AlexK

I've been poking the idea of the filter slider 3DPrinted for my z12 Dob inner wall (~$500 on the market, 50 cent to print). But lately I stick to just the Astronomik UHC, so no biggie to screw it on and off as needed, instead of worrying about constantly exposing its coatings to the elements in the field, adding the weight and bulk to the fine tuned OTA balance, bending the light path past the focuser, vignetting the UWA EP FOV, or adding glare or uneven aperture spikes... I'm observing with the dedicate fishing vest on top of my layers, it has 8 pockets which I'm using to rotate my eyepieces with the minimized exposure (all pockets have zippers, dust proof, and all catching a bit of heat escaping my body to reduce dew chances) and one of them is dedicated for filters in their factory shipping plastic clamshell padded boxes. Also, to screw filters on and off I have a simple technique developed over 30 years ago to prevent threads stripping, touching any glass, and with a zero dropping potential (never happened to me even in -30C Siberia winters causing "wooden fingers"). I call it "inside-out method": Just half-close your palm (in the mitten or not) and secure the filter in its center by as much edge contact as you can (I get a 100% contact grip even on a 2" filter rim). Threads out. Then screw on the eyepiece over it ("inside-out" is a misleading term I guess, but that's the closest translation to English I think :)))) ) using the typical technique of starting in reverse until it clicks. Unscrewing is similar, just when putting it back into the box do the same "inside-out" trick: place the box over the filter still perfectly secured in the center of your palm, (screw it in if your case has a thread) flip over, close, put in the pocket. Sure thing, if the box is grippy enough you can put the filter on right from the box as well. But usually they are gripping by the filter thread in a typical case, so I could see some dedicated for this method field filter box 3D printed eventually, but after 30+ years of doing just that I don't see it urgent yet :)))) (in fact, bare hand approach adds the benefit of warming up the filter a bit from your skin, so it wouldn't catch any moisture from the air while exposed).

It's all surely depends on your particular geography. So it's kinda redundant asking the general public advice :)))) In California an extra 30 min of driving for me means 60km away from the megapolis light dome. I'm freeway-driving for ~4 hours on average for that and often for about an hour after that to traverse some rural road to the above marine layer hills with a good horizon, preferably with the South over mountain ridges or the Ocean. That as well reducing the road traffic to nearly zero (I'm usually parking for the night on some scenic overlook).

Welcome to the forum, NESSDIST! If you are pointing with the Telrad directly at your targets exclusively and don't plan to learn using it properly, consider getting a cheap RDF (Red Dot Finder) instead. Telrad main idea is pointing at invisible targets indirectly, for example, by using the TPM (Telrad Pattern Matching) method. I'm using the latter and always having my 12" Dob on my DSO (Deep Sky Objects) targets in under 10 seconds. YMMV. For the mounting location: I can't understand what's the problem? The 6SE has plenty of space on the OTA to mount it using the mounting cradle provided. Perhaps, you are confusing Telrad with the stock RDF? Telrad supposed to be used as a straight-through optical finder, with your eye as close to its semi-transparent mirror as possible. The key is to have it a bit on the side to avoid bumping into it at the EP in the diagonal. Though some folks are using the diagonal to look from the side (as with a Dob), not from the top. The inner side seems more beneficial for that semi-fork load balancing. On any MAC Telrad could benefit from a riser piece indeed: https://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn104/skip_orrell/064-1.jpg (still on the Telrad stock cradle). So you just raise your head from the EP up and see Telrad reticle.

Correct, DSO Planner is Android exclusive due to the iPhone engineering design historically lacking behind for about a decade. Though the app is designed to support even very old Android versions, so a cheap second-hand device would work with it as smoothly as 2021 models. And I'm always advocating for getting a dedicated smartphone for the field use. That allows to make it safer for you EDA (by disabling an ordinary phone junk popping out of nowhere and blinding you) as well as protecting your main phone from harsh elements of the darkness :))), as you can keep it in a safe place while observing. An ordinary tape recorder could be harder to synchronize with your other records / databases, so some voce records IDing system/protocol must be implemented to link your written and spoken records. You can use a certain smartphone tech for the sketching as well. See here (click the arrow on the right):

