MimasDeathStar

Is it this one? www.umich.edu/~lowbrows/reflections/2010/yinugi.4.html I've got this one saved on my computer browser, I thought it might have worked for my little refractor but it seems it requires slightly more DIY knowledge than I have.

Hello all My telescope is great - but my previous (and first ever) one had a fault with it and thats where I learned about star testing to try and ascertain what the problem might be. I'll be honest from the start and say I don't know nearly enough about the practice (or what to look for) to be any good at it, but I do periodically star test my 70mm refractor by going in and out of focus and checking that everything seems more or less as it should - which it always does. But what I was wondering specifically is that I've seen advice pop up in several places about not picking a star that is "too bright" like Altair or Vega or Sirius. However, I'm not sure why this is the case and have done a bit of googling and I'm still none the wiser! I will admit that trying to do a star test on a really bright star like Vega is sometimes challenging as I occasionally get a bit of a "speckle" going on even at perfect focus and a bit of a red/green smear when the conditions aren't great at really high magnifications - could it be something as simple as that or is there another reason? Probably isn't important - apologies if you took the time to read all of this and have come to the conclusion its another daft beginners question!

I may be wrong but my understanding is that the field of view is related to a combination of the focal length and the eyepiece. When you replace the eyepiece with a DSLR which has a nice big sensor its the equivalent of using an bigger eyepiece (like a 25 or 30mm for example) but when you use a camera with a very small sensor its the equivalent of using a very high zoom eyepiece (more like a 5mm eyepiece) so your field of view will always be very small.

Oh dear, was nothing to do with me I promise!

Ha ha very good questions! But I think the answer to all of those is: "I have no idea!!" so I thought it was worth asking. It sounds like this isn't an area that should worry me too much at the moment though. Thanks very much for the reply.

That's handy, that's where I bought my refractor from! Thanks very much for the recommendation will get one of those!

Hello all Well I've been bitten by the astronomy bug it seems as I seem to be spending a worrying amount of time looking at astronomy retailers and thinking "ooohhh that would be nice, ooohh but so would that, maybe I'll just get one, or maybe that one instead, or maybe both!" and so on! Anyway, I have a small 70mm Meade refractor. I really like it and have seen the wild duck cluster so far (although I'm still not sure why it is called that!) I think I'm going to get a UHC filter to deal with light pollution but the internet doesn't seem to be unanimous on the relative merits of a dielectric diagonal for smaller relatively inexpensive scopes. If I understand it correctly, we're talking an increase in reflectivity from about 92% to 99% which sounds like a lot in theory but would it make much difference in reality? It would cost about the same as the scope I bought (ooops!) but I guess it would be something I could take with me to a new scope if they're really good. Anyway, if anyone has any opinions I'd be delighted to hear it!

Hi all I've got a meade polaris 70/900 on an eq1mount and have been shopping around for an eq1 motor. Using my new found knowledge (thanks everyone!) that many scopes and mounts and accessories can be traced back to a common design or even manufacturing source; I'm wondering whether this applies to eq1 motors. For example: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/331883519199 - this is the one adverstised by meade for my scope. but... https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/skywatcher-ra-single-axis-economy-motor-drive-eq1.html - looks more or less identical and is less expensive. Is it worth taking the risk? I guess the internals could be different but it really does look exactly the same. Many thanks all.

I think from what I've read the veil may be a challenge for me but I will of course give it a try! I had a look at oiii filters, crumbs they're expensive! I'll have a go without first I think!

Thanks I'll try that! I have a copy of "the messier album" by mallas; M29 was actually my original first target as it looks quite easy to find - I did some practice finding my way around Cygnus while I've been out walking the dogs at night! Apparently its nicknamed "the watercooler" but Mallas' description was that it was a bit sparse and uninteresting. I was a bit worried that for a first target I wouldn't be able to tell whether or not I'd actually found it. But now I think I know the sort of thing to look for. I totally get why they're called "faint fuzzies" now haha!

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this but am finally up and running so had the chance to get the scope out for an hour this evening. After many many hours of prep using books, star charts, stellarium and sky safari(!) it looked like M11 the wild duck cluster was going to be my target. I had some trouble getting my finder scope aligned (I think this is something I really should have done in the daytime like everyone says!) and it seems to have run out of travel before I got anywhere near where I was looking but it was vaguely close enough. I found Altair and, after 10 mins of letting my eyes adjust, I found that I could make out the rest of the eagle shape in Aguila which was very cool. M11 jumped straight out with my 30mm eyepiece but was even better with a 20mm. At 10mm it wasn't very good. I wonder why there was a difference between magnifications?? But I noticed two bright stars just below it and a quite bright one in the middle. I tried "averted vision" which worked amazingly well - the bright central core seemed to really jump out - and I tried "telescope tapping" too that I'd read about but I don't think I was doing it right cos it didn't make much improvement at all. But I did notice an almost flared shape to the fuzz - it wasn't completely circular. One thing I did notice was that it didn't look like a cluster of wild ducks (although I'm sure I was in the right place!)? Is my telescope too small to see the shape? It was amazing either way. I tried doing a drawing but its a pretty weak attempt, no doubt they'll improve with practice. I didn't find the EQ1 too difficult to use but I think that this newer one with its steel legs feels like a much better and sturdier tripod than the other one's I was looking at. Anyway sorry to bore everyone with a story about one tiny grey blob but I have found it all very exciting!

