Peter Drew

I'm not so sure that Daystar's QC is immediately at fault. It's been my understanding that the filters in the Quarks are ones that failed to make the grade for their more upmarket versions. The QC has to be stringent to meet the standards paid for and expected of the research grade units. Daystar Ha telescopes employ mica chips which have to be carefully temperature controlled to work on band, hence the powered heater system. I would suspect that Daystar have little initial control over the effectiveness of the mica chips before testing unlike the glass etalons produced by their competitors. "Failed" chips have been assessed as suitable for amateur use at the price point but as we are aware this creates a wide performance parameter and the lottery still remains as to which part of the quality spectrum a unit resides. It seems as though Daystar, in many circumstances, replace items that prove to be unacceptable by amateurs even at the low, by Ha standards, price of the unit. Some areas of reported customer support do appear to be in need of improvement. I don't own a Quark as I'm happy with what I have but I have used a few and they are tempting. 🙂

A rare, of late, opportunity for me to have a look today at the Sun in Ha. Several very nice proms and great detail in the dominant AR. Rapidly fluctuating seeing at the time, (5pm), one moment crisp, the next mush. Still good to get a view again! 🙂

I would keep track of it, contracts do go wrong and properties return for sale. 🙂

Get it before someone else does, now that it's an open secret! 🙂

I think the potential outweighs the possible problems. Heat currents can be addressed. 🙂

Sounds like the top end of value, but if mint and decent eyepieces it should be worth having.

You need both. 🙂

You probably couldn't afford my consultant advice 40 years ago! 😆

Couldn't agree more, you would have thought that someone at the point of manufacture would have tried one out! 🤔

My only recommendation is that you experiment via used equipment, buying new and selling repeatably to reach your final goal will lose you money. 🙂

The Moon can be projected but it will be very faint unless it's close to the eyepiece and low power. The Sun is unbelievably brighter than the full Moon, mag-26 compared to mag -12, mentally compare this to the difference between a mag +12 star and one of mag +26 star. We project the Moon on a 72" monitor by using a DSLR connected to the telescope and the monitor for outreach. 🙂

Yes it is. 🙂

The "finder" description" was a bit of a tongue in cheek comment although the SCT did previously have a 150mm F5 Skywatcher finder for several years. In truth, the SCT is mounted on a massive professional standard equatorial that easily handles both. Many years ago, when my 30" Dobsonian was installed in the main dome it piggy backed a 220mm F12.5 achromat, both now have their own observatories. 🙂

One extra layer of felt and the grip issue is solved. 🙂

My 150ED is mounted on my 16" SCT as a finder/general purpose refractor. I made my own rear adjustable ring for its alignment so no slippage issue. 🙂

I think the "best case" scenario is that each of the damage elements will be no more than cosmetic and shouldn't overall affect the performance. The defect on the mirror is known as an "oyster" or "clam chip". Being as it's on the rear of the mirror, hopefully it won't impact on its quality. As others have said, the cast material of the cell could be difficult to weld, I would suggest a plate screwed and bonded to either side of the crack to restore its integrity. It's difficult to tell from the closeup, the extent of the dent in the tube, if it's just the central area then leaving it as is might be better than the complex issue of completely dismantling the telescope.

There aren't many 12x60 binoculars available. I have a 12x60 model with garish ruby coatings, my recommendation would be to NOT buy one of these! 🙂

I would say that it is borderline between a "sundog" and a small part of a parhelial arc. It's in the right position for a sundog but they do tend to be a little more defined. Nice photo and observation anyway. 🙂

For anyone about to use Baader solar film for the first time, apart from the usual safety recommendations, be aware that the film has an additional protective film attached to it and not particularly obvious. It needs to be removed before use otherwise it will spoil the image quality. 🙂

According to their current website a 300mm diameter mirror costs £124 + £24 carriage + VAT, a 301mm costs £142 +£30 carriage + VAT so measure the mirror carefully! 🙂

Excellent images for a 4" but they show the Alpine Valley, not the Rille which is a very fine feature running along its centre. Unless of course my computer resolution or my eyesight still fail to show it! 🙂

Wasn't he using a refractor? 🤣

I've not seen the Alpine Valley Rille in anything smaller than a 16", a 4" anything is of no use to me other than a finder or occasional solar telescope. It's my problem, not the telescope's. "A man needs to know his limitations" (CE) 🙂

I certainly don't think it will have any effect now or later on the performance. Sometimes blanks do not completely "clean up" when ground to a diameter leaving a cosmetic "defect". As long as it's not on the active optical surface the manufacturer would deem it acceptable. Had there been glass chips inside the telescope that would be a cause for concern.. However, If I was the manufacturer of an optical component that is intended to be removed as necessary, I would choose a better looking item. If the telescope works well it's not worth risking an inferior replacement IMO.

A Track the Stars Panther goto alt-az mount would handle it. 🙂