GuLinux

Yup, it's indeed a very nice scope. I'm still on my way doing a few little mods to improve usage even further. I added a plate for the Rigel QuickFinder replacing the original finderscope, plus an additional finderscope base for a generic one. I also added ball castors to make transportation easier, not so sure about them though, they're very noisy.. We'll see. Here's a timelapse of the scope assembly:

Maybe the problem is me then, I might have set my spacer too short. I'll check home and see what distance I'm currently using, however I don't think I saw anything wrong around the edges of my frames

Absolutely right, it doesn't ? That's only a tube, with no optical elements whatsoever, so the focal length is still 330mm

Indeed. But the 60/360 scope is the newer model. Mine (and I assume, his as well) are 60/330. He mentioned he gets a focal length of 260, which is 330 * 0.79, so I think he has the older model too. And with FL < 350 the distance should indeed be 70mm. But possibly there's been some miscalculation in the length of the spacer, so maybe trying a shorter distance might help indeed.

Mmh, no idea honestly.. I can't see anything wrong, and btw I have the same configuration (I use a shorter spacer, but only because the filter wheel takes another 20mm).

Mmh, that is weird... in my setup, having the filter wheel, I should get more further away from the focus than you do.. And yet I can focus with the tube extension without problem. I have the same reducer as well, so that shouldn't be the issue. Only one thing pops to my mind: you mentioned a "Moonlite focuser"? Meaning, you have the refractor focuser PLUS an extra focuser? If that's the case, no wonder you can't focus.. I would get rid of that, the TS60 native focuser is already pretty good

There's an extra white ring in the scope package, you should unscrew the focuser, and add the ring to the tube. It's an extension. I'm using the same plate as well, but I moved the attach point so it's closer to the focuser (and with said extension you also get some extra room). I have to keep the focuser on the top side (reversed) in order to get the balance point as close to the focuser as possible:

You have almost exactly my setup ? same scope, same mount, same camera.. only difference is I have the ASI 1600MM (MONO/non cool), with a filter wheel First, have you checked that the polarscope is correctly calibrated? You can check the Star Adventurer manual for details, or this website: http://www.myastroscience.com/polarscopecalibration Most importantly though polar alignment can be ruined by even the smallest touches. What I did to improve overall stability was to lubricate with grease the equatorial wedge (I dismantled it to be able to access the internals), tighten the two small screws that limit the azimuth movement (the allen ones), and tighten the other screws (altitude and azimuth lock) as much as possible when polar alignment is finished. I also try to never tighten too much the RA lock until I finished literaly *everything* and I'm ready to image. Continuously screwing/unscrewing that lock eventually causes to loose polar alignment. Also, very important (but you're probably already doing it) you should polar align with the telescope already on the star adventurer with the L bracket, and use the illuminator with the adapter. Balancing is hard, and that setup is already pushing the mount to the limit. I plan to add an additional counterweight to help this, but anyway by pushing the counterweight to the end of the shaft, and lowering the L bracket, I can get everything quite balanced, even with some little slack. Declination balancing is easier if you add the extra tube section to the scope, this way more weight can go to the lens part. When I do polar alignment properly, I can go up to ~2 minutes. Not a lot, but with these cameras you'd better stack loads of frames, rather than try to increase exposure time.

Precisely. I'm a software developer, and on my personal laptop I barely used 3 different distros in more than 10 years (except for virtual machines quick tests, and things like that). These days ubuntu is pretty much the standard, usability is pretty good, and anyway Windows usability is highly overrated (you know how to use it because you've actually learned to use it, a total beginner wouldn't really see a big difference). Of course, if we're talking about raspberry pi and similar boards, things can get a bit more complicated. But keep in mind that they're called *developer* boards for a reason. All things considered, I'd say they're extremely easy to use even for non devs.

As for limitations, storage was never an issue for me. I use 64GB micro sd cards, and I usually end up filling 10/20 GB only. And note that I usually go with 90 or 60 (sometimes even less) seconds of exposure, which means loads and loads of files for a single session. You can always buy an extra SD card (128, 256, whatever you want) and add it with a sd/usb adapter, or even a full feature hard drive if you like. The only big limitation I found at the moment with the raspberry pi is USB(2) download speed. Not an issue with DSLR I guess, but quite important with a CMOS camera, as it really slows sequences a lot, and it usually generates some amp glow. I just bought a Rock64 board instead (USB3), will see how it goes when it'll arrive.

