symmetal

Another cracking image Craig. 😀 I actually prefer the original over the 10% stack personally, it doesn't look as 'processed'. 😉 Alan

For a full moon that's quite spectacular Göran. Plenty of fine wispy OIII detail. 😃 Alan

Plenty of good detail again Neil. Blue clouds too. 🙂 I took some of Saturn, Jupiter and Mars the same night and should be ready to post them tomorrow. 😁 Alan

@Elp Thanks for mentioning it. The NYX is rated at 20kg without counterweights, but doesn't specify the upper limit, though is likely suitable. Again it's a new mount that's due for release in mid October. I'm not brave enough to spend that money on something with no track record. 😉 The main advantage with HD mounts is being lightweight, but that's not really an issue for me. @Stuart1971 @gorann Glad to see you have no real issues with the EQ8. I have three other Skywatcher mounts, AZ-EQ6, HEQ5 and EQ3 Pro and they have all performed with no failures for many years which is the main thing. I'm sure the EQ8 will be no different. 😊 The RASA 11 is a lightweight compared to your Meade 14" Göran and at only 620mm focal length it should not tax the mount at all. Alan

@tomato @Stuart1971 Thanks, that's good to know, Sometimes when something has a possible issue the negatives can get blown out of proportion. 🙂 Alan

Considering sensors in all-sky cameras can have the full sun focused on a group of pixels for around an hour without apparent long term damage, it seems doubtful that a 5mW laser would be a problem to the sensor itself. The main issue I think would be looking at the results on the paper as it will be a bit too bright to study closely. With the 1mW laser I find it hard to focus properly on the reflected spot, and have to use a kind of averted vision to assess it accurately. A 5mW would be rather uncomfortable to assess I suspect without sunglasses or something. Alan

FLO got back to me today with the offer from Celestron for the RASA 11 and I've decided to accept it. 😀 I think in the end I'll go for the EQ8-R mount at £3349, though there is a 40-60 day stock delay. 😟 I did check out the Mesu on the Modern Astronomy website with the e200 head and wedge at £6299 and in stock. I had always thought Mesus were around £10,000 so was a bit surprised at the price, but couldn't really justify the extra £3000. The EQ8 does can have backlash issues though it seems if adjusted twice a year depending on the temperatures it is manageable. My EQ6 does have significant Dec backlash but it really only manifests itself when doing a large Dec dither in one direction when it can take a minute or so to stabilize. Alan

That's the hazard of buying the cheap pens off ebay, I'm afraid. I bought them from two different sellers and one was class 2 and one was class 3. You can go for a refund but I didn't bother as it wasn't worth the hassle for the price. I doubt a 5mW will cause any problems but not sure if I would want to risk it on an expensive camera. 🤔 Alan

Sorry Stuart, I thought I'd replied in my previous post but it looks like it got cut out while editing by accident. Yes, it looks a very promising mount for the price, but there is only one independent review available from last month, so until it has an established reputation, I'm reluctant to spend that amount of money. Bit of a chicken and egg situation. 🙂 With the OGEM mount seemingly disappeared and many customers left waiting, not sure if this is actually what the OGEM has morphed into or if it is a separate mount. Not sure what guarantees are offered with it, if there are serious issues after a few months use. Alan

@ollypenrice @pipnina The EQ6 is rated up to 25kg visually, with the HEQ5 at only 15kg visually, so the RASA 11 shouldn't be in any danger on the EQ6 just for testing purposes. 🙂 If it's a good one and I'm happy, I will then get a proper mount for it, rather than getting a mount beforehand, and then possibly have to send it back as it's not wanted anymore. I'd prefer getting a mount from FLO so if not forking out for a Mesu, and iOptron with it seeming reliability issues, there isn't a big choice left, an EQ8 with its apparent Dec backlash issues, or a Celestron CGX-L. 🤔 Celestron are coming back on Friday with the RASA 11 offer, so will have to wait until then before deciding. 🙂 Alan

Your perseverance will prevail. 😊 Alan

That's an excellect result. 😀 Very detailed squid. Alan

Thanks for posting Wim. I found that the published tables sometimes give just galactic coords for these galaxies and a lot of mathematical sin/cos gymnastics is needed to convert to equatorial. Though being discovered on photographic plates and such, you would think the equatorial would be noted first and then converted to galactic. I haven't checked to see what apparent size it is but several around the Milky Way are in fact quite large and a wider FOV is needed for them to appear visible, being so faint, though this is unlikely for one around Andromeda. Maybe it shows up better in the Infra Red spectrum. As several show NGC147 having two tidal streams it may be when viewed in other than visible light or Radio astronomy data. 🤔 It might be worth continuing if you would like to be known as the first to visually image Andromeda XXX 😊 Alan

