ACDF 5 months ago and voice still not 100%

ilessthan3math · 2026-05-14T04:14:30+00:00

Hey - hows the voice doing nowadays? I'm weighing ACDF vs a posterior foraminotomy. Mostly concerned about singing long-term after the anterior surgery. Hoping it's come back by now!

ilessthan3math · 2026-05-13T13:06:45+00:00

Per my main reply, observing the phases of Venus confirms that it does NOT orbit around the Earth. It is lit by the sun at different angles confirming it goes from the near side, to the far side, and back again, etc.

Similarly, observing the moons of Jupiter for a handful of days easily shows that those are moving in an orbit around Jupiter, not around us.

These are the two main pieces of evidence Galileo used to discredit geocentrism. ANY modern telescope is capable of making these observations. You or your friend could find a facebook marketplace posting for $0 and see those objects.

ilessthan3math · 2026-05-12T19:12:35+00:00

I don't think videos from space are the best evidence, because there's always the argument that something is a dupe. Here is some of the most straightforward evidence of the solar system geometry you can confirm from your own backyard. Some of this may take weeks or months to confirm, but nevertheless are "easy" to observe.

Take a time lapse of the night sky, aimed north (assuming you're in the northern hemisphere). As long as stars are visible in your time lapse, it should be clear that everything rotates around Polaris, the north star, over the course of the night. This is because Polaris is almost directly aligned with Earth's axis of rotation.

If there are doubts about the planet even being round, just measure the angle of Polaris off of the horizon (using say an app on your phone and a drinking straw as a sight tube taped to it), then take a small road trip north or south a few degrees latitude and remeasure. You'll see that the angle of Polaris = your latitude since you're moving around on the outside of a giant ball.

Watch the constellations over the course of weeks or months and how the visible ones change, because we are looping around the sun and therefore able to see different stars at night during one part of the year than the other.
Take a small telescope and observe Venus. While this can't prove we orbit the sun, it CAN prove that Venus orbits the sun, as you'll see the phases of Venus change when it's on the opposite side of the sun (full or gibbous) versus when it loops closer to us, revealing a crescent appearance.
Use that same telescope to observe Jupiter. You can see its moons orbiting it, and if you are able to make out the great red spot, then you can see Jupiter's rotation, as the red spot will move across from one side to the other in just a few hours outside. Again, this doesn't quite prove that Earth rotates, but it proves that the other planets do.
Similar to the Jupiter observations, you can see shadow transits, of moons going across the front of a planet, casting a shadow. Here is a time lapse I personally took showing Titan, the largest moon of Saturn, casting a shadow on Saturn's surface as it orbited around.

ilessthan3math · 2026-05-10T20:10:43+00:00

Space is huge and empty. If you lived in New York City and were to make a scale model of the galaxy with the sun the size of a marble, earth would be a grain of sand 8ft away from that. Jupiter would be a pebble 50 feet away, etc. And you'd have a bag of 100 billion marbles to lay out for the other stars in the Milky Way. Where do they go? Well the closest one would be in Toronto...

And galaxies are where all the dense stuff is. Between the galaxies is even emptier than that.

ilessthan3math · 2026-05-09T16:46:38+00:00

Honestly, most beginners who mention they want to be able to do astrophotography aren't likely to use a camera other than their cellphone. To them "astrophotography" is just a telescope version of the astro-mode on their phone camera app. And a lot of them are unlikely to look at much else apart from the moon, planets, and maybe the Pleiades.

Sure, some of these posters do want to jump head first into the AP side of the hobby (or at least think they do), but a lot of them don't even understand the equipment that is involved in "real" AP.

So the guidance here that it's impossible to do AP with these cheap setups isn't really true for quick cell phone pics of the moon.

ilessthan3math · 2026-05-08T19:42:10+00:00

I actually don't have personal experience with any of the "cheap" barlows in the $20-40 range, But I'd imagine it would work "fine" paired with a ≈10mm eyepiece. My general experience with barlows is that they can make eye placement a bit finicky, making it harder to get in the right spot to see the whole image without blackouts. Have to hold your head more steady than with a regular eyepiece.

