Zermelo

These two barlows have been recommended previously: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/barlow-eyepieces/baader-classic-q-225x-barlow.html https://www.rothervalleyoptics.co.uk/revelation-astro-25x-barlow-lens-125.html and for decent eyepieces that don't break the bank, these are recommended more often than any other in these pages: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/bst-starguider-eyepieces.html Note that (as with a lot of kit at the moment) stocks may be hard to find in some cases. You may find that your 25mm stock EP is OKish for now, but the 10mm will perform rather less well.

I've relocated where I found that graphic originally, it was Astrid responding here: https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/364509-first-few-times-out/?tab=comments#comment-3970053 Apologies for stealing some likes! 🥴

Tony Flanders's Messier Guide has been mentioned before as a good resource. In particular, he created the following guide, which has been linked to before on this forum (but I can't remember where, nor can I now find the original on Tony's site): You can see that M101 in particular is listed in the hardest category - big enough, but low surface brightness. On the subject of locating the objects, there are maps for Telrads on the web (again, I'm sure these were linked to from posts on this forum, but the only ones I can find now are dead. Apologies to OPs).

Mine was the 8mm, I've been very happy with it. Just ordered the 18mm, which is supposed to be the best of the set.

OK, as it happens that's what I have. So it's on the less demanding end of the scale. I've not seen any official figures for it, but when I was putting together my own power supply I put an ammeter in series and measured a maximum of 0.6A while it was slewing at top speed. It's 12V DC of course, I'm not familiar with your power tank but I assume from your picture that it can supply that. The other question then is the overall capacity. The "official" SkyWatcher tanks come as either 7Ah or 17Ah. I imagine the Discovery would manage with 7Ah, but it would obviously vary with session duration, ambient temperature, amount of slewing (you can minimize this if you're happy to use the Dual Encoding) etc.

What's the actual mount? i.e. the hardware - Synscan is the software that runs on the mounts, but they will draw different amounts of max instantaneous current, and consume different amounts of power over a session.

I recently bought off his eBay site, he has said elsewhere that his own website is cheaper, it didn't seem to be at the time. Either way, I couldn't find Starguiders cheaper anywhere else, and the service was very efficient. Obviously he only stocks a few lines, as you can see.

Welcome MomOf2, I've nothing to add to the equipment advice above, it's very sound. And if your daughter has already been "wowed" by seeing Saturn through and amateur 'scope, then I think she will be immune to the disappointment that some people feel when starting out, if all they have seen are the extravagant NASA photos. It sounds like your daughter is pretty smart, so she should be more than capable of managing a reflecting telescope of the type described. I would only add one suggestion, that you point her in the direction of this forum while she is waiting (or else on Christmas day, if this present is to be a surprise!) I know from personal experience that it's possible to follow astronomy from a theoretical perspective, but still be clueless about how to start out on the practical business of observing. Yes, there are plenty of decent books, some are recommended on this site, but I have found the most useful activity was to spend a few hours (actually, days) browsing some of the comments and recommendations on these pages. She will find some areas of consensus, and some where there is a wide divergence of opinion - both are invaluable. There is a mixture of timeless reference information and up-to-date news. She will learn how to make the best use of whatever telescope she receives, and options on how to move on when she is ready (and of course, some contributers here have the money to spend that she will not, but she will also find plenty of examples of people saving on expense by making their own gadgets, with great success). Other forums are available, as they say, but I would at least start here. One other recommendation that's often made is for a starter to try to find and join a local astronomical society. That's certainly worth investigating, as most groups have members who are willing to advise newcomers, which may extend to the chance to experience different equipment.

