesn't do anything, then you're screwed

[harsh matrix]

Okayyyyy

Im thinking the reducer/flattener could be the driving factor but I still have no proof rn

If the intra and extra focal patterns look identical with an eyepiece then that tells me the mirrors are fine and the problem is the reducer or seeing and not the scope itself.

[frosty shard]

Exactly, they're only identical in the case of zero spherical aberration

Well also, zero astigmatism, but that only changes the eccentricity of the pattern

Speaking of which, if you have no coma but see astigmatism on-axis, it's most likely due to your diagonal introducing tilt and you don't need to do anything about it

Also! Use your shortest focal length eyepiece, but try to avoid a Barlow, since those can induce their own spherical aberration contribution

[harsh matrix]

Ight

[vapid patio]

So are you gonna go newt?

[harsh matrix]

Not yet

Not unless something unexpected comes of this star test

@frosty shard I have a theory about what may be going on and Im going to make a prediction about what I think I will see in the star test.

If you remember, I took the primary mirror out of the scope to measure the baffle tube...

Even though I returned it to the exact position it was in, it could be offset enough to be undetectable via visual inspection around the exterior.

I took it out twice, actually.

So im going to expect to see the pattern being asymmetrical.

To what degree, we will have to wait and see, but I think it will be a very subtle asymmetry

Not an obvious amount.

Correcting it will be a challenge.

[vapid patio]

Ouch

Well let me know if you go in ima go in aswell 🙏

I need a reason to get a newt

[harsh matrix]

@vapid patio yo people on cloudy nights are saying that the CCDT67 isnt good at the full 0.67x reduction and that you will get better results closer to 0.75x or 0.8x reduction.

[vapid patio]

well i have a 585 sensor dude lol

[harsh matrix]

Im well aware of that.

[vapid patio]

then what am i gonna do

and what sensor are they useing? ofc if they use a bigger sensor at a bigger redcution its gonna havea effect but im useing just the middle of the glass

[harsh matrix]

Im assuming a 294 which is comparable

But they dont actually specify

Nobody that mentioned it does.

[vapid patio]

294? ISNT IT BIGGER THAN A 533

sorry for caps

[harsh matrix]

The color one is forced to bin 2x2 so that one yes

But the mono is not

The mono is comparable.

Looking at other people's results with the RC8, it seems like it is generally a softer scope

Even then, I seem to have some of the best FWHM ive seen online too.

I really have no clue who or what to believe at this point

I may just bury my head in the sand and ignore it all

[harsh matrix]

Screw it this question is driving me insane

@frosty shard @tight lodge can you "resolve" sharpness?

[frosty shard]

What do you mean?

[harsh matrix]

As far as im aware, these are distinct terms with completely different meanings.

[harsh matrix]

That is what I mean

That is literally what I am asking

This is the question that Whooptie asked me that is driving me mad

I cannot comprehend it 😭

[frosty shard]

Like if you're trying to judge the optics, a camera is not going to be a particularly good tool for this unless it's highly oversampled

[harsh matrix]

Interesting

But like

These terms dont work in tandem or at least not in that way, correct?

[frosty shard]

Yeah I can't make sense of that

[harsh matrix]

You can have a soft, high resolution image just like you can have a sharp high resolution.

[frosty shard]

Yup

It all depends on the form of the optical transfer function

[harsh matrix]

Okay so hes probably gaslighting me or confusing me intentionally

My understanding is that sharpness can give the idea of a higher resolution image but isnt necessarily an indicator of resolution.

[harsh matrix]

I looked at RC Astros MTF analyzer tool last night

Which happens to break down that function for you

Gives you some numbers and a visual representation

After seeing that it upended basically everything I thought I knew about sampling

[harsh matrix]

Or doesnt have a great understanding of how the two work in their own terms.

[frosty shard]

(to clarify, the MTF is pretty much the same thing; the difference only arises when you have a coherent light source like a laser, then phase interference becomes a significant factor)

[harsh matrix]

Combining the two is like a one way street

Higher sharpness can give you the illusion of high resolution but it doesnt work the other way around.

[frosty shard]

Are you familiar with how to interpret an MTF graph?

[harsh matrix]

Okay

[harsh matrix]

I have a pretty good understanding of it but not solid enough to know exactly what im looking at.

[harsh matrix]

You see my dilemma though, right?

I feel like im going insane by thinking about this question.