Even though I see it nearly pointless and overly optimistic at 15 quid (a decent industrial grade 3D accelerometer chip is around $300), I would recommend to ditch your fancy OLED screen idea immediately. Using a fixed on the mount leveling feedback device means you are simply replicating 1:1 the ordinary bubble level's deficiencies (if not adding more of specific ones, e.g. killing EDA). With the ESP32 you can go the proper IoT way instead. The screen must be remote (e.g. on your phone or on your imaging workstation). Ready to integrate with an arbitrary leveling flow, not just with one involving eyeballing it on some "screen". So, I'd just make a box with the battery and put it anywhere on the mount. Then make an app to allow reproducing any mount position on demand (e.g. leveled). And calibrate it with the real life data.

In the field, I'm using the DSO Planner app's integrated observing notes taker. When I tap "Add new note" button it's opening the note screen to type a note, but instead of typing I'm just clicking the "Start Recording" button and narrating what I was able to see. Then clicking the "Action" button and it's automatically adding: Scope used Date / Time Observing Location Eyepieces used Usually I have 3 EP's set as in use, so if I didn't use any of them I'm just deleting its tag in the Note text. Later I'm exporting the app's Observation Notes Database to the plain text encoded format and process it as needed (e.g. I can transcribe my voice notes into more concise text notes). Then I'm importing processed notes back into the app, so I have them all at hand when back in the field. No need adding any object's information besides its ID, as I have all the databases on the device so I can cross-reference any onboard in two clicks from the Notes screen, including Steve's Gotlieb NGC/IC notes database, the local DSS imagery if available, as well as any cross-references with other object's designations. Most importantly, the app supports the dedicated night mode keyboard, so even if I have to type some note content (rare as I can always use my voice instead) it's totally safe for my EDA (Eyes Darkness adaptation): If I need to add something common for other notes (e.g. want to track seeing for planetary observations), I'm adding it in a format of above tags [single_word_for_the_tag_name value] that makes automatic processing later easier to perform in fully automated mode.

My conclusion exactly. Cheap GoTo is not a panacea. You should learn working with star charts and actual visual telescope pointers anyway. As every (semi)automatic method of telescope pointing (except for the Celestron StarSense Explorer to date) is prone to a plethora of potential mishaps which may land you in a totally random patch of the sky. If you can't positively ID stars in your FOV you can't tell if it worked correctly or not. I stopped using GoTo ~12 years ago. Waste of time. As with Telrad and the proper star chart app I can point to anything marked on the chart in under 10 seconds with 100% reliability. The first most important precondition, the EDA (Eyes Darkness Adaptation), has been well covered earlier as well. That's a skill too. Everything else is actually very secondary to that missing.

Very close to classic scheme indeed. But your "anamnes" is correct. The Dobsonian rule of thumb for the base is 2D minimum (and 1D for free-standing trunnions). That OOUK rocker's base was "improved" to be more compact.

My point exactly. $1000-2000 for a metal one. I can buy a car for that. I guess, that's "novelty". For many folks it looks like an extremely sophisticated mind-bending high tech. I saw many unable to grasp how it's actually could track the sky. Manufacturers just leveraging that opportunity shamelessly :)))) A decent visual EQP can be built for under $100 even today from random scrap you can find at any hardware store. Re "everybody should have one": I'm living without that tech just fine for over 12 years (since I went all manual with my z12). That's because I have no single problems manually guiding my classic 12" sized Dobson design build all the way to 420x to be concerned about tracking in general. Not looking into imaging with it, nor sharing it a lot with others. Pointing and IDing objects takes just seconds with my Telrad flow, so no tracking needed to be able going away for consulting with charts for long either. But definitely, if your telescope is not actually a classic Dobsonian (has any ball bearings, brakes, motors) just looking like one, which means it's not easy to move it around the sky without the view shaking, drifting, and sticking, you may benefit from it for sure. Same if you need sharing the view with others lacking any telescope handling skills (kids, outreach) often, or don't know constellations so have to hunt DSOs starting from the Planisphere disk :))) I do have plenty of skills, tools, and materials, all the way to the 3D printer on my side table. So I think I could build a decent platform in a single weekend or two. Just not motivated enough. Also, being a nomadic-type observer :))) I see it as just a burden to haul and setup in the field every time, stay on alert not to kick my scope off it in the dark, and then clean it from dirt and crawlers after the expedition...

