Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Best Single Eyepiece for Night Vision?

  • Please log in to reply
360 replies to this topic

#1 patindaytona

patindaytona

    Apollo

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,092
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2019

Posted 20 April 2022 - 08:11 PM

I have a 12" f4.9 (1500mm f.l) dob.   Plan to purchase the Televue NV package that comes with the 55mm Televue eyepiece.  I can't afford more eyepiece for that setup. I calculated the magnification for the eyepiece and my scope and if i'm right, i was 22x.   Seeing alot of things such as galaxies, globulars etc. would very small looking wouldn't they? Is this eyepiece just for a "milky way" experience rather than closeups of DSO's?


  • 25585 likes this

#2 Dale Eason

Dale Eason

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2009
  • Loc: Roseville,Mn.

Posted 20 April 2022 - 10:45 PM

There is no single one eyepiece for use with NV just like the same is true for regular visual telescope use.

 

One of the best things that NV is good at are emission nebula and they are some of the largest features that are easily visible to it.  So yes that is a good eyepiece for it. 

 

I use the 55 with NV and 10F3 telescope Afocal and enjoy seeing clusters of galaxies.  The Leo triplet becomes the Leo quartet and quintet with that combinations field of view.

 

The down side to higher power shorter focal length eyepieces is the view gets dimmer for the NV device so in general I usually stay with the 55mm.  However I sometimes use a 20 or even a 10mm.    But I find the 55 the most satisfying.

 

Dale


  • 25585, patindaytona and Old Speckled Hen like this

#3 GOLGO13

GOLGO13

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,644
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2005
  • Loc: West Virginia

Posted 20 April 2022 - 10:47 PM

hmm...if I were in this situation...money being tight. I'd go with the Televue 40mm Plossl instead of the 55 package. That provides a .7 like reduction. 1.25 inch filters are way cheaper. So you could get a hydrogen alpha 6 or 7nm. You could go unfiltered for everything non-nebula or get a 1.25 inch 685 long pass filter for non-nebula. 

 

As far as the 55 plossl setup, with the 67mm adapter that provides a .4 reduction equivalent. With your 12 inch F4.9, it would provide a wider field, but would still be useful for many nebulas. Especially since your original focal length is 1500. If my calculations are correct, your scope would be operating at 600mm focal length and F1.96. I'm not sure what the 55 plossl by itself is. So you could pop that into something like this website: https://astronomy.to.../field_of_view/

 

I use the 67mm setup with my 10 inch Dob...F4.7 1200 focal length. It's pretty good for nebulas. It doesn't quite fit the North American completely, but not too far from it. It maybe a bit small on some nebulas though. If you go with 1.25 inch, you could always get a Delite 17 later to get some more zoomed in views.


  • Old Speckled Hen likes this

#4 GOLGO13

GOLGO13

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,644
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2005
  • Loc: West Virginia

Posted 20 April 2022 - 10:59 PM

The issue to consider is getting some detail on nebulas. With the 67mm setup and my 10 inch dob, some nebulas will be too small for good detail. Objects like the Trifid, Eagle, Swan benefit from a bit more magnification. For those find at the native focal length (which I believe is something like 27mm eyepiece) helps. Still pretty good at F5. I may try a slight reduction like .7 and still get some good views.

 

Of course for the really large nebulas (North American, Rosette, anything around Cygnus, Heart/Soul, California) having a wider field of view is helpful.

 

A good strategy would be to get a second scope like a 102mm F5 refractor for these objects that require a wide field. And honestly, that would be useful for glass situations with your 12 inch F5 also. A nice wide field complimentary telescope to pair with the big dob.

 

You will generally find your 12 inch dob is VERY good for NV. The TV40 and Delite 17 would probably be not as bad cost. Especially when factoring in the HA filter cost difference.

 

What level of light pollution do you have at your primary observing site?

 

EDIT: should mention that for the 102mm F5 refractor, it would be best to get a non-dielectric diagonal. Something like the Baader BBHS prism would be ideal. The 1.25 inch version of that prism is pretty reasonably priced.


