PEMS

I would not worry overly about the performance of the 25mm, it performs well. At times you will likely read that someone somewhere thinks each of the individual focal lengths are "the weakest". Not sure why people have to try and identify "the worst" in their opinion, seems so pointless. I suppose the rather simple answer is they all perform above their price point. The ES 24/68 will deliever the widest field however be aware the additional width is minimal. Reality is a 25mm BST, 30mm plossl and ES24/68 will all be very close to each other. Even the ES 30mm 52 degree will be almost identical. The spread is likely 0.1 degrees and that is edge to edge.

Hyperons are reported as good, or fair, down to f/6 think others have said f/7 or slower, I guess that means the work at f/6 just considered as useable not good. So direct answer is should be OK on your f/7.5. The problem could come later if you changed scopes and went faster like f/6. When they could be not the best. Hyperons seem to get talked of a lot but not really sure that people purchase them in the same proportion. I additionally have the vague idea that Baader may use a fractionally different pitch for the threads. Meaning you have to purchase their filters etc. In honesty I am not sure it is Baader that do this but check first. Seems a little strange that an eyepiece that costs around the £100 mark does not perform better on faster then f/6 scopes. BST's and X-Cel's are reported as good to F/5 and are around half the cost. No idea about the Barlow. I would also go for the 5mm, 8mm, 13mm and 24mm.

An 8SE is a little on the specialist side, it has a long focal length so this results in a narrow filed of view. At 2032mm and assuming a 24mm 68 degree eyepiece you would get: 84-85x magnification and so around a 0.8 degree view. As Andromeda is some 3 degrees across all you get is about 1/4 of it in your view at any time. Usually this ends up as the fuzzy central core. So you are not going to "see" the Andromeda galaxy as I would suspect you think, or hope, you are. Most seem to assume that a bigger magnification means all of an object and bigger. At some stage what happen is that it flips to being a smaller part of the object but bigger. With that narrow a view there are others that are not visible in their entirity: M42 is just over 1 degree, M45 is around the 2 degree size, M33 is 1 degree, Double cluster is 1 degree. So by rights these and I expect others will not be fully visible in your scope with the usual 1.25" format eyepieces.

Hi, I would wait a while before you leap into the AP side. It is more specialist then many realise, and really requires a driven equitorial mount. Also slight concern the 150/750 images were from the 150PDS not the "standard" newtonian form. If Cambridge there is a club there (or was) they met at the Institute of Astronomy. Think the Institute held events weekly and the club had a monthly club meeting. Somewhat both were mixed together. People have said the weekly Institute activity is children orientated. Bit North East there is one at Ely, and South West one at Letchworth. Should be one at Papworth - but that one seems quiet and also St Neots again seems to have gone quiet. Just mention in case Cambridge is the nearest big place.

I would doubt it exept as a factual definition or representation. It is more how a persons mind interprets things. To me the universe is big, and where we sit in it, physically, is just about impossible to explain with any degree of physical measurement. But as said to me it is in many ways just big. OK call it Infinite but so what, that is just an extreme big. In some ways someone trying to make her understand their idea of infinite and big and whatever is not a good idea. We all understand things a little differently. I have seen assorted videos or simulations of something panning out from earth, through the solar system, passing nearby stars and then the milky way and whichever cluster we are part of and carrying on out. And all leave me thinking "OK, So what?" Maybe I am not impressed by Infinity, would seem so. Brian Cox did one program where the sun was central and on some scale the planets were at R1, R2 R3 etc using some marker in a US city. It just seemed meaningless: Saturn would be the other side of the bay by that lighthouse. Was some comment ot other. Pointless to me. Suggest some reasonable books on the solar system, then maybe the nearby stars but use lightyears as it is both time and distance, then perhaps the Milky way. Let her get her own understanding.

Do refractors and reflectors have the curvature the same way ? Just thinking that if they do not then a scope/sensor mismatch makes things worse. As in effect the curvature doubles.

