Page 1 of 1
Telescope Pilot Wings
Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:27 pm
by seer
I mentioned telescope pilot wings in one of my other posts. The more I think about them the better they seem. If an essay would be required in order to get them on say the workings and use of a manual EQ mount we could mine them for good proper instructions for everyone. Ya know even AZ mount instructions suck. There would be other things to like putting together star hops. Maybe there could be different rankings and or classifications.
Re: Telescope Pilot Wings
Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:39 pm
by Gordon
Moved to a more appropriate area.
We can always create 'flairs' (little icons) if folks want to create the topics.
Re: Telescope Pilot Wings
Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:45 pm
by JayTee
I'm working on an article right now, (spoiler alert) it involves golf clubs.
Cheers,
JT
Re: Telescope Pilot Wings
Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:10 pm
by hal2000
I always think it is bit unfortunate that most forums have monthly or whatever imaging competitions, but nothing for non-APer's
If anyone would like an article about a bank holiday weekend just past with three days of perfect weather, yet three nights of clouds, I'm your man
Re: Telescope Pilot Wings
Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:29 pm
by JayTee
hal2000 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:10 pm
I always think it is bit unfortunate that most forums have monthly or whatever imaging competitions, but nothing for non-APer's
Hi,
The vast array of both different size and type optics AND your viewing location make a contest between visual astronomers virtually impossible.
What we do offer are self-directed accomplishment badges, for example, the
Messier award badges. We have in the works other badges, possibly Herschel and or Caldwell badges.
Cheers,
JT
Re: Telescope Pilot Wings
Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:44 pm
by Bigzmey
JayTee wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:29 pm
hal2000 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:10 pm
I always think it is bit unfortunate that most forums have monthly or whatever imaging competitions, but nothing for non-APer's
Hi,
The vast array of both different size and type optics AND your viewing location make a contest between visual astronomers virtually impossible.
What we do offer are self-directed accomplishment badges, for example, the
Messier award badges. We have in the works other badges, possibly Herschel and or Caldwell badges.
Cheers,
JT
Having observing challenges is a brilliant idea! It set apart AF from other forums and we should develop it further here on
TSS. How about Southern Sky Challenge? Herschels and Caldwell sounds good to.
Re: Telescope Pilot Wings
Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 10:41 pm
by JayTee
The Southern Sky Challenge is just about finished. Look for it soon.
JT
Re: Telescope Pilot Wings
Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 10:49 pm
by seer
What I have in mind has to do with mastering the equipment. There are a few people here that actually make jewelry. They may know or be able to design them and how to get them made. Having them as an icon would work also.
How do we let the telescope makers know that design updates are long overdue for the less expensive telescope mounts like the ones that I have to use? They are so archaic that they actually have dunsels on them.
Re: Telescope Pilot Wings
Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:32 pm
by JayTee
seer wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:27 pmIf an essay would be required in order to get them on say the workings and use of a manual EQ mount we could mine them for good proper instructions for everyone. Ya know even AZ mount instructions suck. There would be other things to like putting together star hops. Maybe there could be different rankings and or classifications.
For some reason our gear, our instruments, our equipment really suffers from poor technical writing. Chalk it up to whatever excuse the manufacturer is willing to provide.
BUT, technical writing on the scale that you are suggesting is extremely difficult. Here's why, take the
CGEM, for example, the overall mechanical function between manufacturers is nearly identical, but the operation of that particular manufacturer's equipment is very specific as to the procedures and features that it contains. These procedures and features not only differ from manufacturer to manufacturer but also between different models from the same manufacturer. So making an "overall" manual for a
CGEM is a huge undertaking. This the reason why we typically see just a generic version of how to "basically" set up the equipment. Some even give you the "why" you are doing what you are doing, but even that sometimes leaves a lot to be desired.
Your goal is admirable but we are stuck in a consumer universe that makes technical writing a very real challenge.
Cheers,
JT
Re: Telescope Pilot Wings
Posted: Tue Aug 27, 2019 12:29 am
by seer
JayTee wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:32 pm
seer wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:27 pmIf an essay would be required in order to get them on say the workings and use of a manual EQ mount we could mine them for good proper instructions for everyone. Ya know even AZ mount instructions suck. There would be other things to like putting together star hops. Maybe there could be different rankings and or classifications.
For some reason our gear, our instruments, our equipment really suffers from poor technical writing. Chalk it up to whatever excuse the manufacturer is willing to provide.
BUT, technical writing on the scale that you are suggesting is extremely difficult. Here's why, take the
CGEM, for example, the overall mechanical function between manufacturers is nearly identical, but the operation of that particular manufacturer's equipment is very specific as to the procedures and features that it contains. These procedures and features not only differ from manufacturer to manufacturer but also between different models from the same manufacturer. So making an "overall" manual for a
CGEM is a huge undertaking. This the reason why we typically see just a generic version of how to "basically" set up the equipment. Some even give you the "why" you are doing what you are doing, but even that sometimes leaves a lot to be desired.
Your goal is admirable but we are stuck in a consumer universe that makes technical writing a very real challenge.
Cheers,
JT
You underestimate how poor I am. I don't know mounts like the
CGEM. The mounts that I am becoming familiar with I believe are called the EQ1 and EQ2 and some AZ counterparts. The
CGEM is a go-to mount.
Re: Telescope Pilot Wings
Posted: Tue Aug 27, 2019 12:35 am
by Bigzmey
seer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 12:29 am
JayTee wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:32 pm
seer wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:27 pmIf an essay would be required in order to get them on say the workings and use of a manual EQ mount we could mine them for good proper instructions for everyone. Ya know even AZ mount instructions suck. There would be other things to like putting together star hops. Maybe there could be different rankings and or classifications.
