Mandy D

Yes, I did a web search and could only find multiple copies of the article ... No further detail. Maybe a Google scholar search will find something. Reduces the cost by a factor of ten is not helpful either, as there is still scope for a six figure price tag unless we know the cost of the original frequency comb. Edit: sorry missed your second post. Now it gets more interesting ...

Researchers at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh have developed a device powered by a green laser, similar to laser pointers that sell for less than £5. But it emits light at a billion pulses per second, helping create what’s known as a frequency comb. Professor Derryck Reid, leader of the Ultrafast Optics group at Heriot-Watt University, said the laser has tremendous potential to allow astronomers to spot small, Earth-like planets orbiting distant stars. According to the university, the laser reduces the cost, complexity and power consumption of typical ultrashort pulse lasers by about a factor of 10. https://ukdaily.news/london/the-universitys-new-laser-system-could-help-astronomers-find-exoplanets-65841.html

But, don't you get the (not so) Smart car over there which is microscopic and makes even this VW look huge?

That looks engineered! What is the expected payload capacity?

Wow! That is awesome. I have the same problem at home and end up imaging from the street under uber bright LED lights. I have high hopes for the RC6 on that mount.

Thank you! I'm hoping for further recovery and really want to get back to deep sky. I'm putting together the kit I need for the RC6 to ride on this mount, but, I've not got the ASIair, yet. It's really cool that you can be up and imaging inside ten minutes. I generally need around half an hour, probably longer now because our new shed is in the way for getting the telescope out! But, it's eventually going to be moved to a permanent new location at the bottom of the garden. As soon as I have M42 with the RC6 and the mount, I'll post photos.

Sadly, not had a chance to use it yet. I'd love to have a proper session on M42 with it, but still having problems with my eye, so it might be a while yet. How are you doing with the new mouunt?

You people have to stop giving me ideas! 🤣

I like your thinking! 🤣

My generator has now gone into the garage to be serviced, so hopefully by the time the generator house is erected it will be ready. Just need to get some cables and a manual transfer switch installed. Maybe some chains and a big padlock would be a good idea, too! 😉

Yes, definitely! I got a new fridge-freezer a few days ago and had to put the old one outside for a few hours, disconnected from the supply with all my frozen stuff in it whilst we waited for the new one to settle it's refrigerant before we could turn it on. After 8 hours standing in the Sun, all the still frozen stuff was transferred to the new freezer. What I cannot understand is the people that check their freezer every few minutes during a power cut, thus causing the stuff to thaw faster. I recall the 70s power cuts and am now digging out my backup generator from work to have it serviced whilst the new generator house (shed) is being erected at home.

Good to know, but not generally a problem for me as I'm mostly imaging anyway and my two main scopes are longer than f/5.

Amazing result! I tried Mars last night, but I was only at 600mm FL as my target was Uranus and the Moon together, so no good results on Mars.

The secondary mirror sits closer to the primary, which means it is in a wider part of the light path, which is one reason the secondary needs to be bigger. It also means there is a longer part of the light path after the secondary than there is on the 200P, so it projects further out of the side of the tube before coming to a focus. This allows deeper camera body to sensor dimensions and also allows fitting of various accessories in the light path after the secondary. But, because the secondary is closer to the primary, the sum of the two parts of the light path after the primary is still the same.

Regarding the Skywatcher eyepieces I find the 25 mm is OK, but the 10 mm I would like to throw in the bin. It is definitely worth considering better eyepieces to get the best out of the Skywatcher for visual use, but I tend to have a camera on mine most of the time. Carrying the scope mounted on it's base is definitely possible. I do it all the time with my 200P for about 50 yards at a time. The 250PX is not that much bigger: In fact, the base is the same diameter and just has the uprights further apart for the larger tube. I've carried my 250PX fully assembled many times, so tube in a bag in one hand and base in the other is feasible. My Oklop bag for my RC6 has carrying handles and shoulder straps and is much easier to carry with the shoulder straps, so make sure you get one with shoulder straps. I find carrying the base by the handle is OK, but watch out for it banging your leg!

