AlexK

"There should be an app for that"(c) That's why PRO imagers don't bother at all. While 99.999% of the remaining Earth's population loves that technology.

As far as I can tell you are using the DSLR, right? The frequently overseen option is using the own DSLR optics for pointing by classic star hopping. To make it really work you need a viewfinder loupe. e.g.: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1132360-REG/ziv_ravf_right_angle_viewfinder.html/ Better yet would be to get a beam splitter. But that's already way more serious expense compared to a $20 RDF or $40 Viewfinder (easy enough to make a slide-in one though). An RDF would work with the scoped DSLR only if you have enough stars in the close vicinity of your target. I estimate your typical FOV at ~4 degrees. So it seems to be viable for typical beginner targets to point with an RDF. Just get a decent digital star chat app to aid with hopping and dot placing (in the void between stars pattern).

Thanks! "Fire door" is the key! Let me elaborate on my "overbuilt" concern though (just my personal opinion, you are free to go as you see fit): 5 mins corresponds to less than 2 degrees of tracking. That's why I feel it overbuilt. Because simply having it weighted down on the rod you could simply push a steel plate up by the smoothened end of the rod that far, and thus go with the single hinge only. No need to elaborate on the driving rod's pivots that seriously. In fact, that might instead complicate the fine motion of a preloaded single hinge even on that small 2 deg arch into some erratic periodic driving error combining all hinges motion into a very complex dance on the CCD . Also, I guess your plan is to drive it with some rate progression algorithm converting the linear motion into the sideral. It's actually easy to calculate if you need that or not at all for the given focal on the expected range and with the built lever length. I feel it should be fine even with the constant rate. So again, no need to improve on that. And still fine with some simple platform rewinding and precalculated speed curve approximation. But in a long run you will want to employ a single axis autoguider anyway (to use longer focal ranges, or compensate for the weather, or for the wear of the system). Thus again, mechanical imperfections of the single hinge will become nonessential, while the perfect approximation of its motion by a single pivoting axis will be the most crucial thing as you can autoguide in one axis only with the barn door motor.

Looks seriously overbuilt, but why not if you can? I feel it could perform well even with some 8" reflector on the top board. Could you share that interesting long hinge source, please?

To the OP: I would just add an ESP8266 or ESP32 module to feed your controller data (and controls) to BT or WiFi wirelessly and look it up on the smartphone (if you are nearby) or on the LAN/Internet from any other device remotely. That's orders of magnitude more convenient and also more economical than physical screens, indicators and levers. Actually you can build your entire controller on either chip and save on the integration effort too. It's even several times easier to implement and program than a typical Arduino (see my recent project for the UXD definition example and considerations). No? Then, I believe, a whatever code (Morse comes to mind) you can remember yourself should work fine for you personally.

Eyepieces were banned from listing on this thread actually, but as the rule is broken already , I can tell that my visual experience had been impacted by the TV Ethos 17 (100 deg 2" EP) so drastically, that I've ditched 30 years of my prior observing experience using other, non 100 deg eyepieces, to revisit everything I saw before with that modern marvel! Fortunately, I had the TPM scope pointing method (with Telrad on my z12) mastered by then, so it took only 10 years to repeat the past 30 and then some So if you are not stuck between an air blower and collapsing stool, get one for your aperture ratio (my 17mm feels ideal with 1:5).

You don't need a long focal for "planetary". You CAN use long focals for "planetary". However, to have mind blowing planetary views, you actually want the greatest aperture you could afford (to get and handle) instead. The minimal "planetary" aperture (for truly interesting views) is 150mm. But only with the 300mm aperture at hand I've started to see space craft flyby kind of planetary views when our own planet permits... I see mounts mentioned as well? Just on a side note: with the experience, you can manually guide with pleasure for hours at 500x on a decent 100% classic scheme Dobsonian mount. Just with your single finger touch in the right spot. At 800x it's getting a bit challenging, but having a 100 deg AFOV EP helps to amend that.

