Dr Strange

Spot on mate! I churned through a lot of kit before finding what is right for me. Of course hindsight being 20/20 if I knew then what I know now I would have just bought what I have. However learning was a fun part of the journey and in the end it is only money. I have to spend it on something so why not my only hobby? However it is a bit of an obsession for me too. You are fortunate not to face that. Luckily I am at the end of my equipment journey. I don't see the need for anything other than what I have. There isn't going to be some magical mystical quantum leap in technology or performance that I absolutely have to have. Maybe a new small mount to replace the AZ-GTi once it becomes obsolete and I need to replace it or a newer and much better performing camera (this is highly unlikely since I don't need anything beyond what I have). But from a telescope or eyepiece perspective or barring a unrecoverable failure in equipment, no. I am done. I do face getting older and likely downsizing but I have bought equipment that will allow me to fail gracefully instead of catastrophically. I can go down to a 92mm scope on the AZ-GTi at the bottom end of the slope. The big stuff will get sold off as it becomes to difficult to use. The loss I take on it I consider rental fees on it while I enjoyed it. And I want to buy everything now while I am working instead of when I am retired and have much less money to spend. Bottom line, try out things, find what you enjoy using, and go with it. There will always be gear for the gear heads but unless you are a hardcore gear head don't bother. Spend time under the stars looking at them instead. Any equipment that lets you do that and brings you enjoyment is the right equipment for you.

Ah! That makes sense! Thank you. As to the AZ-GTi, it is a £215 mount. While the DSV-1 is about the same price the AZ-GTi is no where near the DSV-1 in terms of performance as a manual mount. It is designed with electronics and GOTO so it is not machined the same way as the DSV-1. However its value add is the fact that it can be used for star hopping or GOTO. And in the star hopping mode it is smooth enough and the clutches are easy enough to use that it isn't a hindrance or a burden. The key is in the balance of the scope. It has to be very well balanced. Otherwise it is all over the place like a wet noodle. There isn't really a way that I am aware of to put any tension on the clutches. At least how I use it. I suppose you can tighten them a bit and have better stability but I haven't done so. Another key factor is the weight of the scope and more importantly the moment arm. You can go past the recommended weight rating if the scope's moment arm isn't big. But even under the weight rating if the scope has a big moment arm you will not be pleased. The largest moment arm I have seen used with it is the Takahashi FC-100DF. It seems to do well with this scope. However over that or say a 150mm short tube Mak or SCT and it doesn't like it very much. My personal preference is my DM6 on nights when I don't have a lot of time to deal with things and view. Say under an hour. It is a fast setup, quick alignment, and you are off to the races. I no longer have my old Skywatcher or Celestron mounts because I had to sell a great deal of stuff to afford the AP mounts I have. Otherwise the AZ-EQ6 in alt/az mode would have been an equal choice as the DM6. Sadly I am in Bortle 8/9 skies so star hopping isn't really an option for me unless I have a lot of time. Also I need to pump up the aperture to "see" things. I need to use a 120mm refractor or 203mm reflector to "see" stuff in the light pollution I have at home. I still use the AZ-GTi when I am at some event away from home but not at a dark sky but I am limited to a 92mm refractor because I don't have a FC-100. It works but it is limited due to the aperture and light pollution. Its use case is when I am at some sports practice for my kid and sitting in a parking lot. I can either stare at my phone/tablet screen or I can observe. I would rather observe. And prior to the current mess I was in a parking lot somewhere at least 4 nights a week since my kid is a multi sport athlete and is at an age where dad is embarrassing so I have been banished to the parking lot. I also use it as my travel setup. It plus the tripod and the 92mm fit nicely in my luggage. My clothes wrap the scope and mount nicely though the US TSA does want me to open my bag 8 times out of 10 since it is an odd thing to see on the luggage X-Ray.

Not sure why I saw it so heavy. I was confused by it but it was from Highpoint Scientific so I thought it was reputable. 3kg sounds MUCH more realistic! My mistake. Sorry about that!

