Help me solve this!

[aceace]

On October 29th 2004 I purchased a 130mm (5") telescope with the goto computer controls. I had a previous small scope. I decided to just look at the moon and see the craters etc. To get an idea of how much more powerful this scope was compared to my old one. Almost immediately I noticed 2 small dots in a slightly staggered formation that were traveling from the southeast corner to the northwest corner. This took about 5-6 minutes to travel the entire face of the moon. Both disappeared over the horizon and then re-appeared in about 5-6 minutes.(in the same southeast corner) I watched this for about 40 minutes and then on a subsequent re-appearance there was only one dot. This lasted one trip as the next trip there were 2 again. At the time I assumed that this was nothing more than satellites, that there was some logical explanation. After thinking about this for a few days I decided to write some emails to some of the astronomy websites and researchers. I received 2 emails back. One explained that any satellite orbiting the moon would be too small to be seen in a 5" scope. Another stated that there was nothing orbiting the moon that he knew of.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Check with Peter Davenport or Mufon and see what they can come up with.

National UFO Reporting Center

Recent UFO Sightings | Alien Encounters | MUFON.com

 

[KorMan]

One explained that any satellite orbiting the moon would be too small to be seen in a 5" scope.

That's correct. Going strictly by the laws of optics, the Hubble scope's theoretical resolution of moon objects is about 280 feet. Nothing smaller would be visible.

A 5" scope's maximum theoretical resolution is about 1 arc-second (a practical value would be about 1.6). The Hubble's maximum value is about 0.06 arc-sec. Using both max values, the 5" scope's resolution is about 16.7 times lower. Ergo, the smallest object that could be resolved is about 4676 feet.

In practice that number would be considerably higher due to imperfections in the optics, atmospheric effects, mount stability, etcetera.

In short, either the moon is being orbited by mother ships a couple of miles in diameter, or they were Earth-based objects.

 

[nycjeff]

Just looked at a 130 mm telescope on yahoo shopping.
Pretty cool. Is $400 about average for that sort of thing? I like the computer controls that some of the models seem to have.

 

[KorMan]

For a 130 mm (5.12") scope, $400 buys a pretty good unit.

Considerations:

• A scope is only as good as the mount that holds it. Tripods, even hefty ones, are no substitute for a permanent, rigid mount, e.g., a heavy pipe (2" or more) with a buried concrete base. Make sure the pipe is vertical during installation. Aligning it once the concrete has set will be a project.

For casual viewing with low-magnification eyepieces, a tripod may suffice. For high-mag eyepieces or serious astrophotography, a rigid mount is not an option.

• Leaving the scope outside and covered is preferable to bringing it in and out of a house. The temperature change may result in the scope taking an hour or more to acclimate to the outside temperature, with the inevitable expansion or contraction of the scope's structural materials, the shimmering effect of heated air in the tube as it escapes during cooling, et al.

• With the standard equatorial mount, be sure that the polar axis is aligned as close as possible to celestial north. If you'll be doing photography, any variation from true north will result in elongated images. This is another plus for a fixed mount. Once it's set, it stays set.

• A good astronomy program such as Starry Night is invaluable. The Pro versions can control computerized mounts. Check the minimum specs for your computer if you invest in one.

Good luck!