Hi Jim and welcome. There are many on this forum who would kill for a location like that! Some have invested in kit like yours just to be able to see anything at all through the city murk. The truth is that you would be able to see quite a bit from there with a more modest scope, so you should be very well set up indeed. The availability has certainly been hit by manufacturing/shipping difficulties with Covid, and also I suspect because of an uptick in demand due to the lockdowns. As others have said, do invest the time to find your way around. The comment above about being overwhelmed by stars sounds odd but is very true. You will be seeing so many of the fainter ones that it can be harder at first to identify the main constellations. The better software allows you to set the "limiting magnitude" for your location - so that it will display what you actually see in the sky - have a play with that. Software will also often include lists of suggested targets that are tailored for your location and time of year (when set up). That's either software that comes with goto mounts (if you have one) or additional apps like SkySafari. Apart from that, there are many other ad-hoc sources of lists, including: Member contributed observing lists (on this forum) The Astronomical League (contains several lists, categorized by type of object) Jarek's observing lists for Northern Skies Turn Left at Orion website (this accompanies the book, which is well worth buying as an introduction to the more accessible targets, but the lists themselves are available online) Hope your delivery arrives soon.

The focuser on my SkyWatcher 150i is a basic rack-and-pinion, unsurprising for the price point, but sometimes a bit of a pain to control finely enough. I’m not looking to spend any serious money upgrading it, but I did want to see what I could tweak. The first thing I did was to slacken off (slightly) the screws holding the plate against the spindle, as the operation was very tight when new – that helped a bit (and I think that without doing this first, the “friction fit” approach described below wouldn’t have worked). I will eventually get around to taking it all off as per AstroBaby's tune-up. Improving the fine control without a major change means doing something with the focusing knobs – they’re quite small, so the effective “gearing ratio” when you operate them is on the harsh side. Some folk have described fitting larger diameter replacements, either bought or made, and even using ones with a planetary-style mechanism to achieve a reduction in the ratio. I didn’t fancy this, as I couldn’t see how the existing knobs were attached to the spindle without trying to prise them apart (possibly terminally). The other option is to increase the effective diameter of the existing knobs, for which purpose a clothes peg is apparently quite popular, but I’ve also come across descriptions of chop sticks inserted into holes drilled at intervals into the circumference, and punctured lids from peanut butter jars. I wanted something that was cheap, relatively tidy and non-destructive. The answer seemed to be some sort of thick sleeve that I could fit over the knob. It would need to be a tight fit so as not to slip in use, to be not so large as to foul against either the focuser tube or the main OTA, and to be thick enough that it didn’t flex sideways when grasped. I thought I might find some larger rubber washers that would do the job, but none were thick enough to be rigid in use. However, a bit of searching found these spacers that are apparently used in vehicle shock absorbers. My calipers said the diameter of the focuser knobs was around 29.5mm, and the nearest spacers that were available had an internal hole 30mm and outside diameter 60mm. I ordered one that was 10mm thick, not quite as deep as the knobs, but which allowed a bit more space on the inside edge for free operation. I’d hoped the internal hole might be a but undersized when it arrived but it was spot on, so I wound five or six turns of masking tape around the knob first. To avoid taking the tape off when fitting the spacer, I positioned one side first and stretched it across the face as I pushed. When it’s flush with the knob’s outer face, it’s just clear of the focuser body and OTA. There might be enough room to stick some kind of friction surface around the outside to improve the grip, but I don’t think it’s going to be necessary. I decided to do only the one knob, so I now have a very Noddy “dual speed” affair. Because the clearances around the fitted spacer are quite tight, it’s worth checking the positioning of the spindle in the focuser body first – mine was fractionally off centre, so there was more room one side than the other (assuming you have no preference).

I'm also on the lookout for gloves, this winter will be my first observing. Touchscreen operation is a requirement for me too, so I was thinking of trying these: https://www.screwfix.com/p/site-kf530-touchscreen-nitrile-foam-gloves-orange-black-large/808fr though they seem to come in only one size, so they may be too bulky. Screwfix also sell fingerless gloves, including some partially fingerless ones: https://www.screwfix.com/p/site-kf420-3-finger-framer-performance-gloves-grey-black-large/445fr

This site: https://www.darkskydiscovery.org.uk/dark-sky-discovery-sites/map.html has also been mentioned in previous discussions, though its criteria are not very demanding (being able to make out the main stars in Orion, for one class). Also, by definition, a location's appearance on a site like this will likely preclude it from becoming that special dark place that only you know about!

