Ricochet

In a word, no. The sets you are looking at are limited by the stability of the mount and the scope options listed are probably right at the capability of the mount, if not over it, so there is no possibility of putting a larger telescope on it. However, the telescopes in that set are good quality and could happily be used on a better mount in future. I think most people here would look at the Skywatcher GTI mount over the Astro fi for these types of scopes, as it at least has the possibility of upgrading to a high quality photo-tripod or 3/8" fitting astronomy tripod to increase stability. As for astrophotography, you might be able to use the Astrofi series for planetary photography but for DSOs you will require a substantially beefier and more expensive EQ-mounted setup.

The barlow in that set looks to be the same one as the astro essentials one suggested earlier. For the additional £40 you get a couple of Plossl eyepieces and basic filters. Price wise, that's not bad for what you are getting but beware that the 6mm will have incredibly short eye relief, somewhere in the region of 4mm, so your eyelashes will be brushing the lens, and this is not going to be comfortable over long periods of time. In addition, the incredibly small eye lens will be very prone to dewing. Of the filters the moon filter may be useful but the coloured filters are generally not useful in my experience. I have a set of coloured filters, but they don't even make it into the eyepiece case, they're just stored in a drawer. In fact the best use of the red filter is probably to stick it to the end of a cheap LED torch to make a red light torch so that you do not ruin your dark adaption when observing. Given the short eye relief of the 6mm, you may find that in reality by buying that set you are paying £40 for a cheap 15mm Plossl, which is overpriced. For anything shorter than say 10mm, I would avoid Plossls and similar eyepieces, and look for something designed for long(er) eye relief. Cheaper examples of this are the BST Starguider, Celestron X-Cel LX and Skywatcher et al "Planetary" ranges. You would also probably soon want to upgrade at least the 10mm that was supplied with the scope so I would suggest looking for either 10 and 7mm eyepieces or 12 and 8/9mm eyepieces, plus a 2X barlow as a basic set for your scope assuming you keep the supplied 25mm.

Have the university confirmed that gaining the astronomy degree will get you onto the astrophysics course? Astrophysics is very maths-heavy and I'm not sure astronomy will cover that aspect so you will want to study maths in addition, even if it is just to stop you forgetting what you currently know. I have no experience with those binoculars, but as I said in my previous post, I think they are probably a bit too cheap for roof prisms and generally porro prisms will outperform roof prisms at a similar price point. If you were instead looking at the Trailseeker ED binocular then it might be a different matter.

The problem that you're going to have is that if you want to do imaging the mounts you should be looking at are even bigger and heavier than the mount you're currently not using because it is too big and heavy. The exception might be a star adventurer with just a camera+lens. I think I've seen photos of a 72ED mounted on one before, but the imagers will have to advise on how well it works in practice.

The second course talks about using/interpreting photographic data so if you want to use your own equipment for gathering that data you are probably looking at an outlay of at least a couple of thousand. Assuming that the standard astrophotography beginner's suggestion also applies here you would be looking at an equipment list that looks something like Skywatcher 130PDS, HEQ5, coma corrector and the type of camera required by your course. None of this is necessary for the first module and for learning the constellations a decent pair of binoculars is a good choice to help you learn your way around the sky. I would pay attention to the field of view that any pairs you consider have as an wide field of view will be an advantage here. I would probably be inclined to look at the 10x50 Opticron Adventurer T for a good quality but low cost option. If you then want to add a telescope for more detailed views then the 130pds could be used visually, either on a manual mount (AZ4, AZ5) or the HEQ5 if you think you will be investing in your own kit for this course. Remember that the course is designed for people with no kit, and that by capturing your own data you are heavily reliant on the weather, so you do not need to buy your own kit. If you do decide you will be buying any expensive gear for astrophotography make sure that you run it by your professor or tutor first. You don't want to spend all that money only to discover that you need something else.

When I was trying to decide between the 8 and 10" Skywatcher dobs I visited a shop that had both on display so that I could compare the size and weight of the two. The 8" Bresser stood next to them was sufficiently better mechanically that I ended up ordering that. If one brand was shown to be consistently better optically then that would be the one to go for, but at the moment the consensus seems to be that they are about the same, and so it comes down whether you want to spend the money on the mechanics of the scope. Additionally, the Bresser has a 10 year warranty and a good customer service department should you find any fault with the telescope.

