I built a home observatory 3 years ago on the roof of my garage living just north of Orlando, FL. This area, while nothing like my Bortle 5 night skies with many clear nights when living in California, was Bortle 6 when we moved here and many more cloudy nights than at my previous home. I noticed several months ago that the night sky from my observatory was lighter, especially in the south east which is in the direction of downtown Orlando. Well, I just saw an updated LP map on Astropheric and I am now well within Bortle 7 zone. This is so sad as we continue to pollute the night sky (and don't get me started on the Starlink saga). So, apparently my last several images are under Bortle 7 as I struggle to get decent images. I feel like I wasted a ton of money building a nice observatory. I am not really expecting any replies but I just wanted to vent :-(.
This is disheartening: Now officially under Bortle 7 skies.
Helpful Insightful Respectful Engaging
Hi Bruce! FWIW you helped inspire me to take the leap and build my own observatory too. It seems like LP is getting worse out here on Merritt Island as well. It's been a bummer during galaxy season for sure. The clouds are the bigger problem! They only go away when there is a full moon it seems. Florida needs to relinquish its "sunshine state" moniker.
Making do with narrowband targets, planets, and globular clusters - when the clouds allow. Still a rewarding hobby IMO.
Making do with narrowband targets, planets, and globular clusters - when the clouds allow. Still a rewarding hobby IMO.
Well Written Respectful Engaging Supportive
Very sorry to hear that, Bruce! I think about your beautiful observatory often.
Well Written Respectful
It is sad these kind of "news", I am going through something of that kind, when I moved to my place it was in the outskirt of the town, Curicó, and the city decides to grow into this direction with unregulated industrial activity, which for a reason I don't understand they enjoy to send more than 50% of the night illumination right into the sky, rather than to the ground… not mentioning the increase in air pollution. In another thread I did mention something like trying that your sky don't get worst can be a long battle…
However this is a real threat also for the large observatories at the north of Chile, Paranal, La Silla (ESO), Tololo (AURA) and so on, this is just one of the many articles on that, from 2018.
https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pollution-threatens-chile-dark.html#:~:text=Scientists%20estimate%20that%20by%202020,of%20the%20globe's%20astronomical%20infrastructure.
So, as I also invested in an observatory, but this facts indicates that I have to think carefully any upgrade, if makes sense at all…
However this is a real threat also for the large observatories at the north of Chile, Paranal, La Silla (ESO), Tololo (AURA) and so on, this is just one of the many articles on that, from 2018.
https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pollution-threatens-chile-dark.html#:~:text=Scientists%20estimate%20that%20by%202020,of%20the%20globe's%20astronomical%20infrastructure.
So, as I also invested in an observatory, but this facts indicates that I have to think carefully any upgrade, if makes sense at all…
Engaging
Hey Frank- thanks for your nice comments. Your observatory is very cool- best of luck!! That does stink to hear about LP even on Merritt Island and I agree that the clouds coverage is just awful and cloudless night see to occur during a bright moon! This is the worst spring since I moved here.
Yeah- galaxy season is certainly tough. I've only gotten two- Black Eye & Whirlpool. I mostly do NB targets and will probably stick with them given the circumstances but I do need to try some globular clusters now. And I agree about the rewarding hobby- I was getting frustrated but your comments do help me regroup. Thx again!!
Yeah- galaxy season is certainly tough. I've only gotten two- Black Eye & Whirlpool. I mostly do NB targets and will probably stick with them given the circumstances but I do need to try some globular clusters now. And I agree about the rewarding hobby- I was getting frustrated but your comments do help me regroup. Thx again!!
Thanks Gary! That is so nice to hear such feedback!
Mate, I'm under Bortle 6/7 in Melbourne, Australia as well and I would LOVE to have an obsy like yours.
Sure, it eeally would be nice to be under Bortle 2 but just having a permanent setup would be a dream in itself.
Also Narrowband allows much more creative freedom to imaging, so it's not all bad!
Sure, it eeally would be nice to be under Bortle 2 but just having a permanent setup would be a dream in itself.
Also Narrowband allows much more creative freedom to imaging, so it's not all bad!
Engaging Supportive
Thanks for your comments and the article, Claudio. It is amazing how this issue is growing at an accelerated rate. Hopefully, some clear-headed people will come together to address this. Best of luck on building your observatory.