I would suggest something fairly small and simple, the 127 sounds like it could be a Mak type scope. They tend to have long focal lengths and so a narrow field of view which means not so simple and easy. The other thing I would suggest is ask her and get input from her. Here you will get told what others like me would get or want or think good. That is very likely not what she would choose for herself. Scopes are somewhat personal so get what she wants, not what someone else wants. The easiest is probably a reasonable 80mm refractor. One around f/8 to minimise chromatic aberration. Maybe check the ES and Bresser sites. For safety read the details of the 130. Just it might have a focal length of around 1000mm and a tube of around 500mm. If so avoid. They have a spherical mirror and a built in barlow. They just do not work well.

Check the firmware on the mount. Better does it ask which side you are using the scope/camera on? The basic firmware that they seem to come with has the scope, camera in your case, defaulting to the left hand side. To make use of mounting on the right hand side it needs the newer firmware and I would expect that you have to tell it if left hand or right hand operation. If it has requested in effect "Which side" then ignore this, but it is a thought.

Likely accidental or normal but the post reads that you expect a filter to give more "nebulosity". They cannot. Any filter removes something - they filter out aspects. In the case of a nebulosity filter they block the not-nebulosity wavelength and allow thorugh only the required ones. And even then they tend to pass only 90-95% so they reduce the ones you want also a little. The big problem of most DSLR's is they also block a lot of the astronomy interesting Ha wavelength, so the DSLR reduces the amount by far the most. A Canon blocks some 80% so allowing through only around 20%, and Nikons block some 90% so allow through only some 10%. You do not say which wavelength it is you want - usually Ha or OIII. If you added a nebulosity filter what you get is an image of just that narrowish band of wavelengths. Before modifing a DSLR work out if it is worth it. Say this as it seems people will have 2 or 3 modifications made and still have a DLSR that is closer to a dedicated camera but is still not one and the cost is often similar or greater. A modified DSLR is the basic modification, then a replacement filter and later clip in filters for the specified wavelengths. Ideas are: If you want OIII then get a UHC that is OIII+Hb ONLY, or OIII specific. If you want Ha it is harder as the DSLR has a large effect, but filter wise would have to be a widish I would suggest Ha filter. Wide being not a 3nm NB filter type. Not sure but check out the Svbony offerings, may not be the greatest but if really tight narrow bands are not totally required then could be a good idea.

I think the problem is that people talk in what really amounts to an out of date idea. Basically Gravity. Einstein in effect said that the material of the universe is not "flat" as required by Newton, that Mass distorted the shape of the universe and movement was not by a force of gravity but because of the change in shape of the universe local to the mass. So No force of Gravity. Ever attended a talk - RAS? Everything refers to The Force of Gravity. Which in many aspects is out of date by around 100+ years and lets say "innacurate". But it is resolutely stuck to. Using GR explain Star formation without "gravity". Actually fairly easy using a 2D analogy. Would possibly explain why the rate of star formation is not as predicted and that is likely because predictions are based on a force of gravity. I would say that it is to an extent the reluctance to "move on" that is the main problem. Newtonian Mechanics is good and in most cases more then adaquate, but it is not 100% accurate. Suppose starting a presentation with: "Right then, Newton got it wrong." Is almost considered blasphemy in many areas Expect Dark Matter needs input from the partical physics side, which seems somewhat absent. Don't think that from the given fundimental building blocks we have that we could construct an almost inert passive new partical - Dark Matter. Again is this a reluctance to say we were a bit wrong and need to update or modify our old ideas. I did once ask: Do we need an extra Quark? A sort of "Inert Quark". That created a look of horror. Models of dark matter cause amusement, for most models you need an input of Mass. No one will give you an answer to: What is the approximate Mass? Even "What Mass did you use in this model?". UCLAN at Astrofest did say Neutrino level, others suggest Super Massive Particals and everything in between.