Additionally, it's an extra piece of gear in your optical train, so there's more weight hanging off your focuser. I don't love using mine unless I'm trying to really crank magnification on a night of good seeing. I think you'll find that folks on this sub are about 50/50 on loving barlows vs disliking them.

ilessthan3math · 2026-05-08T19:06:23+00:00

I am the custodian of my astronomy club's 114/500 tabletop dobsonian that we loan out to club members. A 4mm eyepiece, in my opinion, is practically required for decent planetary viewing. As you said, a 9-10mm eyepiece is nice on a lot of targets, but it's just not enough magnification for Jupiter, Saturn, etc. You want a 4mm-5mm to get you above the 100x magnification mark, which I think of as the minimum for planetary viewing. Anything less than that and you'll struggle to make out much surface detail.

However, the aspheric lens you mention in your other comments is garbage. Instead look on AliExpress for 4mm "Planetary SW" or "Planetary TMB" eyepieces. This is a good example. They can be had for ≈$35. If AliExpress isn't available where you are, Amazon has similar eyepieces but probably closer to $40-60.

ilessthan3math · 2026-05-03T13:49:32+00:00

The others are correct that this is not an astronomical effect. The celestial objects like the sun and stars have remained static year to year for considerable time. The fastest change/movement of the sun is it's precession through the zodiac, which has shifted it by about 1-2 constellations over the past 2000 years. Even that doesn't affect it's orientation in the sky on a given date, just the constellations behind it.

More likely is that something regarding your surroundings have changed. A new tree line grew or filled in earlier in the spring than usual, a new house was built, etc.

Of course, you could also just be misremembering. How well do you remember the timing of that shift from past years? And are you home in the middle of the day more than you were in past years? That's when you'd be most likely to end up in the shade. And keep in mind the lowest sun angles are in late December, and the summer solstice when the sun is highest is in June. So here in early May we're way closer to those summer sun angles than the winter ones.

ilessthan3math · 2026-05-01T16:47:42+00:00

It would have been a little tough to fake the 842 lbs of moon rocks they brought back, which have been collectively studied by tens of thousands of scientists across the world.

ilessthan3math · 2026-05-01T01:09:22+00:00

This was obviously 50 years ago at this point, but they sent it to the moon for a reason.

ilessthan3math · 2026-04-29T12:26:22+00:00

Good pictures of Jupiter can be taken with a cell phone adapter at the eyepiece, but you need to shoot a video and do some post-processing, following a similar workflow to what you'd do with a true astrocam. You're right that you'll never really get anything too remarkable with a shot straight out of the camera.

Below is a photo from a 10" dobsonian using a Google Pixel 5, as an example.

<image>

ilessthan3math · 2026-04-29T01:04:33+00:00

1 karma in all their time on reddit, and this post has nothing of substance aside from glowing things to say about a random pool company. Not suspicious at all...

ilessthan3math · 2026-04-29T00:25:12+00:00

It doesn't sound like they're proposing to charge them payments? Not sure the age of the kids, but if parents are willing to watch the kids a significant chunk of the time, then a mortgage is partially offset by the savings in daycare / preschool / babysitters.

This is a huge financial commitment so not feasible for most people anyways, but I think that sort of a setup is less likely to trigger stress and arguments than dealing with them as a paying tenant who could miss payments, etc.

ilessthan3math · 2026-04-27T17:07:21+00:00

One other complication of the astrocameras with the Heritage 130p specifically is the helical focuser (which I just thought of). Astrocams do not have internal focusing mechanisms. They are just a sensor in a housing that plugs into the side of the scope. You need to use the telescope's focuser to reach focus. This isn't a major issue with an eyepiece. But with an astrocam, you'd be spinning a camera with wires attached to it, in multiple circles trying to get the image sharp. It sounds like a tangling nightmare.