I picked up a Celestron Omni last year quite cheaply and had originally been using that with stock eyepieces, which was fine. Since then I've bought a couple of BST Starguiders and a Hyperflex zoom, and I'm now wondering if I'd notice any difference with a better barlow (this is now being used on an F/5 150mm Newtonian). Otherwise, the pennies can be directed elsewhere. I'd not considered it before as the next rung up seemed to be around the £90-£100 mark, which seemed out of line with the rest of the spend. But I've seen some positive reviews of 3-element models in the region of £35-£40. In particular, I've read good things about the Revelation/GSO Astro 2.5x (though apparently closer to 2.2x) and the Baader Classic Q 2.25x. - does anyone have experience with both of these, and have a preference? - would I notice any significant difference with either, compared with the Omni? - I read somewhere that the Baader in particular required focussing the tube into the OTA to an extent that caused some image degradation. Obviously I'd want to avoid this if true, so is this a feature of the Baader, or of both, or of all (shorter?) barlows? (to be honest, I'd not thought to see whether this was happening with the Omni, I'll try to remember to check, if this weather ever breaks). Thanks in advance.

I came across this reference summary on a supplier site - it explains (i) what the different thread standards are, and (ii) where they are relevant in amateur astronomy. I found it quite illuminating, and I couldn't find a link to it already on the forum - admins, please delete this if I have missed it. https://agenaastro.com/articles/astronomy-threads-explained.html

Even fixed focal length eyepieces make design trade-offs, no single configuration can maximize all the desirable attributes. Zoom lenses have to do even more of this, to balance the set of criteria across a whole range of focal lengths. It's a marvel that they can still produce EPs that perform as well as they do, though pound for pound a fixed length EP will usually outperform a zoom at the same focal length. I wouldn't bother with one if you can stretch only to the cheapest generic ones on the auction sites; but I have had good results from this one: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/ovl-eyepieces/hyperflex-72mm-215mm-eyepiece.html and it has been recommended by others on here that have better fixed EPs than me to compare it with. At the short end it claims a 60 degree AFOV which is respectable, though this shrinks to 40 at the wide end - but then I have a separate wide field EP. I use mine at F/5 - if you have a slower scope, it will be more forgiving. There's no denying that a zoom with a range like this is a very useful tool, mine gets used more than any other. I also barlow it at 2x at the shorter end and it copes well, when conditions permit.

I've just seen this Synscan App User's Manual: https://inter-static.skywatcher.com/downloads/synscan_app_manual_20200825.pdf which I don't remember seeing before (and it's dated August 25th). My own 150i was delivered (less than ideally) with a manual for the bespoke handset and a little slip that said, basically, "you don't have one, so you need to download the app instead". The app's built-in help has some information, but this pdf has more, including on alignment. Be aware that there are two versions of the app; you can use the "pro" version (which has a few extras) with an alt-az mount, but some of the options specific to EQ mounts won't be relevant.

This thread encouraged me to have a try myself for the first time on Monday. 6" Newtonian with an average low power Plossl, Bortle 4 sky. With no filter, I couldn't see a thing. Adding an Astronomik UHC was amazing - the Eastern veil was very obvious. Couldn't see the Western side though.

