malc-c

Thanks for the notes. My logic was that by segregating what's on the board and running new wires direct it would remove any possible issues with the existing tracks or any hidden damage that is preventing the PICs from communicating. It's 3.30am here, so I'm off to get some sleep, and will take another look later.

Archire, like I said I have no idea what's going on with this board. What diodes would you suggest. 1n4148 or 1n4001 ? What if I cut the tracks completely to isolate the TX and RX pins on the RJ connector and at the PICs, and then wire it like this ? - If using the MCLR pull up is a bad idea I can always connect a 10k to the other side of the resistor which is 5v. This is of course assuming that the updating of the firmware hasn't corrupted the PICs. There is no ICSP header on this board - and I doubt the board would take desoldering the PICs again

Probably going to be in another 4/5 hours... circa 4pm CST - 9pm UT. They haven't cleared the pad yet let alone start loading fuel... that's of course if there is some issue that SpaceX hasn't mentioned, seeing that this has been pushed back each day since Friday. Last night's wet rehearsal wen well (apparently)

IMO, you will be very disappointed. At most you will probably see a few of the bright star clusters, but with a small scope and poor polluted skies you won't see much, if any of the fainter deep sky objects.. To see nebula and other faint galaxies you need a nice dark sky away from city lights and the pollution that goes with it.

Archie, Would modding the board like this work Basically cut the track between the TX and RX pins on the RJ connector, then run fly leads as show (assuming RX on the RJ connect is related to the handset and not the PICs)

Hi all, Well we made progress to a point... but it was one step forward and two steps back... I tried swapping the SMD Diodes with IN4148 signal diodes - still no joy. I tested the original diodes and as far as I could tell with my DVM they were OK, so replaced them back on the board. The next task was to reflow the solder joints on both PICs to make sure there wasn't a dry joint, and checked for any bridges on the solder joints on the links I added. Still the same response. I had received the Ok from the owner to try flashing the firmware using the PC-Direct cable and handset. So I popped up to the observatory, pulled the power lead from my HEQ5 and plugged it into the MC003 board. Connected the handset, plugged in the PC-Direct cable to both the handset and the PC and powered everything up. The Handset displayed the normal "no response" message so it was put into PC-Direct mode. The firmware loader was launched, detected the handset on com 1 and to my suprise reported the firmware version of the motor board ! - Gobsmacked I clicked the MC version button and it cleared and came back with a version 2.9.99. So I proceeded to load up the 2.09 firmware for dobsonian scopes, downloaded direct from the SW download page. It progressed through to 100% for MCU1 then reported a failure. The board was powercycled and I tried again, but this time the firmware updater could not get a ping back from the board. I tried several times to upload the firmware and each time the loader could not connect to the motor controller, so it looks like the update bricked the motorboard Now I no longer have stock of the PICs, and I could order more and program them again, but we could be back at the same stage. Plus every time I remove the PICs there is a risk of more and more pads lifting, and so far I've been lucky that the ones that have lifted have been unconnected, or simple to bridge / repair. The board is circa 15 years old which makes it more fragile, and the attaching of test wires is also having a toll on the board. I have no idea why the handset would not retrieve the board details post initialisation, yet would respond via the handset in PC-direct mode when the uploader application was used.. To be honest this one has now gone beyond my ability of basic diagnosis and changing re-programmed PICs which with later boards have proved to work. I'll return it along with the handset to the owner, who has resided to continue to use the scope manually. So it's more like 4.0 to us, but that last goal was disallowed Unless anyone has some other suggestions.

Archie, thanks for the input. In the last set of images there seems to be data on both PICs TX lines. Where would you suggest I start looking in order to confirm that the PICs are OK and that the switching is working? The scope is a 15 years old Skywatcher 250px flextube with AZ Syncscan GoTo so I've assumed that the same firmware for the Skyliner (2.09) dobsonian as used on the MC04 boards in previous fixes (all dobsonians) would be the correct one to use. I did have one of the SW serial cables (DB9 serial to RJ11) cable which I believe is used to upload firmware to the handset and mount, but as I'm not in a position to be able to cover the cost of a replacement handset if i fried it I'm reluctant to try and update the firmware, and I've already used the last two sets of PICs I had on this board, and due to its age replacing the PICs could end up bricking the board completely as more and more pads lift. So far the ones that have lifted have not traces to them and are not connected. The only other firmware for "AZ goto mount" but also has the same version 2.09. Looking at the EQ6 schematic, which uses separate TX and RX lines, would breaking the track on the PCB between the TX and RX pins and then hot wiring the lines in the same way the EQ6 does using the two diodes on the TX lines work ?