[frosty shard]

Yeah, that question is not coherent to me

So when interpreting an MTF graph, I like to think of a pair of point sources of light

Or actually, perhaps an infinite grid of them, regularly spaced and equally bright

If you had a perfect optical system, unencumbered by diffraction, you would see perfect points of light separated by perfect blackness everywhere

But in real optical systems, diffraction causes the point sources to be spread out into an Airy disk

For the moment let's ignore the wavelike nature of the Airy pattern and approximate it with something like a Gaussian profile

Between the point sources, there is still some residual light from the Airy disks spreading the light around

So the background is not perfectly black

The vertical axis of the MTF basically tells you how black the space between the point sources are as you bring them together

[harsh matrix]

Thank god

Maybe i can break free from this loop now

My brain is like a computer, you feed it facts and logic and it will do its best to provide a result

But if you provide illogical logic it crashes my OS

Then I get stuck in a boot loop

[harsh matrix]

Ohhhhh okay

That makes some more sense now

I did crank the sampling rate to something significantly finer just to see what the airy disk would look like and it matched my expectations, but I didnt know how to make sense of it.

Thats a lot more simple than my broken brain could make sense of at the time

Granted ive had almost no sleep the last 3 days

[harsh matrix]

@frosty shard LOL

So yeah, resolution and sharpness ARE NOT the same thing.

Holy cow.

I really wish this didnt confuse me so much

Okay I asked somebody else who is also an astronomer and I think an optician to an extent and even he couldn't make sense of it.

Thank god.

He even said the statement that I can't resolve at my sampling rate is objectively incorrect.

WAIT GUYS

What if this question is the VERY REASON the boomer w/ SCT or CDK overshaprening everything into oblivion is a phenomenon that exists?

Could it be because these people think they will get more resolution of their image gets sharpened more?

[harsh matrix]

Okay ive asked 2 other people about this and they agree that you can't resolve sharpness

Thats just not how that physically works

[harsh matrix]

@frosty shard honestly the defocused star looks excellent

[harsh matrix]

@vapid patio

[vapid patio]

what

very fast response btw

[frosty shard]

I think you're onto something here tbh

[harsh matrix]

The results of me star testing the RC visually

[vapid patio]

where

huh

[harsh matrix]

What i said above

The pattern on the defocused star both intra and extra focal looks excellent

The patterns are literally perfect

That actually confirms 2 things

1 is that these mirrors are fantastic and 2 the spacing is right

[harsh matrix]

@frosty shard hey can you see the airy disk visually?

I think i see it on Vega rn

Vega is very pretty with this scope BTW

[frosty shard]

Yes you can, especially with a short focal length eyepiece

What eyepiece are you using?

At longer focal lengths you may see the CO modulation

Ladies and gentlemen, we gottem

[harsh matrix]

A 7 to 21 mm zoom eyepiece from svbony

I definitely saw it because i went near that 7 mm limit

I dont normally go all the way because the image breaks down

[harsh matrix]

Okay so even through the haze and zooming this thing in all the way, I can see M13

[frosty shard]

That supernova was visible in one 2 second lum sub

[harsh matrix]

Looks pretty neat but underwhelming compared to how it looks in those bortle 3 skies

[harsh matrix]

Yup

I thought my 8" dob was sharp but this scope trumps that

This is the airy disk right?

This one might be slightly better

[vapid patio]

extra sipke?

good lordi can never spell

[harsh matrix]

Nah

Any optical weirdness is from the star being occluded by the edge of my eyepiece

[vapid patio]

ah ok i see

[harsh matrix]

This is Altair btw

It was EXTREMELY distinct on Vega

[frosty shard]

I think so, though depending on your scale that could also be CO modulation

If the inner ring in the video is the very first ring you see, then yes

Lunar terminator through a 12" RC

[harsh matrix]

Then yes it is the airy disk?

Because that is the first ring

Also that was zoomed all the way in

7 mm focal length

The rings disappear once I go back out to 21 mm

They come in to view once I zoom in a lot

[frosty shard]

It is!

[harsh matrix]

Hell yeah

Thats cool

Is it normal to appear perfectly still btw?

[harsh matrix]

YEAH! @frosty shard they look identical

airy disk in a C8

[vapid patio]

is c8 glass amazing?

[harsh matrix]

i dont have a clue

[vapid patio]

oh ok haha

[harsh matrix]

tonight was my first time using my AM5N for anything visual and it was my first time using my RC8 visually

I will say the RC8 works way better for visual use than my RC6

the 6 just looked so dim by comparison and picking out background stars was next to impossible

the RC8 is comparable to my dob but my dob just has a brighter image

this one was much more cropped in and sharp imo

[vapid patio]

https://tenor.com/view/spongebob-squidward-krabby-patty-smug-spongebob-squarepants-gif-9547716225990610286

very sick

[harsh matrix]

I can see why brandon likes to use his for visual now

oh yeah i looked at M13 and M57 with it

very cool

not as impressive as ive seen them before but not anything to sneeze at either

both were better than my celestron 70az frac

granted that's not a very high bar to reach

[vapid patio]

haha yeah well sick sounds lieka fun night

not my data as i wonud never add those gay spikes but its a friends

cant wait for this target when its clear

[harsh matrix]

those were added in post?

also dont worry

it looks like my clear skies may be gone soon

[vapid patio]

No one of those masks 😐

So its kinda lame

[harsh matrix]

eeewwwwww

cringe

[vapid patio]

