Zeta Reticulan

Actually, I think I saw the movie. IIRC there were many aware of the problem but no one wanted to break a code of silence. "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." [After working on the Challenger investigation] ~ Richard Feynman (IMDb)

Sports personalities?

I don't know. I don't think much has changed.

I believe the technicians knew it was too cold to launch and advised against it as they knew the rings could fracture. They were overruled for political reasons. I'm sure Richard Feynman figured out what was wrong. I'm just too lazy to look it up. I'm tired after a pretty decent session with my 60 EDF lol.

The technicians knew about the O-rings. The Challenger disaster could have been avoided.

They had better and more reliable ships in the 60's.

I just hope they check the O rings.

I'm wondering what the motive is to launch now. I would have thought all of the bugs would have been ironed out before a launch is even considered. Things don't go well for NASA when political decisions override technical decisions.

I'm always confused by default.

I was going by this: I must have missed the bit where the Evostar was mentioned.

OK, own up, who blew the fuse out?

The ST102 is f/4.9. Although I've had up to 200x on Mars with mine (filtered) it's not an ideal scope for predominantly lunar/planetary observing. I very rarely go above 50x with mine. It will do planets, but if you're mainly interested in planets a long achromat or a reflector would be better. An 80mm ED refractor would show a lot. My 80ED DS Pro is surprisingly good for planetary considering it's a 3" scope. If you're really just interested in planets and the Moon a 127mm Mak' would be a good choice. One caveat though; as much as I love my Mak's they are a bit specialist in my opinion. A 127mm Maksutov is difficult to beat for a portable high magnification scope. Mine have been out quite a bit this year for lunar and planetary observing. They don't do rich field well.

Interesting. My SkyGlow is Korean. I also have the UHC-E. Although I now have a dedicated comet filter. I've even seen a comet with it lol.

The Astronomik UHC-E passes one of the Swan bands I believe.

We're not alone.

Gave it a few minutes. As long as they don't play any Eagles I'm cool with it.

I can mount my 4kg 102mm Altair ED-R on a Vixen Porta II/SXG HAL-130 (with half-pillar). Or a TL-130 tripod if I keep the accessories light.

The season without clouds.

This is my reaction to bright light ...

The XF has a fair few problems. I think Don has a fair point in the fact that the XL's transmission could be better, but I agree with you that it is superb. I had one of the best views I've ever had of the Ring Nebula (89x) with my XL and 102mm Starwave.

Everyone who wears prescription shades and has had two strokes I guess. Although my eyes have always been light sensitive (photophobia), it's an inherited condition. Like high blood pressure. I've needed shades since I was very young. It's not a fashion statement.

Good job my eyes are light sensitive then lol.

Yeah, well, I never expected it to be like a fixed length EP. I think it was designed for spotting scopes. I thought it compared well to the BHZ however. I also tend to only use it in my f/7, 102mm Starwave. I might notice the light loss more in a slower scope, or a reflector.

I like it for splitting doubles and lunar/planetary. I know the eyecup is glued on. It can be folded down though. I'm not sure what's happened to Orion TBH. They seem to be restructuring, or something. I haven't got around to testing mine in bino's yet. They should be OK if you can merge the images. I think it's unfair to compare this little zoom to the BHZ or Pentax XL. They're quite different animals both in size and ability. For lunar/planetary the Orion/SvBony gives most of my Plossls a run for their money. Plus, it's a fun zoom! lol