Cosmic Geoff

It looks like a genuine Ross. I can't read the serial number from the photo. As far as I know, they are numbered in order of manuafacture and so the number will give some clue to its age. There is a list online that gives a few sample serial numbers and dates. I can't get more than a rough idea of its size from the photos but it may be an 'officer of the watch' model that has lost its original leather sheathing.

Visually, galaxies appear as cloudy puffs of dim light with little resolvable detail. That's just how it is. Also, there is nothing wrong with using a f5 scope as such. I think you may be misunderstanding the purpose of 2" eyepieces. They are used when a 1.25" eyepiece format cannot accommodate the size of glass needed for low magnification/wide field in a particular scope. Typically, the lowest power eyepiece you can get in 1.25" format is a 32mm Plossl. For higher powers, the cheaper, lighter and more widely available 1.25" format eyepieces are almost universally used. The scopes with 2" focusers can accomodate a 2" to 1.25" adapter. The only way to see galaxies as shown in photographs is to image them. Or at least try EEVA (q.v.)

You could have got a RACI (correct image right angle finder). Sometimes you have to quiz the supplier to distinguish between a RACI and non-RACI angled finder. Skywatcher for instance do both and they look the same and sell for similar prices.

It's a matter of choice, but a finder upgrade is not really necessary for a Goto scope. My C8 SE has the stock red dot finder, which I only needed to use for setup at the beginning of a session. One can usually pick a couple of alignment stars that avoid neckache. And now I have fitted Starsense on this scope I don't use the red dot finder at all.

The 130mm EQs are not awful, if they are all you can afford. But beginners often find the EQ mount more of a liability than an asset. A manual alt-azimuth mount would be much easier to set up and manage. A 200mm Newtonian should be a fine scope, and the (manual) EQ-5 is a fine and useful mount. But the combination is awful - I should know because I used to have this combo. The eyepiece can be hard to reach and gets into awkward positions - potentially including 7 feet off the ground! - and needs a careful choice of finderscopes if you want to find anything near the zenith. The last straw was never being able to find the M81 & M82 galaxies with it.

True, but a dew shield should be considered an integral part of a SCT, just as it is on a refractor. Manufacturers don't like to include a dew shield on their SCTs as it makes them look big and clumsy in the promotional photos. 🙁

A matter of opinion. All the 2" bits add extra cost. The 2" diagonal will provide a more solid base for attaching accessories, but if you are going for more field width than you can get from a 1.25" 32mm Plossl, IMHO maybe you should have bought a different model of telescope. The SCT is really designed for narrow field stuff. Even less point if you are also buying a Dob. Putting the SE mount on a wedge is a terrible idea, and I don't see how it will help as you suggest. The (hardware) Starsense works well with the C8SE and speeds up alignment, making the whole thing a quick-deploy setup.

I briefly mounted my C8 on my EQ-5 mount and it worked fine, even for planetary imaging. It should be well within the EQ-5 weight limits, whereas the 8" CC is I understand significantly heavier. Note that used C8 SCTs quite often appear second hand, and they sometimes went for a lot less than the ~£1000 price of a new one.

With visual and Bortle 5 skies you are probably going to find galaxies etc a disappointment. Where I live is nominally Bortle 6 and looking at galaxies with an 8" SCT is mostly a waste of time. But I got nice results with a much smaller 102mm f5 refractor + ASI224MC camera +GoTo mount. With galaxies, dark skies rule. For deep space imaging, most people find it far easier to begin with a small refractor rather than a large SCT etc. Trying to make one scope suit everything is a really bad idea. With a £5000 budget you can afford a scope and mount for each task (within reason). I suggest that you try, borrow or hire a scope before spending thousands of pounds on a large Dob.

Did you buy your C8 used? I think the source of your confusion is that the previous owner fitted a 2" diagonal that screws straight onto the SCT thread at the back of the scope, eliminating the need for a 'visual back' (which is basically a circular metal adapter). Some people like a 2" diagonal (etc) because it offers a slightly wider FOV, and a more solid base on which to mount accessories. If you are confused about whether the setup is inverting or reversing, try aiming it at some distant signage.

I have no idea what a GB70 is, but IIRC the C8 SE comes with a cigar-lighter to mount power cable so you should not have to buy another.

You need a Celestron remote control (=handset), and you need to check which remote (V4 or V5, Nexstar* or Nexstar+ is compatible with your mount). 70$ is cheap. If you really don't want to buy a Nexstar handset, you can cable the mount to a laptop and control it that way, but if you are a beginner you should start by using the handset.

You could have mentioned the GPS problem. 🙂 You need to read this: Hand Control Compatibility (nexstarsite.com) The manual for the Nexstar* V4 handset explicitly says that it works with the C9.25 GPS. Whether you can load the GPS update on it is something you will have to explore. The Nexstar+ handset may be incompatible with your scope, but a suggested workaround is to load old firmware (definitely not what you want). And " If your hand control does not have a Version command on the Utilities menu, it is NOT upgradeable. "

I demonstrated that my C8 SE would work with the Nexstar* handset (the original), a Nexstar+ handset, and the Starsense handset. Dare I ask what the problem is? If the handset works, why the need to upgrade? Referring to the foregoing, I suppose we can assume that V2 firmware is not going to be installed in an upgradeable handset. If you need the functions of the later handset(s), check that it is going to be compatible and then buy one.

