JOC

I thought generally SGL members didn't encourage lasers for safety reasons as mentioned. Personally I went from going a whole session and not finding anything with an optical raci to adding a Y mount and adding a cheap £10 second hand unbranded rdf next to the raci to being able to find any target I can see with the naked eye in seconds. Lasers are certainly not necessary and imo wouldn't find me stuff any quicker so why risk the hazrd of the laser?

That's rather a shame, as in the information above there is the magic word 'restored' and also 'new mirror' at some point. IMO there is hardly any point in spending all that cash doing all that to it if no-one ever looks through it. You'd think that some enterprising person would have run a monthly 'come and look through it session' and maybe they could also take pictures through it and sell them as postcards to raise funds etc.

That report says it was restored. Is it known if anyone now ever looks through it, i.e. uses it?

It sounds like a reflector doesn't it folks? I reckon Astrobabies guide would be useful for the collimation https://www.astro-baby.com/astrobaby/help/collimation-guide-newtonian-reflector/

I also know that the sun is about the same size as the moon in the sky (hence eclipses work). I do know that if I am trying to find the sun and have my previously examined and perfectly sound solar filter covering the entire telescope apperture that if I am having issues finding the sun that it seems to make life easier if I look through the focus tube with no Eyepiece. When I do that and I suddenly find the sun I see that the sun just about fills the mirror of the telescope. What that says about the magnifying power of the telescope with no EP I've no idea LOL! However, it must indicate something.

That is a typical 'technical' page - please, what is a CME?

I'm sorry to sum up many hours of work in just a few short words, but that is rather 'neat' . It still amazes me that it is possible to pick up such detail from the earth without it coming from a space craft flying closer to the planet.

The trouble is unless you own them all they don't all look pretty and matched in the same EP box!

I think a smaller Dob will be easier to use and transport. Even my 8" one is an effort to get out and shift and set-up. However, when I've needed to it and it's base (don't forget you also have to transport the base) fit nicely across the back seat and into the boot of my Estate car. Although I note the OP is technically knowledgeable, what it took a while to dawn on me was that it was actually the eye piece that was the major part of the magnification issue. Yes, the bigger mirror does equal more light received and therefore more distant objects visible and yes it does mean that you will be able to go a bit bigger on magnification, but I was surprised at how much I could actually see through a 8" Dob, and given its relative ease of movement and setup vs. any other alternatives I would choose an 8" Dobsonian again over any other options just because I know that I can handle the movement of said telescope, by myself and relatively quickly and it is also not a problem to store being about the size and footprint of a dining chair.

You may also have your expectations set a little high. You state in the OP that you see an image but it is very tiny. You may have been seduced by some coloured pictures on a box and expectations of descriptions of so many hundreds of time magnification giving you an expectation of far more than you will actually see. Seeing a small image is exactly what you should see. Don't use anything calling itself a Barlow, and only put in the eye piece with the highest number written on it. i.e. use the X25 not the X8 (fill in the numbers you have and put in the one with the highest number which will give you the lowest easiest to focus magnification), then point it at moon at night or a distant object during the daytime (well away from the direction of the sun) and twiddle the focus knobs until it is in focus - even if it is still small. It's a new scope I doubt it needs huge collimation. To modify your expectations read the first page of this thread or at the very least look at the photos and then realise that the actual views are still being taken by a telescope with more magnification than you probably have yourself. I think then you might be more satisfied with what you can see. FWIW from what I read on SGL I tend to think that the best expectation of some advertisements is to take the highest expected magnfication indicated and half it to get what is probably practical - thus your scope claims 175x/262x/525x so I wouldn't be inclined to expect any practical use beyond about 250 times magnification and that's probably pushing it. FWIW I have a 8" telescope and I struggle much beyond 220 times on a night in really good conditions.

