Rob Sellent

I imagine that '20' is referring to Fahrenheit and if so.....wow 😮 (just looked up what that is in celsius).....that is freezing ⛄ I'm in east Spain and the temps rarely dip below 50 Fahrenheit, even in the dead of a cold winter's night Just thinking outloud, perhaps a little dew heater might do the trick

Just emphasising what @Stuhas already said. The Herschel Wedge is only suitable for fracs and the ND 3.0 filter is imperatively necessary - it is not a choice. A polarising filter to varying the remaining light output is optional, so too a Continuum filter. But NOT the ND 3. I am aware of Herschel wedges which include the filter and likewise of wedges which do not. About a decade ago I purchased Lunt's 1.25" Herschel Wedge and even though I was assured it did have the filter included by the retailer, I still sent an email to Lunt and asked them to confirm this. When it comes to viewing the Sun, I feel it's just not necessary to take any pointless risks. Make sure you're 100% confident in your set up before putting your eye to the eyepiece.

It would be handy if an imager came on board in this thread but from my extremely limited understanding - as purely a visual observer - visual and imaging often require opposite necessities in many respects. For example, in my dumbed down black and white understanding, for the visual observer the brightness of a given DSO is dependent on aperture whereas for the imager the signal or brightness of the image depends on the focal ratio of the scope. An f/5 8" scope will produce a brighter image for the visual observer than an f/5 80mm scope but curiously both these scopes will provide the same brightness image per pixel for imaging. Sure, the 8" scope will offer more resolution but I think unless this can be put to use with well suited cameras and imaging gear it probably goes to waste. For the visual observer, an 8" or 10" Dobsonian takes up - within reason - the same footprint and aren't that much difference in weight. Putting these scopes in their Newtonian form on an EQ mount is feasible but is a bit of a chore and does put the observer/eyepiece in some pretty difficult positions. However, for guiding an EQ mount is necessary but these scopes plus all the necessary assessories for imaging would place huge demands on the mount. Not only in terms of the mass involved but also in terms of the scopes' focal length. In a sense - and for the sake of argument - the mount is to the imager what aperture is to the visual observer. For the visual observer the question would be, "Can I pick out detail from the object being observed?" For the imager, "Can I track the object accurately?" I've read about imagers using 5" Newts on an HEQ5 , so I imagine something like an NEQ6 Pro would be needed for an 8" to keep the tube and imaging gear rock steady. Combining astrophotography and visual astronomy will more than likely lead to an EQ mounted Newtonian probably no bigger than a 6" to start off but as with all things, compromises will be made. Visually, aperture is very important but for imagers bigger is not necessarily better, and is the reason why so many imagers end up choosing relatively light and fast 80mm APO scopes for astrophotography.

Excellent heads up, Dave (@F15Rules) Without a doubt this is the best wax on the market. I use it for our stone flooring (on hands and knees methodically buffing some 300m2 ). I use it on two great Venetian plastered walls we have in the hallway and up the stairs. Use it on the marbled staircase and red brick stairwell. Use it on my stone collection, guitar, leather belts and handbags (not mine ), wooden furniture and jewellery. Not to say, on the truss dob and fracs. Only downside is that in Spain it's a little pricey (around €20 for 200ml) but well worth every cent.

In Spain there are a number of curiosities: A billion is a million x million, whereas in other countries (UK/USA?) it's a smaller thousand x million. 4.21 in the UK is equal to 4,21 in Spain. 9,876 in the UK is equal to 9.876 in Spain. On a similar theme, much basic arithmetic is worked out differently and 7 has a line put through it to distinguish it from 1.

Lovely map and may be worth framing. This era of the space race aand USSR is fascinating: first artificial satellite, first living being in orbit, first human in space, first space walk, first woman in space, Vostok and Soyuz rockets, the list just goes on. Whenever I get the chance to go to areas that were once behind the 'iron curtain', I try to hunt down something small in the flea markets related to this period of the space race be it a badge, stamp, memorabilia etc.