When I had a 6 volt RA drive, I bought a 6v lead-acid rechargeable battery and a 6V charger. The charger IIRC was designed with remote-controlled products in mind. I made up a connecting lead myself. Whatever rechargeable battery solution you adopt, a matching battery charger will be required.

No, definitely not.

I have a 127mm Mak and a 203mm SCT, and I can confirm that the 203mm SCT gives significantly better views and planetary images - but only if the seeing is good. I have largely dropped visual viewing of the planets in favour of imaging (lucky-imaging) which gives a permanent record of detail one can otherwise only glimpse in moments of good seeing, and in practice the images show more than I could see visually. I find that the mount is not critical for this, as even the SE mount (adequate for visual, awful for imaging) will deliver good results. If you are purely interested in visual viewing of the planets, a Dobsonian Newtonian would be the cheapest choice. For planetary imaging, until recently a SCT would be the tool of choice, but the Classical Cassegrain seems equally suitable, is competitively priced and is getting good reports from early adopters. Note that the CC is heavier than a SCT of the same aperture, and would require a serious mount, probably costing a serious amount of money.

Unless you explain in some detail what exactly you do or did to align, so we can spot your error, it may be difficult for us to do more than make random suggestions. One thing I found out is that accurate polar alignment is not necessary for an equatorial GoTo to work properly for visual observing. The precise polar alignment is only required for imaging (to prevent field rotation). If you are still not convinced, I will point out that alt-azimuth mounts manage the same task just fine without any polar alignment at all. Newbies are often confused by the design concept of the Synscan software - you are meant to use a 'start position' so that the mount can slew to the approximate location of an alignment star before you have carried out the GoTo alignment. Another thing I found out is that the mount can GoTo accurately on one side of the sky but allow it to do a 'meridian flip' and it is out of alignment on that other side of the sky...

Having done firmware upgrades as part of my job, I am a firm believer in the maxim "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." If there is a known problem and a firmware upgrade is known to fix it, then a firmware upgrade is worth doing. otherwise, leave well alone. When did you last upgrade the firmware in your electric toothbrush? Your microwave? Your washing machine? Your car? I thought not. 🙂 Upgrading the firmware in a SLT is not a simple operation, requiring sundry bits of software to be loaded and a serial cable and USB-to-serial converter to be acquired. There is the potential of hours of 'fun' or things going terminally wrong. That said, I have had to reload the motor control firmware a couple of times because it got mysteriously corrupted. And if that happens, you'll know... (You get Error 16 or Error 17 which means "This does Not Work" - which is kinda obvious anyway.)

Owners of SLT mounts will be interested in details of the conversion.

Personally I would be tempted by the AVX (with Nexstar) as I don't like the Skywatcher Synscan system much.

A few years ago I acquired a vintage brass scope of similar proportions - a 70mm Ross. IIRC it had been sold to its previous owner by Charles Frank as an astro scope, complete with equatorial mount and surveyor style tripod. I did not fancy the mount (incomplete) or the tripod (overpriced IMHO) so just drove away with the scope for a bargain price. I found that it would accept modern 1.25" eyepieces with the aid of a piece of card (the original eyepiece being a large Huygenian of ~38mm diameter). I bought an AZ-4 to mount it on via a dovetail bar and custom rings, and found the optical performance was superb. I can't remember what it weighs but a EQ3-2 or AZ-4 was the minimum mount for it, costing a lot more than the scope did. However I have only used it occasionally as my modern 127mm Mak has a better performance and is far easier to manage.

With a 5.5/2/5 plug this differs slightly but significantly from the 5.5/2.1 plug used for the Celestron and Skywatcher mounts and lots of other unrelated devices.

Look critically at your proposed purchase from the point of view of ease of use. The best scope to own is one you are going to use. GoTo is great to have so long as you are not baffled by the alignment procedure and especially if you are not a fan of 'learning the sky', like taxi drivers used to do 'the knowledge' Nowadays I expect they all come from Syria and use a satnav. 🙂 GoTo (and other) mounts vary greatly in ease of use. An equatorial GoTo is relatively complicated to set up and more bother than you need if your interests are purely visual. An alt-azimuth GoTo is quicker and easier to set up, and the Celestron Nexstar system is IMHO easier to learn and use than the Skywatcher Synscan. The Celestron C8 SE outfit (same aperture as a 8" Meade SCT) is light enough to be picked up as one lump and carried through a standard doorway. I have mine as a quick-deploy outfit with the addition of a Starsense kit. Isn't the LX200 a relatively old system? Meades have a good reputation for optics but their mounts do not have a good reputation. For instance I know of a LX200 observtory installation that had mechanical trouble. Last I heard about Meade was that they had filed for bankruptcy and been taken over by Orion.

You should first check for problems elsewhere, as the reduction gear ratio is such that even a weedy motor will exert quite a degree of force at the RA or Dec axis. My EQ5 handled a 9Kg newtonian OK with a RA drive, and if your kit weighs more than that, you need a bigger mount, as the nominal limit of this mount for visual is 9Kg.