Overall I would have said the EQ5. Maybe on the smaller side but the mount is a manageable size and will take 6Kg imaging and in reality that should be enough for a reasonable small reractor ED variety A WO ZS81 is 3.5Kg, DSLR estimate 1 Kg upper end and the flattener how about another 0.5Kg. So a total of around 5Kg. Agreed at the upper end of the capacity, but should be OK. Could simply get a smaller scope the ZS73 is 2.8Kg so a saving of 0.7Kg, and down to around the just under 4.5Kg. In an odd way the 81 size is likely more use as you can use it for a greater range of visual objects. Above the EQ5 mounts get big and heavy, and more expensive. The possibly lighter physical weight iOptrons are more costly, and as the question is "competitive priced" I would say the EQ5. Will depend on the amount of weight that you expect or intend to put on a mount, and also the exposure length. The most competitive mount if you want to out 18Kg on it and take 180 to 300 second unguided exposures is not an EQ5. If you are thinking 4.5Kg to 5Kg and 45 seconds to 60 seconds maximum then it should do you fine. You will need to set it up reasonably well.

You are better setting your own location with a goto. Horsham is 51 00 N, and either - 000 25, or 000 25 W(est) - cannot recall if they use a minus for West or W for West. Make sure of the leading zero's. It will ask for a Timezone and oddly enter UTC -0. Worst and slowest aspect is entering a 3 letter name for the location. The handset is not great. Seem to recall some confusion as you enter all the information and the handset cycles round and asks all over again. Once it repeats itself press Mode. Mode is to exit you one step back up the menu tree. Never did make sense. On the later LS models they changed Mode to Back at least they changed the printing. Memory and the manual says you get to Site - Add and press Enter. It asks for a 3 character name, supply and press Enter, it asks for the Latitude supply 51 00 and press enter. It asks for the Longitude supply 000 25 W (I think) and Press Enter, it asks for the Timezone supply -0 and press Enter. THEN it asks for a location name IGNORE this and Press MODE. It also confuses you by starting to ask Date and Time just ignore and press Mode. Or as I half think I did power it off. That shut it up. When you power on next time it uses the location you set and goes through a "normal" power up Q and A cycle. Seem to think the Date on a Meade is easy in that the month is alphabetic, so November is Nov not 11. So difficult to get wrong. With the defined location the mount just carries on using that until you change or set another. It just uses whatever was last used. Presently DST is Off or No - cannot recall the exact options given. Just found a manual the options are Yes or No so you pick No. Usually a good idea to get into the menu and do a Reset. For some reason on a Goto they seem to calculate some data and unless cleared out by a Reset it hangs around and so can be wrong. Menu: -> means press the Up/Down arrow keys to scroll up/down the options. The 2 buttons are on the bottom not part of the central set of 4. Set a Location: Select Setup -> Site (press Enter) -> Add (press Enter) - then follow instructions Reset: Select Setup -> Reset - Press Enter and I would expect confirm in some way. Find a/the manual and the page with the menu tree is in a way your bible and guiding light.

Search out a reasonable 80mm achro, say f/8 area and contemplate the Sktwatcher Az GTi mount with a lithium battery. Would be over the £400, should be under the £600. I would not put a 102 on one and 102's seem either too fast so show CA or long and the motors may not be up to throwing one around all the time. A 72mm ED woud sit well but you sacrifice aperture, and people seem averse to that idea. An 80ED would be nice but probably have to be a preowned item. Really G&G and wide would be one of the 60mm ED's around.