Real

[vapid patio]

Needed a nerf

[harsh matrix]

fr not these authentic beautiful ones

[harsh matrix]

nuh uh

btw what about your RC annoys you

[vapid patio]

I mean it just seems like it always has a issue or its just like you random lot like “your reducer is bad people said” 🤣

Idk tbh just needs collimation

[harsh matrix]

youve absolutely gotta collimate it

it is so much more satisfying to use when that collimation is on point

[harsh matrix]

imma be honest

the "problems" i thought i was having were manufactured

they were not real

idk how much or if you read any of what brandon and i were talking about above but basically

I like to keep an open mind, and at least humor people's claims and test them myself

in this case, the claim was fundamentally illogical and straight up not right

doing a little star test with an eyepiece confirmed that the conclusion Whooptie has come to that all GSO mirrors are garbage is simply false

the mirrors in my RC seem to be perfect

at the end of the day, my consistent 2.2" FWHM seems to be seeing or reducer based, or possibly because i set up on concrete and not the grass (apparently if you can set up on grass, it is better for these long focal length scopes )

I ended up chasing a ghost

something not real

[vapid patio]

Wow that's crazy well yeah I guess nothing is wrong lol

But what do you mean grass is better?

YOU JUST MADE ME SWTICH TO CONCRETE YOU SAID IT WAS BETTER

another ghost?

[harsh matrix]

it's more stable by far

honestly

if it's possible to get some cinder blocks and place your tripod on those on the grass

[vapid patio]

About to say like that makes no sense to me

[harsh matrix]

that's like completely cheating

[harsh matrix]

so at night, after the sun sets, the ground cools off right?

concrete holds on to heat incredibly well

[vapid patio]

True

[harsh matrix]

grass lets go of that heat almost immediately

[vapid patio]

Sorta

[harsh matrix]

so yes concrete is much more stable but it will create localized seeing limitations

[vapid patio]

Wow wow wow wow

?

[harsh matrix]

on grass, you wont have those seeing limitations but you may not be able to achieve as good of guiding

simply because the grass and the dirt is mushy

[vapid patio]

How does concrete heat make bad seeing

[harsh matrix]

unless you cheat and put some cinder blocks down

[harsh matrix]

because it releases that heat after sun set

[vapid patio]

Like the tinyest bit

[harsh matrix]

while the effect isnt very strong, it's enough to degrade image quality

[vapid patio]

aNd I have trees the sun is on it all day

[harsh matrix]

okay

this is from Tom

the planetary GOD

[vapid patio]

THIS IS PLANETS AT 300000MM

[harsh matrix]

he told me to read through this PDF about seeing

alright well

for you at 860 mm or whatever

probably not a big deal at all

for me i may need to humor it

and perhaps not

i dont want to chase another ghost if this guy ends up being crazy too

[vapid patio]

I mean I'm on slabs of concrete held with crush and run and mortar

[vapid patio]

Is also depends if he has the sun all day on the concrete

[harsh matrix]

i do see horrendous seeing effects if im imaging over a roof

because the rooves of the houses here sit in the sun all day

and the roof tiles are black

so they eat up that sun light and bake it off at night

that DOES give me problems

[harsh matrix]

true

which he does not mention here

[vapid patio]

I will throw down some slabs and check for myself

Who knows

[harsh matrix]

i have just discovered wind maps

this might be the missing clue to look for insane seeing

[vapid patio]

Look for jet stream mas

Maps

[harsh matrix]

You know what I need for my RC to finish it though?

I need me a darn focuser

Not some stupid crayford that makes offsets inaccurate

[frosty shard]

The moment those rack and pinion focusers are available we are jumping on them

[harsh matrix]

Oh 100%

[frosty shard]

Also, good to see your mirrors are about as good as mine

I'd estimate under 1/12 wave RMS in my case, maybe even less

Tbh I'm dying to know how GSO manages to manufacture them so consistently

[harsh matrix]

how do you estimate the error?

[frosty shard]

I checked the diffraction patterns against simulations in Aberrator to compare it to simulations of 1/10 wave spherical aberration, coma, and astigmatism.

1/10 wave of coma is obvious, 1/10 wave of astigmatism is noticeable, but 1/10 wave of spherical is pretty subtle

Not a rigorous method but it's enough for me to feel confident in my optical quality

[frosty shard]

Lucky me I live by a huge lake...I should try setting up at the park near it...

[harsh matrix]

what is the CO size in % of the RC8?

[frosty shard]

47%

[harsh matrix]

is this offset how separated the mirrors are?

[frosty shard]

I think that's the amount the primary and secondary optical axes are misaligned. 0 is fine

[harsh matrix]

oh okay

do you know how thick the spider veins are?