Well Written Respectful Supportive
Thanks so much for the kind words, Andy! Your images are pretty amazing - a master at NB imaging :-).
Well Written Respectful Supportive
Bruce Donzanti:
I built a home observatory 3 years ago on the roof of my garage living just north of Orlando, FL. This area, while nothing like my Bortle 5 night skies with many clear nights when living in California, was Bortle 6 when we moved here and many more cloudy nights than at my previous home. I noticed several months ago that the night sky from my observatory was lighter, especially in the south east which is in the direction of downtown Orlando. Well, I just saw an updated LP map on Astropheric and I am now well within Bortle 7 zone. This is so sad as we continue to pollute the night sky (and don't get me started on the Starlink saga). So, apparently my last several images are under Bortle 7 as I struggle to get decent images. I feel like I wasted a ton of money building a nice observatory. I am not really expecting any replies but I just wanted to vent :-(.
I hate clicking the "Like" button on posts like this - sometimes it should be the "I sympathize" or the "I agree" button. Hopefully you continue to find ways to get images that you enjoy taking.
Well Written Respectful Supportive
Thanks so much for the kind words, Matthew.
This is really sad. I can empathize with what you are going through.
I am in Bortle 7. Luckily my neighborhood still used old style lamps that I was able to filter slightly using LP filters. Lately I have been seeing they are replacing them with Led lights that are way brighter. It is gonna start looking like a night-time stadium here soon.
I might have to switch to only imaging narrowband from backyard and taking more of a traveller approach for Galaxies and other broadband targets.
I am in Bortle 7. Luckily my neighborhood still used old style lamps that I was able to filter slightly using LP filters. Lately I have been seeing they are replacing them with Led lights that are way brighter. It is gonna start looking like a night-time stadium here soon.
I might have to switch to only imaging narrowband from backyard and taking more of a traveller approach for Galaxies and other broadband targets.
Respectful Engaging Supportive
This, among other reasons, is why I am limiting my spend and time in astrophotography. Doing this well requires clear, dark skies, expensive equipment, and time away from work and family. Increasingly, I find the sacrifice and commitment to not be worth it for me and am migrating to simpler equipment and less frequent acquisition.
Well Written
This, among other reasons, is why I am limiting my spend and time in astrophotography. Doing this well requires clear, dark skies, expensive equipment, and time away from work and family. Increasingly, I find the sacrifice and commitment to not be worth it for me and am migrating to simpler equipment and less frequent acquisition.
That sounds so defeating, I have friends who live in bortle 8 and 9 who give everything have because it is worth it to them.
That sounds so defeating, I have friends who live in bortle 8 and 9 who give everything have because it is worth it to them.
I don't mean to be negative, merely realistic. Where I live, clear skies are few and far between. To get good images requires taking advantage of whatever such time you can get. Which often means sacrificing other things. In the end, this is a hobby, not a living. One has to prioritize given the constraints.
Well Written
Hi Bruce,
I didn't know about the existence of this map. Had a look at my place just outside Athens GR and it turns out I am between 8 and 9. Always thought we were a 7, maybe a 8 when the neighbors are watching TV in their 80 inch monster with their balcony doors wide open.
I'd say don't worry too much about it. All it means in the end is fewer targets per year, as you need 20 or 30 hours of integration to match what you would achieve with a couple of hours in a dark site.
Cheers,
Dimitris
I didn't know about the existence of this map. Had a look at my place just outside Athens GR and it turns out I am between 8 and 9. Always thought we were a 7, maybe a 8 when the neighbors are watching TV in their 80 inch monster with their balcony doors wide open.
I'd say don't worry too much about it. All it means in the end is fewer targets per year, as you need 20 or 30 hours of integration to match what you would achieve with a couple of hours in a dark site.
Cheers,
Dimitris
Helpful Engaging Supportive
Hi Bruse, I agree your observatory is incredible and I too am envious. You skies and those of most on this thread is more the norm than the exception.
Arun H. I looked at images, and I think they are quite good. Especially for an 80mm scope. For what ever that is worth.
