Peter Drew

M33 is not only faint, it is also large and doesn't easily stand out in the field of a telescope even at low power. Oddly, I find it easier to spot it initially in binoculars as there is more sky surrounding it such that the contrast seems better. 🙂

Equatorial mount setup is a different matter as cone angle can then come into play. 🙂

Agree with all of this but I doubt if early mankind spent much time outside after dark due to predators. 🙂

The side plates on the mount, unfortunately, do have to be removed to access the through bolt. They are plastic and glued on and difficult to remove without cosmetic damage. I would recommend heating carefully with a hair drier before trying to prise them off. New ones can be purchased if necessary. 🙂

I've never bothered to accurately level my C8se, I just plonk it down. I've often been called a plonker! 🙂

I doubt whether fitting the front etalon to a different, albeit better refractor will make much difference, the aperture will still be 60mm. 🙂

I'm normally in the "leave well alone" camp but this objective does look ready for a clean. Whatever you do, don't wipe it with a dry cloth or dry anything! The deposit appears to be dust so should clean ok. 🙂

If you get Michael Covington's book "The Nexstar Users Guide" he explains why levelling is a myth and not necessary. 🙂

Welcome to SGL and astronomy!. You seem to be off to a good start, specially as the kids are enjoying it. I would add to the good advice already offered by saying that the focuser doesn't "zoom" the image, if you can see the spider vanes you are far out of focus. Best focus is when the image is smallest and sharpest. To get a bigger image you need the Barlow that you are waiting for and to use the 10mm eyepiece. 🙂

Very impressive definition but still the resolution of a small objective. For better resolution and closer view try "Quickmap" 🙂

Anything actually moving on the Moon that could be videod with amateur equipment would have to be about the size of London and travelling at 1000's of MPH. 🙂

The easiest way to conduct a basic collimation test is to view Polaris at high power, around 200x and rack it in and out of focus. If the image is nice and circular and no flaring at best focus you have little to worry about. The test described by Wookie is a check for the alignment of the focuser, it's also important but is not a test of the collimation of the objective. Collimation of a Tal100 objective is a tricky business best left to someone with experience. I have a Tal100 and a similar Vixen 4" F10, both have a small amount of CA but not enough for corrective filtration for my taste. 🙂

Everything is variable in Ha astronomy! Things change day to day due to temperatures, atmospheric pressure, whether objects on the Sun are approaching or receding, type of feature, just to name a few. This is part of what makes solar viewing so interesting. And then there's solar imaging! 🙂

Good looking package!.

In addition to this is the practice of "clocking", that is rotation of the DS unit relative to the SS unit. Significant improvement can often be achieved by this method and there is a special adaptor commercially available to assist with this. Ha viewing is an interesting learning curve! 🙂

I use an observatory so not much of a problem. Not a cheap option though! 🙂

Some confusion this end! I looked up Celestron 102 SLT and it came up with 102mm F12 Maksutov. There are obviously various models available! This of course changes my original advice and there may be completely different issues causing your problem. I still think the 3x Barlow would be a bit on the high side, a 2x would be more useful. I agree with what Louis D suggests in the first instance. 🙂

The first thing I would do would be to remove both adjustment screws and see if you can reasonably rock the head up and down manually. The pivot is often done up too tight at the factory and a major cause of bent bolts. Using stronger bolts can solve the bent bolt issue but if the head is way too tight you run the risk of stripping the casting thread or worse, damaging the inner casting where the bolt engages. I would use stainless bolts but I would file off minimally any sharp edge rather than rounding off at the contact point. It is this rounded profile that encourages the bolt to ride down the contact slope and bend the bolt. 🙂

The 3x Barlow is a pretty powerful unit to use in conjunction with a small F12 telescope, the 9mm eyepiece, Barlow combination would produce well over 400x magnification, way too much for virtually any object. How does it do with just the stock eyepieces? they should be adequate although not of the highest quality. 🙂

Hello Ben. I hate to sound negative, but having been in the astronomical business I have become aware that it's almost impossible to jump into any astronomy related jobs, they all seem to require either very high academic qualifications or significant experience or even both. Those with good PhD's find it hard enough to break into the subject professionally and those that are fortunate enough to do so will tell you that it's not all swanning about in famous observatories using exotic equipment. More often, still stuck in the UK "number crunching" on fairly narrow subject data. I would give more thought to other scientific orientated occupations that may have better openings, ones that may give you more time to indulge your current astronomical interest whilst gaining experience for the future. Best of luck with whatever you do. 😀

I gave up on PTFE as prime bearings on large Dobsonians in favour of shielded stainless ballraces. PTFE is then used solely to dampen the free movement to taste. This method also easily permits adjustment to the "feel" of the manual movement to be equal on both axes, paramount to smooth operation. 😀

No TV so no "Come Dancing". 🙂

Whatever it was, there's one certainty, it was passing the Moon, not on the Moon. 🙂

This is true. A 4" APO will have better contrast than a 4" Newtonian, a 6" APO will have better contrast than a 6" Newtonian and so on. This convinces many that APO's are better than Newtonians. A 10" Newtonian should have better contrast than either the 4" and 6" APO's, there aren't many 10" APO's about for a comparison! In reality, the Newtonian is a better apochromat as it is by physics, perfect, the best APO's get close enough to this perfection but at enormous cost. 🙂

Good result! Rub a bit of Vaseline or similar on the threads then wipe off as much as possible. The residue will prevent this from happening again. 🙂