--- In OAFs@y..., "Bruce McGlashan" <mcglashanb2@h...> wrote:
So that means I cannot see Polaris in the EP if I aim at the pole -
I have to do a proper job of setting the RA. I didn't know the RA >
of Polaris last night, and arbitrarily flopped the scope over on
the east side of north, which turned out to be opposite to the true
RA of Polaris. It seems to me that I was lucky to see anything at >
all of Polaris.Does this make sense? Did I just describe the > >
typical newbie experience trying to aim at Polaris for the first >
time?
As for me, Bruce, yes that makes sense. I had much more of a problem
with Polaris when I had an equatorial mount, with a 4.5" scope. Now
that I think of it, it's probably because of what you describe.
Last night felt to me like the typical murk at Armstrong Rd.! Well,
maybe a bit worse.
I think Armstrong road is pretty good, considering it's distance. I
really enjoyed the many sessions I've had there. Since next
weekend is coming fast, I'd like to add that OAOG's Foymount site is
an excellent dark site where I've experienced some of my best
observing.
This weekend, some of you might be going to Pinhey's point, and others
might be going to Foymount. Whichever you feel like doing, if the
weather "co-operates", it's sure to be great fun...
No wonder you sounded so surprised when I found M3, M13 and M92 so
quickly.
The first time I found M92, it took me two tries on different nights
and 1/2 hour on the actual night I found it. Janice took two
different nights as well. So, when you found it in about one minute,
I have to say, I was a bit pleasantly surprised, Bruce.
I think you'll do real well at starhopping! ;-)
Photons Rule!
Roland