Edited by GOLGO13, 20 April 2022 - 11:01 PM.


#5 GOLGO13

GOLGO13

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,644
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2005
  • Loc: West Virginia

Posted 20 April 2022 - 11:34 PM

If you do end up going 1.25 inch, you'd need something like this to get 1x views with a 1.25 inch filter: https://rafcamera.co...s-to-astro-1-25

 

There maybe other ways to do this also if that one is not appealing.



#6 FoxIslandHiker

FoxIslandHiker

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 134
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2020
  • Loc: Fox Island, Washington

Posted 20 April 2022 - 11:45 PM

On their website TeleVue has a list of their eye pieces which they recommend for night vision. These include the DeLite 11 and Delos 10 but not the Ethos 10.  Is there a reason the Ethos 10 would not be good for NV while the DeLite 11 and Delos 10 would be?


  • patindaytona likes this

#7 Deadlake

Deadlake

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 734
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2020

Posted 21 April 2022 - 02:22 AM

A good strategy would be to get a second scope like a 102mm F5 refractor for these objects that require a wide field. And honestly, that would be useful for glass situations with your 12 inch F5 also. A nice wide field complimentary telescope to pair with the big dob.

EDIT: should mention that for the 102mm F5 refractor, it would be best to get a non-dielectric diagonal. Something like the Baader BBHS prism would be ideal. The 1.25 inch version of that prism is pretty reasonably priced.


The TV 55 mm and 67 mm adapter might be the only EP you need and would also work well with a 5” fast APO you might want to plan for to look at showcase NV objects. If you stick with afocal a 41 mm panopticon is another good EP, but both those EP’s will cover you for most objects.

The other option would be to go prime and use a asa reducer for your Dob, which will make a great NV scope.no need for an EP in this case.

As far as diagonals the ES 2” carbon is 1/4 of the price of the BBHS but has good infra red reflectivity, downside is the optical path is long and even with a FT3545 I couldn’t get it to focus using a XWA 20 mm.

#8 patindaytona

patindaytona

    Apollo

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,092
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2019

Posted 21 April 2022 - 07:08 AM

hmm...if I were in this situation...money being tight. I'd go with the Televue 40mm Plossl instead of the 55 package. That provides a .7 like reduction. 1.25 inch filters are way cheaper. So you could get a hydrogen alpha 6 or 7nm. You could go unfiltered for everything non-nebula or get a 1.25 inch 685 long pass filter for non-nebula. 

 

As far as the 55 plossl setup, with the 67mm adapter that provides a .4 reduction equivalent. With your 12 inch F4.9, it would provide a wider field, but would still be useful for many nebulas. Especially since your original focal length is 1500. If my calculations are correct, your scope would be operating at 600mm focal length and F1.96. I'm not sure what the 55 plossl by itself is. So you could pop that into something like this website: https://astronomy.to.../field_of_view/

 

I use the 67mm setup with my 10 inch Dob...F4.7 1200 focal length. It's pretty good for nebulas. It doesn't quite fit the North American completely, but not too far from it. It maybe a bit small on some nebulas though. If you go with 1.25 inch, you could always get a Delite 17 later to get some more zoomed in views.

Thanks for you're advice. The Televue setup they sell has a 2" extension tube. Don't know how I'd configue the 1.25" eyepiece to it (or filter). Could you clarify what "reduction" means? I need to start taking down notes (and i am now).
Sure would like to see some examples of NV using various telescopes. I wonder how resolved globulars are with the 55mm. Too small?



#9 patindaytona

patindaytona

    Apollo

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,092
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2019

Posted 21 April 2022 - 07:15 AM

The issue to consider is getting some detail on nebulas. With the 67mm setup and my 10 inch dob, some nebulas will be too small for good detail. Objects like the Trifid, Eagle, Swan benefit from a bit more magnification. For those find at the native focal length (which I believe is something like 27mm eyepiece) helps. Still pretty good at F5. I may try a slight reduction like .7 and still get some good views.