[frosty shard]

Not offhand, but I can pull out my scope and check if you don't have yours handy

[harsh matrix]

i do not have it handy atm

[frosty shard]

I literally just got home, perfect timing

[frosty shard]

2 mm

[harsh matrix]

that's thinner than i thought

[frosty shard]

Same here

[harsh matrix]

beats the backyard universe spider veins

for newtonians

how do you read this

aka translate it into 1/4 of a wavelength for instance

maybe im just stoopid rn

[frosty shard]

The quoted values for optics are the RMS errors, so you can just use the fraction at the bottom right

[harsh matrix]

gotcha

[frosty shard]

P-V is peak-to-valley error and is going to larger generally

[harsh matrix]

okay so even with no errors it is showing that 1/3 wave

weird

[frosty shard]

Is that from the central obstruction?

That technically shouldn't count

[harsh matrix]

dunno

uhhhhh

yeah the CO changes the error

it actually makes the error get LOWER?

[frosty shard]

Yes it does, especially for spherical aberration

[harsh matrix]

lol

i dont understand that at all

unless my understanding is reversed

also i think my scope may have literally no turned down edge

this affects the diffraction pattern way too much, even at 1/10th

wait a minute

this tool SHOWS CO modulation

https://tenor.com/view/monster-versus-vs-alien-monster-vs-alien-gif-16037253809360562033

hm

this is about as far out of focus as i went on both sides and tbh, i dont remember seeing any aberrations minus the poisson dot possibly not being centered (could be because i added some spacers when i havent used any so collimation wouldnt have been ideal for this test possibly)

oh wait

you know what

i bet it was the compression rings lmao

also @frosty shard did you count astigmatism in this simulation or only spherical

i think i may throw out the astigmatism since that isnt due to the mirrors themselves

[frosty shard]

I accounted for astigmatism initially because I wasn't sure where it was coming from, but now I'm certain it's due to my diagonal

[harsh matrix]

my diagonal showed some too

it's probably because of compression rings as well

a wombo combo

[frosty shard]

@harsh matrix unrelated question for you: is there a way you get those crosshairs to show up on a supernova, or do you just manually edit them in?

[frosty shard]

yeah, I'm not entirely sure if my diagonal is inherently misaligned, but it contributes 1/10 wave or so of astigmatism

[harsh matrix]

i edited them in using MS paint

bray balls style

[harsh matrix]

about the same here

[frosty shard]

The deer has been successfully licked (in NIR)

My stars look like garbage, but my only goal was to bag the supernova tonight

[harsh matrix]

i see trailed stars sire

what have you done

[harsh matrix]

you got it alright

[frosty shard]

Honestly I'm not sure, I didn't have time to check tonight

My guiding was fine (below 0.5" RMS)

[harsh matrix]

weird

[frosty shard]

Maybe it's collimation? Idk

[harsh matrix]

could be

[frosty shard]

Or tilt

[harsh matrix]

bruh @frosty shard i actually dont think my mirrors are much worse than 1/12th of a wave either

adding any spherical aberration at all screws up the pattern way more than what i saw in my eyepiece

[frosty shard]

It amazes me that GSO can consistently churn out hyperbolic mirrors of that quality

[harsh matrix]

i mean

im sure there's an oddball here and there but

this is insane

im ngl

i didnt know the pattern could be identical intra and extra focal

because none of the newts ive ever used looked like this

im amazed that it looks anywhere near the same on both sides of focus

[frosty shard]

It's why I'm so glad I didn't compromise on an SCT since I wanted to do visual with mine. 47% obstruction be damned. The optical quality on GSO RCs is amazing

[harsh matrix]

silly resolution

visually sharp

photographically... eh.

it was actually quite a bit of fun to point at bright stars because they were so god darn tiny

and then seeing the airy disk after zooming in was insane

i mean there could be a TOUCH of spherical aberration

like 1/10th of a wave or less

PROBABLY less because those disks looked very very very similar

literally just the astigmatism is all i noticed was up

and even with some spherical aberration in there, on the low side which is where i think there is some, it's still not enough to make it worse than 1/12th of a wavefront error

this is pretty crazy

touring their RC mirror factory would be cool

honestly maybe their newt mirrors arent very good and arent anything to write home about compared to these hyperbolic mirrors

cause good god

[frosty shard]

I've heard their parabolic mirrors aren't as good, which honestly baffles me

Specifically in their dobs

the imaging Newtonians are much better

[harsh matrix]

that's what prompted me to say that

i saw someone mention it on a forum when i googled the mirror quality of GSO

[harsh matrix]

my dob is a GSO variant and tbh the primary mirror looks to be fantastic

buuuuuuuuut

I dont really go intra or extra focal with it because it plays screwy with my eyepieces

like it messes up the eye relief for some reason

oh you know what would be fun?

comparing my redcat stars with the models in Aberrator

that would give me a pretty good idea of just how not good my redcat both is and was

[tight lodge]

@harsh matrix How big of a pain in the S would be if I get a 10" 2000mm RC?

[vapid patio]

How much?

