Comment by dylan604 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dylan604 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It's sad it has to be this way. I have a telescope with a smaller telescope for tracking. I have the motorized equatorial mount. I have the gear to connect the mount and smaller scope with a camera to my laptop. I have the software to control them for precise tracking. I have the camera to attach to the main telescope. I have the stacking software. I don't have the luck of being free when the seeing is great, and have the unfortunate luck of always being available when the seeing is for shite.

Edit: my "old man" plans are to buy some property well outside of light pollution. that way i can just do my hobby any night there's clear skies

Edit2: there's a site in New Mexico[0] where a group has purchased some land strategically where they are at a bit of altitude, and have more nights than not of clear skies. They've it up so that you can CoLo your astro gear there, and they provided a remote connection so you can do everything remotely. For a small nominal monthly fee of course. This is my "pre-old man" plan B to research, but I feel my stuff my be too amateurish for this

[0]https://nmskies.com/newmexicosite.html

A good place to consider for your property purchase is the area around Crestone, CO. It was recently designated a Dark Sky Sanctuary. It's near some great hiking, Sand Dunes National Park and good skiing. Also, it has the only legal funeral pyre in the USA. [1]

As for the remote sites in New Mexico, I've looked into renting telescope time or remotely locating my astrophotography gear but I just feel like I'd be losing something from the hobby if it didn't require me to be hands on with the gear and outside.

[1] https://crestoneendoflifeproject.org/services/open-air-crema...

There's a group about 4 hours from Dallas called 3 Rivers Foundation (www.3rf.org) that has been buying up land in the county. The last time I was there, they were trying to get their campus (700+ acres at that time) designated as a dark sky location too. They are also attempting to increase their acreage to help keep it that way. There's a state park Copper Breaks that has the darkest skies of any state park (caveat being Big Bend is a national park) in the same area.

>I just feel like I'd be losing something

Spend enough cold nights outside, and you'll get really fuzzy to the remote concept! There have been nights where it was so cold, that once the rig was running, everyone just hangs out inside where it's warm with a periodic jaunts outside just to check on things.

Edit: I had to look up some details. At one of the post facilities I once worked, I met John Davis of Jimmy Neutron fame. He's a big astrophotography buff as well. While we were in the color session waiting for some renders to finish, he showed me his remote setup. He can log in and view some cameras to ensure it is safe to open up for observing. He can tell it what to observe in a set it and forget it manner. At the end, it is scripted to process the images and email it to him for review. That's exactly how I'd spend my Hollywood earnings too if I ever had any. I can't remember if he was the person I learned about 3rf from or if it was another client. But yeah, it's a pick your mouth up from the floor and wipe the drool off your face before you look like a fool. He said that's not the first time it's happened to him. Very cool cat.

> Edit: my "old man" plans are to buy some property well outside of light pollution.

I've always wonder how feasible it was to do astronomy by boat? That way you can chase clear skies. And I'd suspect there is almost no light pollution out in the deep blue sea.

it definitely gets dark out there, but you'd need a lot of stabilization to counter the motion of the waves if wanting to do imaging. For just viewing, it might be acceptable on a really large boat like a cruise ship. I've seen some footage from large container vessels that were not very long exposures that give an idea. humidity could also be an issue

The problem is that there is twice as much atmosphere between you and space at sea level than if you in Denver, Colorado. That can mean more distortion as the light passes through more dust and more thermally different layers before it reaches you.

That's a vast exaggeration. At Denver's altitude, 1608m, there's about 85% as much atmosphere as at sea level. To get down to 50% atmosphere, you'd need to climb to around 5500m which is higher than Mount Elbert.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com