Ah! That's why you've got four eyes! :))) That solution is well known actually. But instead of bungee cords people are properly lowering the CoG of the system to resemble the telescope CoG height (the most crucial parameter of any EQ Platform design). A good piece of steel or lead secured in the center of the platform is all you need. Better yet would be to stress tripod's legs by hanging the weight from its top center. That way the CoG will follow the gravity as the platform moves, which would allow to use less weight (required to counter that small shift). For the legs' skid security, I would just drill large enough holes to sink the legs ends in them, or screw down three tall rings surrounding legs' ends (eg. some wide enough bottle caps should work perfectly there.

The Universe is full of joy without any aids indeed. But my 12" IS my grab-and-go for over 12 years already (had a 16" truss, and a 10" sonotube, but the 12" 1:5 steel OTA is the ideal all-around sweet-spot for me). Not looking for any downshifting for at least 20 years ahead. But may go higher for sure! Tough targets or easy eye candies, all looking simply breathtaking in it, with plethora of interstellar-space-flyby-like fine details to actually "observe", not just "detect", especially with 100 deg AFOV eyepieces. But I do love to peer through the 70mm refractor in my finderscope shoe on top of it too instead of through binoculars. I.d.k. prob. I had too much small refractors' views in my youth already, all the way to the stationary Pro-High-End (of 80es) 150mm Zeiss Coude apochromat... :))))

You are welcome! Just search around that department. I saw the same without wheels (easier to bolt down to the existing dolly), as well as hand trucks with sliding lift (but like triple in the price). Still seems on par with purchasing a new tiny telescope on a flymsy mount :)))) I plan to keep my 12" used all the way to building the cradle to observe with it while laying down in the moving alt/az mount when I wouldn't able to stand for 8 hours in a row at it anymore :))) One more option is a folding hitch hoist for hunters: https://www.amazon.com/HME-Products-Truck-Hitch-Hoist/dp/B06ZZS6M9L/ I plan to install the hitch on my Subaru Forester one day (it's like $200 installed). There are standing hoists as well, but they are made much bulkier for stability.

I see. I had my back failing after some strenuous errands at home too. So I know what you mean. But I'm also a skilled loader (learned all the tricks in the army). So when I feel it may fail me I'm wearing the waist compression band fixing the torso angle. Given your input, I can suggest adding this gizmo to your dolly then: https://www.amazon.com/Extreme-Max-5001-5083-Hydraulic-Motorcycle/dp/B06XNZ5GV6 Might be useful for other errands in the future as well. For myself, I've built a dedicated wheeled 5 in 1 transforming transportation device: https://www.dobmod.com/search/label/cradle The base is traveling from the flet to the car attached to 12" OTA trunnions (OTA is well secured in the cradle). After lifting the end of the cradle to the trunk of the SUV it's at about right level to simply disconnect it and slide to the side without any dangerous bending forward. To traverse stairs I'm lowering the cradle down and sliding it as a sled on its wide "skis".

That only means you are not well dark adapted. I'm in direct view of San Francisco and Oakland, but I can see my super-cheap red and blue pens' beams just fine when looking from the spot closer to the source, so I can regulate how much it blinds me by simply moving my head around it.

I bet that 6" views will be frustrating after your 10" even at the dark site (the viewing improvement is there indeed but not three times! (10/6)^2). If I would be you, instead of shaving a couple of kilos, I'd rather think of some improved transportation aid. Can't tell what that might be as you haven't stated HOW you travel to your dark destination (car, train, personal heli...), how you move it from home to the car (like is there stairs), and WHAT is that dark spot exactly (rural campground, a mansion in the Alps...) :)))). A simple aluminum wheeled dolly cart might solve your back problem without sacrificing 10" views. Heritage 130 or 150 is actually a pain to use compared to your classic 10" Dobson. It meant for kids having no problem fighting it all night :)))) Reflector on a cheap photo tripod??? Are you kidding folks?? Or trolling the poor guy? That will be a nightmare!