A further update. I connected up both PICs to the anzlizer and got this trace. Here's a close up of the left hand side And the right Just noticed I should have swapped over the wires so that the traces made more sense, IE RX then TX and not vice versa To me this just seems to be echoing back what has been sent, much the same way as simply shorting TX to RX together.....

OK we might be getting somewhere... but I need someone with a little more experience to analyze these results and comment on them as they raise some questions. I hooked up my PC based logic analyzer. It's basic and only samples for 10 seconds at a time, but this is enough to get some idea as to what's happening. One channel connected to the drop pin from the handset. A second to the combined RX/TX pins of the RJ11. The third and fourth to the UART of the first PIC. I set it sampling and plugged in the power. The handset powered up, initialised and then displayed caution, and then both axis no response message This was what was captured It seems to send an initial handset to the PIC, which gets an initial response, as you can see the TX trace responds straight after the data on the TC/RX line is passed through the diode to the RX pin on the PIC.. I'll zoom in a little so you can see in more detail You can see by the traces that some form of data is being sent back form the PIC as the pulse lengths vary suggesting 1's and 0's I then took a further capture after pressing the ESC key twice, forcing the handset to re-initialise. This was the result Now this where things don't seem right. The handset sends data, which then appears to trigger the PIC to respond and says "hello" back. But then sends some more data around 50ms later and this time gets no response. back. My first thought was that with the RX/RX pins commoned at the socket I was simply getting echo back, but looking at the data traces they appear to my untrained eye to be different rather then identical. If this was the case then you would expect the echo each time the data was sent to the TX line, would you not? So why does the second set of pulses get no response ? So... Here's my thinking: The PIC's are programmed correctly and are running fine as the response back after the initial power on / re-initialization they respond with a different byte of data than they receive. The fact that the handset then displays the "alt/dec no response" message would suggest that either it doesn't recognise what it received back, or it's it recognises the result, but it's wrong / incompatible with its firmware The initial "are you there" data gets a response back with "yes", but then for whatever reason (blocking diodes on the TX lines reversing ?) when the handset sends "what version MC are you" the PIC doesn't understand and fails to respond. Now one thing I may have laying around from the time I had my EQ5 mount is the official SW PC direct cable that has a DB9 connector on one end and a JR11 (or 45??) on the other. I thought that I could use the observatory PC as it has a standard serial port and try and reflash the MC with a different firmware using the SW updater software, but there is only one suitable firmware. I've used the same 209 version used on MC04 boards as the MC03 and MC04 look very similar, and it states this is for skyliner goto dobsonian mounts between 8" and 16". Also, I'm not in a position to cover the cost of a new handset should using the cable damage the handset because of any compatibility issues (plus I've never actually used that cable as I built an EQDIR cable within days of getting the mount). Comments and suggestions please...... Edit: the handset reports "Synscan ver 04.37.03"

Hopefully the motor board will be OK. Just plug your handset in and check it still responds and you can move the scope. If there is a problem have a read of this thread.... https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/351363-any-ideas-on-repairing-a-slightly-blown-motor-board/ so far I've managed to fix 3 out of 4 motor boards (mainly for DOBS) plus my on HEQ5 board, and that forth board is still a work in progress!

Archie, images of the MC003 board as promised

Archie, thanks for the input, and I'll have a rumage to see if I can locate one of the logic chips, if not I'll order some form RS. I've contacted the owner who sent me the board and handset and he said he has never had the mount working. The scope came in this state from the original owner, and is circa 15 years old. Either the handset has been very well looked after, or its relatively new as there is hardly a mark on it ! I've opened up the handset to see if there is any means to identify the version... and it's thrown me a curve ball ! Now I know Synta own Celestron, but from googling images of handsets it would seem that all the Celestron synscan handsets have the celestron branding above the LCD screen. This handset is plain other then the word Synscan underneath the LCD suggesting it is a Skywatcher handset. Yet other images for a V4 SW handset also show the same Celestron board inside, unless these handsets are standard and can be programmed with either SW firmware or Celestron firmware I'm really confused ?