Did you make each design as a simple box? Did any of your designs flare out a bit towards the base? Instinctively, this feels like a more stable design, and your base board can then be of a similar size to those used on the 6-10" versions commercially available. Even with these larger versions, the telescope is too low to observe standing, and a height adjustable chair is required to observe. The larger the bearing size, the more stable the mount will be. If you have a small bearing, you may need high friction to keep the telescope from moving when you don't want it to, which will reduce smoothness. If you do decide to make something like the picture that you have found, I would suggest that you alter the design so that both tube rings are used to hold the tube. On one ring I think there is the potential for the tube to want to flex in the ring when a force is exerted on the telescope (e.g. when you move it to find or track an object). If you think a tripod mount might be more suitable (and affordable than a larger scope) then I would imagine that the Skywatcher AZ4 should hold your telescope well. I don't know if the long length of your telescope would have any issues pointing at the zenith with that sort of mount though.

Setting the secondary requires a cheshire/sight tube. This allows you to set the secondary under the focuser properly, and then when you are aligning the secondary with the primary, allows you to see both the position under the focuser (edge of secondary compared to edge of sight tube) and alignment of secondary to primary (crosshairs over doughnut) simultaneously. When you just use a laser, you don't see where on the secondary that laser is hitting, just where it ends in relation to the primary doughnut, which can result in the laser being reflected off the secondary mirror edge to to the primary and back. The laser might hit the right spot on the primary and the laser return target, but only a single point on the secondary is collimated and the rest of the secondary can be way out as you have seen. Also, using a collimation cap for setting the secondary position is wrong, because as Pixies has demonstrated with the overlays above, we are not very good at judging concentricity when the gap between two objects (focuser edge and secondary edge) is so large. I would recommend that you buy either the FLO Premium Cheshire or a Concenter to collimate your telescope. I would only recommend using the laser via the barlowed laser technique to collimate the primary after the other tool has been used for the secondary.

Have the notes said why binoculars are best? Are you expected to learn your way around the sky in your first module? I think that binoculars are best for wide views of the sky and learning where things are in relation to each other, but for extended observations of an object a telescope is better (if it fits in the field of view). Do you know what equipment is required for later modules? If later modules have specific requirements it might be best to buy with those in mind. Generally, 8x binoculars give a wider field of view than 10x binoculars, that is not something unique about the trailseekers. As for the sharper and brighter comment, I would be a bit sceptical about a relatively cheap pair of non-ED roof prisms being the best binocular. The previously mentioned binocular sky website would be a more reliable source for reviews and comparisons.

How many hours did you give the 8se to cool before you observed? What power were you observing at? Not giving the scope sufficient time to cool or pushing the magnification too high will result in unsatisfactory images.

I think with an 8 year old you really need a goto mount So that your son does not get bored waiting for you to find things. So that the telescope tracks the found object so that you have time to swap observers and for your son to observe the object without having to nudge the scope as would be the case with a manual mount. With that in mind the telescope that I would look to get for (almost) your budget is: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/sky-watcher-az-gti-wifi/sky-watcher-explorer-130ps-az-gti.html Due to the current situation it is not currently in stock but this is something you will find with almost every telescope.

Usually the focal length of the telescope is set by the objective so you have to wind the focuser in by the same amount that the light has to travel. With a telescope that focuses by moving the primary mirror, focusing actually changes the focal length, so if you add binoviewers you can increase the focal length so that the image comes to focus. However, the telescope is designed to work at a certain focal length and moving it away from that introduces aberrations that will make the image worse and so you do not want to do this. You should add a barlow or gpc in front of the binoviewer to allow the telescope to focus somewhere near its usual focus position. Also, you will be unlikely to make much use of an eyepiece as short as 8mm with a Mak, especially if you add binoviewers into the mix.

"Decent detail" probably only applies to Jupiter and Saturn, possibly Mars when it is close enough and the Moon if you're counting that as a planet. Mercury and Venus are just phases really while Neptune and Uranus will be small blue discs. For planetary work I would advise looking for some binoviewers that are in your budget and through trial figure out which barlows/gpcs you need and the eyepieces to go with them.

Have you found that the Baader cases have loosened up at all over time? I've always found the ones I have quite stiff and needed to push the tab on the rear to release them rather than pull on the little handle on the front. As a result I've moved my Baader filters into more standard "flip lid" filter cases, although I did consider buying extra Baader cases to make a nice unit like you have.