That's brilliant, @Stu and thank you Judging by the overwhelming support in this thread the SkyTee 2/TS-AZ5 looks like a sure footing and probably better to get this with an EQ6 type mount or UNi 28 for extra support. This set up will be solely used in the garden/patio so I'm not too fussed about weight. For a more travel-friendly option there's always the HDAZ or AZ4 for more 'grab n go'. The AZ100 looks a cracking mount but its purchase and necessary tripod would bump the budget beyond what I'm comfortable with and I'm sure with a little thought and tweaking, I can get this relatively light 4" sorted Thanks again, Stu

@Mark at Beaufort, you're a genius. You've gone and mashed two potatoes with one fork! Not only have you answered my enquiry in another thread about the HDAZ which is in fact a SkyTee 1 but have thoughtfully added to this one. Thank you . Mark, the first pic you shared shows your gorgeous 102 apo and its balance point is just about where I'm balancing my own 102 frac. There's that play of an inch before the rings reach the focusser's flange. Putting a heavy 2" eyepiece or binoviewer in the focusser and I just know that the inch isn't going to be enough to obtain balance. Therein lies my concern. Do you think a SkyTee 2 would allow the scope to be shuffled 'back' towards the observer thus gaining a few inches whilst still maintaining a fluid balance? I probably didn't make the OP clear Unfortunately, it's not a case of wobbles or vibrations at high mags. The mount and tripod handle the Vixen well. It's trying to reach a balance where I'm not taking the scope's rings right back to the focusser's flange with just a 10x50 finder, Moonlite focuser, a 2" TV diagonal and Delos eyepiece, for example. My concern is that loading the focusser with a 2" eyepiece or binoviewer and balance will become virtually impossible The SkyTee 2's TS AZ5 clone and possibly an Ercole (not sure if this has any advantages over the SkyTee) look good options but only if they can deal with this pestering balance issue. Thanks again for all your help Quick Edit - Other Possible Options Remove the Moonlite - don't fancy doing this for it allows me a better snap-to focus than the original - some what old and worn - original focuser Change the diagonal - that's a cheaper option going from 2" to a 1.25" but will that sort out the problem? Don't use Delos type eyepieces - again an option but I do like the view they give and in my older age, I'm not a fan of small FOV orthos/plossls Get rid of the finder - I've gone down to a 8x50 and a 6x30 but this really makes very little difference. If I got rid of a finder entirely, I'd still need a heavy 2" wide field to star hop around which is going to be just as heavy. Don't bother with az mounts - would an EQ5 handle balance better?

Regarding focal length. Ignoring aperture, light gathering capacities, aberrations and just focusing solely on the eyepiece's field of view the f12.7 Mak will give a slightly tighter field of view than your f10 Nexstar and the f5 frac will give a similar field of view to your Celestron f5.7 Travel Scope. If you still have the aforementioned scopes, maybe it'll be worth your time comparing their focal lengths' strengths and weaknesses. If possible over the coming weeks point the two scopes at, say, the Moon, Orion Nebula and M36 in Auriga. You'll probably notice the 8" f10 has a narrower field of view but can take magnification very well, whilst the 2.8" f5.7 opens up the sky view but doesn't suit high magnifications.

That's good to hear @johninderbyI'm really not fussed about GOTO, indeed half the fun is using atlases and searching out the given object. But tracking might be useful next year when sketching planets and for general lunar work. I still can't decide if that EQ tracking advantage would outweigh the sheer ease of use and set up with a decent but still relatively budget likeable az mount.

@johninderby, in your experience, if I were to get a TS AZ5 do you think it would still need a dovetail counterweight (thanks for the links) to deal with the f9? @joe aguiar, in your experience, do you think the EQ3 type set up (CG4) would be a tad overmounted with a long tube frac pushing x200+? Just thinking outloud, I wonder what advantages and disadvantages there'd be with something like a TS AZ5 over an EQ5. I don't have problems hunting objects with either type of mount but I do get nervous with overmounted mounts (especially with a 25 year old plus fluorite dangling off it) and hate vibrations while observing at high magnifications 😕. Anyway, thanks for the help

Let us know how you get along

Sorry to hear about this 🙁 If there was anyway we could pull it off, you're all invited to Spain 😃