Somewhat. If you are not using a DSC then you are right the setup time is minimal. Put the scope on, balance it, and then off you go. With a DSC there is still an alignment routine. In my case with the Nexus DSC it is a two star alignment. However with the AZ-GTi, AZ-EQ5, and AZ-EQ6 the setup and alignment time is the same as with a manual mount and DSC. There is a one or two star alignment. So there really isn't any time saved. There is a good solution to that crouching problem by the way. I have the same problem. I stand 198cm tall and am an ex rugby player so all the accumulated injuries make it difficult to contort myself into the position needed to look through the polar scope. I found a right angle adapter at Telescope Express that makes it stupid simple and painless to look through the polar scope. It is here: https://www.teleskop-express.de/shop/product_info.php/language/en/info/p5950_TS-Optics-90--View-with-additional-magnification-for-Skywatcher-polar-finder.html

Oh and I should mention I use both manual and GOTO mounts regularly. I also star hop, use DSC's, and GOTO. I have tried the less expensive options in terms of manual mounts like the Vixen, Explore Scientific (which really is just a Vixen in the case of the Twilight I but the Twilight II is pretty nice and robust at a good price point), the Stellarvue M2, as well as the AYO Swiss and DiscMounts mounts. I find the AYO and DiscMounts perform significantly better but at a cost. I have also owned and used the Sky Commander, Argo Navis and currently use the Nexus DSC plus the Astro Devices encoder kit. You do get what you pay for. The Sky Commander only had 4,000 objects in it and very low resolution encoders. The Argo Navis did better with 29,000 objects and a bit higher resolution encoders but the Nexus with its GPS, massive number of catalogs, keypad for easy input of objects instead of the spinning wheel on the Argo, and other features as well as the 311k encoders is hands down the best commercially available DSC on the market today that I have found at a very reasonable price for what you get. I also have used and owned the Celestron AVX, CGEM, CGX, a couple of Meade mounts including the disaster that was the LX-80 but the LX-90 8" SCT was a good performer but super heavy, and the Skywatcher AZ-EQ6. I have also used the Losmandy G11 and Paramount MyT. I currently own the DiscMounts DM6, AZ-GTi as well as an AP 1100 and a AP Mach2. I found that the Celestron mounts performed really well for their price point and the Skywatcher AZ-EQ6 was brilliant. It allows for alt/az mode where you can slip the clutches and star hop then reengage them to go back to GOTO, the alignment was dead simple and on par with the time to align as the Nexus DSC. The AZ-GTi is equally brilliant in its performance at its price point. So to me, you can't go wrong with a Skywatcher. I only have the Astro Physics (AP) mounts for astro photography (AP). One in an observatory and the other for field use. I have no other hobbies and as I tell SWMBO it keeps me out of the pubs. I climbed the AP ladder in terms of mount and had I simply saved my money and bought the AP mounts in the first place I would have ended up saving money. The thing you get with a premium mount is better performance and less "fiddle time" when something doesn't work. But to me that was worth the price. I am doing AP as a hobby not a job and I was tired of wasting time on "fiddle time" trying to make things work when there was a problem. The Celestron and Skywatcher mounts do really well for their price point but when something does not work right there is a significant amount of "fiddle time" to fix it compared to a premium mount. What can I say? I have a serious astronomy hobby problem. I am getting help for it though...

Louis - I am curious and confused by what you are saying so hopefully you can clarify. Over here in the US a good DSC/encoder package plus a good manual mount is much more expensive than a GOTO mount except for the really high end mounts used for astro photography. What DSC/encoder/mount package are you using? Is it still available today? In addition I don't understand what you are saying about how GOTO mounts are not as smooth or easily controlled. I don't look in the eyepiece as the mount is moving to a new object so smoothness there doesn't make sense. When I have (just to see what was going on and in the field as it moved) the motions are smooth. And the tracking is not noticeable at all it is also very smooth. And that is not with a high end mount. That is with a Celestron or Skywatcher mount. Please help me understand what you mean by things are not smooth? And the AZ-GTi is £215, the AZ-EQ5 is £995, and the AZ-EQ6 is £1,399. That puts the AZ-EQ6 on par with a good manual mount (not one that is rubbish) with equal capacity as the AZ-EQ6 and DSC plus encoders (a good one like the Nexus DSC and encoder package not some cheap limited to only 4,000 objects DSC) so I don't understand how there is any savings with a manual setup over a setup that allows you to choose to be manual or use GOTO which all three Skywatcher mounts let you do. Would you please expand on your statements so I can understand?