Thanks Göran, that's good to know. That was one of my main concerns. 🙂 Also, saying to try the EQ6 anyway is good to hear, though I would say the Mesu is a bit outside what I'd like to spend at the moment. 😁 Ah!, that's interesting. It's true that with all three RASA 8s I had, the camera has been off and on numerous times, and the filters removed and changed, and the flats I took just showed vignetting and that's all. I just thought I was lucky but maybe that wasn't the case. @Elp Thanks for your reply, but it looks like I might get away with it in this case. I assume you have a more 'normal' scope. 😊 Alan

That was my first query to FLO but as you say with FLO's guarantee, that isn't a problem to be too worried about. 😀 I haven't seen any CN posts on that issue, just on focus and mirror flop, but hopefully the RASA 11 V2 will have improved that. Your experience with potentially an overloaded EQ6 is good to hear, so I shouldn't be concerned about using it for testing purposes. 🙂 I was wondering about using it with a Mono camera and filter drawer. Does changing the filters have the potential to introduce dust spots at different places, so requiring flats with after every filter change, or is that not such a problem in real life. ? Alan

Thanks @ollypenrice One thing I wasn't doubting was your recommendation for the Mesu . Your experiences with the iOptron mounts is certainly food for thought though. I've always avoided items that begin with a little i up to now, as it seems it's an excuse just to bump up the price. 😏 CN don't like the CEM70 either it seems. The JTW Trident does look impressive, but aren't sure what the aftersales service will be like in the long term if things go wrong. 🤔. Alan

@Stuart1971 @scotty38 @Adam J Thanks for the replies. 🙂 Yes, I actually really liked the RASA 8 images apart from the awful flares. The f2 aspect wasn't actually an issue like I thought it might be. As depth of focus is so narrow I thought that it would be a struggle getting good stars over the whole frame and the slightest tilt error would be very evident, but all three scopes gave good round corner stars all over an APS-C sensor. The camera spacing is critical though and a 0.5mm error gives awful results. It needs to be within 0.1mm really and the recommended extra 7.5mm spacing only worked on the second scope. The first scope it needed to be 8.0mm and the third 7.8mm before the stars snap into focus all over. Putting the camera on a tilt test jig beforehand is also a necessity I would think. Reports on the RASA 11 mentioned that mirror flop can be an issue so focus can change as the scope moves around, and that the mirror locks need to be engaged after focusing which would be a pain with autofocusing kicking in with temperature changes. I think these refer to the earlier RASA 11 as the newer V2 version doesn't have mirror locks by the looks of it, and has improved mirror mechanics to improve stability, so hopefully that wouldn't be a problem. If it wasn't for the backup of FLO, I would be wary of another Celestron product, but if there was again a problem, I'm sure FLO would take care of it. 😊 Yes, the imaging weight limits aren't stated on the Ioptron products, and the visual weight spec on the AZ-EQ6 is 25kg so the 31.5kg of the CEM70 isn't that great a difference in reality as you say scotty38. Rather, than fork out for on a new mount right away, if I do opt for the RASA 11, I can put it on the AZ-EQ6, as it's within its viewing limits, to check that it gives good results without noticeable mirror flop etc. on quick 5 sec or so exposures, and if I'm happy with it, I can then get the better mount to suit it. 🙂 The Tak Epsilon looks a great scope Adam, but I'm not a fan really of diffraction spikes, and have always been used to the scope and accessories being in a straight line. I'll see what FLO say when they get the RASA 11 offer details from Celestron, and decide from there. Thanks again Alan

Having just received my third RASA 8, as the previous two had bad flare issues as described here, the third one is just as bad, or rather worse, despite Celestron having said it had been checked for this issue. FLO have been great in liasing with Celestron and arranging the replacements and after FLO informed them of this third scope having the same problem, Celestron have stopped shipment of RASA 8s and will be returning them all to the factory for correction of this issue as it's more widespread than they originally thought. Celestron say they will collect mine for free and have it sent back to the factory to be fixed, but have no timescale as to when the fixed scopes will be available again. Some on the CN forum have been waiting for a year or so with no proper resolution for this issue. This third scope is actually worse than the other 2 in that a 180mm mask does not cure the flares over the majority of the frame and that a mask of around 170mm may be needed which is too much I think to lose in the meantime. Instead of waiting, Celestron, via FLO, have asked if I would like to upgrade to a RASA 11 instead, which they will offer at a discount to help reimberse me for the hassle I've endured so far. I'm sorely tempted, depending on what the actual discount is, as it has a large imaging circle so along with the ASI2600MC, I can use my ASI6200MM with a filter slide holder if I wanted for proper narrowband imaging. On second thought the Astronomik NB filters likely won't work at f2.2. The backfocus is 55mm and not the 25mm of the RASA 8. Its 650mm focal length, so mosaics may be needed for some targets but at f2.2 they won't take long. 😀 The drawback is it's 19.5kg tube weight and the AZ-EQ6 I used with the RASA 8 has an imaging limit of 18kg. With accessories this will be at least 22kg I imagine. This means a new mount also. The Ioptron range seem popular and the CEM70 is a similar price to many of their range, and while the majority have an upper weight limit around 20kg the CEM70 is 31.8kg, It doesn't have the added luxuries like encoders, i-guider or wi-fi, but being used with a standard guide scope and phd2, encoders and i-guider aren't required, and I don't need wi-fi. There's also the Hem44 harmonic drive mount for a similar price, but weight and size aren't an issue for me as it will be on a permanent pier and the CEM70 looks more robust for an expensive scope. 🙂 Does anybody think it's worth considering the RASA 11 or can you see some disadvantages, rather than waiting for what may be a long time for a working RASA 8. If I get one, is it worth trying it on the AZ-EQ6 first to see how it performs, or should I opt for a better mount at the outset, and do you have any recommendations other than the CEM70 around that price range which should be considered. Thanks for getting this far anyway and any help offered. 😊 Alan