Just keep in mind that most paper charts have a different scale on different charts in the set. And the scale of the top is often different from the scale on the bottom, all the way to the need of not circular rings for Telrad, as the projection of a sphere to the surface can be done in several ways but always with certain distortions, which are very visible on large field charts. So don't expect a perfect sky match with your DIY Telrad rings. While properly implemented digital star charts don't have such an issue at all. My in-app Telrad rings are so precise that I'm using even the width of the lit ring to judge my pointing precision. By the way, the best method of making accurate overlays is using special projection transparencies for LaserJet printers (with a LaserJet printer of course). They last forever, have a very high contrast, and that way it's easy to print good overlays in various scales as needed for paper charts scale variances matching. I've been preferring thinnest film as I could electrify it to be a bit sticky to the chart. Though, again, that 30 years-old high-tech is even worse a chore to use at the eyepiece. While with the digital overlay I'm now pointing having the chart frankly side by side with the Telrad view. That makes the perfect indirect pointing with the Telrad a dozen of seconds nobrainer even for a beginner. On a side note, the proven flow with paper charts and Telrad from 80-es is making individual finder charts for every object you plan to observe, with Telrad rings on them exactly as needed for the object finding. I recall crawling over some ancient professional grade star atlas (stars down to 10m) pages on the floor (as it was like 120x100 cm large) with a piece of contact paper and a pen planning the night several days. That flow is addressing all of the above issues, as rings are drawn with the compass measured with the chart's grid in the vicinity of the target. The fun thing about that tech is that to avoid using a broad light flashlights with these charts folks were making light boxes with momentary light button, brightness control, and a projection transparency film cover to tuck finding charts under it for protection. Most advanced amateurs fighting for the perfect darkness adaptation, were also transferring their finding charts with black ink copier paper and using the resulting used copier sheets to create inverse charts (red symbols on black background) with these light boxes. An OLED smartphone screen prototype from XX century. I would say, even better than some modern smartphones and apps, as you could also draw with markers on that reusable/replaceable transparency cover...

It depends on the Newtonian construction and the nature of your local light pollution. Some Newtonian models have quite a serious distance from the edge of the OTA to the secondary and focuser "integrated" already. Some observing directions may expose the OTA internals to a discrete source of light in the background. Some observers don't get dark adapted enough to be able detecting the difference. So I would just make some makeshift shielding first and observe the change in the view. Then go fancy. Keep in mind that the OTA size is engineered with the specific field of view in mind. Extending the edge without drafting it out may introduce vignetting. For a small aperture like 150mm it is easy to 3D print a ultra-lightweight mathematically perfect full baffle or a segment of it. The 1D length extension is usually enough for a typical Newt. But up to 2D is still not totally insane. On a side note, in a heavily light polluted environment and for bright targets (like the Moon and bright Planets) the OTA flocking on the inside is highly beneficial as well. The same is true for the inside of that DIY baffle. Thus "reflectix"-like and any other shiny polished/sealed materials are not good for its implementation or would require an additional resurfacing.

Congrats! Though, you haven't stated what phone app you are using. But in general, if you believe that your app is accurate enough, I would not even bother making any cradle/holder for the phone attaching to the camera. That will make it all too heavy already (you haven't stated how your camera is mounted, so I assume a typical photo tripod). Instead, simply place your phone and camera back to back when pointing (assuming your camera back is parallel to its optical plane, which is typically the case). That's a good enough pointing accuracy given typical smartphone accelerometers and compass errors. However, as I can't recognize any constellations' stars on your shot, that means you set it all the way to 104mm. In that case, smartphone accelerometers will fail to provide the required accuracy to hit nebulae for example. So for that, I believe, you will need a more accurate pointer. An RDF is good enough indeed. Some folks are mounting it in the flash shoe on the top making a simple T adapter (e.g. can be 3D printed in an hour). Some don't trust the shoe thus making a pointer attachment point on the camera mount's head (usually below the camera). One more option is a GLP (green laser pointer). It's beauty is in the ease of the alignment. Just adjust the beam in the viewfinder or on the screen to hit the center of the frame and you are good. While with the RDF you will need to align in the daylight, so if your DIY RDF mount is not perfect at holding the alignment between re-mounting it it may become a chore. Surely, GB residing folks will chime in soon about the GLP legal annoyances probability (you haven't stated where you are either, so can't tell for sure if that would work for you well or not). Finally, myself, I'm using the DSLR's own optical viewfinder. It works great at awkward angles with the special right angle viewfinder loupe attachment (standard DSLR accessory you can find online). E.g.: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1132360-REG/ziv_ravf_right_angle_viewfinder.html/