I'm having problems balancing my 4" f9 on an HDAZ mount and AZ4 With a 10x50 finder, Moonlite focuser, a 2" TV diagonal and Delos eyepiece, for example, I'm aligning the scope rings almost to the edge of the focuser's flange. Hopefully, sometime this week I'll be getting hold of some Binoviewers to practice with but I know balance will then become virtually impossible. The only way around this problem is to fully tighten the altitude nuts but then that kind of defeats the idea of having a fluid and smooth flowing az-mount. Doing this also makes tracking at +180x very tricky. Would it help if I balanced the f9 with one of my other scopes on the other side of the mount? Is this a fault of the mount and that an upgrade to a TS AZ5 or Sky Tee II would make things far easier? Is there any non-fuss trick any of you know about? I've read that tryng to tie bean bags to the lens end of the scope might do the trick, but this just seems like too much bother Any tricks, insights or ideas on what to do would be greatly appreciated

I don't want to sound like a preacher but...... if this monthly payment comes as a third party loan more often than not it will accrue interest charges, so effectively the scope will cost more than it would in the first place. Personally, I just don't think it's worth it. Usury is not a game I'd like to play - on either end of the table. Instead, having a budget and sticking to it, saving bit by bit means that you won't be paying interest, won't be stealing time and labour from your tomorrow, won't get stressed with debt payments or bad credit records and give yourself plenty of time to research. The only time I think debt is possibly a good idea is when there's an investment going on. Such as getting into debt to buy property, or one's education. But a telescope is rarely an investment and as you have already stated, this will be your third scope in a year, so you'll likely be making loss upon loss. My advice is try to find a club which has open nights, imagers and the such. Check out the gear, ask about costs and weight. I may be mistaken but I don't think you're going to find a portable, imaging/visual telescope, mount, imaging gear and the such for under $500. I may be wrong but.... There's no need to rush, as you already know, the stars and DSOs aren't going anywhere, the decent planets for visual and imaging (Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) won't be back until way into 2020 which gives you time to save, time to move, and time to inform yourself. Apologies if this sounded a bit preachy

The Ascent 102ED F7 seems to be very similar to TS Optics 102ED, the Astro Tech 102ED, the Lunt 102ED, the StellarVue 102ED, and the Orion 102. These scopes appear to use FPL-51 or H-FK-61 ED glass. No idea what that is but a little hunting suggests it "mimics FPL-51 ...but is considerably less costly." There's a nice review on the Ascent type scopes here. Other links of interest might include: Choosing Between WO ZS103, SV102 Access and TS-Optics PhotoLine 102mm, New Ts 102 F/7 apo etc. With a little sleuth work, you should be able to find a wealth of info on these scopes

Something like this for future use and you'll be back in the good books

I'm sure they do but the good news with adders is that they can't multiply

Congratulations @tooth_dr 14" is going to be a lovely set up. Hope you have a great evening

I'm convinced this could be the beginning line of a very funny joke... Anyway, just a little warning - if you see an angry Welsh cheese, treat it caerphilly

@Dumbo, The Dob will offer you 8" of aperture, so in terms of resolution should resolve more detail than any other scope within this price range. It will give you low-power rich field viewing and with reasonable dark skies you'll be able to view galaxies, nebulae, globulars, and so on. It will also train you in the relatively simple art of collimation which will stand you in good stead as a general astronomer. You will get more than sufficient magnification on objects (limited like all the other scopes on atmospheric conditions and aperture), it comes with a good solid mount so you don't need to buy one. Like a refractor it isn't susceptible to dew formation, so dew shields and heater strips become unnecessary as they would be for Maks and SCTS, but unlike achromatic refractors, you won't get chromatic aberation. Furthemore, it won't take as long to cooldown as a Mak or SCT and on good nights of seeing should give really nice contrasty views on planets. If this weren't enough inch for inch, it's also the cheapest option of any scope type 😀. There are a couple of downsides to the Dob. Some folk find collimation annoying but to be honest, it's really no more than a little tweak of the mirror every session. Some folk don't like diffraction spikes when viewing bright objects and with a focal ratio of f5/f6 these scopes are quite demanding on eyepieces, so you will probably have to spend a little more on quality eyepieces as you progress in this hobby than you would if you had a longer focal ratio scope. Inch for inch, then, Dobs are cheaper than Refractors, Maks or SCTS and because you can afford more aperture for less, you're getting more resolution, brighter images and the possibility of going deeper and seeing more. For a first time, all round, general purpose scope to help you enjoy the wonders of the night sky, I really don't think you can go wrong with an 8" dob or if expenses allow, a 10" Dob . Moving on.... Along with the Dob, you will probably find it useful to budget in a collimation tool and a sky atlas. If the scope doesn't come with a finder, a RACI will be a good move. These will show the image as they are in the atlas, so you're not having to do mental gymnastics at 2am in the morning. For Dobs, it's also useful to have something like a Rigel which helps you get the scope in the right area of the sky before turning to the RACI. Finally, regarding eyepieces. For general usage, I feel to start out you really don't need more than 2 eyepieces and a decent Barlow. In an 8" f6, something around 12mm and 18mm plus a x2 Barlow will give you magnifications of 67x, 100x, 134x and 200x. At some stage you might want a lower power around 30x to 40x but for most nights, you won't need any more power than 200x. Another interesting alternative is to look into zoom eyepieces. It may not be the best quality option for a given budget, but it is probably the most practical. The 8-24mm range is enough to give you an idea of your preferred DSO, lunar and planetary presentation and what your average sky conditions will support. It will also help you hone in on what you want from an eyepiece before you look into building a more pricey collection. Hope that helps a little Oh, and welcome to SGL I look forward to meeting you on the boards and please, let us know how you get along and if you have any questions, don't hesitate in asking for assistance