One thing that has often popped up on the EQMOD user group is that more than one instances of EQASCOM get launched by various applications, and (more applicable to windows 10) with differing levels of privileges, such as administrator rather than user. That's strange that you get two line entries as well. With my FTDI based EQDIR cable I just get a single port listed in DM

The thing that is confusing me is there is an entry for a USB serial convertor and a USB Serial port, and the top set of images relate to the converter. Most EQDIR cables just show up as a USB serial port with a single line entry in device manager. You could always google the hardware ID (go to the details tab and select hardware ID from the drop down list, then copy and search for the character string. It should list FTDI's site as the main entry and you could try downloading one of the 232TL 5v Drivers and see if that resolves the issue.

Some suggestions for you, assuming that the EQDIR adapter has installed correctly with the right driver (which chipset is displayed under device manager ?) With the EQDIR cable connected directly to the laptop connect it to the mount. Check in device manager that the port is set to the default 9600 baud, 8, no parity. Open up the EQASCOM toolbox from the EQMOD programs folder. Try clicking on the register button to set the driver in association with ASCOM platform. Click on the Driver set up button and in the EQASCOM window select the port that the EQDIR cable is using, followed by OK. Now click the ASCOM connect button, hopefully EQMOD will launch without complaining. If this works, then power down the laptop, disconnect the EQDIR cable from the laptop and then place the active USB cable between the EQDIR cable and the laptop and repeat the above. If this works then it proves the active cable is OK. Powerdown and repeat, but this time install the hub. Again power up and repeat the above. If you get this far and you can still control the mount using the NSWE buttons (with the steps set to 4) then it would prove your hardware set up is OK. To identify if Stellarium is the issue, download and install CdC ( Cartes du Ciel ). Set up the location data based on where in the world you are. Open up the telescope settings and select ASCOM, and then close. Then select Telescope control box and click the select button. In the telescope chooser, select the mount and click OK. Then click on the "connect" button which should then bring up EQMOD and connect to the scope. You can then test by right clicking on a target, select telescope and slew. All being well the scope will start to move to the position of the target. Obviously at this point you've proved all the hardware and a software application that uses the ASCOM platform to communicate the the mount. So this just leaves Stellarium as being the issue. Now I haven't used this application in years, and then you had to download and install a 3rd party plugin to get it to talk to the SW mount via ASCOM and it was flakey back then. So I'm not best to advise how to set this application up and test.

Performed surgery on my 400d a few years back... removed all filters. It's a bit daunting at first, but if you take your time and be careful it's fairly straight forward.

When connecting a DSLR to the 200P you normally remove the lens and use just the body of the camera, so all the questions about self-centering adaptors are irrelevant in this respect as they are not required. You basically attache the T-ring to the thread of the focuser and then the body of the camera to the T-mount. This in effects turns the 200P into a 1000mm f5 telephoto lens. With regards to filters, again as you are connecting the camera body direct to the scope a normal moon filter designed to screw into a 1.25" eyepiece won't be of any used (other than for visual use when you remove the camera body). You control contrast via the exposure (to a degree) and make any corrections for brightness in post processing (such as photoshop or GIMP). There are however projection eyepieces that are in essence an eyepiece, draw tube and T mount in one https://www.365astronomy.com/1.25-40mm-DigiScoping-Camera-Adapter-Projection-and-PhotoEyepiece.html. I've never used one, so can't comment on how well they perform and the type of image you'll get. Regarding the 2" to 1.25" adapter, have a search for self centreing adapters - Antares produce a nice unit. These work by expanding their sides when you twist the ring at the top, clamping both the 1.25" eyepiece centrally and theadapter centrally in the focuser. But this would only be required for visual observing, attaching a CCdD camera that resemble normal eyepieces, and collimating devices, and not required if you use the direct DSLR connection method