Y'all thinking they mean USD. Nope, it's Guyanaese dollars: GY$1.00 = GBP0.0043, so £4299.99 which is probably quite reasonable! 🤣

Just wants some lightning now and you have yourself a tesla coil! 🤣

Impressive! I hope the weather holds for you.

Thanks for the reply. I think what you have said is very helpful. I certainly understand the challenge of fiddling with these modular eyepieces in the dark as I already have one (8 mm) and it can be confusing to remember which bits go together to give what focal length or magnification. So, if I ignore the mag provided by having both extension rings fitted and also the Baader filter, that leaves me with 4 useful mags for the 17 mm including without the first group, which as you say is not good, but I can still use that purely for finding objects and not for viewing intensively. For the 200P and 17mm the mags will be 55, 71, 92 and 111x. With my exisiting 8mm, it will add 150, 200 and 240x. I think that may be OK. I am not a visual observer, so don't want to go nuts on collecting eyepieces, hence the Hyperion approach. As my main interest at the moment is lunar and planetary and not splitting doubles, I am not too bothered about losing the max mag offered by the 8 mm and it's lowest is only a smidge above the max offered by the 17mm. I'm also not really bothered about widefield, so the 21 mm is of little interest to me at this point. Is this now a sensible approach? Does that look better? Thanks, again.

Proof that Britain is not eternally covered with impenetrable cloud! Nice result.

You need to move the mirror further away from the focuser. The distance between the eyepice and mirror is a fixed value about equal to the focal length when when focussed at infinity. So move the mirror down the tube away from the open end.

I have a Baader Hyperion 8 mm modular eyepiece, but it is currently in France, so I plan to buy another from the same range which I can use here in the UK until such time as I can get to France to retrieve the 8 mm then have both to choose from. Looking at the table of focal lengths these eyepieces can offer, I think the 17 mm is the best option to reduce overlap and give me a sensible range of magnifications with my scopes, RC6, 200P, 250PX. Near the bottom of this linked page is a table of the Hyperions and the focal lengths they offer, https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/baader-hyperion-1252-modular-eyepiece.html The table below shows the magnifications obtained over the full ranges of the 8mm and 17mm eyepieces in the 200P (or 250PX) and RC6. My question is whether this results in a sensible range of magnifications, disregarding the improbable 319x for the RC6, of course and gives me a useful range in the UK for now. Eyepiece F/L 200P RC6 8.0 4.3 279x 319x 8.0 5.0 240x 274x 8.0 6.0 200x 228x 8.0 6.9 174x 199x 8.0 8.0 150x 171x 17.0 9.2 130x 149x 17.0 10.8 111x 127x 17.0 13.1 92x 105x 17.0 14.6 82x 94x 17.0 17.0 71x 81x Either 21.8 55x 63x

Yes, definitely liking this version. It is beautiful! Congratulations on a fantastic result from many hours of imaging.

I remember this happening. I was in school at the time that Pluto first came inside Neptune's orbit and was told by the physics teacher that we would need a 10" scope to view it. Back then, that would have cost a king's ransom and I did not get my 250PX until decades later when they became much more affordable. I've always liked the idea of chasing down Pluto, but I've not yet imaged Neptune - the last of the planets on my list.

I'm not sure how much bigger you want to go, but I much prefer the views in my Skywatcher 250PX to the 200P. Combined with a Baader Hyperion 8mm modular eyepiece I was getting a crisp and large Jupiter. The only trouble I found was how fast the planet moved across the field of view when I used it at 4.3mm, giving a mag of x280! For a scope, I am going to suggest the Skywatcher 300PDs with 1500mm focal length. I prefer the fixed tube newts to trusses or the flex tube design, but that is just my view. This scope will certainly give bright views and is capable of plenty of magnification under good seeing. That eats up about £850 of your budget, so a fair bit left for a mount, but with a tube and rings weight of 23 kg you'll need a heavy mount. It could be a good one to put on an EQ platform, then you could just build a simple dobsonian mount for it. If you go for this, I think I'll definitely have to make a trip out to Staffs one clear, dark night! 😁