I started with a 24mm ES68° as my lowest power eyepiece and found it wasn't quite wide enough for a finder eyepiece and so I bought a 28mm 82° Nirvana (at f6 = 4.7mm exit pupil). I think you would find the same issue with the 24mm Panoptic and so the 24mm ES82° would be a better bet. Alternatively, If you want to limit your exit pupil to 4mm instead of 5mm, you should consider the 20mm APM HDC. This would then also "replace" the 17.5mm Morpheus as well as the 24mm ES82°in your eyepiece lineup so it is potentially a cheaper option in the long term. Both the 20mm APM HDC and 24mm ES82° are large and heavy eyepieces so you may have to also add some sort of counterbalance when using them.

The planets will be quite small when viewed through any telescope as the atmosphere will limit the magnifications you can use. Observing at too high a magnification will blur the image, as will not giving the telescope sufficient time to cool before observing at high power or viewing the planets when they are low in the sky, as has been the case for Jupiter and Saturn this year. A 6" SCT should be an improvement over a 4" Mak, but you also have to make sure that you are doing the things required to give your telescope the chance to deliver good views.

This is not strictly true. The brightness of extended objects (of which the light polluted sky is one) is determined by the exit pupil of your telescope-eyepiece combination. This means that for any given telescope. eyepieces with a longer focal length will have a brighter background sky and contrast of stars will be reduced (the brightness of stars is determined by the aperture of the telescope). In order to increase the contrast of stars you want to increase the magnification/decrease exit pupil so that the background sky is dimmed, while the stars stay at a constant brightness up until the airy disk starts to be resolved. For viewing DSOs that are extended objects, contrast between the object and background sky will remain constant as both are dimmed or brightened equally by changing eyepiece focal length. To make extended objects easier to view, you should increase magnification, and hence size of the object, up until the point where the exit pupil generated by the telescope-eyepiece is in the 2-3mm region, as this corresponds to typical daytime pupil sizes and is where your brain is most adept at correcting aberrations inside your eye. However, this only applies if the object you are viewing fits inside the field of view of the eyepiece. If you can't see the edges of the object, it will most likely look like an empty patch of sky. This means that whether you were to buy the 2" 24mm ES82° or the 1.25" 24mm ES68°, the brightness of the background sky will be identical, as the focal lengths are the same. In general you might have more problems with an overly bright background sky with 2" eyepieces compared to 1.25" eyepieces, but that is only because those eyepieces typically have longer focal lengths, not because of the diameter of the barrel. Due to the way that your eye works, doubling or halving the actual brightness appears as one "step" in apparent brightness to us. This means that you can space your eyepieces by increments of ~1.4X focal length, up until the point where the seeing conditions begin to limit magnification and closer steps may be required. If we use this formula then the "perfect" increase in focal length from a 12.5mm eyepiece is a 17.5mm eyepiece, and the perfect decrease a 9mm eyepiece. It is no coincidence that these two focal lengths also exist in the Morpheus range. In fact if you exclude the 14mm, all of the Morpheus range are spaced at ~1.4X. However, in my experience, there is one eyepiece in this series that can be skipped if you want to reduce the number of eyepieces in your set, and that is the focal length one step longer than your 2-3mm exit pupil eyepiece. In your f5 scope, your 12.5mm eyepiece is your 2-3mm exit pupil eyepiece and so the 17.5 is the one that potentially you can skip. Given the issues with light pollution in your location, you will have to try to figure out whether you need something that has a wider field of view than your 12.5mm and a darker background sky than your current 30mm (or potential 24mm).

You might find some or all eyepieces require the extension. When you come to use the telescope it will become obvious whether it is needed or not. You generally wouldn't use a camera with a manual dobsonian. In theory you can use such a scope for planetary photography but if you were to get into planetary photography seriously I think you would soon buy a scope that can track by itself. You put the barlow into the focuser, and then put the eyepiece into the barlow. This approximately increases the magnification by the factor given on the barlow. The type of barlow that would be most useful with your scope would be a 1.25" 2x barlow. 2" barlow and eye piece combinations can be very heavy and it is better to just buy intermediate magnification 1.25" eyepieces. With the two supplied eyepieces a 1.25" 2x barlow would only be usable with the 9mm. Given the focal length of your telescope, this could easily result in magnifications that are above the limits that the atmosphere allows in your location. An intermediate eyepiece between the 9mm and 35mm eyepieces is probably more useful as a first additional purchase.