You haven't explained what you plan to use it for and why. :)))) So I assume as some arbitrary visual telescope pointing aid, because you have a sore neck preventing you from using an RDF, Telrad, or an optical finder (a typical reason stated :)))). At a real dark site (which you have mentioned), I would recommend skipping "gun" laser sights with the bright green beam (which Louis has recommended above). They will blind you just from looking at the beam in the sky at night enough to drop your telescope an inch or two in aperture when observing DSOs. Get a red or blue (violet) pointer instead. Also keep in mind that you can ruin the work of any astrophotographers near you with it.

Oh! And welcome to the forum, markbc01! I see you are nearby, are you on our local "TAC" group as well already? Ping me in PM if you haven't discovered it yet.

Let me explain. A tablet screen is larger, thus has a larger apparent field of view than the phone screen, as the typical comfortable reading range for both is the same (around 250mm). Thus a) when you look at it, your eye is scanning the screen and exposing more peripheral vision cones to the screen light than when scanning a smaller phone screen (rods bleaching is happening unconsciously too). And b) the integral light luminance of a larger screen is greater than the smaller phone screen given the exact same image displayed on the screen. It's proportional to the lit surface size difference. And on the tablet screen the chart and GUI are either scaled up and thus have more pixels lit or have more elements displayed so showing more lit pixels as well. In other words, the Tablet's screen is brighter object than the phone's. That's quite similar to what long-term paper charts users are ended up doing to see their charts with less impact on their darkness adaptation: they are avoiding the broad red light shining on their paper charts (they are often huge! I've been working with a pro atlas with like 100x150cm pages) and instead using a narrow collimated beam flashlight to reveal only small round portion of the map on the paper at a time (still blinding on the white paper, but they are also training to look straight at the spot at all times, so the peripheral vision has a minimal chance being exposed too much).

The image looks great, thank you for sharing! (a bit weird your LB16 with 4 vanes gives 8 spikes stars, just some photoshoping art I guess?). Though the website seems to be dead to judge anything about the product.

Also, some "pad" vs "phone" arguments: In a nutshell, tablets are appealing to folks too used to the ancient paper charts flow and typical computer screens. Including the ways of interacting with both (eyeballing large surface, interacting with keyboard an mouse, even though largely virtualized and hybridized on tablets). While smartphone's screens are much closer to the natural sky views as seen through the eyepiece. As well as [supposedly, depending on an app] providing much more intuitive and natural ways of interaction with the chart, objects, and app functions single handed and single-fingered. Tablets often considered to be better for the folks with minor myopia, as you can put them farther away from your eyes to focus without an eye strain, however, most of the apps supporting tablets does not support that well if at all. Thy are simply expanding the view. So their charts and GUI may became indecipherable and hard to operate from a longer distance (that's why, by the way, it took so long for the Stellarium to be ported to the Android smartphone, its original UI paradigm was not touch screen friendly at all). I have +1.5 myopia myself, but with the proper handheld UI I don't really need the sharp view of the screen for the navigation. Moreover, after the proper darkness adaptation I'm reducing the AMOLED screen brightness to the levels jeopardising any normal visual acuity anyway. But still able to navigate because my chart allows to magnify everything I need to use it at the eyepiece efficiently to like 10 times larger than normal. The flow with a tablet is always as: look into the EP, go away and look at the screen, then go back. While with the handheld I can look at the EP and the chart nearly simultaneously, so I can compare my views side by side for reliable and quick object finding and star field ID. That is the most efficient and natural way of IDing anything. Cheap tablets are usually coming with TFT screens, while you can get a cheaper smartphone with OLED/AMOLED which is far superior for the precious darkness adaptation preservation when using a chart to locate super-faint DSOs. In addition, when observing DSO on the edge of your telescope abilities you tend to use your peripheral vision a lot. The large screen of a tablet will kill the peripheral vision as efficiently as the central vision. While a smaller phone screen would keep it largely unaffected. In the DSC mode there is no way you could make a Tablet stable enough on a sane mount to keep the alignment with the optical axis. It's simply too massive and also flexing. While most any smartphone has no problems with that. E.g. at the moment, I'm testing our upcoming DSC-like solution and mounting the rather large Samsung "phablet " smartphone on top of the selfie stick with two ball heads. The alignment is stable down to an arcminute. Finally. In the cold and moist conditions, Tablets tend to die (barely waterproof, large heat dissipating surface to kill the screen and shut off the battery fast, large vulnerable to impacts glass surface...). While a smartphone is small enough to simply hide it in the warm inside pocket immediately after consulting with its screen an out of the way. And that's all not a theory. I own high-end Samsung tablet (Galaxy Tab S7) too, but found it far inferior for the use at the eyepiece even though it has the AMOLED screen

