Live, from the moon. . .

. . . we bring you Gassendi! A French theologian, mathematician, and astronomer - got to love that combination - he's been dead for about 350 years, but a magnificient crater bearing his name lives on. I like the nickname "pearl ring" for this one, though I notice Rukl (Atlas of the the Moon) , calls it a "diamond ring."

I say "live, from . . ." because I sat comfortably in my office chair in my small observatory, mesmerized by a live television image of Gassendi and Mare Humorum for nearly half an hour last night. The tv camera was replacing the eyepice in my 8-inch LX-90. I hadn't even planned to observe. I had it in my mind that it was going to be cloudy all week, but last night was clear and this morning, as I write this, it continues clear. That means as soon as I finish I'm heading out to look for the two nova in Scorpii and see how they're doing. But first Gassendi! Here's an image I took from a video last fall recorded on DVD at the time. I've cropped it and played with it a bit in Photoshop so that I think it is very close to the size and quality of what I was seeing on the screen last night. (I'm not trying to impress- there are far, far better images being taken of the moon by amateurs every night - just want to give you a feel for what a cheapy video camera can do.)

That image was with the pricey, senstive and very excellent MallinCam Color Hyper - but as I say, I've actually cropped and enlarged it so the quality has dropped. The MallinCam is great for deep sky objects and does fine with the moon as well. But last night I wanted to try the "electronic eyepiece" - I'm not sure why Meade doesn't call it a video camera - that Meade is giving away with so many telescopes these days - or selling for just $40. Why? because I think it has some practical uses and it is so darned easy to use. That's it's real strength for me.

This little sucker is no bigger than a moderate-sized eyepiece and that includes a little compartment that holds the 9-volt battery which powers it. You simply pop it in, connect the video output to a display, and you're ready to go. My display is a quality DVD player that has about a five-hour battery life - nice and portable. There's only one control on the "eyepiece" and that's a dial which turns it on and off and essentially sets both brightness and contrast. Adjust that, focus the scope, and you're live from the moon - or whatever. Well - not whatever. I looked at Saturn with it and I'm sure it could handle Jupiter, Mars, Venus, and the sun - but that's about it. Still - for $40!

What I really liked here is I could put my DVD player on the bench, then next to it open up Rukl - and since the subject was the moon, there was no real issue of night vision. That meant I could study Rukl's wonderfully detailed chart and try to make sense out of it with what was on the screen. Only problem - the screen image was flipped left to right - which is what I've done with the image above as well. That complicates using the chart - but anyone using a scope is used to that. The magnification is something in the order of that delivered by an 8mm eyepice In this case the magnification would be about 250X. )The field of view is rather small - my guess roughly 50-degree APOV. ( Small - well, I think I was looking at a rectangle that was about 300 miles long and 200 miles high. Still, I would like more contol over magnification - I need to try a focal reducer in the LX90. That would lower the power and widen the field.

See the mountain peaks in the middle of Gassendi? I figure if they were in Providence, RI, then I was sitting near the crater rim. I always try to make little calculations like that to bring home what I am seeing. It's so easy to lose sight of scale when using a scope. Gassendi is roughly 68 miles across.

The image on the screen didn't stay still like in the photograph. Seeing was poor and that meant that over a period of a few seconds it would go from tolerably sharp - about what you see in the photo - to downright blurry and then back to sort of sharp again. This was mre apparent than the same change sin the eyepiece, maybe because of the larger scale of the screen. I also used the telescope controls to prowl around a bit. After about half an hour of searching out large and small details on the screen - sipping a cup of tea and feeling very relaxed - I switched to an eyepiece. Wow! The view was remarkably better. I mean, nice and crisp. But . . . was I seeing more? As I began to track down detail I wasn't at all sure. What I could see on the screen I could see in the eyepiece - but yes, I would have to give the edge to the visual view.

Bottom line:

The visual view is aethetically and practically better. No doubt.

But - the video view proved a great way to get thoroughly acquainted with the region before looking through the scope. (It would also be a wonderful instructional tool, since you could discuss with others what to look for and what was seen, while you all referenced the screen image. great illustration of "seeing" as well.) Could you do this inside during the day with maps and photos? Sure. But because of the constantly changing lighting the moon differs from hour-to-hour - so having a live view is more useful.

Hidden down sides to video:

1. I was comfortably in my observatory where I have AC, a bench, a wooden floor, a comfortable chair, little or no wind and no dew problems - at least on my charts. Take this operation into the field and it's doable, but a bit more complex and not quite so convenient.

2. I have a very good DVD player and that, along with cables, cost close to $300. It's worth it - but when you talk about the performance of a $40 "electronic eyepiece" you must take into consideration the display as well. Would it do as well on a cheapy, portable TV. No. But I suspect it ould be acceptable.

Oh - and Saturn - couldn't begin to compare with alive view. (Does anything compare with seeing Saturn live - I don't think so!) That said, I could see the Cassini division and I could make out the shadow of the planet on the rings.

Final note - yes, I know if I fed this into a recorder I probably would have captured on one of the frames a real nice view when the seeing was momentarily steady. But for me the oly reason to use TV is for the live view - and how that live view can assist both your own visual observing and instruction.