I will suggest a rather simple refractor. The small dobsonians need a table or similar, they are commonly referred to as a "table top" dobsonian. Additionally some tend to be "fast" and have limited adjustment for collimation. "fast" is the ratio of aperture to focal length to aperture. And as a bit of a generallity the faster they are the greater maintainance they require during use. As a simple idea take the focal length, divide it by the aperture. If the result is 5 or less then the scope is "fast", if 7 or above then "slow". between the 2 it will be no surprise that they are termed "medium". But I would advise against a fast scope of any variety reflector or refractor. One refractor are the 90mm aperture ones that are 900mm focal length. Never get much praise but a very good all round first scope. The "poor" aspect is they often come on a questionable mount. Search out the Explore Scientific scopes, they have a selection termed either Firstlight or their AR series. They do or did an 80mm of 640mm focal length on a reasonable looking mount, Nano I think. An 80mm is again a nice all round scope, has been said it is likely the best all rounder out there. Not sure if ES do a specific 90/900 refractor, they may, just never looked. You likely have overload again. And getting hold of a scope could be a challenge. Any friendly clubs around you where a well meaning member could let you look at and through a few of the basic scopes? It is no use someone wanting to show off their $4000 apo refractor or 20" Zambuto hand built reflector. Used equipment: Try the CN forum as you appear to be in the US, they have a for sale section (I think they do). Another is Astro Buy and Sell. The UK side is I think big but I also think, maybe incorrectly, that is has at least a Canadian side and maybe therefore a US side. Here is the UK link, you will have to look or dig around for other countries: ABSUK It is a starting point.

A 102 Mak is a little bit of a specialist scope. The focal length is long and that leads to a narrow view at the eyepiece. It is this narrow aspect that makes it slightly specialist. Knowing a budget would be useful. The already mentioned Az GTi is a nice mount and if paired with 72Ed or something like an f/8 80mm achro would make a good all rounder.

I would say neither. The image still comes out the end of the scope so the focal length isn't say halved. The final image is reduced in size to match that size as if the focal length were reduced. However it still comes out the end of the same length scope tube. You can consider that is the actual focal length was halved then the image would be inside the scope tube. It would also be before the reducer had been able to do it's job. The field of view will usually be increased but by exactly how much I am unsure as I would expect that it depends on the field of view of the scope initially. If the scope had a maximum of 5 degrees, dependant of aperture and focal length, then adding a reducer will not enable say a 7 degree field to be produced. Easy way to think about it is to incorporate the phrase "as if" into it all.

Friend has a couple of Meades and they have seen the same. Perhaps oddly they said turn it off, wait a few seconds and turn it on again and see if it is still present. However it seems when they had the same they had swapped handsets. So it could be in their case simply the handset and mount electronics performing a handshake action. Sort of saying Hello to each other. And at the next power cycle they have said Hello and just get on with it. Another is that the motor and/or gear is too tight and the motor has to draw more current to turn. This higher draw is detected and interpretted as a "motor fault". So you may need to release the assemly and make it less tight and set it up so that it will move and rotate more freely. The only other easy solution is there is some sort of microswitch or sensor that says the cover is off and so generates an error that is displayed as "motor fault". If so put the cover back on. Friend with the Meades thinks they have the idea they have seen it said that "motor fault" is more a general error message then a specific one. More like the old MS message of "A fault has occurred". I would suspect the motor and gear assembly is now slightly too tight and drawing too much current to turn more then anything. I would guess that at power on the system performs some sort of self test, and maybe detects a high current draw at that stage and so flags an immediate error. Simplest is the plug, socket and pin connections at both ends. After that it would seem to be the expensive route. They are the inexpensive ones I can offer, or pass on.

I seriously doubt it before 2023. Almost simply insufficent equipment to perform such a venture again. They have no Saturn 5 and it was considered inefficent, no shuttle of any apparent sort. Is the US still using Russian craft to get their astronauts up to the space station? Believe they are so how do they think they can manage a moon launch, they cannot presently get to orbit. Additionally they are still funding the James Webb and that gets delayed and delayed and sucks in money. The figures of the James Webb make pretty horrendous reading and in more relevance point to really poor project management. With the James Webb experience and the late delievery and over run on costs I cannot see NASA managing to make a case for such an endevour. The James Webb ST makes both interesting and frightening reading. They seem afraid to consider a launch and consider just pulling it all. Either option seems to scare NASA and in a way understandably, so they just keep it rolling along somewhere on planet Earth and to an extent wasting money. I don't foresee a moon shot from the US, China maybe, Russia doubtful. Maybe the question will be "Why bother?"

