Jump to content


Photo

Dark Site Rocks!

  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Kon Dealer

Kon Dealer

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 695
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011
  • Loc: Cambridge UK

Posted 01 December 2012 - 03:50 PM

Fed up with urban LP I drove just 20 minutes out of town.
What a difference :) Could see the Milky way with the naked eye, not just a few of the brighter stars- the sky was full.
Just take one example-the Double Cluster :shocked: :shocked:
More stars with my 102mm 'frac than I can see in my 8SE in the back garden.
Had no idea it would make such a difference. :jump:
I can't imagine what a REAL dark site will look :grin:
One downside, the cold forced me home much sooner than I wanted :bawling:

#2 csrlice12

csrlice12

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10824
  • Joined: 22 May 2012
  • Loc: Denver, CO

Posted 01 December 2012 - 03:54 PM

I've always said the best filter is the "gas filter". Heard the viewing in the UK can be limited due too the weather a lot. If you're ever in Colorado, USA there's lots of dark sky here, even black sites.

#3 Dave Mitsky

Dave Mitsky

    ISS

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 35803
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2002
  • Loc: PA, USA, Planet Earth

Posted 01 December 2012 - 04:17 PM

You can have more fun with a 4" telescope at a truly dark site than with one four times larger in aperture at a light-polluted one.

Dave Mitsky

#4 Pinbout

Pinbout

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7793
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2010
  • Loc: nj

Posted 01 December 2012 - 06:43 PM

Had no idea it would make such a difference.



from my white skies i can't see m82 in my 8in. but from a dark site m81/82 are bright as day in my tv genesis sdf.

it's like who turned on the light switch.

#5 frito

frito

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1183
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2012
  • Loc: Fremont, CA

Posted 01 December 2012 - 11:44 PM

sky conditions matter much more than the scope 9 times out of 10.

#6 sg6

sg6

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 789
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Norfolk, UK.

Posted 02 December 2012 - 08:34 AM

A good dark sky is amazing, visited or lived at a couple, can be a problem walking as you cannot see where you are stepping. Another is that many of the expected constellations are difficult to locate. Casseiopia gets lost as does Cygnus and a lot of others.

Am I to guess that you were brave and went North or North East of Cambridge? Never know what would have happened had the Fen Folk caught you. :lol: :lol: :lol:

#7 Tony Flanders

Tony Flanders

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11179
  • Joined: 18 May 2006
  • Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA

Posted 02 December 2012 - 10:01 AM

Another is that many of the expected constellations are difficult to locate. Casseiopia gets lost as does Cygnus and a lot of others.


I think that's only a problem for people who have always lived in the same setting, and learned the constellations there.

For me, the constellations stand out every bit as well in dark skies as bright skies -- perhaps better, in fact. How could anybody miss the W of Cassiopeia when its stars are so dazzlingly bright? They stand out equallly well from the background regardless of whether that has no other stars or dozens of other stars.

That's presumably due to the fact that I grew up spending 3/4 my time in New York City and 1/4 at my country home. So to me nature forms a single continuum regardless of location; the constellations look very much the same to me in Manhattan and in southern Utah, except that some of the stars are invisible in Manhattan. Same with wildlife; I don't see a fundamental difference between a raccoon or deer in New York City and the same animals in the wilderness.

#8 Dave Mitsky

Dave Mitsky

    ISS

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 35803
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2002
  • Loc: PA, USA, Planet Earth

Posted 02 December 2012 - 02:11 PM

I've never had any trouble distinguishing constellations under very dark skies either.

Dave Mitsky

#9 Kon Dealer

Kon Dealer

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 695
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011
  • Loc: Cambridge UK

Posted 02 December 2012 - 03:57 PM

A good dark sky is amazing, visited or lived at a couple, can be a problem walking as you cannot see where you are stepping. Another is that many of the expected constellations are difficult to locate. Casseiopia gets lost as does Cygnus and a lot of others.

Am I to guess that you were brave and went North or North East of Cambridge? Never know what would have happened had the Fen Folk caught you. :lol: :lol: :lol:


No, I am scared stiff of running into someone with webbed hands. :help:

Went South and West. Not as dark, but less likely to run into mutants :shocked:

#10 sg6

sg6

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 789
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2010
  • Loc: Norfolk, UK.

Posted 04 December 2012 - 06:02 AM

No, I am scared stiff of running into someone with webbed hands.

Went South and West. Not as dark, but less likely to run into mutants


Don't venture into Hertfordshire, they won't allow you back into Cambs. :bawling:
I have to sneak into Cambridge under cover of darkness. :lol:
Melbourn is still unhappy to have a Stevenage post code not a Cambridge one after 25-30 years. :roflmao:

#11 Tom S.

Tom S.

    Explorer 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 56
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2007
  • Loc: Benicia, Calif.

Posted 04 December 2012 - 07:20 AM

Like you, I have a 102 mm 'frac and live under a light dome. I too was blown away by how much more I could see under seriously dark skies. Truly amazing! I saw the Veil for the first time ever, and M31 wouldn't even fully fit in the FOV of my lowest/widest EP. And stars were more piercing and colorful. Now I know that I MUST get out of town sometimes, and that having a portable telescope is vital!

What I still haven't experienced is a site with sustained excellent steadiness. Does such a place even exist?