That's more or less what I do, only I don't use a 12V battery, but a 5V power bank for smartphones. I bough the biggest I could find (20A), still weights less than half a kilogram, and can power a Rpi3 + an ASI camera for a couple of nights! Don't know about a DSLR as well, but I bet that *at most* it will go down to 1 night only. And as always, a reminder of my own sequencing project, particularly designed against small lightweight setups (like a star adventurer + a raspberry pi): It's quite easy to install now, since there's already a Raspberry Pi image ready to download

Sorry for the delay. I really haven't used it much, mainly because of the weather.. I just took it to a 5 days trip to the Alps. Quite a dark place, although the weather wasn't that great there as well. The mirror is pretty good, particularly for being a simple GSO optics. I was able to spot Stephan Quintet, although I didn't resolve all the components. Brighter objects are very enjoyable, and the scope does feel quite "bright". I was used to a C8 for visual observing, so you can probably guess it's a nice upgrade for me. I haven't tested much the primary mirror fan, just one time I think, since I never really had temperature problems on the primary mirror, which I guess it is a plus. The movement is actually very smooth, and the bunjee cords system is an excellent solution to counterweight bigger eyepieces. Another plus is the assembly, it's really quick once you get used to it. A couple of minuses: - After some time, the closing locks are getting more and more slack. I'm getting a bit worried they might open when transporting it, so I'd better hurry doing some maintenance soon. - Collimation is really a mess. I really can't see why they insisted on 2 screws only instead of 3 for both primary and secondary mirrors. Adding a third screw on the secondary was very easy (I took one from the included small shroud, which I replaced with a full sized shroud from the beginning anyway). I'm going to add a third screw to the primary as well, as soon as I find one of the correct length.

I wouldn't say it's too difficult... you just need to know that the higher the focal length, the more careful and precise you have to be. The WO61 looks like a very nice scope, and I was undecided between the two. I opted for the TS because of the (slighly) lower focal length. But the difference is not too much, and by using a focal reducer you'll be fine.

Hi, I haven't really been really productive this year, mostly because of the weather, although I admit my laziness didn't really help as well ? Tests were good though, I think this is the only one I've published so far: https://www.astrobin.com/333208/?nc=user kinda overexposed/overprocessed, but otherwise ok. I'm using the scope unguided, with a 0.79 flattener/reducer (hence ~260mm focal length). This means you'd have to push towards shorter high gain exposures rather than longer subs. Also polar alignment is relatively painful and delicate, you really need to be as accurate as possible, and the Star Adventurer wedge is not that stable. Overall doable, though, with lots of care. I also bought one of these to help the process: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00KR5VSEA/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o01_s00?ie=UTF8&amp;psc=1 If I get polar alignment good, and get to not shake the tripod too much after alignment (this one is the real challenge, as you of course will need to point the scope) I can get a 60sec exposure without any noticeable trail, maybe something more (90/120 secs). I'm now mainly concentrating on the software setup, I've being developing this: https://github.com/GuLinux/StarQuew which is particularly suited if you want to run on a headless board (raspberry pi and similar) or a small laptop.

Hi, It's a bit hidden, but what you need is the "Motor controller firmware loader" that you'll find in this page: http://ca.skywatcher.com/download/firmware/motor-control-firmware/

Unfortunately there's no setting on it to force a clear sky I was able to do a couple of tests from the city, the best of which was this: https://www.astrobin.com/333208/?nc=user Slightly overprocessed, and with a huge amount of light pollution, but gives an idea of stars size, residual CA, etc. Overall, I think I can be very satisfied. Waiting for a real test though!

The main advantage of the bubbles is that if you polar align a first time with them more or less at level, then the subsequent times you won't have to make *big* adjustments to the altitude bolt, but only relatively minor tunings. Which also means it'll be easier to get Polaris inside the polar scope FoV. Granted, it's not that important after all, but I found it useful more than once.

I made up my mind: just bought the TS Photoline 60mm. It was a really close match with the WO 60mm, but I'd rather stay safe with the lower focal length.. I already have enough trouble with polar alignment with my current 200mm!