Hi Laurence, I was actually ussing 0.22.2 development build. I've just tried the latest 1.22.3 official release and it's now the same as your screenshot so it looks like there are some development features that haven't been incorporated in the official releases yet. Here's the 0.22.2 screenshot From the Stellarium home page If you go to the 'all releases' page under 'collaborations' you can get the latest 0.22.3 development release under Assets and that does include the new shortcuts but the search bar filtering doesn't work. 😟 Scrolling further down the 'all releases' page you can download the 0.22.2 release I was using where the search bar filtering does work so you can try that if you wish. 😀 If you're reluctant to try a development build in case it breaks and you lose your settings, (never had any problem myself) just back up the folder C:\Users\[NAME]\Appdata\Roaming\Stellarium and if you have an issue with a new release just reinstall your old version of Stellarium, and then copy the contents of your backup folder to the above location, overwriting all the files when asked, and all your original settings will be restored. 🙂 I don't use scripts myself I don't think, so can't say if they work as stated. Alan

Hi Laurence, If you press F7 it gives a list of shortcuts, and typing 'script' in the search bar at the bottom it comes up with these results Pause Script execution Ctrl-D, P Resume Script execution Ctrl-D, R Stop Script execution Ctrl-D, S There are also shortcuts to slow and speed up the scripts with no default shortcuts, though you can set your own. 😊 Alan

Glad we're in agreement. 😁 I put most of the imaging train on the jig just so that if there is some tilt caused by the other components they will all be cancelled out by the tilt adjustment. This assumes that the camera rotator is before the train on the test jig, which is normally the case. This allows you to rotate the camera orientation without affecting the tilt. In reality I've found that the camera itself has been the cause of most if not all of the tilt, and the other component contribution hasn't been significant. As you're using a separate tilt adjuster this has to be part of the train on the jig and if using a filter drawer you may as well include that too. If you wish, you could just put the camera alone on the jig and see how the results compare with your previous results. It's likely they will be similar implying that the camera itself is the main cause of tilt which is preferable than having it spread out over various components. Tilt on the AR window itself doesn't matter. It's only the cover slip/sensor which needs to be correct. 🙂 Your filters are most likely tilted in different directions slightly, each time you put them in, but it doesn't affect the image tilt. Alan

If the surfaces are tilted with respect to each other, ie. not parallel, than yes, they will describe different diameter circles. This is your situation. It's possible the AR window has some opposite tilt compared to the cover slip so has cancelled out some of the camera tilt, hence it plots a smaller diameter circle. Alan

If all the surfaces giving reflection dots are parallel to each other then the dot on the paper furthest from the laser would be from the reflective surface which is furthest away from the laser, which would be the cover slip (also the pixel beneath it which is likely obscured by the cover slip dot). This possibly explains why the middle dot is 'cleaner' as its just reflected off the AR glass. The dot reflected from the cover slip has to pass through the AR glass twice, so encounters 4 extra surfaces which would likely increase the flaring from the cover slip reflection dot. On the other hand, if all the surfaces were parallel then all the dots would move as one unit together and each describe the same diameter circle and it wouldn't matter which one you chose to chose as a reference, as when you correct the tilt on that dot all the other dots also will be corrected. 😃 If the surfaces aren't all parallel, then the dots don't all move together as one unit when you rotate the camera. Yours don't, which means the reflective surfaces aren't all parallel, so you have to make an initial guess as to which is the right dot, but as mentioned above it's likely not the 'cleanest' one. 🙂 Alan

The sensors are manufactured with high precision so the cover slip would be parallel to the sensor array, so whether you choose the cover slip or a close pixel dot, both should not move when the tilt has been corrected and the camera is rotated. To see the close pixel dot clearly you would need likely need a larger laser angle which may not be possible if you have a filter wheel and separate tilt adjuster on the jig. If the cover slip and AR coating are parallel and you have tilt then the bright dot which describes the largest circle when rotated would be the cover slip as the light path has travelled a greater distance. As you don't know if they're parallel that doesn't really help. Alan

It depends on the size of your sensor. For an APS-C size you would likely need it better than 1mm movement I would say for that size of jig. For my full size ASI6200 I had to get it to where there was no noticeable movement to avoid elongated stars. It still showed some coma in the corners but that's not due to tilt. 🙂 Alan