Jump to content

30 secs banner.jpg


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

266 Excellent

1 Follower

About spike95609

  • Rank
    Star Forming

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,540 profile views
  1. If you just want to do visual astronomy then the 200p is a superb scope which gives you a lot of power for very little expense, and it may well prove to be the only scope you'll ever want. The downside (or another upside depending on your point of view) is that there's no computer to guide you around the night sky, so you'll have to learn how to find the objects yourself. But it's not that hard to do - if you've got some binoculars then while you're waiting for your scope to turn up, have a go at finding some objects in Turn Left at Orion and learn how to star hop to them from an obvious nearb
  2. I've never used a UHC but I've found that my Lumicon OIII is an occasionally useful tool to have in the box. I don't use it very often, as almost everything I look at with my 10" can be seen well enough without it, and very small planetary nebulae which look like a fuzzy blob aren't dramatically altered in appearance by bothering to put a high contrast filter on. But things like the Veil Nebula and Owl Nebula are just simply invisible to me without one, and they're well worth seeing. Also the other night I was looking at M42 at just 38x, so the background sky was quite bright, but there's no q
  3. I just about got a good look at it in my 10" scope just before it disappeared into some trees. I was planning on just using my bins as I thought they would be much too low for the scope, so it had no time to acclimatise at all, but I managed to get it up to 80x and could see Saturn's rings clearly and Titan just about, no detail on Jupiter sadly. I was fooled into thinking that HD 191250 was one of its moons until I just checked it on Stellarium, I knew something was wrong because I could see what looked to be five moons in a row and obviously that's not right. Very pleased to have seen it, as
  4. You are right, the big central screw moves the secondary up and down the tube, and the 3 small ones control the tilt. In order for the central one to move at all though you'll need to slacken off the other three a little bit. Once you've done this you should find that the big screw turns easily, and all you need to do is get the secondary spaced as equally as you can get it on either side of the focuser, which will mean that they are aligned. Next you can move on to the three smaller screws to align the secondary with the primary. With this I'd just use a collimation cap, and the only thing yo
  5. I shouldn't think you'll be disappointed with your choice. I've never used the LightQuest but I gather they're a step up from the already impressive Apollo's, and with its superior optics and true aperture (i.e. they actually measure 80mm and not 73mm) I suspect there won't be much difference in performance between it and the Stellar 25x100. The "other" tripod I referred to was the Horizon 8115, but I see you've ordered a more sturdy head - there's nothing wrong with the legs, it's just the head that comes with it that lets it down.
  6. It can be done but as others have said be aware of the sheer size and weight of these things. The Stellar 100mm binoculars are 380mm long and 240mm wide, and they weigh 3.6kg, which isn't so very bad as far as these things go but still it's an awful lot of bulk to be carrying around, not that the 80mm is so very much smaller than that. Observing on a tripod can be an uncomfortable experience as you come up to the zenith, but if you're okay to suffer the neck pains or not go above 60° for any length of time, then I'd recommend spending a lot of money on the tripod because it makes things a whol
  7. I just about got it on Monday night with my 10". It took a while to find as it's in a difficult part of the sky for star hopping, but after about 20 minutes of messing about I managed to see a large and very faint blob where it seemed reasonable that it should be with my 10mm SLV; it was just bright enough that I could be sure I wasn't imagining it, but no more than that. Such a shame if it's broken up, the reports I'd seen made me think I was going to see a second shadow in daylight.
  8. I agree that anything over 10x50 would need a tripod, and by the sound of it that would be a bit too much baggage for your requirements. You could get away with a 15x70 mounted on a monopod, the extra magnification and aperture will certainly open up star clusters, but it's bulky and heavy, and wouldn't so much slip in your bag as fill it. If you don't want to spend a lot (say under £200) then 10x50 is your best bet as it will show you a fair amount and will be very easy to carry around. If you are happy to spend perhaps a few hundred more then you might want to consider 10x42's instead as the
  9. If the secondary is centred in the focuser but you can't see the mirror clips then yes it's out of alignment. Slacken off each of the three little screws on the secondary a bit and then move them around until you can see the clips spaced evenly around the edge of your view. This will confirm that the secondary is angled with the focuser to look straight down the tube at the primary. When tightening the secondary screws back up, do each screw a fraction of a turn at a time until all of them are tight, otherwise you'll knock it out of position again. After that it's just a case of moving the pri
  10. First slacken off the three screws around the secondary a little, otherwise you won't be able to turn the centre screw at all. When you turn the centre screw the secondary mirror should move fairly quickly up and down the tube. Just adjust it until it looks centred with the focuser, i.e. the gap between the mirror and the edge of the focuser is equal on both sides. Then with your cheshire, make small adjustments to each of the little screws until you can see all of the mirror clips holding the primary mirror (there may be 3 or more of them depending how large your scope is) spaced equally arou
  11. There's no other sensible way to lift it in one piece without holding on to the handles. They are fairly solid though as there's a 10mm thick steel bar inside them which screws into the base. That said the metal component of it stops I reckon about 10mm along the length of the plastic handle, which isn't much of a problem because a lot of the weight will be resting on your index fingers and the metal will be under them at that point and therefore supported. Although I think the possibility of a stress failure in the plastic is pretty low, and as the bar is so short I think you'd have to apply
  12. I've just measured it and it's a little bit wider, 53cm I make it.
  13. Speaking as a 250px owner, it's a terrific scope, and hits a great balance between price, power and portability. I've never used a flextube dob, but I wouldn't think there's any difference in optical quality, it should be the same mirror surely? I went for the solid tube because space wasn't an issue, and naturally there's no messing around with shrouds or worrying if extending the tube has an impact on collimation or not. I check the collimation now and again, and as I just take it into the back garden so it never gets bounced around in a car, I haven't had to adjust it once since I bought it
  14. I haven't had the opportunity to look through any other high end binoculars, but the original Swarovski EL 10x42s were something to behold. When I was testing it against my Vanguard Endeavor's, I found that sharpness is really the wrong term as you can get any decent pair of binoculars to get a sharp focus. What it really comes down to is resolution, and as they were 5x the price the grind on the Swarovski lenses naturally goes further and much more fine detail leaps out at you. It's a subtle but noticeable thing. It took me time to figure out what it was; looking at the moon they were both sh
  15. Very pleased to say that I got 46p last night. I managed to get out in the early evening before the moon came up, and it was reasonably easy to find at the top of Auriga. It didn't appear wonderfully bright in the scope but obvious enough with direct vision at 38x. I had a go with my 10x42s and was very surprised that it stood out fairly well as a faint smudge in them. I then went and tried my 15x70s for comparisons sake, but by this time the moon was coming up and it started to get washed out. First comet I've seen for nearly two years!
  • 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.