Waddensky

Great combination. The zoom is excellent and combined with the barlow gives you a great range of magnifications to choose from. Although the highest mags (350x-ish) are probably too much for most nights, the set gives you room to find out what the conditions allow.

He didn't. Messier searched for a nebula supposedly seen here by Hevelius, found the double star and included it in his catalogue anyway. The first version of the Messier catalogue included 45 objects, it's remarkable that the last four are all well-known and bright objects that could not easily be mistaken for a comet. Seems like he wanted to increase the number of objects on his list for some reason.

Con 10": the 10" is larger and heavier than the 8", and also a lot faster (lower focal ratio), so you might need more expensive eyepieces to get acceptable views. Pro 10": increased light grasp (although that is more important for deep-sky observation) and better resolution (more details on planets and Moon). Keep in mind that the latter also depends on the stability of the atmosphere and that might be the limiting factor on most nights. The eyepieces that come with these scopes are acceptable enough to get started without the need to invest in other equipment. A quick snapshot of the Moon is possible, but in general a dobson is not very well suited for photography.

It's not that difficult to convert from horizontal to equatorial coordinates, and can easily be done in an Excel sheet. You do need the siderial time for your longitude, though. Here's an example.

iPhone or Android? 🙂

Excellent advice so far. I'd second the advice to consider a dobson. They're easy to use, and offer the largest aperture for the price. I'm pretty sure the dimensions of the Heritage 150P can be found somewhere, so you can find out if you have enough space to store it. I'm pretty sure it's smaller than you'd expect. 150 mm aperture is a lot more than the Firstscope offers and will show you incredible detail on the Moon and the larger planets, as well as a myriad of deep-sky objects. Perhaps a scope for life. Good luck with your choice, and we'd love to hear about your experiences!

Wow, wonderful! I'd love to experiment with solarcans myself. Does anyone have a link to a manual to assemble one?

Maybe it's good for us to know why you did return the Firstscope? What were your expectations, and what do you hope to see or experience with your new telescope that the Firstscope couldn't provide? It's small, and has a spherical mirror, but in general should give you acceptable views of the Moon and the brighter planets. Edit: oh, and welcome Keith!

Well, they certainly have a PR department 😉. The scope is probably fine, but as others have said the mount is too light to carry the weight of the tube. And keep in mind that a large portion of the price is for the GOTO system (compare for example with a similar-sized dobson). You can save a lot of money or invest it in a larger scope if you're willing to skip the GOTO.

The Quadrantids are a rich shower, but with an incredibly narrow peak - which unfortunately occurs during the day for observers in Europe this year. Maybe a few meteors can be spotted Sunday after dusk before the Moon is up.

It's not just you, there are many stargazers that use GOTO. It's just that it's relatively expensive, and if your budget is tight I'd rather invest in aperture than other bells and whistles. But again, nothing wrong with a GOTO if you've experienced the advantages and enjoyed them. I'm with Heather: the hunt is part of the fun for me, as well as sitting outside with only a bunch of mirrors and lenses.

In general, deep-sky objects benefit from larger aperture and a shorter focal length. The Nexstar has the larger aperture, the focal length of both scopes is the same. I'd say the Nexstar is the better deep-sky telescope. Why is GOTO so important? I've never used a GOTO or a comparable system. It's not that difficult (and fun!) to find objects manually 🙂.

As to observing planets, I doubt the difference is that noticable. Both the Nextar and the Newton have about the same resolving power and the same maximum useful magnification, which is well over what is usually achievable under normal atmospheric conditions anyway. The advantage of the Newton is the lower focal length and therefore wider field of view. But if you skip the GOTO, you can get a larger aperture for the same budget: better resolving power for planets and more light grasp for deep-sky objects. A SC or Mak design scope also takes much longer to cool down than a Newton.

Hi, and welcome! These are all capable scopes, but for different purposes. How did you end up with these three in your selection? Is GOTO a must? At first glance, I'd say the 150P is the best all-round option (wide field of view for deep-sky and possibility to increase the magnification with additional eyepieces for planets) but you'll save a lot of money if you buy one on a dobson base.

He looks like Rembrandt. Glad to see the centre of the galaxy is Dutch 😎

As I said earlier in this thread, you can see all planets with a pair of binoculars, the moons of Jupiter, and depending on the magnification a hint of the rings of Saturn and the phases of Venus. Light pollution doesn't matter much when observing the planets. A good monopod or tripod helps a lot to stabilise the view. It of course depends on your definition of clear, if you'd like to see details on the planetary disks then you need a telescope. But good binoculars are a great way to introduce yourself to stargazing without breaking the bank, and you'll be surprised how much can be seen from your light-polluted balcony.

A good OIII filter performs very well on M42, a UHC filter even better. You won't see colour, but the contrast improves significantly. Here's a website with descriptions of the performance of filters on some common nebulae. In dark skies, I'd say both filters will cause a 'wow' effect on the right nebulae. In Bortle 8, not really sure but perhaps others can chime in.

Don't do deep-sky when the Moon is full or even above the horizon, the additional background light will make the brightest deep-sky objects very difficult to spot. Wait for a nice, dark night around new moon. You'll be suprised by the difference! Not really sure what table you're referring to, but all Messiers are fairly easy in a 6" scope - of course depending on your light pollition levels. M81 and M82 are indeed two of the most prominent Messiers, I can easily see them with my binoculars from a dark site. But they are a bit difficult to find because there are no bright stars directly in their neighbourhood. Bright Messier near bright stars are M13, M57 or M42 for example. Try them out to learn what to expect, then go ahead to find more elusive deep-sky objects. Good luck!

Very nice! Yes, it's the 22 degrees halo caused by ice crystals.

You can see all the planets with a cheap pair of binoculars. But if you want to see more detail, you'll need more aperture. There are many good telescopes that can easily be used on a balcony: here's a great list of decent beginner scopes. If your balcony faces south, all you have to do is wait for the planets to be positioned well and a clear night. Light pollution is not really a problem for the planets, because they are bright enough. Good luck!

Almost all NASA material is in the public domain, so fraud would only be possible if one claims to have made the photo. Still, if you take the photo when the Moon is in the same phase (and this happens quite often), the photo will look very similar. Vlaiv's explanation is excellent. I'm still not quite sure where you're at...

If you know the altitude and the azimuth of the Moon, and the date: yes.

Too much magnification/exit pupil too small.

I read somewhere that some of these zooms are not that bad, but I wouldn't recommend them. Good point, I didn't consider the focal length.

For planets, I'd consider a short focal length zoom like the TeleVue Nagler 3-6 mm.