Just shop for the cheapest offer of a 2xAAA-driven laser pointer on Amazon. The price there is on par with what you can find for the same on eBay and Ali or even better as they have a huge local stock usually. Been shopping not so long ago for a friend for the exact same application. He is 300% happy with the below "kit": https://www.amazon.com/Quoiron-Purple-Kitten-Interactive-Sticks/dp/B08R7CDBLF I'd get all 3 colors as each works for different light pollution / eyes darkness adaptation situation. Or at least to see what works best for you. Also great if several folks are pointing into the sky simultaneously (like one is asking, you answering). The quality of that model is totally reliable after all these years they are made in China. I have 3 like these (2 of them for over a decade) and all still working great. I have that same one Louis D is recommending, no difference in the performance, but the gunsight one is quite bulky and heavy and definitely much harder to remove from its holder or operate in the hand with the rail clamp on it. For the cold weather just stick with the "Lithium" alkalines (e.g. Energizer). They are great in cold weather and very lightweight. Lasting like forever in these pointers. In fact, the laser diode will fail in the deep cold first. So if planning to expose it for long time you need some $100 model with the special cold resistant diode or/and the separate diode module heater circuit. With the above pointer you can just quickly remove it from the holder on the OTA and warm up in your pocket in just few minutes. For mounting as a finder, don't overdo it as some folks do with 6 collimation screws following the optical finder two rings mount 🤦‍♂️. That's a weird overkill as the accuracy of pointing with the GLP is around 1/2 degrees at best anyway. So a trivial friction hole block fastened on the side of the OTA for easy pointer removal when needed for the night show is totally adequate. On my Astroscan I'm using a trivial pair of ropes holding it in the corner (click the image for some more details): The beam is always in the center of the scope FOV when ON.

Welcome! And congrats for your acquisition! Pixies has 100% nailed it. I would also try wiggling/rotating the focuser tube and the cap around a bit to see if that might be the culprit here (which is typical). By the way, here is the dedicated thread on the SGL for your scope:

Lovely CAT, Philip! However, CATs are heavy in comparison, esp Maks, and at 1:14 it's not really for deep skys the OP is after in B-1, as those worth the effort benefit an UWA field.

Honestly, that was only an idea. I have no clue where to buy one. But it's extremely trivial to make. Just find a milling machine shop around (some scientific research facilities usually have one) or online in your region. Myself, I would just 3D print it if needed, e.g.: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:650943 (that's another option for you, as 3D printing shops also exist, including online). Spotting scope is not very good idea, as their optics is made for day time use (sports, birding, whaling). Thus a lot of light loses and too high zoom are typical in them. Also most are quite heavy compared to a typical refractor. IMO, a newtonian is still your best bet. Lowest mass*volume per aperture. That lowtech solution can be purchased component by component, and bolted together in a couple of weekends' evenings. With some deficiencies, but totally working in the truly dark observing spot. An you know how to bolt/unbolt it quick

IMO, Large binoculars like 70x15 are more like a stationary solution. Double weight for nearly nothing. Tripod is such a hassle as well. Though, having 3 trekking poles you can use this device: https://backpackinglight.com/universal-trailpix-tripod-review/ to rig something not totally ridiculous. If you would opt for that 130mm Heritage reflector or a similar folder, its semi-fork mount can be disassembled into 3 flat pieces and reassembled on the spot (some older models though may require replacing fasteners to make them not a single use, I saw that done in a single evening). Not for a strenuous backpacking, but for the flight and on the base camp it could be ideal with decent aperture as that what you want to enjoy goodies you could not enjoy in the light pollution.

I had a blast traveling to Australia solo to observe the Totality and scuba dive the GBR with the carryon only: small wheeler with essentials and a small but wide daypack with the Edmunds Scientific Astroscan 4" ball-mount reflector and a DIY ring mount for it. I believe that's an ideal large binoculars replacement. It worked on my laps even on the slightly rocking diving boat. 12 unforgettable nights under "alien" stars... Now building a 8" 1:4.2 folding truss for even better world traveling sky experience. As 4" was not enough for sure.

The long answer: http://web.telia.com/~u41105032/kolli/kolli.html

ODA - observers digital assistant. A.k.a. dedicated for astronomy use second-hand rooted offline Android smartphone or tablet with large AMOLED screen, good long exposures in RAW capable camera, and preferably the stylus pen. And surely a bunch of astronomy apps for it. By the end of the year you will be also able using it to point your telescope effortlessly to any object leveraging the real-time plate solving push-to similar to the Celestron StarSense Explorer.

Nice sketches Pixies! I believe nebulae are most rewarding for sketching as they are gradually revealing their fine features as you observe them and allow multiple takes on their appearance capturing in the observer's mind. But definitely you want a large aperture, NB filters, and truly dark skies. When I've been developing my app, I've been thinking of adding the dedicated sketching tool as well allowing to draw right on the star chart, but then found a very limited interest in the community as artists were sticking to their pencils and charcoals and the WACOM S-Pen was largely unknown to the public at the time...

