RobertI

The setup I recently took on holiday with me - I ended up with 7 days of cloud and never used it! I don't normally use all the counterweights shown, but thought I'd go the whole hog as I was on hols.

The Lodestar will give you guaranteed results on dim objects - its easy and quick and amazingly detailed considering the relatively low resolution. You can't go wrong with the X2 mono, and if you need colour you have the option of using RGB filters with Starlight Live s/w which also produces really nice results, not as convenient as the one shot colour but I think the consensus is that the results are better. rob

Thanks for letting us know Jorman, it's a real shame that it didn't work for you. It's also a shame that your recent post where you expressed some disappointment and requested some help from members didn't yield a resolution. I suspect there was more that could have been done but that said, may still not have met your expectations for live viewing in colour. Keep an eye on Don's thread where he is trying the Ultrastar C with hyperstar on a C6 in more 'normal' observing conditions. Let us know if you discover any other routes which work for you. Rob

Let us know if you get one Stu and how you get on. Obviously your Tak will be a bit wider than my 72mm frac but all the compartments are squashy so should fit in fine.

Nice compact solution. I put together the solution shown here, which lives in my boot, together with my tripod mount and gets used more than the big scopes for visual. Very pleased with it and is also ready to carry on to a plane.

I love way there is an eyepiece hanging off the end, just seems out of place somehow! A bit like a formula one car with a saddle bag.

Superb. Can we make this a sticky?

I think they canbe found here.

Yes, a few spring to mind that would be useful to easily reference; Paul's LL downloads, Martin's Pretty Deep Maps, Don's LL Guide. I know there was also a useful guide to stacking in LL - apologies I don't know who wrote it as I can't find it (see, there is a need!) Rob

Thanks Don, what a great piece of work, I shall enjoy reading. Rob

Thanks James and Jeremy for your interest and kind words. I think my powers of observation and description were far better then than they are now!

I managed to track down some observations I made at the time as published in 'Apollo', the quarterly magazine of Clacton Astronomical Association. The sketches haven't translated very well as the printing technology used was very basic (what do you expect for 35p?) and I think my FOV calculations are suspect. . The observations made interesting reading - apparently I saw an Aurora from Clacton, which was subsequently confirmed by the BAA. Hope it's of interest.

That's great to hear, I guess a classic never dies An 8" would have been a fantastic amatuer scope in those days, especially as a 19 year old. I think my OTA may have been Fullerscopes but the mount was definitely Charles Frank. I think mine was around £250 in1980 from Exchange & Mart.

That's a great idea James, I'm sure I could dig up enough material to make it entertaining. Thanks Jeremy, I expect my construction met a simialr fate in the end, when I left home the scope had to be sold and the observatory dismantled.

Thanks James, Finding the photo certainly brought back memories, unfortunately I don't think I have any pictures of me posing with the scope which is a real shame. I am not sure I have any original observation notes but I do have some copies of our club's monthly magazine at the time and I'm pretty sure there will be some observations in there so I shall dog them out and post later - thanks for the suggestion! By the way the glass jar still had glass around it - not a very well engineered solution really! Rob

Came across this photo of the setup I had as a young teenager back in 1980. It was a 6" reflector on a manual equatorial by Charles Frank. I was really lucky that my parents supported my passion and it was an incredible scope for someone of my age at the time. The 'run off' observatory was my Dad's own back-of-fag-packet design, made of 4x4 plywood with a felt roof - Dad and I had fun building it one weekend over the summer. It worked brilliantly and the scope lived there for 5 years. The bulbous looking counterweight was in fact a glass jar filled with cement and painted white! I'm not sure the scope was set up very well or was very good quailty but that didn't seem to deter me and I was out every clear night that I could. Hope it's of interest. Rob

Fantastic post Dom, some great result there, you can see the improvement in resolution over the Lodestar. Looking promising for the Ultrastar too. In terms of star tightness, it would be good to see a comparison of the 825 and 829 without an Ha filter as i believe the Ha has the effect of tightening the stars anyway, unless I am missing something (not unusual!). Cheers Rob

Can you post the image so we can guage how elongated and the type of elongation? Is it the same in all four corners? I seem to recall my ZS66+WO Flattener 6+Canon EOS1100D was producing slight flaring in the corners, but nothing major.

Stunning. Please keep us posted on your progress with the poster, I would pay good money to see an 8 metre version of this! In the meatime I shall have some fun tonight identifying the various DSOs on the image.

That's an impressive list! Keep it up though because your extensive ownership experiences results in some excellent advice for the rest of us. I think a post outlining the reasons behind some of your major buying/selling decisions would be really interesting and informative....if you're prepared to share one day? Rob

Ah i think i understand what you are trying to say, i think the confusion comes from when you say ".......when you look in the EP, that blue circle and everything in it, will only look the same size as red circle"; You are referring to apparent field of view but referencing a diagram which is showing actual field of view? Or am i missing something? So just to be clear a 0.63 reducer will increase the actual field of view? Rob

Hi Russell, this has confused me somewhat! I realise that using a 0.63 reducer will not change the apparent field of view, ie: 40 degrees will remain 40 degrees, but surely it will change the actual field of view, ie: lower magnification means wider actual field of view? Rob

Nice report. It does look like a very carefully thought out package with some nice touches. Well built too from what you say.