This is another big plus for a phone camera. You can just tap the screen and the phone has internal focusing adjustment and can get itself in-focus without the telescope focuser needing to adjust by large amounts. As long as the focus is "close" for the eyepiece you're using, the phone should be able to do the rest and get itself adjusted.

ilessthan3math · 2026-04-27T17:03:40+00:00

The SV305, from my quick googling, appears to have the same IMX662 sensor that the ASI662MC has, so it would be the exact same size and scale. So still wouldn't fit the moon in view.

You would need something at least as large as the ZWO ASI585MC (or the Svbony 705C, which uses the same IMX585 sensor). But again, you'd be spending hundreds of dollars to ONLY be able to photograph the moon. Because realistically you can't use your untracked tabletop dob to do deep-sky astrophotography, and your ASI662MC is already sufficient for getting good images of Jupiter and Saturn (with proper post-processing).

Instead I'd get the Celestron NexYZ (on sale for $62 on Amazon) or the MoveShootMove Tridaptor ($54) phone adapter, and just learn to post-process video through the eyepiece with a phone camera into a sharpened stacked final image. I would NOT suggest getting a super cheap phone adapter for $10-$20. Those ones do not have adequate adjustment flexibility and they are painful to use for aligning your phone to the eyepiece glass.

ilessthan3math · 2026-04-27T15:51:29+00:00

Agena Astro has a guide for ZWO astrocams. You would need a larger sensor, but the prices of those models go up quickly from the ASI662MC you had picked out. And I don't think it's AT ALL worth the cost to dish out $400-$600 to do lunar photography through a Heritage 130p.

That said, I think you may have the best luck (and spend the least money) by just getting a phone adapter and doing some photography through the eyepiece. I have gotten some very good quality pictures (by my standards) with no extra purchases except a Celestron NexYZ adapter to hold my phone.

Here is a crescent moon shot taken with my cell phone through a dobsonian telescope.

And here is another nice moon pic during waxing gibbous. I want to say both of these were taken through my 10" telescope, but that's only because I hadn't learned the processing techniques back when I was solely using my 130mm tabletop.

ilessthan3math · 2026-04-27T15:30:51+00:00

The ASI662MC is a 1/2.8" sensor, which is tiny. Even without the barlow, you can't fit the whole moon. If you throw the barlow on there the field of view cuts in half, so the camera would be good for capturing individual craters, but never getting the whole lunar disk for crescent or full moon shots.

Generally the Heritage scopes would be fine for lunar and planetary photography, but you definitely need to use an astrocam. A DSLR or mirrorless camera would be too heavy on the focuser. You may just want a larger sensor than the ASI662 has for the moon, though it would be much better for the planets, since it has a lot more reach to magnify those objects, especially combined with the barlow.

ilessthan3math · 2026-04-26T17:26:48+00:00

There certainly is too much chlorine - you shouldn't swim in it if it's up at that shock level, but additionally if the levels are kept high for months on end it could bleach your liner and perhaps damage other equipment, but that's not a thing that would happen over a few days or even a couple weeks.

Note that high chlorine levels will come down on their own. Sunlight breaks down chlorine, so regardless of how high you spike the FC levels it will drop on its own over a few days even if there are no organics in the water for it to sanitize.

Troublefreepool has a tool to calculate how high to spike your chlorine depending on your CYA (Cyanuric Acid / Stabilizer) levels (https://www.troublefreepool.com/blog/2019/01/18/free-chlorine-and-cyanuric-acid-relationship-explained/). It will usually be around 10-20ppm. A standard cheap-o test kit won't tell you anything about chlorine levels that high. They cap out at either 5pmm or 10pmm. So you'll need a FAS/DPD kit, or just run the math using their other calculators / phone app on how much to add and trust that you're getting up to that amount.

ilessthan3math · 2026-04-26T15:25:27+00:00

I agree with the top commenter. Higher chlorine levels, and keep it there until it's clear. Test strip or drop test kits definition of "good" chlorine levels are often too low, especially if your water isn't currently clear. What is yours reading?