 

Of course for the really large nebulas (North American, Rosette, anything around Cygnus, Heart/Soul, California) having a wider field of view is helpful.

 

A good strategy would be to get a second scope like a 102mm F5 refractor for these objects that require a wide field. And honestly, that would be useful for glass situations with your 12 inch F5 also. A nice wide field complimentary telescope to pair with the big dob.

 

You will generally find your 12 inch dob is VERY good for NV. The TV40 and Delite 17 would probably be not as bad cost. Especially when factoring in the HA filter cost difference.

 

What level of light pollution do you have at your primary observing site?

 

EDIT: should mention that for the 102mm F5 refractor, it would be best to get a non-dielectric diagonal. Something like the Baader BBHS prism would be ideal. The 1.25 inch version of that prism is pretty reasonably priced.

I have a bortle 6 site where i live. Let me explain a bit the situation. I lost interest in astronomy bout 8 months back since I had already seen what i could throughout the year using optical eyepieces. And that wasn't alot because of the light pollution and......20 yards away is a blinding porch light of neighbor year round. They aren't occupying it so it's on for security. DRAGGG.

Then just found out about NV.  Should be able to see alot more than before now. I just turned senior c. and i can't drag my 12" out to other places. I use my porch here. Im trying to stick to one eyepiece setup with the nv. Too expensive to go past this at least for some time.
 


  • Old Speckled Hen likes this

#10 patindaytona

patindaytona

    Apollo

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,092
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2019

Posted 21 April 2022 - 07:23 AM

The issue to consider is getting some detail on nebulas. With the 67mm setup and my 10 inch dob, some nebulas will be too small for good detail. Objects like the Trifid, Eagle, Swan benefit from a bit more magnification. For those find at the native focal length (which I believe is something like 27mm eyepiece) helps. Still pretty good at F5. I may try a slight reduction like .7 and still get some good views.

 

Of course for the really large nebulas (North American, Rosette, anything around Cygnus, Heart/Soul, California) having a wider field of view is helpful.

 

A good strategy would be to get a second scope like a 102mm F5 refractor for these objects that require a wide field. And honestly, that would be useful for glass situations with your 12 inch F5 also. A nice wide field complimentary telescope to pair with the big dob.

 

You will generally find your 12 inch dob is VERY good for NV. The TV40 and Delite 17 would probably be not as bad cost. Especially when factoring in the HA filter cost difference.

 

What level of light pollution do you have at your primary observing site?

 

EDIT: should mention that for the 102mm F5 refractor, it would be best to get a non-dielectric diagonal. Something like the Baader BBHS prism would be ideal. The 1.25 inch version of that prism is pretty reasonably priced.

Those very large nebulae you mention with my bortle 6 location probably would not be prime targets. I have trees on one side and house roofline other. So, I have to wait looking south (forget north...bad). It's either south, or zenith objects. I can barely get the Sagittarius nebulaes in because of the roofline also. Still...i can see quite a few things. Cygnus, Most of the zodiacal constellations. So do you think because I'd be looking at globulars, open, ring nebula, dumbell , some galaxies..that i'd be better off with a higher magnification eyepiece than the 55mm televue?


  • 25585 and Old Speckled Hen like this

#11 patindaytona

patindaytona

    Apollo

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,092
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2019

Posted 21 April 2022 - 07:30 AM

There is no single one eyepiece for use with NV just like the same is true for regular visual telescope use.

 

One of the best things that NV is good at are emission nebula and they are some of the largest features that are easily visible to it.  So yes that is a good eyepiece for it. 

 

I use the 55 with NV and 10F3 telescope Afocal and enjoy seeing clusters of galaxies.  The Leo triplet becomes the Leo quartet and quintet with that combinations field of view.

