RobertI

I have a guilty secret - I have named all my scopes after sci-if characters (serious or comedy) - the 102ED-R is Lady Penelope (from Thunderbirds). 😂

Very good sketch, nice detail.

I’m sure you’ve checked this, but they seem pretty heavy, a lot heavier than a C8, but a lot lighter than a 12” Dob I guess!

Nadira observing chair, delivered next day by Rother Valley Optics. 👍

Nice report and lovely sketch.

The things we go through for a good view! 😃 Sounds like the views were superb. Was this the C14 or the 100mm?

Nice report John. I’ve been clouded out for weeks now and I’m missing all the fun. 😕

Nicely proven. If the observer really did see this difference, it must have been due to something else then I guess. If others have not seen this then perhaps best disregarded!

An interesting article, thanks for tracking it down Chris. I think the very generalised conclusion is that the scope excels at planetary where it is generally better than the C8 due to increased contrast and is on a par with the 150ED. Sounds like it gave a 150ED a run for its money on doubles which I would imagine would make it better than a C8. I guess this tallies with @johninderby's experience. Interesting about the effective aperture being 7.3", as they have reduced the size of the secondary to increase contrast, but 'miss' some of the light cone from the main mirror as a result. So presumably the resolving power of an 8" but the image brightness of a 7.3"?

Congratulations on your new scope and welcome to the club! 😁 The focus issue is odd, my 2” 38mm Panaview is fine with a 2” eyepiece. You will probably find that focusing on a star at infinity actually makes quite a difference to where focus is - I have a feeling it will be fine.

Ooh, you tease!

I use the 6”RC for EAA and I have found it perfect, and at F9 and with a fixed mirror it’s much more useable than my C8 for EAA. I can reduce it down to F4.5 and with a lodestar it’s fine with just a little coma...sometimes... but with smaller chipped camera it should be perfect! I am very impressed with the build quality of these GSO scopes and very tempted to replace my C8 with the Stella Lyra Classical Cassegrain for visual. I would love to see someone do a head to head between a CC8 and a C8 or 8” Newt. Well done @Lockie on your purchase, a fabulous observatory scope. 🥳

Well done, very exciting, let us know when you get it. 👍

Thanks for sharing your experience Fozzie, an engrossing tale, which hopefully will have a happy ending, and which we can all learn from.

If you get no responses, you could try Harrison Telescopes for the Altair scope (although i don’t think they carry stock, and just order from Altair Astro themselves, but at least they do respond to emails) or Astrograph.net for the Tecnosky (again I don’t think they carry stock but you can speak to them on the phone).

GSO would be my guess....

I think we should explore this aspect some more.......

Oh dear! I’ve just bought a scope made by this company! 😂😂 (I think you were criticising the article rather than the company though). The article by Roger Vine referenced above by @John was probably more illuminating.

It’s an interesting list, I am guessing that the order is determined by the ‘typical’ differences between premium and non-premium manufacturing, but just guessing. I think it has been pointed out before that the most significant difference between a Tak and a Skywatcher frac with the same glass would be the optical figure, which is top of the list (apart from atmosphere) so seems to make sense. I am also wondering if the difference in contrast between a frac and Newt is due to the cumulative effects of central obstruction, poor baffling, less than perfect figure (large mirror) and micro-mis-collimation, most of which are less of an issue in a frac? Full disclosure: I am not expert and I don’t know what I’m talking about! 🙂

There's a lot of observing of Mars, Jupiter and Saturn going on at the moment with different scopes, so I read with interest an article on the Kunming United Optics website about the factors affecting contrast delivered by a scope and hence its ability to see low contrast detail on planets. In summary they stated the following factors affecting contrast, in descending order of importance: Seeing conditions (or air turbulence) - the single most important factor that adversely affects image contrast when seeking planetary detail through a telescope. Optical figure Collimation Optical smoothness Baffling Central obstruction - and only noticeable when central obstruction goes beyond 25% by area. Note that the increase in central obstruction is rated as the smallest contributor adversely affecting contrast. I note they do not mention glass type as a factor, although later in the article they say chromatic aberration reduces contrast on planets, so perhaps it's not such a good article after all! They also don't mention anti-reflection coatings, but perhaps that's because pretty much all scopes are multi-coated nowadays? Anyway the interesting takeaway for me is that central obstruction has the least effect of all.

Sounds wonderful, thanks for sharing. Well done on getting some clear skies and good seeing - I’m getting desperate! 😉

Looking forward to updates. You should be able to track down 'first light' reports and observing reports using the AA 102 ED-R from myself, @Paz and @Dantooine - I'm sure there are plenty of other owners on SGL too!

I very nearly bought the very same scope (from a different vendor)! My tale is described in this thread. I had a long chat with the vendor who was very helpful and confirmed that the TS-optics, the Tecnosky and the Altair Astro ED-R are identical and made by Kunming Optics. Why TS advertises Lanthanum and the other two don’t, I’m not really sure - would be interested to hear what Widescreen day on that. The Tecnosky is an Italian brand, a bit like Altair Astro. I ended up buying the Altair Astro, but only because they were closer to home, having a shop about 50 miles away. I’m sure the Tecnosky would be the same quality. I haven’t had the chance to use the scope much yet, but it is clearly a high quality scope and has given me some excellent views of Mars and surprising DSO ability. I’m really glad I went for F7, it’s so much easier to use than my 100mm F10 achro, and gives much better planetary views. Also better wide field ability. Really happy with it and dying to get out again! I did have to ‘re-align’ my expectations, FPL-53 does not turn a 100mm scope into a 150mm scope, but the quality emerges over time as you use the scope more and more, and really shines in good seeing conditions and dark skies. Good luck and keep us up to date.

Yeah, I hope the wifi works well. I forgot about the belt drives, another tick in the box - old school on steroids!

Great video Chris, looks like a very well speced mount for the money, very solid and well put together. It seems to be quite ‘traditional’ in concept (eg: the bolt and safety screw on the saddle, which I personally like from a safety POV, but is quite ‘old school’) but I like the 2” tripod and heavy counterweights - says that this mount means business! Seeing you putting all the different pieces together made me realise how convenient something like the Celestron EVO Mount is with everything built in, but obviously a very different proposition, not an observatory mount, and you can’t buy it without the scope! Looking forward to seeing how the EXOS-2 does in the field!