I have this scope too. 1) This has been debated previously on this site, with contrary opinions, but I think the conclusion was that North/level alignment is needed only if you plan to use the Synscan "point and track" facility (which makes sense, because you're not relying on the scope to find the object, but it needs to know how it's oriented so it can follow the sky correctly). But if you do a 2 or 3-star alignment correctly, then the mount can in principle build a complete sky map anyway, even if it wasn't originally level/North aligned. Personally, I always level it anyway and point it in the direction I know is Northish at my regular site. I've also found that, even after doing a 2-star alignment, it improves the goto accuracy if I centre/confirm the location of at least one subsequent target (making sure to nudge up and right at least once, or else the app won't let you do so - and no, it doesn't tell you that). I usually drive the scope from SkySafari during sessions, but will switch back to Synscan to select and confirm an object if the guidance seems to be off - it's normally fine, but it can happen if a tripod leg gets kicked, or if the wifi signal drops. 2) Yes, the focuser is a weak point. It's a budget scope, still great value overall IMHO, but that's one of the places they made a saving. I found the mechanism as delivered was very tight, and I agree that - especially with shorter focal length EPs - the in-focus travel can be very short indeed. The link you have above to Astrobaby's tune-up is the definitive one, it confirms that the two screws underneath can be used to adjust the tightness on the rack. I will shortly be following the whole stripping down routine to see how much difference that makes. Others on this forum have replaced the focuser on the cheaper Skywatchers with better alternatives (e.g. a Crayford for around £90). You might decide that's a bit contrary to the original choice of a budget scope. The "wobble" is a bit more preplexing though. I've found the 150i to settle quite well after disturbance, and I don't bother with anti-vibration pads, hanging weights from the tripod, etc. The tube is short, and as supplied it is comfortably within the weight capacity of the mount. Forgive the obvious question, but are you sure everything is tightened up fully, e.g. the bracing plate is securely up against the inside of the legs? 3) and 4) nothing to add to the previous comments

Ah. The internal diameter of those plastic clamps (I bought some) is about 31mm when fully closed, they're intended for 1.25" legs.

Can't quite see from your picture, but are your clamps like these: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Celestron-Astromaster-Tripod-Round-Clips-SET-OF-3-8001905-UK-Stock/333160718312?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649 Mine cracked after a while too, and it turned out that my (non-Celestron) scope had a Celestron tripod. These were the cheapest I could find. The OPs metal alternatives look good, though.

Makes me wistful for all those clear nights we had in the spring. I casually passed up several perfectly good evenings because there was "bound to be another one coming up very soon". Normal service has been resumed!

Hi Mat, I think you realize by now that your “question” was really several questions in one, which have been teased apart by previous answers. But to summarize: - sensible to choose between visual and imaging (and you have prioritized visual for now) - tracking and goto are separate beasts (and you seem minded to forego both for now) - wifi is just a variant on goto mounts, some use a handset instead - imaging (especially long exposures for DSOs) really needs a good equatorial mount, not an alt-azimuth, though the latter can sometimes be adapted with a “wedge” - a tracking motor can sometimes be added afterwards to the RA axis of a manual equatorial mount - the sky darkness at your location (or your most likely viewing location) may affect choice – because more light pollution > harder star hopping > more benefit from using goto Some further thoughts from me (though bear in mind I have much less experience than some of the other contributors above, check out our respective ratings) : It sounds obvious, but think very carefully about how you are likely to use your scope. If I had been using mine on my own, I might well have opted for the largest dob I could afford, and been content with nudging. But I have a partner who wants to share the hobby, and I also do some outreach work with schools, so a tracking capability made a lot of sense. I can see less, but I can find more, and I can share it with more people. Only you can decide how much you will value the actual finding of astronomical objects. For some people, the thrill of the chase is as exciting as finally looking at the target, and so for them, goto may be beyond the pale. For others, life is too short. They want to spend their time observing the objects. There is nothing "wrong" with either view. Do remember, though, that even with goto, you will still need some basic sky sense. The tech doesn’t work every time, and even when it does, the identity of the object of interest may not be immediately obvious in your low power eyepiece. You’ll still need to be able to compare the view with a chart, know which way is East, etc. There’s no substitute for that. If you do decide to go with a goto scope, don’t be tempted to think of it as a substitute for finding your way around the sky, i.e. recognizing the main constellations, their relative positions, the way they move through the night and change through the year, getting used to the angular distances in the sky. I came late to practical astronomy after a lifetime of reading about it and was amazed how little I knew about how the sky actually worked. If you think there’s a risk of that, consider holding off for a while, get some binoculars and spend some time just watching the changes. Another point is that a good knowledge of the sky will help when performing alignment of the goto mount (because you need to find some known stars to fix on). Some comments were made about the difficulty of use of goto tech vs a manual setup. There is something to this, based on my experience with a Skywatcher wifi mount. I felt the instructions were not as clear as they could have been, and it took me a while to get used to the app and sort out issues like maintaining dark adaptation, though I have now sorted everything out. I can see that there might be sufficient hurdles to put off some newcomers. Comments were also made above about the noise of goto mounts. I share the concern, and generally there’s no way to avoid a goto operation running at the mount’s maximum (and hence noisiest) slew speed. But with the SW mounts at least, the dual encoding capability (if you choose to use it) allows you to manually position the scope close to the prospective target, then use the goto for the remaining part. I’ve been doing this successfully and it’s much quieter. Good luck with whatever you end up with.