 

The down side to higher power shorter focal length eyepieces is the view gets dimmer for the NV device so in general I usually stay with the 55mm.  However I sometimes use a 20 or even a 10mm.    But I find the 55 the most satisfying.

 

Dale

I have forgotten some ot the things i used to know but could you please tell me if the 10f3 you use is delievering more/less? power with the 55mm than the 12" I'm using? It sounds like you're getting a decent magnification from the description of the leo quartet (i thought is was a Triplet?),



#12 GOLGO13

GOLGO13

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,644
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2005
  • Loc: West Virginia

Posted 21 April 2022 - 07:39 AM

Thanks for you're advice. The Televue setup they sell has a 2" extension tube. Don't know how I'd configue the 1.25" eyepiece to it (or filter). Could you clarify what "reduction" means? I need to start taking down notes (and i am now).
Sure would like to see some examples of NV using various telescopes. I wonder how resolved globulars are with the 55mm. Too small?

You don't need the 2 inch accessories if you stick to 1.25 inch. That extention tube is specific to the 55 Plossl setup. I'm going to make a post today or tomorrow showing my entire kit. That should help.

Basically, these night vision units are natively 27mm eyepiece equivalent. So if you did afocal with a 27mm eyepiece it would have no reduction in magnification or increase in magnification. If you use the 55 Plossl it's a good amount of reduction in magnification and objects will be smaller. If you used an 11mm eyepiece it would increase magnification and objects would be larger.

Globular clusters are a perfect example. In the 55 Plossl it makes them a bit small. They are best in my 8 inch SCT because of the 2032 focal length.

Edited by GOLGO13, 21 April 2022 - 07:41 AM.

  • 25585 likes this

#13 patindaytona

patindaytona

    Apollo

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,092
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2019

Posted 21 April 2022 - 07:56 AM

You don't need the 2 inch accessories if you stick to 1.25 inch. That extention tube is specific to the 55 Plossl setup. I'm going to make a post today or tomorrow showing my entire kit. That should help.

Basically, these night vision units are natively 27mm eyepiece equivalent. So if you did afocal with a 27mm eyepiece it would have no reduction in magnification or increase in magnification. If you use the 55 Plossl it's a good amount of reduction in magnification and objects will be smaller. If you used an 11mm eyepiece it would increase magnification and objects would be larger.

Globular clusters are a perfect example. In the 55 Plossl it makes them a bit small. They are best in my 8 inch SCT because of the 2032 focal length.

I would not need the extention tube if using the 1.25"? Sorry, but so many questions! Does the converter come into play still, if using a 1.25" eyepiece? I'm not into all these calculations like i once was, but i have to be careful about getting an eyepiece with a magnification that does not utilize the full field capability of the NV also....if that is possible. Maybe it's not and that's a tradeoff.
 


  • 25585 likes this

#14 patindaytona

patindaytona

    Apollo

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,092
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2019

Posted 21 April 2022 - 08:23 AM

You don't need the 2 inch accessories if you stick to 1.25 inch. That extention tube is specific to the 55 Plossl setup. I'm going to make a post today or tomorrow showing my entire kit. That should help.

Basically, these night vision units are natively 27mm eyepiece equivalent. So if you did afocal with a 27mm eyepiece it would have no reduction in magnification or increase in magnification. If you use the 55 Plossl it's a good amount of reduction in magnification and objects will be smaller. If you used an 11mm eyepiece it would increase magnification and objects would be larger.

Globular clusters are a perfect example. In the 55 Plossl it makes them a bit small. They are best in my 8 inch SCT because of the 2032 focal length.

Do you mean that if i used a 27mm eyepiece with the night vision, it would be same as what i see using my 27mm eyepiece on my telescope without using a NV device? I have 24mm ES eyepiece and i recall if barely fits in the Pleadies. If this is correct from what I'm trying to understand, then using that 55mm Plossl will really widen the view even further.

If I wanted to get a 27mm magnification, I could connect the NV directly to telescope using no eyepiece at all, right?