That's an interesting article, esp. the difference between the M1 and M2 designations - that made a lot of measurements make much better sense. I think based on that I'm going to try ordering the connector that I linked to. Thanks 🙂

Just a simple question that I didn't know where else to post. I've got one of these https://www.baader-planetarium.com/en/hyperion--morpheus-m43-extension.html it says the male thread - the one with the thread visible on the outside of the connector is M43, does this mean that the thread size is 43mm? I want to see if I can buy a double male ended joiner with threads that size as it will provide a join to my Canon T extender to enable me to experiment with mounting my Canon onto the baby Vixen 80S. The Morpheus male thread screws into the focusser thread of the 80S and also into my Canon T ring extender. If I could find a Male/Male version I could put the Canon onto the Vixen 80S and it might do for both daytime as well as night time photography as a 400mm lens. NB. If this sounds too far of the box please can someone tell me so, but someone mentioned it too me as a possibility some time ago. I've measured the outside of the thread, but I don't know to get matching thread sizes if you measure to the inside of the thread or the outside of the thread or if the 43 in the name of the product refers to it's thread size in anyway if so, which of the two threads it refers too - though I do wonder if they are actually different as you can screen two of those M43 extenders together. If anyone with more experiecne of thread sizes knows then I'd be grateful. Thanks Also: I've just found this : https://agenaastro.com/baader-vixen-m43-t2-adapter-t2-22-1508037.html would that have the same sized thread both sides as the Male thread on the linked to extension above pelase?

As already noted I think the UK is quite renowned for having some of least dangerous wildlife and plants in the world. There is very little here that can do a reasonable degree of harm - as mentioned above the only poisonous snake is only active by day and even then only poses real risk to the very young, elderly and infirm for other reasons groups of people. In fact I think the biggest hazards we have in the UK probably come from blundering into patches of stinging nettles - which whilst unlikely to be fatal are quite unpleasant in large numbers, or falling in the wild nests of wasps, hornets or bees. Something that some here do have anaphylactic reactions to and carry epipens to help deal with. Oh, yes and esp. in Scotland you can be 'eaten alive' by midges mosquitos from the still water up there, but again in the UK they tend to not carry critical disease. In some regions 'ticks' in long grass can carry Lyme disease and that is unpleasant/fatal to some, but that's probably the worse you would catch from the wildlife and most of us are vaccinated against tetanus - at least when young and some maintain it when older which you could pick up from puncture wounds obtained in the dark in 'horse' areas. Apart from that we can roam most places without fear of encountering wild boar, wolves, coyotes, the biggest risks coming as also noted above from larger farm animals, i.e. 'danger - bull in field', but then you've probably scoped those out prior to setting up. A large Maglite seems the most legitimate form of protection probably deployable in the UK as it can be explained away by other reasons. Also, I wouldn't underestimate the damage that could be done by the biggest, heaviest, cheapest eyepiece swung in your hand and that you could easily explain away in your box. Or even a large set of keys which is what many a mother tells their daughters to carry. A course in self-defence would probably provide much needed confidence and would only take about 12 sessions too.

@MartinB You put into words above a thought that keeps occurring to me. That is that you must surely need to avoid the temptation to line the centre of the image up with the sun each time. Instead yòu must need a steady set of points that you can refer to and keep the the scope aligned to every day and then let the sun do the shifting. NB for the avoidance of doubt I won't participate in this challenge, but it is a very interesting topic.

Yup, mine also has a WiFi goto mount - yours might be slightly more clever than mine, but I need to select stars in the sky and be able to tell if the telescope is looking precisely at them to confirm the calibration is correct so that I can inform the computer (this will change whenever you go out unless you have a permanent mount). Don't underestimate the difficulty of finding the stars in the sky through a telescope optical finder or just through the telescope until you've tried it. The thing is some telescopes can be unbalanced really easily (at least mine can 8" 200P Dobsonian) by the claptrap attached to them like heavy Eye pieces, dew shields, dew bands - and I guess heavy finder assemblies!! Thus when you start off the calibration with the telescope pointing north (I find Polaris manually - using the finders!! and then make the scope horizontal) and you tell the scope to find i.e. Capella as a novice the scope appears to drive to the star and asks you to centre the star and confirm on the computer. You excitedly peer into the EP and.......duh...........where on earth is that star - just because the system thinks it's got it right, it might not (on my scope it is often because I've got a big EP in the system - mine works best just with the setup and EP's it was supplied with for calibration - and a bit/lot of manual tweaking of the position might be in order - that's where your finders come in - you find the star with them and then confirm to the system and try the next one (you need two or three stars to callibrate). In use once calibration is done I often find that it will drive OK to the correct 360 horizontal location, but if I've got lots on board it sometimes won't drive vertically - not a huge problem with finders on board, you can push mine without upsetting it and just tip it up until I have the star in the finders - again another use for finders. The Goto's are good once they are up and running and calibrated, I've found stuff with the Goto's that I would never have seen without them by star-hopping, but as above they are ABSOLUTELY NOT infallible and having finders is also handy when all you want is a quick peak at Jupiter which is easy to find by eye with quick look at an appropriate finding app on the phone and just want a quick setup without setting up the electronics - assuming your scope lets you push to targets which mine is quite happy to do. All of the above is based on real experience. I'm still a real beginner like yourself, and my hiccups and solutions might prove useful?