Well it looks like this is one board that is just not repairable. When the owner received the board back it still displayed the "both axis not present" message, so I persuaded him to send the board back to me and include the handset so I could test the repair. Well this was received today and I've spent best part of the day having fun trying to resolve this boards problems. The first thing to do was to power up the board using a Meanwell 12v PSU and see if anything was getting warm, which proved negative, so then it was out with the test meter. I checked that 5v was getting to the two microcontrollers, which it was, so that was a good sign that the regulator was still OK. I then spent a few moments tracing out the connections between the handset port and the two TX and RX lines, which wasn't straightforward as it would seem due to the way the two serial ports are connected to the same pins, plus the board is multi layered so sometimes a component would connect to a via that didn't connect to a trace on the top or bottom of the board which makes things difficult. Anyway, after several hours of testing, tracing and remaining a few jumper wires I would still get the same error message on the handset. Not having the schematic, or service manual (assuming it may exist) really meant I was just having "educated" guesses as to possible things to try. In the end I bit the bullet and cut the old PICs off the board and removed the legs, being as careful as I could not to damage any additional pads. Only one broke, but that was easy to add a link to after the replacement PIC had been soldered back in place. Two new PICs were programmed with the Dobsonian firmware code, verified and then soldered back into place. Connections were tested to make sure that each leg that had traces (I had taken photos before) made contact with the VIA or component where required, and then powered on the board and checked the voltages on each pin matched the ones I had noted down before the PICs were removed. Pleased to say the were the same, so this would suggest that the soldering was good. But plugging the handset in gave the same message. I'm still going to try a few things... but my gut feeling is that whatever the previous owner did to this mount when they tried to repair it (presumably then selling it as it no longer worked) has done more damage than just blowing the original PICs. Stay tuned....

The problem is that people often see images like this one of Mars, taken by a fellow Letchworth and District AS member, Simon Kidd and then want to get the same but then get shocked at the cost of the equipment needed Look back through similar posts where people want to get into imaging and you will see that most recommended setups are four figures minimum... It's normally something like a 200P or 4" apro on an HEQ5 or EQ6, guide scopes with dedicated guide cameras, and fully computer controlled to automate the process, and that's before adding the cost of a camera. Granted people have managed to get acceptable results form lower spec equipment, but often its after a lot of fuffing around. More often the results are disappointing because of the limitations of the equipment used. The reason an HEQ5 costs almost a grand is due to the greater precision over the EQ5, the greater load capacity and the fact that it's designed for imaging use. The bottom line is that if you want to get decent results without the hassle then you have to invest in decent capable equipment. And yes I'm speaking from experience. I purchased a 200P on a goto EQ5, with a view to bolting on a DSLR camera to do some imaging. It soon became clear that its tracking was not precise enough even with good polar alignment, and a guide scope would be needed. But the mount was already on its weight limit....so I purchased an HEQ5 with an ST80 and GHY5... even second hand I still lost money compared to buying the HEQ5 / 200P in the first place, even after selling the EQ5. Inspired by the images Simon gets with his 14" scope I tried stacking barlows to get the high magnification, and even on Jupiter which is a lot larger than Mars, the results were very disappointing... it proved that my rig wasn't set up to get seriously details planetary images. It does however get me nice images of DSO's A decent camera lens fitted to one of the new £350 tracking heads such as the Star Adventure (provided the combined weight doesn't exceed the payload capacity will also give you some nice wide field views of constellations and bright DSO's. You won't get much in the way of planetary images other than the moon and the sun (with decent solar filters). Anyway... Not really sure why I've just spent another 30 minutes typing up this post.... considering you've made your mind up....and most of what I've suggested is probably not what you were hoping to pay. Good luck with whatever you choose to do, but as the Dragons say " I'm out !"

Well that's your prerogative. You don't have to take people's advice, and often it's a case of trying things for yourself and then learn from your own experience. If it works, and you don't mind being restricted to the limitations discussed here then that's fine. Personally I would find having to stay up until 4am because that is when a target passes the window, and then only being able to get a couple of hours worth of data before it's no longer in view, or waiting until February to image at more social hours would frustrate me.

Welcome, There is no one scope fits all due to the differences between visual observing and astro-imaging, and the requirements for viewing / imaging planets or faint deep sky objects such as nebula. To view the planets in a fair resolution you need both aperture (ie large diameter) and long focal length (the distance from the lens or mirror that the image is formed. For faint objects you need more aperture and a shorter focal length Taking pictures of planets is typically done using video cameras and then stacking the individual frames to produce a still. So the mount isn't that critical. An alt/az mount like that shown in geoffs post is fine. Taking images of faint objects requires longer single exposures, so the mount has to track the target and not have it rotate in the field of view, so an equatorial mount is needed. In order to take the weight of the scope and any additional guidescopes a larger mount is needed, and thus the price increases Both mounts have advantages and disadvantages.... If your goal is to take images of the planets then something like the scope in Geoffs post would tick a lot of your boxes.