Edited by patindaytona, 21 April 2022 - 09:44 AM.


#15 Joko

Joko

    Vendor - OVNI

  • -----
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 419
  • Joined: 21 May 2008
  • Loc: FRANCE, EUROPE

Posted 21 April 2022 - 09:12 AM

IMO the best eyepiece is no additional eyepiece. In prime there is no optical aberrations due to the lens... because there is no lens.

If you want wider FOV you'll use the NVD in afocal by adding the lens and with the TV67mm or/and Panoptic 41mm. This is great for large nebulae but they are only a small part of the targets that you can observe.

For most other DSO you'll need higher magnification so you will use the NVD in prime (without the front lens) then you'll also be able to add barlows.


Edited by Joko, 21 April 2022 - 09:14 AM.


#16 GOLGO13

GOLGO13

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,644
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2005
  • Loc: West Virginia

Posted 21 April 2022 - 10:52 AM

IMO the best eyepiece is no additional eyepiece. In prime there is no optical aberrations due to the lens... because there is no lens.

If you want wider FOV you'll use the NVD in afocal by adding the lens and with the TV67mm or/and Panoptic 41mm. This is great for large nebulae but they are only a small part of the targets that you can observe.

For most other DSO you'll need higher magnification so you will use the NVD in prime (without the front lens) then you'll also be able to add barlows.

I mostly agree with what you say here. But for Afocal, you can use different eyepieces to achieve a more zoomed in view. TV67mm provides a lot of reduction. But using a 27mm would be equivalent to prime focus I believe. and using an eyepiece like a 13mm would be zoomed in like a barlow. 

 

I've not tried a lot of afocal zoomed in, because I have prime focus capability, but it should be possible.

 

I agree there are some aberrations because of the lens...it works but that is something to consider.



#17 Dale Eason

Dale Eason

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2009
  • Loc: Roseville,Mn.

Posted 21 April 2022 - 11:32 AM

I have forgotten some ot the things i used to know but could you please tell me if the 10f3 you use is delievering more/less? power with the 55mm than the 12" I'm using? It sounds like you're getting a decent magnification from the description of the leo quartet (i thought is was a Triplet?),

Unless you use a Barlow or a Coma corrector with a little power the magnification calculation is the same as without the NV in afocal setup.  That is it is the telescope focal length divided by the eyepiece focal length.

 

When using NV and my 10F3 with SIPS coma corrector my mag is 16x and field of view is 3 deg.   The Leo Triplet becomes the Leo Quintet because 2 other dim galaxies come into view when the transparency is good.  With this setup I discovered that I can see them from my back yard under Bortle 7-8 skies using the 685 long pass filter.

 

Dale


Edited by Dale Eason, 21 April 2022 - 11:35 AM.


#18 patindaytona

patindaytona

    Apollo

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,092
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2019

Posted 21 April 2022 - 12:50 PM

Unless you use a Barlow or a Coma corrector with a little power the magnification calculation is the same as without the NV in afocal setup.  That is it is the telescope focal length divided by the eyepiece focal length.

 

When using NV and my 10F3 with SIPS coma corrector my mag is 16x and field of view is 3 deg.   The Leo Triplet becomes the Leo Quintet because 2 other dim galaxies come into view when the transparency is good.  With this setup I discovered that I can see them from my back yard under Bortle 7-8 skies using the 685 long pass filter.

 

Dale

Ok. I think then with the 12" (1500mm) and the 55mm Televue it would make it 22x and with the converter (67mm) make it 27x

Hope that's right. You're using 16x mag. So, my setup with the 55mm would easily zoom in close to globulars or like you said, the Leo Quentet. Doesn't sound like I would need any more magnification if this is true.

 



#19 GOLGO13

GOLGO13

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,644
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2005
  • Loc: West Virginia

Posted 21 April 2022 - 12:58 PM

Ok. I think then with the 12" (1500mm) and the 55mm Televue it would make it 22x and with the converter (67mm) make it 27x

Hope that's right. You're using 16x mag. So, my setup with the 55mm would easily zoom in close to globulars or like you said, the Leo Quentet. Doesn't sound like I would need any more magnification if this is true.