I see a Telrad as a version of a Red Dot finder (RDF) they seem to work in a similar way, but a Telrad obviously has the red circles on it which many people find useful. I don't own a Telrad, but I do have a standard RDF and a RACI optical finder on my own telescope. As with @Zermelo I find the combination of both finders incredibly useful. I use the RDF which gives a clear view of the sky around the finder as well as through it to get the telescope roughly in the right place - I find that you can even use the RDF in this way for rough finding even without it being adjusted spot on, then what I find is that if the RACI optical finder IS Spot on that if you are roughly in the right bit of sky through the RDF then what I am seeking is usually visible in the optical finder and then it is a simple matter to get the optical finder spot on when it is incredibly difficult to do so just looking through the RACI as it is magnified and also you can only see the bit of the sky visible through the optical finder without a lot of faffing about and both eyes in use. Yes, you could just use a spot on Telrad or RDF alone, but the magnification of the optical RACI is useful for getting stars nicely central in the telescope once you know the optical RACI is spot on centralised and obviously the optical view is handy for stars that are just out of eye sight once you know the RDF has put you in the rough area the RACI can then stand a better chance of finding the star you are after and you KNOW that its pointing in the right area. I went from finding very little within 1/2 hr with just the RACI to finding stuff within 5 minutes with my RDF, but with both working I can hit anything I can see with my eye in <30 seconds. IMO there is absolutely value in mounting both types of finder. I have a computer driven scope, but I still need to find stars for calibrating it each time and wasn't up and running quickly until I had both finders mounted.

It's not the only good scope for beginners though. The 8" telescope in my signature was my first scope and I've never regretted the decision. Also a manual skywatcher 200P Dobsonian is a very popular beginner scope too.

FWIW I've got a Skywatcher 200P on a Dobsonian mount and it is the one with the Goto motor on it. I also have the wifi unit attached which actually is a vast improvement on using the handset and it is far easier to control via the mobile phone app. than using the handheld goto unit. However, you do need to be in WiFi range of something like a hotspot or the home system. The advantage of the Skywatcher is you don't have to use the Goto unit the telescope can quite happily be pushed to targets or partially pushed and partially computer driven or completely computer driven once set-up and so you have the best of both worlds along with the capable 8" Dobsonian mounted Skywatcher 200P. I have been very happy with mine and if buying again would get the same again.

There are some stunning images here! Well done folks, much effort and freezing appendages I think!

I don't know what it's like, but it seems that Ladybird books still publish kids books. https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/315/315330/a-ladybird-book--the-solar-system/9780241417133.html They historically did one called 'The Night Sky', but that is only around second-hand and may have out of date information in it (I've got that one on my shelf), but I expect the one I linked to is up to date.

LOL, I get the impression that most people fall in love with the Morpheus range so much that they end up buying them all and stuff the Barlowing, ha, ha. They are very bad for wallets and it's a slippery slope. I wish I had more time to use mine.

This definitive work on collimation and the standard reference on SGL explains in the text why it looks like that. http://www.astro-baby.com/astrobaby/help/collimation-guide-newtonian-reflector/

Oh, yes - they are ideal Carole 🙂 - I must admit I'd never heard of half of those myself!

Thanks Carole, as you note it I shall probably be spoilt for choice when I get around to looking through the webpages offered above, but thanks for responding. I love the way that a lot of the 'common' names for these things are because of what they resemble, like catseye, dumbell, ring, horsehead that's why I think they will make fun as well as informative subjects for a quiz.

Many thanks @Skipper Billy I'll take a look.