If you want to do astrophotography, I think that you should put all your money towards a suitable mount and use your existing camera and lenses directly. Then, when you have more money, you can add a suitable telescope. This is after buying and reading every photon counts of course.

You wouldn't use a quark with a newt. Any obstructed telescope needs a full aperture objective filter as far as I am aware. When I started considering buying a solar scope the new and relatively cheap Solar Scout looked like a good option, but the reviews I found didn't seem quite as good as for the Lunt scopes. Shortly after I saw a new Lunt LS50/B600 for a relatively low sale price and that sealed the deal. To get you going you'll also want the Televue solar finder, which is a perfect fit for the Lunt clamshell, and a dovetail so you can mount the telescope. Beyond the initial purchases, I think you really need to upgrade the focuser as well. Initially, I spent a lot of time messing around with the pressure tuner trying to get the best view. Once I upgraded the focuser, it became obvious that all of the problems were down to the slop in the stock focuser. I would also recommend upgrading with the double stack unit as it really improves the views. The downside of this is the cost. The cost of the telescope, double stack filter and dual speed feather touch focuser (slightly cheaper options are available) at new prices is something like £3200. If you wait for the Lunt sale (assuming they do it every year) that knocks maybe £200 off both scope and double stack so with the cheaper Moonlight focuser you would be looking at something around £2550. Either way it is a lot of money, especially considering the telescope is only usable on one target, but personally I haven't regretted spending it for a second. In terms of setup time it will really depend on how you store the scope. I bought a case for the scope that requires the finder and double stack filter to be removed for storage. This means that most of my setup time is unscrewing the lens cap from the telescope, unscrewing the rear cap from the double stack, screwing the double stack to the telescope, unscrewing the front cap from the double stack and then fitting the finder. If you were to store the scope completely assembled then setup time would be reduced to the time it takes to tighten the dovetail clamp on your mount (plus however long you choice of mount takes to set up).

Planets will be on colour, DSOs will be black and white.

In astronomy you must always turn the focuser to make the object look smaller. Planets will all be very small, Mars may not appear as more than an orange disk, perhaps with some dark areas or a polar ice cap visible. Stars will always be point sources. In your first photo you are so far out of focus that you are only observing the inside of your own telescope.

How old are the kids? With a manual scope each user will need to learn to move the telescope in order to track the object across the sky as the earth rotates. Whilst this is not a hard skill to learn, it will take some practice and younger children in particular might find it difficult. You will also have the problem that whilst one of you is spending time attempting to find an object in the sky, the rest are stood around waiting and the kids may become impatient. For these reasons a telescope with goto (and hence tracking) may be preferable. Any 8" scope is a big telescope, and so with steps you will have to carry it in parts from the storage to observing location. I doubt that the kids would be able to help with this unless they are near too being adults themselves. An 8" dob or SCT would be a good choice if you can manage the size and weight. As for the comment from the rep, I think all that we can take from that is that he's probably on commission.

No, I don't think so. The 307x number comes from an old empirical rule of thumb of the maximum magnification being 60x per inch of aperture. However, this rule is for splitting double stars with slow focal ratio refractors. You are using a telescope with a central obstruction and like almost everyone else, you want your high powers for planetary observations. As such, this number doesn't really apply and is more of a marketing gimmick than anything else. The optimum planetary magnification is generally accepted to be about half of the double star maximum, so you need an eyepiece with with double the focal length. Additionally, once you get into the 150-200x region you will find that you start hitting atmospheric limits in the UK. This means that any eyepieces giving magnifications above that are more of a luxury than a necessity, especially if you have only a few eyepieces.

If the only thing stopping you from buying one of the mini dob telescopes is the mini dob mount, it is worth noting that almost all of them (i.e Skywatcher/Orion/Bresser) have a standard Vixen dovetail and so can be mounted on any standard mount with a Vixen clamp (unfortunately not your current mount). Given that all of the other suggestions so far in this thread will also require the purchase of a new mount, I don't think that is really a negative to worry about. How "transportable" do you also need the new mount to be? Do the legs of your current mount cause you issues with transport in the car like the telescope does? There are several mounts (e.g. Skywatcher AZ5, GTi) that have 3/8" mounting points that allow them to be fitted onto a good photo tripod which can then collapse down into a very small package for transport/storage.