The SkEye is the best "blind" DSC implementation on the market at the moment hands down! However, it's heavily dependent on your smartphone accelerometers quality. Your best bet are phones dedicated for VR and AR, as they supposed to have that hardware and software implemented appropriately to support these functions. But then there is a unavoidable zero drift issue on all of them. A good industrial accelerometer circuit would cost you around $300-500 alone to amend that well enough well before the star chart connection and software implementation done. So don't expect even SkEye replacing real DSCs adequately. Instead you can learn how to minimize all these issues with a particular telephone by working out a certain pointing flow. SkEye addressing that in several ways which actually working compared to all other apps. Usually, that entails recalibrating on a nearby star often. So you need to learn how to quickly and effortlessly point at one any moment to correct your cheap electronics. Which in turn means you should know constellations well enough and be skilled at pointing your main aperture reliably to naked eye objects (using whatever techniques you prefer from sighting along the OTA to a multitude of auxiliary pointers, Planisphere will work there too, by the way). Which all at the next turn boils down to the Telrad and a digital star chart showing its rings correctly (and that's not SkySafari or Stellarium or even SkEye, at least not the last time I've been checking these toys) In other words, after learning the sky the question about which app is best for pointing the telescope at invisible with the naked eye targets becomes largely a nobrainer as soon as that target is displayed on the chart between stars you actually can point at in the sky with your finger :)))) The other question is what you would like as an eye candy in your hand. But that's strictly a personal preference (to each its own, there is no way your personal choice of some artful representation of the sky would appeal to everyone here). I love the Stellarium eye candy work very much myself. But it's nearly useless junk for pointing and observing at the eyepiece. Not to mention that it is simply blinding me under the Bortle 1-3 sky for a half of an hour even when used behind the deep red film over the screen...

That CN thread must be considered the "Heritage 130 fans club". I read it all some years ago when been looking for a small enough for airline carryon traveling scope. My only positive conclusion, which could save you days of reading only pushing you back on the fence :)))), is that the 130mm Heritage is the cheapest really normal telescope at that aperture size. You wouldn't find a usable 130mm Newtonian cheaper brand new. But there are too many mechanical compromises in its design for a novice to handle or for a Pro to tolerate. So I ended up making my own 200mm travel truss reflector. No money? Get Heritage 130. But if you can spend just a bit more better do it. Zhumell 130 is a great choice I've been seriously considering as well, but it's already a bit too long for the carryon, thus for its total price I have purchased a nice 200mm mirrors set for the DIY project.

Welcome to the forum, Ericreichelt81! By my opinion strictly, and mine are always about the harsh reality, but no offence meant ever! Zhumell 130 is Light Years ahead of that Heritage toy. In every single regard. Period. So if the money is not a big problem and you are not living in a dumpster-sized "little-house" popular lately for simple living, get the Zhumell and don't even look back! (Better yet look forward instead and get a 8" at least if you can). Zhumell is also much more future proof. When you get annoyed with that wooden semi-fork mount gimmick you can easily make a fantastic classic Dobson mount for it, or effortlessly mount it on a GEM as it has decent rings already. The only Heritage advantage is the collapsibility, but that in fact its serious drawback as well when perceived as a fine optical instrument it supposed to be. Collapsibility is great for a truly large Dob's (e.g. 12") portability, but on a 130mm 1:5 OTA it's just an annoying gimmick and a buyers lure.

(That's about the Planisphere) My point exactly. If not, put aside the telescope immediately and learn it already. As it's a shame if you can't point at an arbitrary constellation without a Planisphere. A second-grader amateur astronomer kid can do it.

Nope. It's a fraction low You should look at farthest from the center regions. In fact the most accurate position is the center beam being vertical. That's how eyes perception works. Adding a perpendicular to the center beam narrow slit would also help. With the Photoshop the best way is to copy the thing, invert the color, mirror it over the center beam, and overlap with the original with color subtraction mixer.