Mr Spock

Or, could be TMB Or, even, Tasco

Ship's funnel? Don't insult the Tubies like that

I believe they were sourced from GSO.

You can see it better if I enlarge it The moon is too high for it to be atmospheric.

I don't remember the primary springs on either of my Skywatcher 250s being a problem.

Proper strong springs are always a good idea. Essential if you have one of the GSO sourced Newts.

I don't see anything visually, but, I turn my lunar images to monochrome because...

I see, like me, you still use OG for refractors 👍

I'm sure help is at hand. Shame we aren't closer. I built my first Newts by hand some 48 years ago, so have quite a bit of experience. I'm not so good at explaining things though - much better at doing!

My drawing skills aren't there at all these days. They used to be in my teens - don't know what happened. I posted a drawing of Jupiter a while back. It got some likes but no feedback. I didn't think it was all that good myself though There were some white spots I didn't get right at all. I've tried, But having to take reading glasses on and of really is a problem for me, especially in the (near) dark!

Not quite there, but a lot better 👍 You should be good now.

I think if I were looking to spend £1895 on an OTA I'd spring the extra £100 for a 180 Mewlon. Or, save £866 and get a Skymax 180. Even the StellaLyra 8" CC at £999 would be preferable. I don't have the same kind of seeing issues with my other large scopes, current (StellaLyra 12") and historical (Skywatcher 10", and Skywatcher 10" Flextube).

I use 4mm, 3.3mm and 2.5mm TOEs in that range, so it would be of no use to me really. I can understand the convenience, but, I've gone to great expense to maximise the image quality in every part of the optical train; I've noted a few reports which say it becomes softer towards the 3mm setting and that's where you want your maximum sharpness.

80ED on a Vixen Porta. The word 'jelly' doesn't do it justice... It was meant to be low power, wide field only. It couldn't even do that!

I had one, with an EQ6, for around ten years. When seeing conditions were excellent, it was very good. The rest of the time it was mush. It didn't respond to less than perfect seeing at all well. I kept it in a cool place, and despite leaving it outside for hours for extra cooling, I used to look through it and be so disappointed with the view I would not do any observing, just bring the scope straight in. I did have some good views of the moon, and split a 0.7" double with it. Other than that it was a waste of space. I see more detail on Jupiter with my 4" Tak.

Unusual shaped galaxy. The group to the right looks interesting too.

Very good, and popular. If you have £85 to spend, have a look at the Nirvanas - 82° and very sharp.

You won't - it can't do that. Best to use either a collimation cap or a concentre. But once you have the secondary and primary aligned like it is in that guide you'll get a perfect star test which is what you need for fine detail; small positional errors in the secondary won't matter. One thing to be aware of is if the secondary is out of position left to right (or top/bottom as you look through the eyepiece), rather than up/down or back/forward. If the spider vanes are equal it could mean the focuser is misaligned. You can correct that with Skywatchers - on the one I had, the focuser had adjustment screws.

Yes. If you can't see one of them when the scope is collimated it means the secondary is out of position. You should be able to see the clips and have the scope collimated at the same time. However, having said that, slight errors in secondary position when collimated will only affect where the circle of full illumination is - as long as the primary and secondary are in collimation you should see a perfect star test. I do find Cheshires difficult, which is why I prefer a laser. I did a write up on laser collimation here

Have you checked the position of the secondary? I had a 250 Flextube and it needed quite a bit of adjustment. You can't collimate properly until you know that is right.

Instead, I've had a fiddle with the image I took the other night. Imagine what this scope could do with a proper camera and stacking etc.

Meh... 100% cloud here 😡

A couple of months. FLO quoted up to four but to my surprise it was half that. Well worth the wait though 👍

Excellent choice! A couple I have and can recommend: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/diagonals/baader-clicklock-2-dielectric-star-diagonal.html On the Starfield: Oh, and I replaced the twist grip on the Starfield with a Baader Clicklock Not necessary, but I am a big Baader Clicklock fan https://www.firstlightoptics.com/diagonals/baader-t-2-prism-stardiagonal-zeiss.html On the Tak: Brilliant for planetary detail but only wide enough for the 2" 30mm UFF - something like the Nagler 31mm would vignette, as does my 42mm LVW. A very short focal path though, ideal for binoviewers.