#12 rick-SeMI

rick-SeMI

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 232
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2011
  • Loc: Michigan - USA

Posted 04 December 2012 - 07:35 AM

20 minutes, your lucky.
My sites:
5 - 10 minutes * white/red
25 - 30 minutes * orange
45 - 60 minutes * green
2 - 3 hours * blue (once a year)
4 - 5 hours * grey -- have one picked out, haven't been there yet.

I have pretty much given up observing at my house.
360° circle of light. Nice name for an observatory ? NOT

#13 Warren914

Warren914

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2012
  • Loc: Nova Scotia, Canada

Posted 04 December 2012 - 07:40 AM

It takes all of about 60 seconds for me to go from sofa to green/blue in the driveway. It's about 90 minutes drive to the dark sky preserve in one of the national parks. Never gone there for viewing though.

#14 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 22875
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 05 December 2012 - 04:46 PM

Average SQM brightness in my backyard--mag. 17.5 per square arc-second
Average SQM brightness at my observing site 110 miles away--mag. 21.4 per square arc-second (almost 4 full magnitudes darker!!!).
Average SQM brightness at my observing site 200 miles away--mag.21.7-21.9 per square arc-second (just a couple tenths brighter than the darkest skies on Earth).
Telescope used at dark sites: 12.5"
Telescope size needed for same view at home: 104"
I've observed with the 60" at Mt. Wilson (SQM reading: 19.75), and my friend's 28" at a dark site radically outperforms it.
Bright skies don't help any aperture.
Dark skies help ALL apertures.

#15 Ron (Lubbock)

Ron (Lubbock)

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 440
  • Joined: 17 Aug 2012
  • Loc: West TX

Posted 06 December 2012 - 02:59 PM

Going to a truly black observing site on a moonless night is amazing. The amount of structure in the milky way, with all its ragged dark nebulae, is just breathtaking.

Last month, we had a night that was so dark here in west TX that I just stood there gawking at the northern milky way in Cassiopeia and Perseus, with its ragged structure and dark patches, and seeing the subtle colors of the stars with my unaided eye, which is impossible from a light polluted area.

#16 Gastrol

Gastrol

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1297
  • Joined: 04 Nov 2011
  • Loc: los angeles

Posted 06 December 2012 - 03:17 PM

Average SQM brightness at my observing site 110 miles away--mag. 21.4 per square arc-second (almost 4 full magnitudes darker!!!).
Average SQM brightness at my observing site 200 miles away--mag.21.7-21.9 per square arc-second (just a couple tenths brighter than the darkest skies on Earth).


Are they Mt Pinos and Amboy Crater?

#17 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 22875
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 06 December 2012 - 04:12 PM

Could be. The darker site was just north of Desert Center, but Amboy Crater can get just as dark.

#18 bob irvin

bob irvin

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 265
  • Joined: 22 Mar 2011
  • Loc: Greater Los Angeles, CA

Posted 06 December 2012 - 04:29 PM

Fed up with urban LP I drove just 20 minutes out of town.


As other have said you're lucky you can get to a site within 20 minutes where you can see the milky way. It takes me at least 1.5 hours, and to get to a really decent dark site over two hours.

It's really worth the trip, but it turns an observing outing into an expedition. :bawling:

bob

#19 Tony Flanders

Tony Flanders

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11179
  • Joined: 18 May 2006
  • Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA

Posted 06 December 2012 - 05:22 PM

As other have said you're lucky you can get to a site within 20 minutes where you can see the milky way. It takes me at least 1.5 hours.


Yikes! Is that in rush-hour traffic, or all the time?

With all the state parks and national forests in the L.A. Basin, it's hard to believe that anywhere is 1.5 hours from a spot where the Milky Way is easy to see when the roads are clear.

Where I live near downtown Boston, I'm 2 hours from anywhere that's even close to dark, but there are plenty of places within a half hour where the summer Milky Way is easy to see.

#20 Starman1

Starman1

    Vendor (EyepiecesEtc.com)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 22875
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2003
  • Loc: Los Angeles

Posted 06 December 2012 - 05:41 PM

Tony,
From downtown LA, the nearest site with a magnitude limit of at least 21 is about 100 miles--2.5 hrs on average.
If you specify at least magnitude 21.5, that distance is 180 miles--3.5 hours on average.
If you just want a hint of the Milky Way, then a 45 minute drive can get you that, but the sky will be mag.19-19.5 or so, and the distance 35-50 miles.
The last time I observed with someone in downtown LA, we could see, on a really clear night, the two shoulder stars in Orion, the 3 belt stars, and the two knees, for a total of 7 stars. The night sky was light blue with a hint of orange.

#21 Kon Dealer

Kon Dealer

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 695
  • Joined: 05 Jan 2011
  • Loc: Cambridge UK

Posted 06 December 2012 - 06:07 PM

Fed up with urban LP I drove just 20 minutes out of town.


As other have said you're lucky you can get to a site within 20 minutes where you can see the milky way. It takes me at least 1.5 hours, and to get to a really decent dark site over two hours.

It's really worth the trip, but it turns an observing outing into an expedition. :bawling:

bob


When I said the Milky Way, I didn't mean in its full glory.
I'm probably talking about Bortle 5-6, but its is significantly better than the Bortle 8-9 in my backgarden :grin:






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics