Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

badgerchap

Members
  • Posts

    1,604
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by badgerchap

  1. OK. I've found something that fits. No idea what they are, but that old jar of screws in the shed yielded success! Finally!
  2. Good afternoon. My first post in several years. I'm getting back into things, and my first port of call is mounting my old mid-late 90s (the IC in the hand controller has a date of 1/30/1996 on it, so I suppose that's the earliest possible date of manufacture) Celestron C8 onto a dovetail so that I can whack it onto my EQ6. There appear to be mounting holes in just the right place for the dovetail I have (luckily) but I'm currently stymied by the size of screws necessary, as the ones currently in the holes are a few mm to short. The screws are not M4. They are a very similar diameter, but a different thread count. Does anyone have any idea what they are? Likely an imperial size, I suppose, but I've no idea, having largely ignored imperial screws my whole life!
  3. Something which routinely frustrates me and which I am yet to solve satisfactorily is the cable routing required for hassle free imaging. I've lost count of the times I've been slewing and the power cable on my EQ6 has been snagged out, or my cables have been too short and resulted in power bricks dangling precariously. I'd be really grateful to see other people's approaches. As well as that there is something really satisfying about a well routed cable. The cabling work done at server farms gets me a bit weak at the knees 😂. So I'd be really interested to see what people have come up with in terms of scope-related cabling!
  4. Have any hardware drivers been updated recently? These can be a pig with astro gear.
  5. l second this. If I'm honest the vast majority of the time I spend "doing astronomy" is actually tinkering time.
  6. I too had a good night with those two. More detail than I've ever seen on Jupiter, I think, although admittedly I've not spent much time on him with a decent FL until recently. I noticed particular detail between the equatorial bands.
  7. Yes, that's what I've read about. I've not noticed anything yet, but it's probably too early to tell. I'm primarily using it for visual use, so I'm not too concerned. I understand the newer versions are less prone to it.
  8. I rather did, didn't I? Apparently the chap had 12 replies in half an hour! It did require a 2.5 hour drive in each direction, but it was well worth it.
  9. Further testing and I'm getting closer to a favourite. The older scope is really quite nice. The convenient controls and comfortable viewing are absolutely swinging it. Even if I could swap the newer scope onto the old mount (I don't think I can) I wouldn't. The 90s OTA gives lovely views, and tonight has shown me more detail on Jupiter than I've ever seen before. Got to 203x which gave some wonderful moments. It feels like it deserves its place on that old mount. Well done 1990s Celestron!
  10. An excellent point. My SCT may be small, old and battered, but it's not billions over budget and stuck in prelaunch! In those terms I'm winning already!
  11. Today I added a second 8" Celestron SCT to my collection, from sometime in the 90s (thanks for the ID John). This joins my early-mid 2010s version. They're both the black tube, but the newer edition has Starbright XLT coatings as opposed to plain Starbright, and it is also Fastar compatible, although that shouldn't affect this comparison. Also irrelevant to the comparison but very relevant to me is the mounting. The newer scope is sitting on an EQ5 with a wooden tripod, making it rather low to the ground. By contrast the older scope sits in its original fork mount on a wedge atop what appears to be a homemade tripod - if it's not homemade, suffice it to say that modern manufacturing has made some serious improvements. This aside this old setup is higher, not requiring me to bend down, although the height is fixed so others might not be so fortunate. So how do the two scopes fare against each other? I am sharing eyepieces and the diagonal between the two scopes so that only the scope optics are compared. Initially I have setup very quickly and not allowed any cooldown time. Firstly to the Moon, which looked marvellous in both scopes. If I really had to be picky, there is a very slight improvement in the newer optics. There was a very, very slight yellowish cast to the older image, but it was almost imperceptible and could even have been my expectation causing an illusion. Next to Jupiter, which may even have been slightly nicer in the older scope. I was able to pick out both equatorial bands and the GRS in both scopes with the 40mm. Saturn also was brilliant at 40mm and 20mm too, with nothing to choose between the optics. The older scope may just be a little softer towards the edge of the field, but being standard, non-HD Celestron SCTs, neither are wonderful here, but for visual use I'm not really bothered. If optics were the only consideration and I was really forced to choose, the XLT version would win by the narrowest of margins, but of course it's not just about optics. The ease of use and comfort of the older mount, the lack of counterweights, the ***battery powered!!!!!*** tracking, the natural eyepiece height and the very convenient handle put the older scope ahead in my eyes. Now. Financially speaking I'm going to have to sell one of these (and some other gubbins) to get the frac I've been lusting over. But which one?! Better do some more observing after cooldown and maybe even a bit of imaging.
  12. Fabulously quick work, thank you John! Also gives me a whopping extra 14.8mm FL than the newer version! Watch out JWST 🤣
  13. I already have a modern-ish Celestron C8, but I got what I feel was a little bargain today. Feels kinda 80s or early 90s in terms of build, solidity etc. Optics look to be in great condition, with nothing but a speck of dust on the corrector plate and a clean primary. Coatings are Starbright, but not XLT (as my other C8 is) The mount seems to run under battery power, although how well I don't know until I get it under a clear sky. Came with a tripod and a wedge too. Missing a 12V power supply and doesn't have a hand controller. Can anyone clear up the age of this? Also if anyone knows what hand controller I need to find for this, that would be really useful. Thanks!
  14. Time, practice and learning are more important than kit. Even naked eye astronomy can be massively rewarding if you can learn about what you're looking at. Don't be intimidated by the incredible shots you see on here and elsewhere - as impressive as they are, they're no substitute for losing yourself among the stars of an evening.
  15. Afternoon all from a sweltering Gloucestershire! In an effort to escape this oppressive heat I've been considering ED80s. The SkyWatcher is an obvious candidate, although I hear the focuser is a weak point. As an alternative I'm considering two Altair Astro scopes, the Starwaves 80ED and 80ED-R. I can't afford the triplet, so a doublet will have to do. I can find several reviews of the 80ED, which is an F7 with I believe FPL-51 with an unknown mating element. Reports are good, but my aesthetic tendencies are dragging me towards the shiny red 'R' of the pricier version. This is also an F7 but with FPL-53 with I believe a lanthanum glass mate. However, I can only find one or two reviews, none of which really gets to the nitty-gritty, particularly being short of info regarding imaging. The price difference is a couple of hundred quid, so I was hoping someone could tell me if that couple of hundred is worth the investment, or if I'll just be forking out a few weeks' family food shopping for a shiny red letter on the dew shield. Any chance anyone can save me a few hundred pounds or, failing that, persuade me into the prettier scope? 80ED: https://www.harrisontelescopes.co.uk/acatalog/altair-ascent-80.html?gclid=Cj0KCQjwgo_5BRDuARIsADDEntShLuINmJMlmwfWcQNfgx7mFFYfKTu4FHzrwJghjOQzp7tKVD6qCDIaAqQlEALw_wcB 80ED-R: https://www.harrisontelescopes.co.uk/acatalog/altair-starwave-80ed.html?gclid=Cj0KCQjwgo_5BRDuARIsADDEntSRNg-2FEJor3CaGjFVDK1mw2tPANHAmWMjk2I2r2LyEb13Otdp1RwaAlV6EALw_wcB Thanks all.
  16. Thanks! They say necessity is the mother of invention...
  17. Only just spotted this. Thanks! That's a great improvement!! Considering you had only one frame to work with too! What did you do?
  18. Thanks Lee! Yes, it's at the limit of what I can manage, but it'll do for now. Will encourage me to keep fit at least!
  19. Yeah so after posting this I decided to grow some b***s and open the focuser up. Four tightened screws later and it's like a new unit. Thanks chaps!
  20. I live in a rented property. My landlord (the National Trust) is pretty forgiving in terms of what I can do here, but they have strict limits. I cannot build anything permanent (planning permission in an AONB) and whatever I build must not be visible from the adjoining NT property. I also had a very tight budget (job got coronavirused) and my sky view is heavily limited. All these factors meant I needed something small, easy to assemble and easy to move if I exhaust my current viewpoint. For somewhere around £200 then (alright, maybe £300 including bits 'n' bobs) I've ended up with this. The box is made from structural ply and the base is supported by 40mm galvanised rods driven about 50 cm into the ground. Plywood flanges prevent water ingress where the two parts meet, aided by silicone sealant and a neoprene seal-and-skirt at the hinge end. The roof is corrugated PVC which I will adapt to introduce an angle. I had thought that a flat roof would be OK, but I now disagree with myself and will add a small angle (it will be small as it must remain below the fence line). There is no base/floor. As I can do nothing permanent, it seemed best to leave it that way as I can at least then move the box elsewhere when I require. The tripod sits on concrete slabs and will be remotely operated and there are no nearby roads, so I think vibrations won't be an issue. I've already started planning its successor, which will use an extruded aluminium frame and plastic panels. The weight of the lid on the current design is near the limit of what I can manage, so a more lightweight design would be favourable. However, until then I think I will manage just fine with this. At least my setup time should be reduced! Hopefully the PA either won't need re-doing too often, and/or will only require minor adjustment from session to session.
  21. Hi all, Not sure if this is the right category for this question really, but then it doesn't necessarily fit anywhere I don't think. Anyway... I have a TS Optics 6" F4 Newtonian which optically is great but its (2") focuser is absolutely woeful. It was bad when I got it, now it's almost unusable. It can be made firm, but whether it can be made firm at the focal plane accurately enough for imaging is debatable. Adjusting the focus for imaging is essentially impossible excluding luck. I don't really have the cash to fork out for a decent focuser - at least not after forking out for my new C8 and building an Obsy. I am wondering, however, if I could use a helical focuser (such as that linked at the bottom of this post) attached to my current focuser? I'd fix the current focuser roughly in place and then use the helical for fine adjustment. I'm worried a) about reaching focus, b) misunderstanding the purpose of helical focusers (which I've never used). Any help would be appreciated, including alternative ideas! Thanks, Guy https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/baader-125-helical-focusing-eyepiece-holder-t2.html
  22. I wanted to leave something about my recent experience for one simple reason: I was initially very sceptical. Microglobe's website seems a little unprofessional and I was a little worried about getting scammed. However I was looking for a dual Vixen/Losmandy saddle plate for an EQ6 and they seem to be a) very expensive 3rd party manufacturer models (well over £100 in most cases, or b) in the case of the SW version, completely out of stock. Nor could I get the Vixen only type. I found several retailers whose websites claimed to have the item in stock but which, either after ordering or emailing to confirm, it transpired did not have the item at all. This was repeated many times until I found Microglobe. Enter my aforementioned scepticism. However, the price was as better than anywhere else and sufficiently low (£24!) that I felt I could afford to be ripped off if my fears were confirmed. I emailed Microglobe and very promptly got a response to say that yes, they had the item in stock. I placed the order which including postage was still cheaper than anyone else excluding postage. The item arrived in two days flat, well packaged and ahead of schedule. I maintain that their website is a bit shoddy; it could definitely do with an update. However, that aside I can't fault them on service and so I wanted to write this review so that anyone with similar concerns to mine might stumble upon it and give Microglobe the benefit of the doubt. Thanks Microglobe!
  23. Think what it would leave behind though! The shredded remains would be a fantastic target and would be an unmissable opportunity for even amateurs to do genuine science.
  24. I dunno, I quite like that. Arty! I also have a 12" F5 Newt but it's just too much of a hassle in terms of setup I think.
  25. Yeah, "it's not gonna happen" is basically the default predictor for bright comets 😂
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.