Just to clarify, the setup won't be operating at the 1500 focal length with the 55 plossl or the 67mm setup. 55 will act like a reducer and the 67mm even more reduced. 

 

Maybe someone can clarify the math for us. 

 

In my opinion, if you are going to go this route (2 inch), the 27mm Panoptic would be worth having in the future. That would (I believe) have your NV unit operating at your 1500 focal length and would be better on globulars. I say this because the lens on the PVS-14 is 27mm (I believe).



#20 patindaytona

patindaytona

    Apollo

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,092
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2019

Posted 21 April 2022 - 01:17 PM

Just to clarify, the setup won't be operating at the 1500 focal length with the 55 plossl or the 67mm setup. 55 will act like a reducer and the 67mm even more reduced. 

 

Maybe someone can clarify the math for us. 

 

In my opinion, if you are going to go this route (2 inch), the 27mm Panoptic would be worth having in the future. That would (I believe) have your NV unit operating at your 1500 focal length and would be better on globulars. I say this because the lens on the PVS-14 is 27mm (I believe).

Ok. Golgo said these units are nativley 27mm equivalent. Adding a 55mm would reduce it to using something less than the 27mm magnification equivalent? Sorry about the misunderstanding. I'm not practicing this calculation stuff very often.



#21 GOLGO13

GOLGO13

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 7,644
  • Joined: 05 Nov 2005
  • Loc: West Virginia

Posted 21 April 2022 - 01:22 PM

Ok. Golgo said these units are nativley 27mm equivalent. Adding a 55mm would reduce it to using something less than the 27mm magnification equivalent? Sorry about the misunderstanding. I'm not practicing this calculation stuff very often.


Hopefully we can get some afocal experts to weigh in. But yes, big reduction in magnification with 67mm.

#22 sunrag

sunrag

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,195
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2019
  • Loc: Carmel, Indiana

Posted 21 April 2022 - 01:39 PM

The GSO Superview 30mm 2” eyepiece (also sold as Apertura or Zhumell) is close enough to the native 27mm FL of the PVS 14, so will have a .9x reduction factor. It also works with the TNVC-1401 adapter.

I have ordered Russell Optics Super-Plossl 65mm with custom M48 female threads on the ocular top. This has a AFOV of 40 degrees, so will be equivalent to the TV 67 + TV 55 combo (i think).
  • Jethro7 and Speedy1985 like this

#23 sunrag

sunrag

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,195
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2019
  • Loc: Carmel, Indiana

Posted 21 April 2022 - 01:43 PM

In my experiments with TV40mm Plossl in my 12”/F5, i saw too much coma. Also the TV40 was very sensitive to eye placement. On-axis everything looked sharp, but a slight tilt of the head made everything look comatic. This is both with or without a coma corrector - but I’ll admit that i am not sure if my spacing between ep and cc is correct.
  • Jethro7 likes this

#24 patindaytona

patindaytona

    Apollo

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,092
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2019

Posted 21 April 2022 - 01:45 PM

I have an Explore Scientific 24mm. Would be nice if it fitted on the adapter. Won't know till I see it.



#25 patindaytona

patindaytona

    Apollo

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1,092
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2019

Posted 21 April 2022 - 01:57 PM

The GSO Superview 30mm 2” eyepiece (also sold as Apertura or Zhumell) is close enough to the native 27mm FL of the PVS 14, so will have a .9x reduction factor. It also works with the TNVC-1401 adapter.

I have ordered Russell Optics Super-Plossl 65mm with custom M48 female threads on the ocular top. This has a AFOV of 40 degrees, so will be equivalent to the TV 67 + TV 55 combo (i think).

This sounds like the way to go. The 55mm Plossl along with this GSO for more magnification.
 


  • Jethro7 likes this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics