Stu

The idea is to keep the eyepiece, objective or front plate JUST above the dew point, not to have it toasting away 😉. I agree with using them sparingly and on lowest setting to keep the dew away, but there are nights when the option is dew straps or pack away, so dew straps it is.

This little gem just turned up courtesy of @John. Looking forward to giving it a go. Hopefully might have a chance to compare with the 22mm Type 4 Nag, but that depends on the weather and when it sells. I hope I don’t regret the change, but doubt I will. This is either my second or third, I can’t remember 🤣🤣

There is a certain irony that members of the other forum actually see stars but the name implies otherwise, and this forum implies we do, but we don’t 🤪🤣

I would agree for visual, no need for Polaris, just setup North and level and that’s good enough. Option 1 for those Southern views. If you need to reach other targets, it is quite possible to set the tripod up so its top is level on a sloping lawn, I do it quite regularly, that’s why tripod have adjusting legs 😉

Excellent sketch, really not easy to do.

Yes, a quick google shows plenty of references to it working well. Sounds like a good combo

Patience young grasshopper 🦗…. Someone will be along soon I’m sure 👍

They certainly can. It is specifically emission nebulae (and planetary nebulae) which are enhanced as the emit light at specific frequencies so that filters can be produced which just allow these frequencies to pass, blocking out most of the rest. This does dim the image a bit, but increases contrast by increasing the difference in brightness between background and target. They still perform best under dark skies and with good dark adaptation but will allow views of some objects under relatively light polluted skies. Reflection nebulae, and galaxies generally don’t benefit from filters as their light is broadband in nature so a filter just decreases the brightness of the whole image. Don’t listen to the ‘you can only use them in 8” or larger scopes’ comments, they are not true. Yes, you do need some dark adaptation and dark skies but filtering can give amazing views of some objects like the Veil in 4” scopes, smaller even. Actually, you haven’t talked about a 4” scope as far as I recall. If the same question was asked about 8” vs 4” you could add wider files views to the list. If you stick a 31mm Nagler in a Starfield 102mm you get a 3.5 degree field, enough for the whole Veil just about, whereas an 8” gives just over 2.1 degrees.

Did I pass the test then Vlad?? 🤞🤞

@Flame Nebula bear in mind there may be a degree of ‘response fatigue’ going on as you have posted many questions, quite a few of them overlapping. I didn’t interpret your post as anything disingenuine if that helps, it seemed quite clear. Luckily you all seem to have played nicely and sorted it yourselves, so thank you for that from a moderator perspective 🙏🙏 I have an FS128 and an 8” f8 dob. I think doubles are probably the main area where the frac probably shows things better than the newt due to the crisp round star shapes it produces. I probably find E & F in the trap easier in the frac, even things like the Double Double are generally cleaner splits. The frac does also show lovely contrast so competes fairly well but generally won’t show anything the newt won’t although perhaps some planetary and lunar detail can be better at times. Did I mention getting some miles under your belt before ? 😉😉

Anyway, you are a space traveller, shouldn’t you know this stuff already 😉😉🤣🤣

Everything has to be based on a frame of reference I think, as there are no fixed points in space. From Earth, the would be moving away (simplistically left and right in your diagram), but from another frame of reference they could all be moving right at different speeds, both could be correct. I’m sure someone far more intelligent will be along to help soon, where is @vlaiv when you need him 😉

Wells is lovely, not so familiar with Shepton Mallet as haven’t been there for years but sure it is nice.

Actually the opposite is true. As aperture increases, airy disk size decreases so stars appear smaller and finer detail can be resolved. This does however assume excellent seeing. You can see this effect in reverse when observing double stars through a small apo refractor. The small aperture gives large airy disk sizes which are easily seen even in average seeing and at more modest powers, so the effect is a very beautiful ‘bullseyes on velvet’ which is very aesthetically pleasing. With a large scope, the airy disks are much smaller and require higher power/better seeing to reveal themselves; often they are masked by poorer seeing so you end up just seeing scruffy stars which aren’t as nice to view, unless the seeing is excellent.

Don’t let one idiot put you off! 👍