RobertI

Nice one Chris, definitely got the phase very clearly there, nice vid too!

A new phrase has been coined! 👍 😁

Thanks Stu, I have got the PTFE tape on the threads, it’s definitely better. You’re right it’s incredibly good value. It’s such an enjoyable sized scope to use I have been looking at the getting the 130 PDS for visual, just to get the nice focuser, but then you get a larger central obstruction and four spider vanes and seems overkill too. Shame they don’t still offer the bog standard 130P OTA. Sorry to divert the thread......

Amazing observations, I wouldn’t have thought many of these objects were possible with the 130p!. It’s such a shame this scope doesn’t have an R&P/Crayford focuser or a better helical focuser - it deserves better!

Nice report, I’ve looked through pretty much every type of scope but never a Mak, need to remedy that. How did you produce your simulation?

I’m not sure why people have been so negative about it - I can only think that it is the marketing hype more than the product itself, which can really grate for some seasoned astronomers, implying capabilities which might leave some people disappointed. For clarity my comment above wasn’t meant to be negative, I was just mulling over how existing alternatives might compare, I think I showed that it’s not cheap to put something together, and it won’t be as portable or as ‘point and go’. I’m sure it will be a great viewing experience, and at the price you early backers paid, tremendous bang for the buck. Hell, at $1299, I might be interested myself, but I’ve missed my chance!

I wonder if it would be possible for a retailer like @FLO to put a bundled product together to rival the likes of Evoscope or HiUni. It would have to provide the following: Fast, lightweight scope, self aligning mount, no counterweights, battery powered - suggest a Celestron Evo 6 (£1350) + suitable focal reducer (£100) + Starsense (£300) Colour camera with ability to see image at scope (Evoscope) or on a wireless tablet (HiUni/Stellina) without the need for adjusting the image. I think the closest you could get to the Evoscope solution would be something like a Mallincam connected to a small monitor fixed to the OTA. I'm guessing £500 - £800 would get something really good. I'm not sure there is a wireless option like the HiUni's without including a PC somewhere along the line. So I reckon it would take £2500 ($3200) to get a bundle that does everything the Evoscope does, but that bundle would almost certainly outperform the Evoscope in most repects, but in a much less portable and 'point and click' package. Interestingly, the Stellina/Hiuni's wireless tablet observing feature is probably the only true innovation amongst all these scopes, as I can't see how it can be recreated using existing products out there. I'm not sure if the HiUni is actually a finished product yet though?

Nicely done 👍

Amazingly I did see it and even more amazingly there was definitely evidence of darkening on one side. But it was, sadly, underwhelming!

Obviously one of the key differences is one has a 130mm F5 mirror and the other a 80mm F5 lens - two very different approaches, but the main effect being the different field of view. But as you say, image quality likely to be very similar.

I don't think there's much doubt that the Evoscope will pick up faint objects that cannot be seen visually without large scopes, show detail that is not visible through the eyepiece and reveal colour that is just not visible to the naked eye, so on those points alone the scope should make people very happy. I look forward to the review. Mosquitos - I'm scratching just thinking about them!

If the images are significantly better, I would hazard a guess that it’s down to the “image processing algorithms ..... developed by experts who worked in the largest astronomical observatories...”. But I suspect those images were taken by expert users, using perfectly tuned equipment under perfect skies - they might even have been using just the scope strapped to a better tracking mount, who knows? I have my doubts whether the quality will be significantly different to the Unistellar, hopefully we’ll find out soon.

This is an epic thread. That scope is going to be worth a fortune! 🙂

Very impressive, good to see what OSC is capable of.

Lovely report, sounds like the conditions were excellent, it is surprising what 6” of aperture can show. I’m also trying to embrace lunar observing more, I‘ve started on the Lunar 100 to give me some goals. 👍

You must be really chuffed Chris, some great lunar video and super sharp stacked images - great to see that classic setup working so well - visually must have been superb too. Are the stacked images in B&W? Some of the subtle colouring that was in the vid has been lost? (Viewing on my phone so may be getting wrong impression).

Nice images, I like the way the objects are framed with the information. It’s good to see the Horsehead to see how it deals with fainter objects. Perhaps we can see some of the spring galaxies in Leo and Virgo to see how it deals with those? M42 is nice, I would say the stars look sharper than the image earlier in the thread - does the scope allow focus to be adjusted? Edit: From reading the thread again I think the answer is ‘yes’, as a focus knob is described. 👍

Interesting experiment Vlaiv. Coincidentally I have been reading about this very subject in my lovely little book 'Frank's book of the telescope' written by the telescope maker Charles Frank in 1959. I frequently delve into this book, which is as relevant today as it was back then. In the chapter discussing amatuer intruments, he notes: "...some of these lunar features, frequently observed by users of such telescopes, are known to be of a size which theory would suggest to be incapable of resolution. When this happens it would be unwise for the observer to be believe that what he sees is the full and final form of the feature; sometimes this evident resolution is spurious , being the result of overlapping in the very complicated diffraction pattern which viewing areas of high contrast by optical means must involve..... All the same, it remains a fact that excessivly fine detail, especially when of a linear type, can be seen. Another way in which subjects below the resolving power of the telescope can be detected on the surface of the moon is by detection of the shadows....then it is that very ridges of no great height can be seen thrown into exaggerated relief...... " May not help 'resolve' your question (excuse the pun) but is interesting to note the same debates were happening 50 years ago!

Well done! I was poor at logging my observations in 2019, so don’t know exactly how many, but I suspect it was around 30-40. I clearly lack your commitment!

Crikey that is a very impressive achievement Mike, nice to know there is a library of ‘reference’ ARP EAA images to refer to in the future. I wonder if there is a way to group all your ARP captures together in a single library?

Great article Curtis, interesting and informative, especially understanding the order in which the technology evolved. I wish this had been available when I was putting together my talk on EAA for my local club in October! I also prefer the term Camera Assisted Viewing/Observing to EAA, but then again anything is better than Video Astronomy, which has become downright misleading! As always there is Night Vision, which is kind of sits in its own category but is still about ‘live electronic viewing’ - it’s slowly growing in popularity (restricted by high costs) and produces amazing results so I included it in my talk, but presumably outside the scope of your article? I’m afraid my level of knowledge is not enough to comment on the accuracy of the article, but it is a very useful resource thanks!

Nice session with your bins, sounds like the conditions were brilliant though.

Thanks Chris, yes I have dew band permanently attached the scope but I just didn’t think to attach it to the power tank, as the weather didn’t look too ‘dewey! 😆 Don’t think I was thinking very clearly at 2 am! 😬