[harsh matrix]

Not a pain at all if you have a good mount

Although you will need to budget in a focuser because the ones those come with, stock, are useless

[vapid patio]

How much are focuser?

[tight lodge]

Couldn't you just say "How about you stick with the 8" before ypu go completely bankrupt?"

[vapid patio]

And why?

[harsh matrix]

$250 on the cheap end for a relatively good one

[harsh matrix]

The truss tubes are unironically less annoying and less painful because they dont have a coupled primary and focuser

[vapid patio]

Light work and why do they matter?

[harsh matrix]

Because...

And I dont know if you've experienced this with the one that you have...

If your focuser is inadequate, they often can't hold the weight you demand that they hold

This leads to slipping and inaccurate points of focus

[vapid patio]

Yeah it slides slowly

When auto focusing

[harsh matrix]

Its like when my filter offsets caused my focus to drift throughout the night

[harsh matrix]

Bingo

Thats why you would want to upgrade

[vapid patio]

And can I use that on all RC’s if I get one

I’m just looking for a reason to spend money

[harsh matrix]

Something else I didnt mention... sometimes, depending on the copy of the focuser, the drawtube has flexture

Like the entire tube has play, you can move it laterally a very small amount

NOT supposed to happen.

[harsh matrix]

Yes

Most of the problems ive outlined about the stock focusers is exclusive to the crayfords

Rack and pinion wont have these issues.

Plus you'll be able to consistently return to the same points of focus

Which nets in sharper images.

[vapid patio]

Mine does I can see it and tell I mean I have like 5 pounds on the back

[vapid patio]

Let me look for one

Apaturea? Is that one bad

[harsh matrix]

From what I can tell, people really like the rack and pinion version.

It seems to be of much higher build quality than any of the crayfords available including the ones that come stock.

[vapid patio]

Well mine stock is kinda a piece of crap from 2009

[vapid patio]

Let me know what you might get and ima do some research but yeah I wanna make my rc6 a beast but be able to transfer to a rc8 once I get a bigger sensor

[harsh matrix]

Id like to get that Apertura one to use until I see a feathertouch come up on cloudy nights

One problem

That apertura one has been on back order for 3 or 4 months

Don't have a clue when it will be available again

Im tempted to ask them about am ETA or place an order to get an idea of the availability

[vapid patio]

DANG

[vapid patio]

Saw those very nice but pricey

[tight lodge]

https://www.astroshop.eu/telescopes/omegon-ritchey-chretien-pro-rc-250-2000-ota/p,53811?_gl=1*1rp4nss*_gcl_aw*R0NMLjE3NTM4OTc1MTMuQ2owS0NRandoYWZFQmhDY0FSSXNBRUdaRUtKeTFVWWdQeDNIUGI4elNqSjd1alloQlpuZnlTb3FlaXhFZFVIU3cwTEYtTHBucXFFZE15UWFBcEdVRUFMd193Y0I.*_gcl_au*ODUyNjk0NTI2LjE3NDkwNTU0NzY.*_ga*MTI0OTA3MDU0Mi4xNzMyMzU1MTkw*_ga_CG05FXP3L8*czE3NTQyNDkyMDAkbzE5NSRnMSR0MTc1NDI0OTIxMyRqNDckbDAkaDI5Njc0MzU1NA..

I was thinking of something like this.
The trusstube is a bit outside of my budget.

Ok, this is not cheap either, but is about 1000€ cheaper than the trusstube

[harsh matrix]

Ah

These ones are equally problematic to the 8 and 6

[tight lodge]

The focusers

Omegon does offer higher quality focusers tho. And from what I've seen, swapping the focuser on an RC is easier than swapping the camera😂

[harsh matrix]

that looks about equal to the others tbh

yeah that's the same focuser as even the truss tube RC's which people say are complete garbage

@frosty shard i caved and ive decided to ask HPS about an ETA on these focusers

this is driving me nuts

im to the point where im considering dropping 600 on a brand new feather touch

[frosty shard]

Thanks...hopefully it's soon

[harsh matrix]

seriously

[frosty shard]

Whoa, I didn't realize GSO also has rack & pinion focusers
https://agenaastro.com/gso-rack-pinion-focuser-reflector-telescope-dual-speed-bundle.html

[harsh matrix]

i knew

these are the same as the apertura one

i just didnt think Agena would have them in stock

theyve had these as coming soon for a long time

threaded connection right off the bat

[frosty shard]

I would like to hear from High Point first since it's cheaper there it seems

[harsh matrix]

yeah

i wouldnt expect a response until tuesday

also this one is newt only by the looks of things

[frosty shard]

Well I might email Agena and see

[harsh matrix]

ugh

they dont have a R&P version on Agena made for RC's

[vapid patio]

@harsh matrix I think mine is pins? It tools on tiny pins

Rolls

[harsh matrix]

yes

[frosty shard]

honestly I'm surprised since the mounting is the simplest

[harsh matrix]

that's a good ol' crayford for you

[vapid patio]

