John

A steel tripod under the EQ3-2 mount will improve things (I used to have an Evostar 120 on that arrangement and it was not too bad) but an EQ5 would be better still. If you do decide to look for just a tripod upgrade, the EQ3-2 mount has the same tripod fitting as the EQ5 and HEQ5. Once I had the Helios 150mm F/8 refractor on one of those aluminum tripods so you can imagine what that was like to try and look through

Some very good points there Carl I've been in this hobby for around 40 years now and up until 2016 I had not owned or even looked through any of the what are considered premium brand scopes. In the Summer of 2016 I came into some money with no strings attached to it so decided to "see for myself" by purchasing a top end refractor. After some consideration I went for a Tak FC100-DL and then managed to get a great deal on a pre-owned TMB/LZOS 130mm F/9.2 triplet. So I was able to squeeze two premium scopes out of my budget. These are still the only scopes of this class that I have observed with so it has been an interesting experience comparing them with my other scopes and comparing what I've been seeing with reports on here from others who own similar quality instruments. One thing that has surprised me is how well my "lesser" scopes have compared with the premium ones. Yes, there are differences, but they are generally subtle and the seeing conditions that I'm generally observing under probably act as an equalizing factor as well. I do really enjoy owning and using these top end telescopes and don't regret purchasing them at all but I'm not under any illusions any more that they are key to my continued enjoyment of astronomical observing. I'm sure that I would have enjoyed astronomy just as much and seen just as much without owning them

We were in Australia for a month in 2018 and it was odd for us to see Orion rising "on his head". Soon got used to it though !

I use this "star hop" to locate M78. Other way up for southern hemisphere observers of course !: I look for the pair of stars like two "eyes" peering out of a faint surrounding halo of nebulosity. Not a distinctive target really. It's a reflection nebula so filters don't really help. M78 is about 3 degrees from Alnitak so you would need a very wide field of view to see them both at the same time.

Someone that I know who has the same scope bought a Vixen NPL 30mm (a plossl design) and really likes it as a low power eyepiece. The trick is to find one in stock !: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/vixen-eyepieces/vixen-npl-eyepieces.html Though they do cost more, a wider angle eyepiece such as the Explore Scientific 24mm 68 degree is great under moderately light polluted skies because the higher magnification that it delivers gives a darker background sky so faint targets stand out a little more.

I think the reality is that galaxies beyond a small number of "easy" ones (M31, M81 and M82 and very few others) and many nebulae are actually hard to see objects. Even the much talked about ones such as the Leo Triplet really do not jump out of the sky at you unless you observe under really dark skies and have some experience of what you are looking for in the eyepiece. When I'm doing an outreach event, I rather dread being asked to show case a galaxy other than one of the really bright ones because I know, even with my 12 inch scope, that many folks will see either nothing in the eyepiece or something barely distinguishable. Sometimes even my astro society colleagues have struggled to see the target ! While the star charts might list a galaxy at, say magnitude 8, the actual surface brightness, that is the difference between the background sky and the galaxy itself, is often much, much less than that. Any light pollution serves to dim that contrast variation down as well. Practice will gradually start to deliver more results but these will be in the form of noticing a small patch of sky that is a little brighter than the rest or a sliver of faint light that is visible when you look slightly away from it (averted vision). This is what most galaxy observing in moderate aperture scopes under the sort of skies that many of us observe under, is about. Much of the excitement about galaxy observing is the realisation that the barely detectable smudge that you can just about make out but you are not 100% sure you can even see, is actually the combined light of stars thousands or hundreds of thousands of light years away.

I've seen ETX 125's mounted on equatorial mounts using a pair of tube rings and a dovetail bar. Like this:

Low cost laser collimators often need collimation themselves before you can rely on them which is why I prefer the cheshire eyepiece. For the planets 150x - 250x is usually a useful range. Maybe 300x on the moon or Mars if the seeing is excellent and the scope properly cooled and collimated.

From one ageing rocker to another, hold your ground !!!!

That 3 inch 30mm is a monster !

Here is a link to a suitable replacement tripod: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/tripods/sky-watcher-heavy-duty-tripod-for-sky-tee-heq5-eq5.html

I was thinking of the Nikon NAV HW's but with the EiC tele-extender you do get 2 focal lengths out of each one: https://www.apm-telescopes.de/en/product.html?shopgate_redirect=1&mobile=false&info=2769 A bit wasted on me though, not using 17mm much. The Docter 12.5mm are reputed to be a little better than the 13mm Ethos but I've just remembered that they have recently gone out of production: https://www.astroshop.eu/eyepieces/docter-12-5mm-1-25l-2l-ultra-wa-eyepiece/p,22974 Like Gerry, I paid around half that for my Ethos 21 (used) but that was a few years back now. I notice that the ES 92's are now £400+ eyepieces now as well.

