Jump to content



  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

16 Good

About Gissajob

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

546 profile views
  1. Thanks Stu. I had been thinking it might not be a good idea, and I think the Rigel will be easier to use if it's closer to the other end of the OTA anyway. Now I just need those clouds to go away. Alan
  2. My little Mak arrived today, so the clouds are my fault - sorry. I have a question which some of you may be able to answer. I already have a Rigel from my old scope, and I've been told that the RDF which comes with the Mak isn't up to much, so I'm going to put the Rigel on instead. In fact, the RDF looks just like the one I took off the old scope, so I know I'm happier with the Rigel. Question - is there any problem if I remove the RDF mount and put the Rigel mount in it's place? The RDF mount is secured by 2 screws, and I have a spare Rigel base plate which is secured by 2 sticky pads so it w
  3. Paul, thanks for the advice. My back garden is right on the edge of the village I live in, so to the east and south the skies are quite good. West is a waste of time though - it's an orange glow. And someone's had the nerve to build houses and grow trees to the north. Some people... I'm aware that the 127 mak won't let me see the faint DSOs, but what's in Turn Left will do for now. As for the future, I think I'm more likely to upgrade to a better mount at some point and then upgrade the OTA later. If I have the money... Alan
  4. Thanks everyone for the input. I've ordered the 127 Mak, along with a few bits and pieces recommended above. I still need to sort out some EPs and will probably go for the BSTs, if only because FLO are currently out of stock on the equivalent Celestron EPs. And I realised that I need to get a collimator - anyone got any recommendations? In the end, I decided to be realistic about my budget so the Mak was the better choice. I was also flicking through Turn Left last night, and a lot of the objects in there which I haven't found yet are rated as easily viewable in a 4" scope, so the Mak should h
  5. Yes, already asked FLO about a power source and I may be lazy and buy a dew shield at the same time. Reducing what I'm spending on the scope should allow me to get some more EPs without breaking the bank. Where did you get the BSTs from? To be honest, my current scope isn't great, but it has been a good introduction to the hobby. So, I'm thinking of the Mak as my first 'proper' scope. Optics should be much better. And I need something portable, as I've just found out I'm being taken on a dark sky weekend later in the year! Yes, my wife actually encourages me! As I said, I've been thinking ab
  6. Thanks everyone for the advice. As no-one has given me an outstanding reason to go with the 6SE, I think FLO will very shortly be getting an order for the 127 mak. With the money saved, I can look at some eyepiece upgrades once I've got used to the scope. Longer term, a mount upgrade might be a good idea, and then I can change the OTA if aperture fever sets in! But lets not get ahead of ourselves...
  7. A couple of Christmases ago, I dipped my toes in the astro waters for the first time with a cheap and cheerful 4" Newtonian my wife bought from Jessops. Not a great scope, but it has helped me to realise this is a hobby I want to continue with, so it's time for an upgrade. I've decided I'm going to go for a GoTo, and I'd more or less decided to buy a Celestron Nexstar 6SE. But then a question occurred to me. The 6SE is just about £800. The Celestron Nexstar 127 SLT is less than half that price, as is the Skywatcher Skymax 127. So, my question to you all is this - is the 6SE worth the extra mon
  8. Agree with LouisJB - I found it for the first time a couple of weeks ago with my binoculars. I used the starhop from Cassiopeia. Took a bit of trying, but I reckon I can go out and find it pretty quickly now. One tip - it's much easier if you have a garden recliner to lie back in, as it's almost directly overhead at the moment.
  9. I looked at 15x70s but decided that they would probably shake too much. You could try lying back in a garden recliner - that way, you can see the stuff directly overhead and rest the bins on your face. A mount is probably better, but in the meantime... Pleiades looks great in my 10x50s, so I would think the 15x70s would give them even more of a wow factor. Nice report!
  10. I envy you doing this with your daughter. Both of mine are too old for all that now, although my son would have been interested when he was younger. I'm embarrassed to say that when I first started out on this hobby, it was my wife who spotted Pleiades and said "what's that big cloudy thing up there?". It's not exactly difficult to spot, but I managed to miss it! Simon - I might add Uranus to my list the next time we have clear skies, but I'm tempted to get the telescope out and have a better look at Andromeda.
  11. I bought a pair of Opticron Imagic 10x50s back at the end of May - yes, just in time for those nice light evenings . And I haven't really got back to getting out under the stars this autumn, until last night. Clear skies were forecast, I did some checking in Turn Left to see what targets I could have a go at and out I went. Reclining garden chair set up, lie back and look at the sky. First up, a favourite from last winter (my first indulging this hobby) - Pleiades. Clearly visible as a nice bug smudge with the naked eye. In my telescope, it's too big to fit in the fov, but I've seen a few peop
  12. Was out between 11 and 11:30 last night and saw 3 very brief trails - a bit disappointing. Never mind, I thought, I'll put my alarm on for 4 in the morning and see what's happening, as pre-dawn is supposed to be the best time. I put the alarm on my bedside cabinet, just to vibrate so that it didn't wake the wife. I slept through it...
  13. Nearly switched it off after 10 minutes or so as I was getting tired of the clever camera work. But there was the occasional 5 or 10 minutes which was very interesting (mainly the bit about Donald Lynden-Bell's work from 50 years ago. It could have been cut to 30 minutes and still told us just as much useful information. And exactly what does a cliff diver have to do with a black hole? Alan
  14. I know exactly how you feel. I had a cataract op a couple of years back, and the surgeon told me I would need to come back as the membrane at the back of the eye would cloud over. It took about 18 months, but I went back and he did the laser thing. The difference was amazing. However, that was in my left eye and I use my right eye when observing. I imagine it must be a lot worse if it's the eye you use at the telescope. Just a shame it's the time of year when we don't get much darkness... Alan
  15. I bought exactly the same set from FLO a couple of weeks back, just in time for some nice clear evenings. I bought them to upgrade from a small pair of Pentax binos, which weren't bad but just too small to properly show detail. No such problems with the Opticrons - they are every bit as good as you're expecting them to be. I managed to spend a couple of (short) evenings idly scanning around the sky and I was amazed at the detail they were showing me. Who needs a telescope? Alan
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.