Oh ok

[runic violet]

1/12th waves RMS not PV, the PV is probably far larger

That's 0.9 strehl, which is exactly what the RCs are specced to

The mirrors are good but not perfect

The surface figure is quite rough and that leads to a bit of scattered light, which is not seen in a star test

The worst GSO mirrors are their 6" f/4 imaging Newtonian mirrors in fact, they're quite rough and misshapen

Often 1/4 wave RMS or worse

Premium mirrors have smooth figuring and as such ridiculously low RMS wavefronts, so contrast is better despite having basically the same resolving capability

They can have 1/50th wave RMS and 1/10th wave PV

[tight lodge]

The CF tube RCs from GSO come with this focuser

@harsh matrix Be honest with me. If you had the choice between 8" and 10"?

Let's not consider the focuser and all the doodads. The main difference between them is 1500€

[harsh matrix]

that's what we've heard

[tight lodge]

Damn... I can buy 2x8" for the price of one 10"

[vapid patio]

thank you

[harsh matrix]

[tight lodge]

That's why I'm leaning towards the 8"

[frosty shard]

Well one thing I'll add is that 8" with your Wave mount is pretty portable if you put it all in a wagon like I do

With a 10" I couldn't achieve that portability

[harsh matrix]

i dont know if the wave 150 will handle a 10" all that well tbh

[frosty shard]

If that matters to you, get the 8"

[frosty shard]

It probably will with a counterweight

[harsh matrix]

it could be fine, who knows, i dunno if id risk that

[vapid patio]

on a good tripod i bet it will do fine

[tight lodge]

15kg OTA, 25kg max payload for the wave

[harsh matrix]

that's the main reason i got an 8 over a 10 with an AM5N

[vapid patio]

just BLANCE

[harsh matrix]

yeah hopefully

[vapid patio]

balance

[tight lodge]

Yeah, the stock tripod gotta go

[harsh matrix]

it's the wacky periodic error of a harmonic im more concerned about

[tight lodge]

So 8" it is. Thank you.

[harsh matrix]

I know a well tuned PHD2 profile will help with that significantly, however I dont know to what extent

[tight lodge]

I own a car, so portability is not a big issue for me. Is mor how much my back can lift

[harsh matrix]

I dont know HOW MUCH of it is being corrected and if it is enough to reliably guide at 2000 mm of focal length

Granted, I have heard of people running C8's just fine on AM5's and those have much more focal length than an RC

[frosty shard]

Worth considering if you have to walk a long distance from parking to a dark site

[tight lodge]

Yeah, 2000mm is a bit extreme even for me

[tight lodge]

Not in my case🤫

Plus, I always go to the dark site in daylight, so I have plenty of time to set up

[harsh matrix]

i think it would be fun but at the same time, i think you would rather shoot reduced

im using photoshop to do a starx detail recovery operation

this was one of the most gruesome crimes it committed to my data

[runic violet]

"just fine"

Those words are doing a lot of work

[harsh matrix]

it's very reassuring!

[runic violet]

Most people don't benefit from doing 2000mm

That's just the facts of the matter

They think they're getting more resolution but they aren't

[harsh matrix]

no

because that's not how resolution works

[tight lodge]

Very seeing dependant

[undone sedge]

slaps boat missing the front quarter
this ol' girl will do you just fine hauling your cargo across the ocean!

[harsh matrix]

[runic violet]

They're also often fooled by misrepresented/misunderstood guide numbers

[runic violet]

Resolution is a vague word with many meanings

[tight lodge]

Imagine someone guiding with a 140mm guidescope on a 2000+ mm OTA and brag they got sub arcses guiding

[runic violet]

I meant resolution as the ability to resolve details

[harsh matrix]

does resolution = sharpness

[vapid patio]

i know some one with a 250mm guide scope with a c11 guiding0.40

[runic violet]

Not in the sense of Dawes limits

[runic violet]

No

[harsh matrix]

that's what I mean as well

[harsh matrix]

some people in this discord believe that

can you resolve more sharpness?

[runic violet]

You can theoretically get more resolution by increasing focal length though

[tight lodge]

Oh come on! Back to it

[runic violet]

But there's diminishing returns in the ideal case, and in the real world with seeing there's mostly drawbacks and negative returns with oversampling

[runic violet]

This is a thing

People do this

[harsh matrix]

they do do that

that's not a reality you have to imagine

[runic violet]

It's hard to convince them that they're wrong because accepting they are wrong would imply their investments are horrible

[harsh matrix]

we live in it

[harsh matrix]

bingo

[harsh matrix]

correct

[tight lodge]

Every frac guy saying they can beat a reflector

[harsh matrix]

there's one of those guys in this server!

[vapid patio]

i do love my redcat tho

[harsh matrix]

[runic violet]

There are good sharp fracs out there

[harsh matrix]

and he almost convinced me to sell the RC8!