Irrespective of your personal views on Musk, and how he became the second wealthiest person in the world, without him being the driving force behind SpaceX we would still be so far behind in space exploration and still reliant on 40 year old Russian technology to take crews to the ISS. He proved his concept of a highly reusable rocket, with the majority of Falcon 9 boosters being launched between four and six times, thus reducing the costs for companies seeking to get payloads into to orbit. By placing the Dragon capsule on top of it, SpaceX has given the USA (and any other country for that matter given the commercial operation of SpaceX ) manned space flight capability once more. If he and SpaceX were not around and it was down to NASA or the ESA... any chance of getting astronauts back into space, let alone to the Moon and Mars would still be pipe dreams. This coming weekend sees (hopefully) the 15KM "hop" of Starship SN8.... they have another seven prototypes in production..... and with his drive I'm sure his goal of landing a human on Mars by the mid 2020's will probably happen.

There have been a lot of suggestions and comments on your proposal to start imaging from a bedroom skylight. You don't mention why you want to stay in the room and image rather than set the scope up in your garden which would remove a lot of the restrictions and disadvantages using it in the room has. Here's my 2p worth Regardless of how old the house is and how well insulated it is you will still have thermal issues as the roof calls down, or warmer air than outside escapes through the skylight. You will never be able to stabilize the air as there could still be a 12-18c difference between the room temp and the outside air. You may not notice this if you used the scope for visual use, but imaging, it would be very obvious Alignment of the mount. Whist it has been mentioned, the lack of finding Polaris could make guiding / tracking difficult, but also most goto mounts will need two or three alignment stars that you will not be able to find as they will be obscured by the roof. Movement / Vibration. Your bedroom floor will flex when you move around. In imaging even a small amount of movement will ruin the results. This is why when constructing an observatory people use a 1cu mtr block of concrete separated from the floor to support the pier. I know some people image from downstairs rooms, but most houses have a solid concrete floor so vibrations are less of a problem. Canon DSLRs are a good starting point for imaging. The 450D has live view which would be useful. I still image with and old 400D (fully modified) and quite happy with the results I get, even from a town location. EQ3 mount - For imaging the mount is more important than the scope IMO. A 150PDS, with a guidescope, and camera will be pushing the EQ3 to its limit for imaging. An EQ5 with the 150PDS would be more suitable in my opinion, as the combined weight of cameras, scope etc would be within the load capacity of the EQ5. IF you can afford an HEQ5 you would benefit from better precision, and it would cope with additional equipment added to the rig if you needed to. Remote operation - One thing to consider is setting the scope up in your garden, and then using a means of controlling it from your bedroom. This could be through a small laptop running EQMOD, imaging software and guiding software at the mount which you then remote desktop into from a PC in your bedroom. Or if the scope is within 5 metres of the house, run long powered USB cables between the scope and the PC. Anyway, that's my take on things.... at the end of the day we can all makes suggestions, but it's down to you what you do, what budget you have etc

Ya see that is why folk have their gear permanently set up in observatories.... you can dodge the clouds..... take a couple of subs, close, wait for the sky to clear, open, take a few more subs, close up again when the clouds roll back in... keeps you fit as well - who needs a gym with the british weather and an interest in astronomy

Hi Richard, As others have pointed out there is no need to polar align your telescope as it doesn't have an equatorial mount. Your telescope has what is know as an ALT/AZ, or altitude / azimuth mount. It works by raising the scope vertically and rotating it horizontally. To keep a target in the field of view you need to make very small adjustments in both directions due to the Earth's rotation. Equatorial mounts are in effect ALT/AZ mounts, but with the AZ axis tilted to the latitude of the observer and pointed at the North Celestial Pole. This arrangement means only one adjustment in azimuth (known as Right Ascension - RA on an equatorial mount) is required to track an object. And before you ask, no it would not really be possible or worthwhile to modify your mount to convert it into a fork type equatorial mount.