The Celestron AstroMaster 130EQ is given as a reflector, I assume you have the type wrong not the scope. It is not one of the bird jones designs, very useful. For Jupiter you will need something around the 50x to 60x area to see banding. Should be easy with the scope. Saturn is different. 40x to 50x should show the ring however for the cassini division it seems that 120x and above is required and besides just magnification the image needs to be good. Reflectors can give a softer image. Thereby masking the cassini division. Scope is 650mm focal length so 50x means a 13mm eyepiece. Unaware of a specific 13mm but there are numerous 12mm eyepieces around. The BST range seems popular, also there is the X-Cel LX range. For the higher then you will need something like a 6mm eyepiece, 108x and that may just be on the low side. Again unaware of a 5.5mm, there are numerous 5mm. The eyepieces you have are likely fairly poor, also at f/5 it seems that you are on the boarder lline for being able to use what is best described as inexpensive eyepieces. The 20mm eyepiece will probably deliver too small an image, 32x. and in the case of Jupiter that will be a small bright image and so likely the detail will be lost in the brightness. I would suggest that you need a couple more eyepieces, or a zoom if preferred. Also they need to be reasonable eyepieces. Cannot really help a great deal on that aspect, and as with all cost is a factor. At this stage I would say leave thoughts of collimation out. Sort out one aspect at a time.

You need to do a rather outdated thing called apply some thought. Oddly it is getting rarer. Sometimes it seems extinct. There are lists of colored double stars - Albireo and Almaak are the 2 most common talked of. Search the Astronomical League as I believe they have a program of them. You can simply download the list. Or make your own. Use Google and search for something like "colored double star list". Also look through the various catalogues and find the bright objects. You need bright ones. Also just get outside and start identifing the stars that you can see and so which constellations are more or less which. Have seen it said if someone said "search for M13 in Hercules", first you have to find Hercules. Usually a constellation will have 1 bright star. Bootes has Arcturus, Aquila has Altair, Lyra has Vega, Auriga has Capella. A few have more then 1, like Cygnus has Deneb and the others that make the cross. Ursa Major has those that make the Dipper - ever tried the others then the dipper in Ursa Major? If you get to the Astro Leauge programs look at others like the Binocular Program. As binoculars tend to be small they are likely to list easier to find objects.

Sorry but not sure that is the right equipment for planetary imaging. Most planetary imaging appears to be performed with an SCT or Mak and a 2x barlow of good quality. TV Powermate standard seems common. So the equipment doesn't come across as "Planetary imaging equipment". Have just mentioned elsewhere: Jupiter and Saturn are going out of sight and Mars is coming up. Then Mars will drift out of good viewing for around 2 years. That is in effect all the planets we, or you, can image. There are not a big selection of planets for imaging, or even viewing. Also the 150PL will need the mirror moving to get the camera and prime image to sit at the same position. So without modification, agreed minorish, the scope will not do what you want.

Well you are saying you are 2 degrees off, you are at 43 and the Latitude is set to 41. Also Polaris is fairly bright and the other advantagous to us is that there is not a lot else around it. It is one of the few constellations easily found if you are at a dark site as it in effect sits out of the milky way line of sight. How well focused was the polar scope? If incorrect then you would see the reticule as that is fixed in position but the stars would be out of focus and being stars they tend to be dim and you see nothing. I would sort out the latitude setting, presently just reads wrong. Take maybe more time with the N leg being well directed at Polaris. Unsure how to easily accomplish this - almost think a piece of wood with a heavy line drawn on it would be useful and sight along it. Rather unfortunately in astronomy things do not wander into view, they do wander out, rarely wander in. And we think that we are within 2 degrees and more likely we are within 5 or 10 degrees and nothing is in view if that is our accuracy. I would say spend 10 minutes extra getting everything set up just that little better. But do check the polar scope focus.