Very interesting, didn't notice that... Thanks! It might be an eccellent player in the game

@ziofrancotto ciao That's another one I was evaluating. But the same applies: would I really need a field corrector with a small-ish diagonal of 21.5mm? If so, I'd need to buy the scope itself, the reducer/corrector, and the separate corrector for the native focal length. A 70mm is slightly more tempting, as I could go with further focal lengths (around 320 with reducers, and around 400 without), but again, with a shorter focal length range (320mm and 250mm) it might be easier on the star adventurer.

Thanks everyone. I was also considering the WO ZS61 and 71 (and similar from TS), but they're all FPL51 doublets, and I've read discordant reviews about them, some complain about residual CA. All those I've linked are FPL53 doublets or triplets, which *should* (but not necessarily of course) limit a lot the amout of CA. I was also considering a 60mm instead of a 70, but you know.. the bigger, the better And same goes for f/6 vs f/5: if possible, I'd like to get the larger scope with the shorter focal length. I have doubts about how much my Star Adventurer can keep up with focal length over 300mm, particularly with slower f ratios (I'd need longer exposures, hence better tracking).

Hi, I've just spent yesterday evening doing some tests on my current setup, mainly my ASI1600mm (with RGB filters), and a 200mm Super Takumar, to verify how much chromatic aberration I've got for each stop. The results were quite discouraging I've always noticed in my shots a very bad halo, but I hoped that maybe closing it a little more it might have helped, but even at f/16 I got a very noticeable difference in star size between each channel. So, long story short, I'm looking for a new scope for AP, I'd say an APO, with a short focal length, and lightweight (the star adventurer doesn't really like long focals, and heavyweight champions). I couldn't find many scopes matching these requirements, but I've got my eyes on these three: TS Photoline 70mm f/6 FPL53 Triplet Apo Pros: cheap very lightweight (1.86 KG) Cons: Slightly too long (I planned to buy a focal reducer anyway, a 0.8 would put me at 336 mm) No flat field (would be fixed by the reducer, but I'd need to buy another corrector if I'd ever want to use it at full focal length) Slightly too slow (f/6) TS-Optics Photoline 72 mm f/5,5 FPL53 Apo Pros: Faster (f/5.5) Shorter focal length (400mm, 320 with the reducer) Cons: Slightly more expensive (not a big deal) Doublet instead of triplet (could this be a problem?) Slightly heavier No flat field (see previous scope) TS-Optics Imaging Star71 Pros: Even shorter (347mm) Fast (f/4.9) Already corrected for flat field Quadruplet, no ca and flat field advertised Cons: *a lot* more expensive 347mm is still slighly too long. How could I reduce this even further? Most focal reducer are also corrector (which I don't want to). Could a cheap corrector like this do the job? Just by reading the specs, I'd say the Imaging Star 71 should be the winner. But the price is almost the double of the 72mm, and I'm wondering wether I'd really need the extra flat field correction (I'd be using it mainly with the focal reducer, to improve tracking with the Star Adventurer, and even with the native focal length, how much will the field curvature affect my image, given my sensor has a diagonal of only 21mm?) The 72mm is a tempting alternative, particularly since with the reducer/corrector (0.79) I'd have a wonderful 316mm focal length and a fast f4.3 ratio. The reducer/corrector surely is much more expensive than the plain reducer with no correction (but I'm still wondering if that one is a good choice, given the small price), but not as expensive as the Imaging Star 71mm. I'm just a bit worried about the "not triplet" point, and wondering if I'll ever use it without the reducer. Basically, even buying the 72mm with both the reducer/corrector and the corrector alone, I'd still be cheaper than the 71mm. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find many imges or reviews done with this scopes... this might help a lot, but no luck so far!

Which given the kind of work that has been done, will likely be quite unstable Just kidding though... I was waiting for this, it will be easier to contribute to the project now

Yes, what I mean is checking the position with a "polar finder" app. Maybe I'll just write my own version of it, but accepting an "offset" after you rotate the RA axis

Do you mean the locking screw on the wedge? If so, I always tight that one a lot, to avoid any backlash, I always do my adjustment with that tightened up. I need to recheck it, but it was fine last time I looked it. Not 100% accurate, but pretty close. Well, I was hoping to polar align after pointing my cameras, so I'd need to know where on the clock face it should be. But I see your point, I might just polar align before, and then check that polaris is still roughly on the same place. I'm starting to think it might not just be a polar alignment problem, but a balancing issue, affecting tracking speed. 2 degrees is a hell of a misalignment, it's almost the whole field of view of the polar scope!