The rule of thumb for a non-premium mount (Mensu, 10 Micron, Astro-Physics, Paramount, Losmandy) is to take the rated payload capacity and divide it by 1/2. The Losmandy GM811G is close to 100% rated weight. The other premium mounts I mention are. They state the rated imaging weight. The non-premium mounts state the maximum payload for visual use save the CGX which claims to be the rated imaging weight. In my own experience with the CGX I would say 75-80% not 100%. I have not seen reports that the iOptron mounts are at this level. So I am not sure. But based on what I know of the CEM25 from reports I have read I would be hesitant to apply the 75-100% rule. I would be using the 1/2 rated weight rule. However I think the CEM60 and 120 are in the 75-100% range. But that doesn't do you any good. I mention it just for reference. From what I found the CEM25 has a rated max payload of 12.24kg. The C5 per Celestron is 7.98 kg. This is over the 1/2 rule of thumb by almost 2kg. That is significant enough to be a potential challenge. It is likely you can image with the CEM25 but may face issues when you do. It would likely be better to go with the HEQ5 or AZ-EQ5. Alternatively for less money than you would spend on the HEQ5 or the AZ-EQ5 plus focal reducer you could buy the AZ-GTi, wedge, and the Skywatcher 72mm ED refractor. When starting out in imaging it is better to go with a short focal length refractor than a longer focal length reflector. AP is a very complex part of the hobby and adding more complexity via a focal reducer and a longer focal length reflector. The C5 is also workable for visual use on the AZ-GTi. Thus satisfying your requirement for compact, easy to transport, and still be usable. You can image with the AZ-GTi and 72mm refractor then use both the 72 and the c5 for visual on a very compact light weight mount.

As to owning Mars... Possession is 9/10th's of the law so unless he can get up there and protect his "claim" he is likely out of luck...

The AZ-GTi will allow you to do both GOTO and star hopping. You can align the scope/mount via the GOTO system then release the clutches and star hop. When you are ready to go back to GOTO simply tighten the clutches again. It has built-in encoders to track position while you manually move the mount. As to GOTO vs. star hopping aka manually hunting for objects... You will find there are two sorts in the hobby. Those that like GOTO and those that like to star hop. They will range from: "It is OK to use GOTO or star hop" to "HOW DARE YOU SUGEST GOTO! IF YOU USE GOTO YOU AREN'T AN ASTRONOMER!" and "STAR HOP!?! WE HAVE INDOOR PLUMBING AND COOK OUR FOOD WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING SO ARCHAIC!?!" My advice is choose what works for you and your seeing conditions. In heavy light pollution star hopping can be challenging. It can still be done but not as easily for a novice which can lead to some frustration. Also some enjoy the hunt (star hopping) as much as seeing an object. Others just want to look at an object. Deciding what works for you and interests you is the first step in the decision tree.

If you want the absolute most portable, affordable, and compact mount for imaging that can track and has GOTO then a Skywatcher AZ-GTi with a wedge will be a good option. Especially using just your DSLR and lens. Here is a thread where it is discussed: If you want something still portable but more robust yet still affordable (that is a relative term in astro photography [AP] circles) then the best option would be the Skywatcher HEQ5. If you are considering an iOptron mount, including the CEM25, I would suggest doing some extensive research first. Some get great mounts that perform really well. Others do not and end up putting their mounts in the bin in frustration.

Welcome to SGL Gary!

Welcome to SGL Wojtek

Welcome Andy!

Welcome Patrick!

Unfortunately the majority of tools are Windows based. I process everything on my Mac but capture, plate solve, camera control, etc on a inexpensive Windows 10 machine. It is what it is. That said Nebulosity and PHD may do what you want and both run on a Mac. Another (expensive) option is The Sky X suite. It handles everything for you in terms of the mechanics of image capturing, plate solving, and camera control but as I said it is expensive. You will have to order it from the US and it will cost you £826 to purchase plus £78 per year.

As noted above there isn't really an "all around" good for imaging good for viewing telescope and mount. I would suggest you start with a telescope you can use for visual then move into imaging if that is your desire. Other key factors are ease of use and size/weight. If it isn't easy to use or if it is too big and too heavy then you will look for reason NOT to use it instead of use it. As to GOTO vs. star hopping, there are two schools of thought. One is the star hopping crowd. They range in passion and tolerance for anything other than star hopping from "Death before GOTO/Push To! You are not doing astronomy unless you star hop!" to "GOTO is a tool like any other but I would rather star hop". The same applies to GOTO or Push To users. So the first question you have to ask yourself is: Do you enjoy hunting for things more or do you enjoy looking at things or both?" The other factor in play is how bad is your light pollution. If you are in a large town or city then star hopping can be much less rewarding and much more frustrating. It can still be done but it isn't as easy as it is from a dark sky location. With your budget and depending on the answer to that compound question there are several options for you. If it is that you enjoy the hunt then I would suggest a Skywatcher 200p Dobsonian with a Telrad, a right angle corrected image (RACI) finder scope, and a copy of the Sky and Telescope Pocket Sky Atlas. The combination of all three will work really well for star hopping. If it the middle or latter part of the question then a excellent option for you that can expand into imaging later on down the road will be the Skywatcher AZ-GTi 130mm Newtonian package. It will come with everything you need to get started and upgrading it to a wedge that turns the mount into a equatorial mount and a small 70-80mm ED refractor for imaging is very budget friendly. The Dobsonian package is here: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/dobsonians/skywatcher-skyliner-200p-dobsonian.html https://www.firstlightoptics.com/finders/telrad-finder-astronomy.html https://www.firstlightoptics.com/finders/skywatcher-9x50-right-angled-erecting-finderscope.html https://www.shopatsky.com/pocket-sky-atlas The AZ-GTi is a bit more nuanced. It is a fully GOTO setup but it has encoders that will allow you to disengage the clutches and star hop then reengage them and go back to GOTO. Or to just star hop. I would still recommend the Pocket Sky Atlas as a good guide to what is out there each season even if you are not doing star hopping. The package I mention is: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/sky-watcher-az-gti-wifi/sky-watcher-explorer-130ps-az-gti.html