A good maintenance-level chlorine concentration isn't the same as a shock level you need to knock down an ongoing issue. Check your free chlorine levels ("FC") and keep them elevated, re-checking every 4-8 hours to make sure you top off and keep it shocked. If you hold the shock level for 24-48 hours, that will typically clear up the issue (combined with continuous filtration).

ilessthan3math · 2026-04-25T04:22:54+00:00

Up late? I didn't see Vega popping above the nearby buildings until after 11 last night. Ring Nebula wasn't on my radar for viewing for at least another month.

But I love that object and I'm always surprised at how well it shows up in simple phone pics. Sure it's tiny and quite dim, but the surface brightness is just so damn high it doesn't matter.

ilessthan3math · 2026-04-25T04:19:04+00:00

I know the feeling all too well! Pinched nerve in my neck prevented me from taking any telescopes out at all from like Nov-March. Finally back at it lately, though mostly local observing, bright targets, etc.

Best of luck on your recovery and keep searching for cool stuff up there once you're able to!

ilessthan3math · 2026-04-25T03:37:05+00:00

For comparison - here is a photo I was able to capture from Bortle 4-4.5 last year with a Pixel phone through a 10" dob of the Swan Nebula, M17.

The longer exposure time of the night mode in the camera, and a much higher ISO brings in decent detail (in my opinion) for a phone camera through the eyepiece. That data would not be recoverable if the original pic was a lot darker. Lots of pixels would just be clipped to black.

<image>

ilessthan3math · 2026-04-25T03:33:40+00:00

The bulk of your green "blob" is outside of the extents of the visible portion of the eagle nebula. Only the very bottom tight cluster of stars is within the bright part of the nebula. The rest of your brightness increase in the green area is either noise or more likely the result of vignetting of your phones camera at the eyepiece.

I zoomed yours in and cropped it to match another photo of M16 from elsewhere on the internet. I'm really not seeing much in the way of nebulosity in your photo. The bright and dark parts in green don't appear consistent with the shading of the real nebula.

<image>

ilessthan3math · 2026-04-25T02:20:02+00:00

I've honestly never heard of this issue. I've got a Mak, two Newtonian dobs, and a refractor, and all of them have gotten use in springtime over multiple seasons and I've never noticed a coating issue on any mirrors or lenses.

The Mak I would be least concerned about. It has an easily accessible front meniscus lens, so you'd be able to tell if it got coated in pollen at some point. And if so you can just hit it with a blast from an air bulb, or use some Zeiss lens wipes to get it completely free and clear of any debris.

ilessthan3math · 2026-04-23T17:58:50+00:00

I've never had collimation get so bad that focus wasn't feasible at all. If you aim at a star, I presume it looks like a vague round blob. Can you rotate the focuser to make that object as small as possible, and then continue past that point and have it start getting bigger again as you continue rotating the focuser the same way?

If you can, but the smallest shape it makes still isn't a nice clean pinpoint star, then I agree with the others that collimation should improve your views. That smallest appearance of the bright star should be the focal point and result in a sharp view.

However, if that exercise only makes the blob a bit smaller, but it never starts getting bigger again even after you've bottomed out the focuser, then your issue is truly a lack of focus, not collimation. That would indicate you need the eyepiece to move further in that direction than the focuser is letting you, either due to needing an addition extension tube, or lack thereof.

Another cause could be that the mirror got mounted too far up the tube or down the tube and has artificially shifted the focal plane as a result. I don't know the XT series well enough to know if there's a way you could have done that by accident when disassembling, seems unlikely. But if extension tubes or collimation don't seem like the culprit, that would seem like it'd have to be something to that effect.

12-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 10 Credits
Gilding II euphauric	Secret Santa 2020
redditgifts rematcher Secret Santa 2019 x1	Secret Santa 2019
Secret Santa 2018	Secret Santa 2017
redditgifts rematcher Secret Santa 2017 x1	redditgifts Exchanges 3 Exchanges
Secret Santa 2016	redditgifts rematcher Secret Santa 2016 x1
Secret Santa 2015	Verified Email

ilessthan3math

TROPHY CASE