I guess you've got certain paper sketching skills? Do you know the digital sketching exists and that certain smartphones are providing quite interesting tools for that out of the box? E.g. here is my "Fantasy Nebula" sketch done on my ODA (Samsung Galaxy Note 3 "phablet" with its integrated S-Pen) several years ago. Just to demo several techniques possible on digital canvas which you can zoom in to define details and zoom out to define contours at will:

Oh, your Skyliner is not collapsible? My bad (looked it up in Google, and it showed the collapsible 200P model for some reason, now I see it's indeed a full OTA). Sure, no need to feel bound to the dialog, if you have said all you had on the subject already. Again, I'm not arguing with you, just using your point as the agenda But I'd like to elaborate on a couple of items I've briefly touched above, just for beginners of course: The "Velcro mod" I have mentioned is very beneficial for the collimation as it is gently attaching the primary mirror to its cell, so it's not freely moving in it anymore when you are handling the telescope, but not yet pinched in the rigid supports enough to cause any optical surface distortion on the nanoscale (visible in the EP as an astigmatism). That means the mirror is always settling back into the originally collimated position in the cell even after inverting the OTA upside down for a prolonged time (e.g. for the dust free storage). For many years amateurs were using thick silicone glue dabs on the cell supports for that. But Velcro dots are much easier to apply/remove/replace even in the field. Their only disadvantage is that if you leave your telescope in the open sun unprotected, the glue may soften even on HD (heavy duty) dots. But the severe heat like that is not good for your telescope in general, so better to be proactive on that problem. The narrow AFOV EPs issue I have mentioned as well refers to the fact that your perfect collimation spot (where your virtual Star Test must show ideally concentric rings) must be within ~3/4 of the AFOV (so you have enough well collimated field for observing the object transit at high magnifications with no guiding. Obviously, an UWA AFOV EP would allow much more slack in the collimation error. Thus I don't mind the Star Test looking not ideal exactly in the center of the AFOV as soon as within the huge AFOV I can find the decent view of it just moving the disk around. In 99% of cases no Primary collimation needed again, as even a newbie can achieve that using the SBLC collimation method instantly. Even in the case the secondary is a bit off in the sighting tube (see below). In practice, the perfect Primary's collimation of a visual instrument is essential only for planetary views and also super-close double stars views asking for really high magnification (thus the centrality of the perfect airy disk becomes essential with typical inexpensive EPs, you need to hit the narrow FOV). But for diffuse objects or most anything at low mags it's not that crucial to go all the way to the airy disk structural analysis (which is a rather rare occasion due to the atmospheric turbulence anyway).

I would not worry about the leveling perfection on a modern GoTo mount. Simply following the 2 stars alignment as suggested by the handheld would take care of ~5 degrees of error in there. It's still good to have to make the life of the wooden GoTo fork motors easier (thus more accurate on a long range slew, but not because of the closer refined model conformance, just due to mechanical deficiencies of such a wooden mount construction). If in doubt, at any moment you can do the single star alignment in the vicinity of your target (called PAE, i.i.r.c.) and have much more pointing/tracking accuracy gain than any leveling effort could ever provide on these mounts trying to crossbreed the Dobson stool with the GoTo fork (quite an ill idea in my opinion, but seems to be OK for visual tracking if you're OK sacrificing the weight). If still no go (to) , I would suggest you to photograph the piece of the instruction you are trying to follow, and we (or I'm) could try to "decipher" it for you into more detailed step by step with needed "sanity" checks along the way.

I'm not arguing with you. If you believe your collimation routine works for you fine, just keep it. You probably spent years already polishing your visual collimation skills. Besides, you've got the Flextube Dob, which is indeed require more collimation effort compared to the solid OTA of the OP. While I'm giving my advice to beginners with the solid OTA like mine, who still have a chance to stick with the much more accurate, simple, convenient, and now very cheap modern collimation aid and the proven flow eliminating any guesswork in the routine collimation check of the primary, which plagued newtonians for centuries. I understand, the "do their own research" is a nice hobby time spending for some indeed. But the "judgement" is what smart folks are coming for here when asking on this forum. It comes with the practical experience they don't have yet (and may not get ever without trying all collimation methods in existence and following all these lengthy writeups). Don't take me wrong, all of the above writeups are valid, but they are for the initial collimation. Especially for newly built telescopes. While I'm talking about the routine collimation of the Primary only. Which doesn't have to be as tedious as the full one (but must be extra accurate, as it's preceding observations). Especially on a solid OTA Newtonian with the final step of collimation done with the cell stiffening screws making it nearly permanent. So, officially: my personal judgement I'm offering here, coming straight from the long term personal experience with at least 4 inexpensive Primary's collimation methods, is that after just a hundred of times doing it the classic way, which is probably how Isaac Newton himself has been doing it nearly 400 years ago, it becomes just a boring chore postponing the starry sky enjoyment. But after my lengthy and bumpy trips hunting for the clear dark sky it's a must to check anyway. Thus after trying a couple of other methods and tools I'm settled on the SBLC method as it's the most effortless, efficient, fast, and easy to read and follow among most precise weather-independent methods I could find. It works naturally as soon as you have a Barlow lens in your EP kit already and the ring-like center marker on the Primary mirror of your telescope (both can be DIY fabricated). I can't even imagine anything more bulletproof than observing the dark ring concentricity on the well lit white projection screen of the typical laser collimator. Moreover, SBLC method is fixing all deficiencies of cheap ($20) laser collimators forcing us buying $300-400 offerings of the same in the past. On a side note. The method is so quick, that in the past, before I've done the "velcro mod" on the Primary and been using very narrow AFOV EPs, I've been collimating with it prior to every planet observing session without a hesitation, as at the different (usually rather low) altitude the collimation may change a tiny bit as the mirror rocks on its supports.