[vapid patio]

https://tenor.com/view/ash-baby-gif-5920695394641505768

[runic violet]

It wasn't whooptie was it

[harsh matrix]

it was

bro actually destroyed my brain for a solid 2 days

that question i asked you above?

can you resolve more sharpness?

that came from HIM

[runic violet]

What

[harsh matrix]

OF COURSE you cant resolve MORE sharpness

that doesnt make ANY sense at all

[harsh matrix]

yeah youre asking me

that actually broke me

[runic violet]

No I think he's using a different definition of sharpness

[frosty shard]

I mean a frac beats an RC if you want to take a whole image of the Large Magellanic Cloud in one panel instead of 576

[vapid patio]

thats like saying Can i see more apple with my apple "i made no sense"

[runic violet]

As in the most used colloquial definition, a sharper scope

As in better figured

[harsh matrix]

that would make more sense if he actually had defined it that way

instead he didnt answer what he meant by that

all it did was create confusion

[vapid patio]

@harsh matrix so whats next for your rc

[runic violet]

He belongs to the school of FWHMs

If you want to put it that way

His frac gets the same fwhm as your RC so therefore it's kinda doing the same thing

Then you would argue your RC has a bit better sampling, but the esprit data can be drizzled and blah blah blah

It's missing the point anyways that the point of having a large RC is not exactly for resolving power but for light gathering

Even with the giant CO it's getting more light on that specific fov than a 6"

I think he said as much "slow but sharp"

[vapid patio]

slow is propaganda

[runic violet]

Now since a 8" RC is diffraction limited you can easily have it get lower FWHMs than a 6" esprit but that requires excellent seeing

Which is rare in most places

So more often than not theyre probably going to have the same fwhm

[harsh matrix]

I cant find the message im looking for from him but basically he was stating that my stars didnt look all that sharp for 0.72"/px sampling, and then asked if i could even resolve at that sampling rate

[frosty shard]

Hopefully some visual use

[harsh matrix]

which in general doesnt make much sense since aperture has the biggest influence on resolution and not sampling

of course sampling plays a role but it's not as big as he seems to think it is

also many things can make an image appear softer, a large CO is one.

scattering light reduces contrast, and therefore makes edges that should look clear cut appear smoother

resulting in a visually softer image

[frosty shard]

(to be fair, not much of a point if you have a Dob already)

[harsh matrix]

new focuser hopefully

[runic violet]

Not if you use the definition I described earlier

Which is about resolving detail

[harsh matrix]

cause the carbonstar one is okay but it is pretty dookey with a heavy asf reducer and 571 mono imaging train

[vapid patio]

ok cool i might start looking aswell

[runic violet]

Then it's not really down to aperture here, it's down to sampling rate and seeing

The aperture is not the limiting factor

[frosty shard]

One of us will sound the alarm bells once the rack and pinion becomes available

[vapid patio]

but i might be saving up for a 571 as when i bought my 585 i screwed mysefl long run

[harsh matrix]

of course not

however, sampling alone does not determine resolution and that's what i am getting at

[runic violet]

This is irrelevant because he's strictly using fwhm to define sharpness

[harsh matrix]

oh right

[runic violet]

In this case it is

That's why he's talking about it

[harsh matrix]

correct

[runic violet]

I think you're misunderstanding each other due to ill defined terms

[harsh matrix]

for sure

[runic violet]

His argument basically is "you're not really getting much out of 0.72"/PX, why bother"

My counterargument there is "I can't make my scope go faster and I want muh light gathering"

That's it

If you could make your RC go faster or get bigger pixels then you may consider it

[harsh matrix]

not a bad counterargument, bottom line

i need the signal here

basically everything else is irrelevant

[harsh matrix]

this thing reduced to 0.65x is insane

[runic violet]

Whooptie is getting similar detail with a smaller less annoying scope that he got at a great deal

[harsh matrix]

f/5.3 light bucket

[runic violet]

It's slower though

[frosty shard]

I will say though...having that extra resolving power is nice for the nights where you can take full advantage of it

[harsh matrix]

corect

[runic violet]

You will only see that if you do planetary

At DSO Fls you won't see it

[harsh matrix]

another reason i opted for a larger scope over a small frac

dont really care about seeing since my seeing is consistently mid way between 2" and 2.5" here

light gathering capacity from aperture and the potential resolution were the pull for me

as well as the fact that it's not an SCT so i dont get redcat 51 sized stars

(my redcat 51's stars)

[runic violet]

At 0.7"/px a 6" and 8" are going to have negligible differences, just less light gathering on the 6"

At planetary levels of sampling you see a clear difference

[frosty shard]

I have zero regrets about picking up my RC as opposed to an SCT for visual

[harsh matrix]

i do need to try lucky imaging with this scope some time

id probably do it at my bortle 3 dark sky site

pick something bright

im already near the diffraction limit with my present sampling, at least at 656 nm

[runic violet]