I think there's a nice contradiction there at the heart of the problem. On the one hand we've got the idea that light pollution marks out spaces as civilised and advanced; the most light polluted areas are also the most developed in economic terms, for example. But hand in hand goes the idea that this light pollution is also decadent, un-natural and dangerous to humans and eco-systems alike. Light pollution is - and will become - a rather complex and very interesting metaphor.

The great news is, you already have a nice Baader zoom. You could put it through its paces and see what low power/sky background contrast/sharpness etc you are comfortable with. From there you'd be able to make a more informed decision. I think the Baader zoom at 24mm only has 48º field of view, at 20mm 53º fov, at 16mm 58º, at 12mm 63º and at 8mm 68º fov. Certainly looking at these figures, your f7 deserves a nice widefield which after all, is its forte. Your own millage may differ but in terms of exit pupil, I've found: 6mm - 4mm - if skies are sufficiently dark this range is nice for star fields, milky way and large open clusters. 4mm to 3mm - nice contrast, good on star-fields. 2.5mm to 1.5mm - nice contast and a good workhorse for most DSOs and casual lunar/planetary viewing. 1.6mm to 1mm - nice contrast and resolution on planets, Moon and globs. 1mm to 0.5mm – finer detail on planets, lunar, tight doubles - dependent on seeing conditions. 0.5mm to 0 – super tight doubles but really not much call for use. For a general foundation from which to build an eyepiece collection around, 2mm exit pupil is a good, solid baseline. Accordingly, in the f7 something around 13mm to 14mm, giving about 40x is going to be a useful eyepiece. In a widefield of about 70º, you'd be able to get just under 2º of night sky. In the f12, you'd be looking at around 24mm, giving about 75x and with a 70º eyepiece around 1º of night sky. From here, you could drop down to about a 3mm exit pupil eyepiece, for lower magnification and hopefully a wider field of view. I don't know your night sky conditions, but maybe in an urban setting this would be edging towards the maximum you'd want to push before the sky background washes out too much. In this case, for the f7 something around 19mm to 24mm would be useful and in the f12, something around 36mm. Just looking at the numbers, then, for the f7, for general viewing you're looking for something around 20mm, 14mm, and 7mm and for the f12 something like a 36mm, 24mm, and 12mm. If you took a happy medium, an eyepiece between 20mm to 24mm would double up as decent low power in the f7 and a solid workhorse in the f12. If that were the case, I'd be scanning the secondhand market for something like a Panoptic or Nagler, or although I have no experience with them, those already mentioned by @Johnor @Louis D . Sorry for the ramble but I hope that has helped a little

I start feeling the chill when the evenings drop under 10ºc or so. Any lower than that and it's on with the thermals and winter coat etc ⛄

Amazing engineering and building skills going on there, @Moonshane I imagine this will be purely a visual set up but do you conceive going into the dark side in the future?