Welcome to the forum, Thor123! And congrats on your 12" choice. The best portable aperture IMO. Selecting different stars wouldn't help. As hitting the wall means you are having some general system malfunction or misconfiguration. Double check your location, time, and time zone set correctly. Use align with single brightest star method (don't use Polaris or any stars close to it). Do Factory reset from the menu and try again. One wild idea is perhaps you are pointing only manually? Are you engaging the clutches? Try using the controller arrows exclusively for that. Confirm that both motors are working. Also I recall the trick to get the controller out of wrong prior alignment: First, point to a bright alignment star manually but don't engage clutches. Now command to align to that star as usual, but hold the OTA by hands in the direction of the star while motors are slewing (clutches not engaged). When it stops, engage clutches and use remote arrow keys to point to that star precisely. The method may not work if DSC's are independent from motors. In that case motors should work indefinitely, or some error will be displayed. (I assume you know bright stars visible in your sky enough for the task, as that's another reason the alignment may cause OTA hitting the wall on the second star). Just on a side note, you don't need starry sky to try the above. Just use some digital planetarium app to approximately estimate which star would work at that time of the day (high enough above the horizon).

You see? Four guides already, with a decent amount of quite dense information to comprehend, remember, and follow. With plenty of steps and turns where something may go wrong. The Star Test is an art on its own, which is well known to be used wrong as well. All because we are all different as biological beings. That's why the Scientific Method has been developed eons ago, so we all could 100% agree on something at last and don't be stuck in the analysis paralysis forever (how good is good enough?). In this case, we want a simple way to measure the problem in a easy to comprehend way and monitor the progress of our effort to fix a misalignment. The direct situation assessment with your eye doesn't always work well here. The direct analogy of the problem is the doctor with the stethoscope listening to your heartbeat and deciding if your condition needs certain treatment or another (that's your approach). Yes, it is a very simple, actually trivial procedure for a doctor, no single doubt. Even though with certain limitations (e.g. the patient is moving vigorously or can't breath). But not at all for an average Joe even in the most refined environment of an optical bench. Joe would instead benefit much more placing his hands on the handlebar of the fitness machine and seeing his heartbeat and ECG on the screen to pace the exercise in the real time. The ring around the hole on the Barlowed laser collimator (BLC) screen is exactly the same approach. No professional medical personnel needed. If you were lucky to afford using a full OTA Newtonian telescope (as opposed to a truss, including collapsibles, which cannot hold the general collimation after packing down, and which is the primary subject of the above 4 guides of well established ATMers), then after the initial collimation, the secondary will never need any adjustments. Only the Primary may have some play from the real-life handling (e.g. you had to have it standing on its collimation screws as you forgot to setup your mount first). And for that the simplified BLC method I'm recommending from my personal experience above is the best method to use in the field (as opposed to the comfort of your deliberately equipped and well lit man's cave) just prior to the observing session, even in the total darkness, if/when the Star Test doesn't work well yet, e.g. due to the primary's thermals still settling, or bad seeing, or no 2xDmm magnification eyepiece at hand, or due to the lack of experience. So you can be sure that your telescope can't show Jovian storms' fine structure not because of its ill collimation. Just eyeballing the eyecup hole concentricity is not enough as the eye has parallax and resolution limitations. That's why there are so many collimation tools on the market all the way to over $1000 in price. Besides, all 4 sources you have mentioned are quite dated. Super cheap laser collimators arrived on the market around 2018.