Will that be bright enough to see in a small telescope do you think?

Thanks all, really interesting to see the different ways people look after their stuff! It definitely looks like some people have put some serious thought into this. I've gone for one of these in the end: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/233065648967 Looked like the cheapest one I could find that already had the pluck foam in it - thanks very much to those that shared the small hard case - that definitely got me on the right track. Thanks again all!

Hello all Now I've got a telescope and a whopping mix of 6 eyepieces (and a barlow!) I've been wondering how everyone else stores theirs? It should be noted that the combined value of these eyepieces is about 75p but at least I've got quantity in lieu of quality! They are in danger of bouncing around the house at the moment - do people put them in a bag or a case or something? How much protection do they need - would I get away with putting them all in a soft bag or should I really be thinking about a padded / protected type affair? I've done some browsing on one or two astro shops but haven't seen much, with the exception of the very very expensive flight cases!

Hello all - apologies I forgot to finish this thread off: I sent it back to Opticstar and they were really nice about everything. They confirmed that it was a fault with the scope - they star tested it and replicated what I was seeing easily enough. Peter said he wasn't sure what was causing it without taking the objective apart. His best guess was that a thump in transit had affected the distance between the lenses or decentred it somehow. I replaced with a Meade Polaris 70/900 and fingers crossed things going ok so far. As it turned out I think I could really do with a dedicated tripod as my photo tripod doesn't really work with a scope so this looked like a fun package. Can't thank you all enough for your help and suggestions!

Really sorry - I missed your post I've not got hang of the notifications yet!

That's a really nice shot well done!

Thanks everyone that's really useful - @John - its absolutely fine I don't actually mind too much what the maximum is, I was just wondering so I could make sure I didn't spend money on a widefield eyepiece at a longer focal length that was wider than my scope could see! I think I'm going to be looking at the moon and planets mainly anyway so it no problem either way! Thanks very much for all the quick responses.

Thanks all that's really useful So are you saying that my telescope can see a maximum of 1.86 degrees? I think I understand the maths for working out the field of view for a particular eyepiece, what I'm trying to understand is at what point I can't increase the field of view any more because of the design of the scope or something. Sorry if that wasn't clear, alternatively - sorry if you have explained that above and I haven't understood it. I tried the FOV calculator on stellarium but I think I must have done it wrong. Using a really big eyepiece it says I can get a 2 degree FOV which seems much too big when I consider what I've read elsewhere.

Hello all Following a bit of false start with a telescope that I bought a couple of weeks ago and had to return, I've now got another one. It's a Meade 70mm refractor with a 900mm focal length. I've been having a lot of fun reading and learning about eyepieces on line but the one thing I cant figure out is what the maximum field of view my telescope can see is? I've been playing with the astronomy.tools thing but I suppose the information I'm getting is limited when it comes to field of view if I don't know how wide I can go. Is this a really simple thing to work out that I just haven't figured out in my head? I've done some googling and I think its about 1 degree or so but I'm not sure. Can anyone help? Many thanks everyone.

Hi all Sorry I have a question that probably has an obvious answer so just wanted some reassurance! I found Saturn in my new telescope last night and it really blew me away, it was almost like someone dropped a tiny Saturn model at the end of the scope I just couldn't believe it. My eyepieces take me up to about 110x. I couldn't see the cassini division (is that right, the gap in the rings?) but what I did see gave me a bit of a fright! It looked like the rings were wobbling. In fact it looked uncannily like Saturn was doing some sort of hula dance. I'm ashamed to admit that for a second I thought it was real and the rings were pulling themselves apart 🤭 but I guess this is the impact of atmospheric tubulence? You know, it was actually pretty cool looking. Many thanks.

Hello there, I noticed some great shooting stars (am I allowed to say "shooting stars" on this forum or do I have to call them something more technical sounding 😜🤔) in cygnus last night could it be one of those? I think that some of the astronomy apps have satellite tracking on them maybe its possible to go backwards a night and see what was about? Good luck! Hope you figure out what it was!

Hello there! From what I understand, the higher the EP in mm, the wider the field of view and the easier it is to focus and find things. My scope came with a 25mm which is great for zooming around.

Thanks for the replies everyone thats really useful - I've got in touch with Opticstar hopefully they can help. Not the illustrious start to astronomy I'd hoped for haha! Thanks again

Update - as suggested I have tried this morning on distant objects. I'm quite lucky to have a horizon that is a good couple of miles away so tried some trees and pylons in the distance. Sharp focus was more or less achievable but the contrast was terrible, it was like looking through a piece of tracing paper! And I was getting a weird ghost like fuzz around high contrast things like pylons and lamposts. Its almost like what you'd expect from a really dirty or greasy lens I just don't understand it! Just to make sure I've been all the way through the focus travel from one end to the other but it only focuses once.