Welcome to SGL! What do you want to do with the 80mm and the AZ-EQ5?

In the UK the 10 Micron will be the better option. It would be either that or wait for the Mach2 to get through the waiting list and order one from the States. There are other tripod options for the 10 Micron that do not involve £2,000 for a tripod. For example the Avalon TPod 130.

If I recall correctly there are encoders on both axis' that allow you to release the clutches, star hop, then reengage the clutches and go back to GOTO. I would call or send an email to FLO and ask. They are very helpful and very quick to respond.

Right. First and foremost Astro Photography (AP) is not an inexpensive part of the hobby. To do it you will be spending at least £1,000+. That would be for a entry level AP mount that is equatorial (the HEQ5) and a 80mm ED Refractor suitable to start out with in AP. That does not include a camera or other tools you will need. A small refractor because that is the recommended telescope for someone just starting out in AP. It is simple, easy to use, and the focal length allows for mistakes and a less than spot on polar alignment (PA). With a reflector you will need to worry about collimation and cooling as well as PA to start. And a faster reflector like an imaging newtonian requires both to be very well done to get decent images. Many times a focuser upgrade is needed too because the stock focuser doesn't have the ability to handle a DSLR or large(er) CCD. A slower SCT also has its challenges even with a focal reducer (FR). A focal reducer may cost more than a small ED refractor. The main challenges with a SCT are: collimation, cooling, and the long focal length even with a FR which means PA has to be very precise with a very small margin of error. Do people start out with either an imaging newtonian or SCT? Sure. But it is much more challenging and leads to much greater frustration than starting with a 70-80mm ED or APO refractor. With that said and depending on the size of your newtonian the Skywatcher AZ-GTi may be a good option for you. There is a wedge kit and software update that turns it into an EQ mount and it will easily hold a 70-80mm APO plus camera for imaging. There are also good scope+mount options for DSO and planetary work that are very affordable. My recommendation is the AZ-GTi + 130mm Newtonian kit. It has enough aperture to see things and the mount is controlled by your smart phone. Plus it is very affordable. And with Scotland's weather it is a fast setup, easy and fast to align, and provides you with GOTO as well as the option to slip the clutches and star hop then reengage the clutches and go back to GOTO option. Ultimately if you get serious about AP you will want a bigger more suited for AP mount.

I own the 210 and the 250. Only the 250 has active cooling. To cool the 210 (or for that matter your future 180) you don't need to drill holes. Simply place part of a bed sheet or other similarly thin cloth over the front of the tube then use a table fan or desk fan to blow air into the tube. This is what many do to cool down their Mewlon's. Thermal Equilibrium is not as big of a challenge as it is on a Mak or SCT because there is no meniscus preventing cool air from entering and warm air from leaving. That said there are a few cases where people have drilled holes in their Mewlon to add a fan. While I would not do it as I said others have. A Google search will put you on the right path.

The gravity issue is (relatively) easily solved without complex systems. Simply spin the spacecraft. Here is an article on it: https://www.wired.com/2015/08/spinning-spacecraft-martian-work/ The shielding issue is a much more thorny problem. From memory one option is water. For example the ISS uses a completely closed system for water: https://www.nasa.gov/content/water-recycling/ The same would need to be done for a Mars or farther mission as well as a permanent base on the moon. However the inertia from a potentially unbalanced water storage would need to be addressed. The astronauts will need sufficient water to make the journey thus using it as part of a shield system or for that matter all of a shield system will return that value to the 3% stated in the video since they need to carry water anyway. The other heavy item will be food. Bottom line is the problem is somewhat difficult but not impossible.

Welcome back!

If a beginner then Turn Left at Orion and Sky and Telescope's Pocket Sky Atlas If more experienced then: Interstellarum Deep Sky Atlas Field Edition Annals of the Deep Sky Volume 1-3 The Year Round Messier Marathon Cambridge Double Star Atlas

Welcome Jim