For some reason our gear, our instruments, our equipment really suffers from poor technical writing. Chalk it up to whatever excuse the manufacturer is willing to provide.
BUT, technical writing on the scale that you are suggesting is extremely difficult. Here's why, take the
CGEM, for example, the overall mechanical function between manufacturers is nearly identical, but the operation of that particular manufacturer's equipment is very specific as to the procedures and features that it contains. These procedures and features not only differ from manufacturer to manufacturer but also between different models from the same manufacturer. So making an "overall" manual for a
CGEM is a huge undertaking. This the reason why we typically see just a generic version of how to "basically" set up the equipment. Some even give you the "why" you are doing what you are doing, but even that sometimes leaves a lot to be desired.
Your goal is admirable but we are stuck in a consumer universe that makes technical writing a very real challenge.
Cheers,
JT
You underestimate how poor I am. I don't know mounts like the
CGEM. The mounts that I am becoming familiar with I believe are called the EQ1 and EQ2 and some AZ counterparts. The
CGEM is a go-to mount.
GEM (German equatorial mount) is just another name for
EQ you are referring to.
Re: Telescope Pilot Wings
Posted: Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:07 pm
by seer
Sorry, I did a quick search and just glanced at the photos that popped up and they were go-to mounts.
I am just throwing some ideas out there.
I still think that telescope pilot wings are a good idea.
Re: Telescope Pilot Wings
Posted: Tue Aug 27, 2019 4:05 pm
by Voyageur
Bigzmey wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 12:35 am
seer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2019 12:29 am
JayTee wrote: ↑Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:32 pm
For some reason our gear, our instruments, our equipment really suffers from poor technical writing. Chalk it up to whatever excuse the manufacturer is willing to provide.
BUT, technical writing on the scale that you are suggesting is extremely difficult. Here's why, take the CGEM, for example, the overall mechanical function between manufacturers is nearly identical, but the operation of that particular manufacturer's equipment is very specific as to the procedures and features that it contains. These procedures and features not only differ from manufacturer to manufacturer but also between different models from the same manufacturer. So making an "overall" manual for a CGEM is a huge undertaking. This the reason why we typically see just a generic version of how to "basically" set up the equipment. Some even give you the "why" you are doing what you are doing, but even that sometimes leaves a lot to be desired.
Your goal is admirable but we are stuck in a consumer universe that makes technical writing a very real challenge.
Cheers,
JT
You underestimate how poor I am. I don't know mounts like the
CGEM. The mounts that I am becoming familiar with I believe are called the EQ1 and EQ2 and some AZ counterparts. The
CGEM is a go-to mount.
GEM (German equatorial mount) is just another name for
EQ you are referring to.
It's a difference of degree (quality, price, features) rather than of kind. The mechanical principles are the same for all German equatorial mounts,
goto or manual.
I have a Vixen Sphinx, an older model, and found the manual to be quite well done, with photos, diagrams and text. I had no trouble understanding it, even thought it was my first
GEM/
EQ mount.
Understanding the basic motions of the mount is critical to using the mount; I don't always use
goto, but often manually locate objects for fun or even efficiency's sake. I can move it manually faster than its motors do!
There is certainly room for good materials on the basic operation of any
EQ mount, irrespective of make, model, and features.
Re: Telescope Pilot Wings
Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:17 am
by seer
You don't drive a telescope you pilot it. Just sayin.
It would be a symbol to help confirm ones ability to use equipment properly and effectively (get to where you want to go).
Getting a good issuing authority behind it would be great.
Re: Telescope Pilot Wings
Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:54 am
by Lady Fraktor
Drive, pilot, steer, it all means the same in the end.
I refer to it as steering the telescope and I have a habit of doing it by holding the diagonal. A good strong focuser can take the abuse but a poorly made one will suffer from it.
If you master using a EQ-1 then there is really no difference using a EQ-5 other than the size and that you have better operational accessories to put on it.
Peirs, polar-scopes, single or dual motors, different saddle plates or even goto functions can be added to the mount.
Re: Telescope Pilot Wings
Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:25 am
by JayTee
Not to harsh your buzz, and as I said before your overall idea is admirable, but as a retired military and commercial pilot you categorically do not pilot a telescope, you operate it. And as Gabrielle pointed out above, once you understand the basic theory and function of your mount you can apply that knowledge across the board. All you have left to do at that point is just understand the features and procedures for that particular mount.
I think what you are really getting at is designating somebody a subject matter expert also known as a SME. The question is who decides when somebody is a SME or not?
Food for thought,
JT
Re: Telescope Pilot Wings
Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 1:26 pm
by seer
JayTee wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:25 am
Not to harsh your buzz, and as I said before your overall idea is admirable, but as a retired military and commercial pilot you categorically do not pilot a telescope, you operate it. And as Gabrielle pointed out above, once you understand the basic theory and function of your mount you can apply that knowledge across the board. All you have left to do at that point is just understand the features and procedures for that particular mount.
I think what you are really getting at is designating somebody a subject matter expert also known as a SME. The question is who decides when somebody is a SME or not?
Food for thought,
JT
I disagree with you as far as piloting a telescope goes. It's akin to navigating.
I have already said about getting a good issuing authority behind it. That would make it even better.
Re: Telescope Pilot Wings
Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:21 pm
by Bigzmey
I guess if we talk about manual mount there are two aspects of scope operation. One is to learn all bolts and whistles of the scope and mount to drive it and then learn your way around the sky to manually navigate to your target. Combining the two would be akin to piloting a ship or a plane or a car. We don't travel on earth but we do travel across the sky when we observe.
I agree that judging someone ability to master the scope over internet would be difficult, but we could have a star hopping challenge of some sort which would show your ability to drive, operate, navigate, pilot your manual scope.