If it is the ease of use that most refractors seem to provide then get another refractor, and so then I suppose the 10" would have to be sold. A 127 Mak is a good scope however like all scopes has what may be termed negative aspects. The relatively long focal lengths will mean narrow fields of view and so would need to really be on a goto mount. A Mak will take some set up time compared to a refractor, it would seem to require a more careful set up as the final accuracy has to be better or higher, both of which means a longer time spent doing so. Most talk includes the terms "good on planets", I gather they are, however as I have read elsewhere there are 3 planets. Jupiter and Saturn are disappearing out of viewing for the next 8-10 months and Mars is coming up, will be around and then that will swing around the sun and not be available for around the next 2 years. So may be good on planets, however we do not seem to have a great array of planets to select every night to observe. The idea of a 100ED seems good, have you seen one? Only asking in case they are bigger then expected. It partially reads that size is or could be an influencing factor. I have a 102mm and it is at the biggest I would like to suggest is grab and go. However it is dependant on more the the scope. And add in that a 100mm refractor would require a new mount so more then just scope to think about. If it fitted an EQ5 then mount and scope and accessories is not grab and go. Each would be a separate trip to load into a car and I guess you don't drive. Why is the 10" not used? If size alone will you be in a position in say 2 or 3 years to make use of it more? Thinking potential University and therefore possible University astronomy clubs, or one in a local town? Astronomy equipment seems to be rising rapidly in cost, so holding on to it may be advantageous in the long term. More extreme is could you convert it to an Ultra Portable ? One high end scope maker in the states is ceasing the "standard" dobsonians and is only producing UP scopes now. Seems the soild tube versions are out of favour.

Kettering was placed in a high contagious group with a few other places around there, Corby and Northampton I think. The number of infections rose significantly. So the venue will have had to abide by the change of circumstance and cancel everything. Why the leap over 2021 to 2022, can only guess that it was impossible to make concrete arrangements in what would now be 6 months time. England/UK was locked down last March (23rd if I recall), which is now 6 months ago. As nothing appears to really be indicating the passing of this virus it would make sense that the Kettering Centre has said they cannot make and guarantee any events for some time. Creates the question: What will happen to Astrofest? Maybe I should search their site and see if they have made an announcement, since I haven't done so yet.

As you say the 130 is a spherical 900mm mirror I would really not expect great results from it at the high magnifications. It comes out as F/6.9 and many would suggest that a 7mm was a good idea and maybe a maximum. Giving the scope the benefit of the doubt you could try a 6mm but I doubt that a 5mm would be worthwhile. The barlow is another vague area, they are not all equal and some may work with a scope and others may not. Throw in that the barlow works on the scope focal length, actually image size, not on the eyepiece. So the barlow is affecting the output of what is a spherical mirror. As that likely is not starting out good the barlow is likely just going to highlight the abberations from the mirror. Previous person may have had a selection of barlows to try and naturally selected the one that worked best. However for the nature of the mirror the use of a barlow and an 8mm eyepiece is I expect too much for the scope. A finer focus adjustment is likely to make no difference. What you have not indicated is that you get momentarily to a good focus but cannot stop at that place. Meaning to me that there is no good or sharp focus. Exactly what I would expect. I would say that a 6mm eyepiece is going to be in effect as good as it will get, that is 150x. Seriously doubt there is any more to squeeze out of the scope. Concerning 200P use if the 1000mm focal length version f/5 then select a 6mm carefully. The William Optics ones were said to be good but not best in an f/5 scope, worked well in an f/6 and slower. Altair sell a 6mm however I suspect, from the appearance, it is a rebrand of the WO item so may suffer in an f/5. Would suggest the f/6 200P if possible. The slower scopes seem a little easier to use. Other then that a 6mm should, focal ratio considered, be a good option in a 200P. The question being "Which 6mm?"