The scope is the same as the Skywatcher Explorer EQ5. Helios is the brand name that the manufacturer used before they changed to Skywatcher and moved to the blue colour scheme. The weakest link is the aluminum tripod which will barely hold the scope steady enough to look through it let alone image anything. I would suggest changing to a steel legged 1.75 inch or even better 2 inch tripod. If both motors are present and functioning you can use a control box like this plus a power supply: On eyepieces, 400x will seldom be any use in all honesty. Pick a set that give something like 50x - 80x - 150x - 220x (or something around those magnifications) and they will serve you well. The BST Starguiders are a good bet https://www.firstlightoptics.com/bst-starguider-eyepieces.html I don't image so I can't give more advice on that front. You will want to check and adjust the collimation of the scope so a cheshire eyepiece would be very useful: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/other-collimation-tools/premium-cheshire-collimating-eyepiece.html

I'm sorry - I missed this question. 17mm is my most underused focal length. I replaced the Ethos 17mm with an ES 17mm / 92 because of this and I've thought about letting my 17.3mm Delos go as well but I keep finding excuses to hang onto it, usually after I've read a report from someone else saying how much they like the eyepiece I guess a 17.5mm Morpheus would fill the gap very adequately but, as I tend to move directly from 20-something mm eyepieces to 13mm / 14mm eyepieces the poor 17mm's get overlooked so the Morpheus would get similar treatment I expect. Other than that, I think my current Tele Vue's are "keepers". Probably ....... There are a few out there that might be a touch better in certain focal lengths but they cost even more than the Ethos's do.

The Altair is an ED doublet so will be in a different price bracket than the Evostar achromats which are what have been discussed so far. The level of false colour control of an ED doublet is a substantial step up from that of an achromat. Plus the Altair is better engineered and finished and has a much superior focuser. Skywatcher do an ED doublet version of the Evostar: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/pro-series/skywatcher-evostar-100ed-ds-pro-outfit.html The Altair version is very well priced for a 4 inch aperture ED doublet refractor.

Global communications produces a lot more £'s / $'s revenue than enjoying the night sky does. I'm not happy about it at all as an amateur astronomer of course but these are the realities that drive global decision making whether we like them or not, I'm afraid.

https://spacenews.com/spacex-submits-paperwork-for-30000-more-starlink-satellites/ The submissions for approval seem to go to the ITU which is part of the United Nations. From their webpage: "The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is the United Nations specialized agency for information and communication technologies – ICTs. Founded in 1865 to facilitate international connectivity in communications networks, we allocate global radio spectrum and satellite orbits, develop the technical standards that ensure networks and technologies seamlessly interconnect, and strive to improve access to ICTs to underserved communities worldwide. Every time you make a phonecall via the mobile, access the Internet or send an email, you are benefitting from the work of ITU. ITU is committed to connecting all the world's people – wherever they live and whatever their means. Through our work, we protect and support everyone's right to communicate."

Sorry, I've rather lost track of this thread lately Looks like you are getting so good advice though

The "nose droop" tendency gets gradually less as the scope is pointed upwards. When I'm observing an area around the zenith I don't need any counterweight even with my heaviest eyepiece. When observing something close to the horizon (ie: Sirius) I need both counterweights. Thats why the length of chain approach works quite well - the lower the scope is pointing, the more chain is off the ground and vice versa. It's not the neatest solution though.

The higher magnification will show DSO's better if you have some LP to contend with. Thats why I don't use my Nagler 31 very often compared with my Ethos 21. The scope will handle a lot higher than 156x of course !

Why a 25mm ? The 20 / 100 will show practically as much sky as the 30mm / 70. Personally I'm not sure that you need even both of those, let alone squeezing a 25mm in between them. I've simulated the true fields below for my 12 inch F/5.3 dob. The 30 / 70 eyepiece is in red, the 20 / 100 in yellow:

I think the main purpose of these charts and diagrams is to fuel discussion on forums

If we ever get a clear, dark night again, I'll have a go with my Vixen ED102SS F/6.5. With the 31mm Nagler I get a 3.8 degree true field with that scope. I have the feeling that I might have glimpsed part of this nebula in the past but it's been a long time ...... Good luck Gerry

It would be interesting to know if something like the TSA 102 could properly split the close pair of the Tegmine (Zeta Cancri) triple star. My data shows the separation at 1.1 arc seconds which is a touch tighter than the Dawes limit for 102mm aperture of 1.14 arc seconds.

One of our members does use NV with his 20 inch dob under dark skies: https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/369957-supernova-snat2021j-in-ngc4414-mag132/?tab=comments#comment-4018381