LP isn't usually much of a factor for lucky imaging targets

[harsh matrix]

at 500 nm i got a ways to go

[runic violet]

Minimal contribution to noise compared to read noise

[harsh matrix]

im in bortle 8/9 hell

so debateable

at least with my cams

neither of them have much read noise

[runic violet]

If your target is affected by LP more than read noise than you're not going to get anything out of lucky imaging it

Lucky imaging as a technique falls apart on anything too faint

Lucky imaging DSOs are usually planetary nebulae

Some people try galaxies but I haven't seen any attempt that actually beats conventional imaging techniques in similar conditions

The read noise is too much of a problem

[harsh matrix]

ah okay

im thinking something like Cat's Eye and the core of M42 to start

[runic violet]

And this is in the world of CMOS btw

[harsh matrix]

i really want to do Cat's Eye

[runic violet]

Lucky imaging with a CCD is a fools errand lol

[harsh matrix]

was going to say

[runic violet]

Yeah those are suitable

Im not convinced something like m51 is

[frosty shard]

Lagoon and Swan, potentially?

[runic violet]

I've seen attempts and nah

[harsh matrix]

id do M57 but honestly, probably not worth it

i already got a neat image of it

[runic violet]

Honestly many "good" lucky imaging attempts are good not because lucky imaging is actually making a difference

[vapid patio]

is the Explore Scientific AR102

good?

[runic violet]

But that the seeing is really good and they've got a 24" aperture to take advantage of it lol

[vapid patio]

i see one close to me ofc a refractor but cheap

[runic violet]

If they stuck that 24" on a giant eq mount and did like 1 minute exposures they'd probably be better off

[vapid patio]

oh hell no its a doublet

[undone sedge]

hell naw

[runic violet]

Also the other thing is giant 24" apertures solve the read noise problem a bit

[runic violet]

Great for solar

[vapid patio]

yeah hell no

[undone sedge]

never ever get a doublet frac

[harsh matrix]

this was the M57 image i got

[vapid patio]

i have and i sold it so fast

[undone sedge]

except for solar yeah

[runic violet]

For DSO imaging*

[harsh matrix]

like Tom with his 24" dob lucky imaging M101

[frosty shard]

Even for narrowband?

[undone sedge]

even narrowband

[harsh matrix]

like actually hubble type resolution

[runic violet]

Yeah I don't think his lucky imaging is the actual reason why he's getting good resolution

[undone sedge]

better off getting a triplet

[runic violet]

It's the 1.2" seeing + 24" aperture

[harsh matrix]

casue they get so much light right?

[runic violet]

I haven't seen this

I'm skeptical

[frosty shard]

I might still have to see if my Askar 52mm guidescope can get good results regardless

[harsh matrix]

https://discord.com/channels/794642864218439681/1367633158794772530

[runic violet]

Oh

That's just okay ngl

I've seen similar/better from conventional setups

[undone sedge]

or, you could be like me

with access to a 24" cdk but seeing that wont support it for astrophotography 70% of the time

[harsh matrix]

lol

[runic violet]

I think that's on the order of what my C11 got on m101 actually

[harsh matrix]

detail recovery operation successful

[undone sedge]

eventually...

[harsh matrix]

oh...

[runic violet]

Toms latest m57 is a more successful example of lucky imaging

[undone sedge]

his m57 is absolutely insane

[runic violet]

Idk if it's better than conventional imaging but it's hard to find m57 images with sampling + half decent seeing

[harsh matrix]

that one is very good

yes

very, very good id argue

i forgot he shot M57

[runic violet]

Y'all need to remember he has better seeing than all of you

[harsh matrix]

he has better seeing than my good seeing / 2

which is ridiculous

he's hacking the sky fr

he wont admit to it

[frosty shard]

I need to see if I get better results by shooting from this peninsula by my local lake

[runic violet]

2-2.5" is what I would call bad seeing and what tom would consider apocalyptically bad

But you call it average

[frosty shard]

Yeah that's average for me lmao

[harsh matrix]

BRUH

okay you are cheating too i see

i need to move a little way up north fr

[runic violet]

My observatory is in socal what can I say

[harsh matrix]

okay...

yeah you are cheating

[frosty shard]

Out west might be the better move

[harsh matrix]

mr clear skies all year round

[harsh matrix]

yeah i just realized

like Nevada

YO

[runic violet]

But my new observing site is now the same mountain where the largest telescope in north America is so I can cheat harder than even Tom

[harsh matrix]

maybe I move to Lake Tahoe

[undone sedge]

2" is good seeing for me

1.6" is super good

[runic violet]

[harsh matrix]

[runic violet]

Too bad it's 3 hours away

[frosty shard]

Madison's honestly a nice place to be because I can get away from light pollution pretty easily, but at the same time being about 10 degrees farther south would make an enormous difference

(Madison's at 43 north)

[runic violet]

What does this gain you

[harsh matrix]

mountain

nice area

wildfires