barlows ... yes, it's generally true that the more glass you put in the path of the light, and the more surfaces it has to navigate, then the more likely it is to degrade the image. A cheap barlow will almost certainly do that to some degree. Counter-intuitively though, a decent barlow combined with an average eyepiece *may* perform better than a single eyepiece with their equivalent focal length. This is because the barlow has optical characteristics that are "opposite" to those in eyepieces, so they can have the effect of reducing some of the aberrations present in the EPs.

Hi, I'm not sure from the thread above if you've quite given up on your original Orion Starseeker, but it seems to be almost identical to this model available in Europe (Synta make for both Orion and SW), though the Orion tube is described as steel, whereas the SW 150i is ABS. The Starseeker is also available in the wifi version like the 150i, if you are happy to work with a phone app rather than a dedicated controller, and will save you a few dollars. I have the 150i so I can comment on some of the points mentioned above, and I think they apply equally to the Orion. The tube is within the capacity range of the mount. The Orion appears to be slightly heavier than the SW, but I've not had any issues, and combined with the steel tripod I've found it to be very stable. The short F/5 tube is also important here - a longer one, even of the same weight, would not be so stable (though there are several reports of people pushing the Star Discovery mount beyond its rated capacity). Yes, the main mirror is fixed. I was initially concerned by this, but apparently this is not a particularly recent feature and does not seem to be causing issues. Note that the secondary mirror can still be adjusted if necessary. I have not needed to do so as yet. Yes, it is generally true that faster scopes will be less forgiving on cheaper eyepieces. But I was surprised how usable some of my stock EPs were with my SW, so if you do go with the Orion I would try them out first before splashing out, and even then don't assume you need to spend a fortune. The weakest point on the 150 is the focuser, and it looks like the Orion has the same one. With some EPs I find it can be difficult to focus precisely, as the "in focus" range is very small and the rack is tight.

You can create acetate rings to overlay onto your printed atlas as described above, or here's an alternative I use. I downloaded Michael Vlasov's Sky Atlas and I'm selectively printing off and laminating the pages I need as I go. I use dry wipe markers to temporarily highlight objects in the evening's observing plan, which might just be an arrow if it's an obvious target, but could be a simulated finder or telrad circle, drawn by putting the marker into one of those old fashioned compasses with a "claw" grip. I worked out that (on my printer at any rate) my 7 degree finderscope corresponds to a 6.1cm diameter circle, and then a standard telrad set would require 4 degrees at 3.5cm, 2 degrees at 1.75cm and 0.5 degree at 0.44cm, though the last would be quite fiddly to draw with compasses, as would any circle corresponding to any eyepiece except those with the widest TFOV.