My understanding is that Bortle Sky rating or based on earth illumination from satellite images. It does not measure the sky glow. That has to be done from earth and greatly effected by humidity/dust. Looking at the on-line Light Pollution map you will see a tool box in the upper left. If you click on the tool icon and then the Zenith Brightness Simulator icon ( spiky star shape) it will bring up a new map showing the SIMULATOR ESTIMATES OF YOUR ZENITH SKIES FROM EARTH. I found this broke down the Bortle measurement into more accurate zones. There it showed my backyard not as bright as the shopping center 2 mi. away. That is more accurate. It seems the only way to get a real accurate measure of ones site is to use a Quality Sky Meter (SQM). I never bothered to buy one, since my skies are what they are and knowing wont change that.
My personal situation is Bortle 6, 600 ft elevation in the N.E jet stream. I also have a poor field of view. Yet, I put in a Pod observatory and continue to invest.
Of course It all depends on on ones goals and what imaging resolution level you want to achieve. If one had asked me 5 years ago If I would put in a observatory, I would replied NO, not worth the effort or money. I have lived in the same home for 28 years and have seen the sky pollution increase, and I doubt it will cease any in the future. A bout 3-4 years ago I had to make a decision. Whether to give it up, become a far weather summer imager at a dark site, or try to work around my poor skies. I choose to accept certain realities of my situation and select my imaging set-up to best deal with it.
This is what I decided would need to be done and might work for others in poor skies.
1. One-Shot-Color is out and a waste of time in poor skies.
2. Galaxies will be extremely limited to the brightest like M31, M51 and M81. Most other small faint ones will not be obtainable , IF YOU WANT GOOD HIGH QUALITY IMAGESS.
3. Straight LRGB or RGB will be limited to short exposures such as 2 -3 min used mainly to obtain star color.
4. A CCD or CMOS mono camera with good sensitivity in Ha is essential
5. Most targets will be emission nebula and planetary nebula. Targets can be open clusters the brighter Globulars with limited exposure lengths. Planetary and lunar imaging will be possible.
6. Narrow band imaging will essential and high quality filters in the 6 to 3 nm will be necessary. I use Astrodon 5 nm Ha, 3nm OIII and 5 nm SII.
7. This recomentation has to do mainly with poor seeing. Scope need to limited to smaller aperture. I prefer refractors but have acquired a great deal on an 8" Officina Stallera RH200 reflecting astrograph (more on that latter). Larger aperture are more effected by seeing and usually have long focal lengths with amplify seeing effects.
8. This recomentation has to do with weather and an aging body. I would need a permanent observatory set up of some kind. Could be no more than a box covering the set-up that could be opened and folded down in some way. I thought about several designs, but decided on the POD from SkyShed. for over 10 years I drug out by set up in the backyard to image, Often I was clouded out within a couple of hours or less. Often the skies never cleared. As the set-up became larger more complicated, the weather became very discouraging to even bother with setting up. IN ORDER TO CONTINUE, I KNEW A PERMANET SET UP WAS NECCSARY, EVEN IF IT WAS THE OUT-HOUSE STYLE( to save size, only the mount may be permanently mounted).
9. This has to do with limited field of view and poor seeing. The scope bust be fast (low F stop). This not only shortens exposure time but combats poor seeing.
I use focal reducers on my refractors. A Tak FSQ106ED at F3.6 is my work horse. This is why I have interest in the RH200 due to its F3 ratio. I started with Fastar/Hyperstar mono imaging. The results were not bad, but my light pollution demanded mono and changing 2" filters on and F2 system is taxing. It always needs not only refocus but recolimating the Hypersatr alignment. And must be done manually on a ladder.
10. Must be able to control acquisition and focusing remotely from inside the house in winter. THIS WAS A GAME CHANGER.
I realize my decision may be more demanding than most want to deal with, but that was my answer to suburban deep sky imaging.
Lynn K.
Arun H. I looked at images, and I think they are quite good. Especially for an 80mm scope. For what ever that is worth.
My understanding is that Bortle Sky rating or based on earth illumination from satellite images. It does not measure the sky glow. That has to be done from earth and greatly effected by humidity/dust. Looking at the on-line Light Pollution map you will see a tool box in the upper left. If you click on the tool icon and then the Zenith Brightness Simulator icon ( spiky star shape) it will bring up a new map showing the SIMULATOR ESTIMATES OF YOUR ZENITH SKIES FROM EARTH. I found this broke down the Bortle measurement into more accurate zones. There it showed my backyard not as bright as the shopping center 2 mi. away. That is more accurate. It seems the only way to get a real accurate measure of ones site is to use a Quality Sky Meter (SQM). I never bothered to buy one, since my skies are what they are and knowing wont change that.
My personal situation is Bortle 6, 600 ft elevation in the N.E jet stream. I also have a poor field of view. Yet, I put in a Pod observatory and continue to invest.
Of course It all depends on on ones goals and what imaging resolution level you want to achieve. If one had asked me 5 years ago If I would put in a observatory, I would replied NO, not worth the effort or money. I have lived in the same home for 28 years and have seen the sky pollution increase, and I doubt it will cease any in the future. A bout 3-4 years ago I had to make a decision. Whether to give it up, become a far weather summer imager at a dark site, or try to work around my poor skies. I choose to accept certain realities of my situation and select my imaging set-up to best deal with it.
This is what I decided would need to be done and might work for others in poor skies.
1. One-Shot-Color is out and a waste of time in poor skies.
2. Galaxies will be extremely limited to the brightest like M31, M51 and M81. Most other small faint ones will not be obtainable , IF YOU WANT GOOD HIGH QUALITY IMAGESS.
3. Straight LRGB or RGB will be limited to short exposures such as 2 -3 min used mainly to obtain star color.
4. A CCD or CMOS mono camera with good sensitivity in Ha is essential
5. Most targets will be emission nebula and planetary nebula. Targets can be open clusters the brighter Globulars with limited exposure lengths. Planetary and lunar imaging will be possible.
6. Narrow band imaging will essential and high quality filters in the 6 to 3 nm will be necessary. I use Astrodon 5 nm Ha, 3nm OIII and 5 nm SII.
7. This recomentation has to do mainly with poor seeing. Scope need to limited to smaller aperture. I prefer refractors but have acquired a great deal on an 8" Officina Stallera RH200 reflecting astrograph (more on that latter). Larger aperture are more effected by seeing and usually have long focal lengths with amplify seeing effects.
8. This recomentation has to do with weather and an aging body. I would need a permanent observatory set up of some kind. Could be no more than a box covering the set-up that could be opened and folded down in some way. I thought about several designs, but decided on the POD from SkyShed. for over 10 years I drug out by set up in the backyard to image, Often I was clouded out within a couple of hours or less. Often the skies never cleared. As the set-up became larger more complicated, the weather became very discouraging to even bother with setting up. IN ORDER TO CONTINUE, I KNEW A PERMANET SET UP WAS NECCSARY, EVEN IF IT WAS THE OUT-HOUSE STYLE( to save size, only the mount may be permanently mounted).
9. This has to do with limited field of view and poor seeing. The scope bust be fast (low F stop). This not only shortens exposure time but combats poor seeing.
I use focal reducers on my refractors. A Tak FSQ106ED at F3.6 is my work horse. This is why I have interest in the RH200 due to its F3 ratio. I started with Fastar/Hyperstar mono imaging. The results were not bad, but my light pollution demanded mono and changing 2" filters on and F2 system is taxing. It always needs not only refocus but recolimating the Hypersatr alignment. And must be done manually on a ladder.
10. Must be able to control acquisition and focusing remotely from inside the house in winter. THIS WAS A GAME CHANGER.
I realize my decision may be more demanding than most want to deal with, but that was my answer to suburban deep sky imaging.
Lynn K.
Helpful
Lynn K:
This is what I decided would need to be done and might work for others in poor skies
Thank you so much, this is exactly the information I was looking for, because the point is, what kind of scope is worth related to the quality of the sky one have?, It seems to me that a super quality one is a kind of burning money into the oven....now, the balance of what is the best option?, In your answer you gave that with several clues and factors to be considered, again, I appreciate that.
Very important to consider your points and I hope to come, in my case, with an answer soon. As I mention somewhere else, I am nearly retiring, so that puts observation time on my side, however the investment must be done now, while I receive salary, once retired, pension here are ... let say quite bad, being optimistic I can get 1/6 th of my actual income... (average wage for somebody working at one university) so, it is now or never, and that explain my hurry to get the correct advice.
Best and CS !