Zermelo

"... a member changed the focuser to a GSO low profile one" happy-kat, do you have a link to this please, I couldn't find it.

Yes, I admit I'm wandering all over the place, Geoff! But I half expected my thoughts to be upended. It's all grist to the mill.

ScouseSpaceCadet, "The focuser is pants" - as in, not as good as on the 150P / 150PL? collimation cap - so, no need for a cheshire, even though this is an F/5? Because we only need to check the flat?

The more I look at it, the more I like the Sky-Watcher Star Discovery 150i as a lower cost interim choice. If you can look past the ABS shell and lack of collimation (or conversely, if you believe that it won't require any, then it actually becomes a bonus) then it has an awful lot going for it. And at that price, we'd still have a chunk left over for some EPs and a power tank. Use it for two or three years, and then we'd be in a better position to decide whether we want to spend our serious money staying on the visual route (perhaps move to an 8" by then) or else into imaging. And even then, the 150i would still be a nice, compact, easy to use alternative to keep around for the right occasion.

"£600 could be tricky as you stipulated GOTO as a requirement" yes, it could be, jonathan, but we can go a bit extra if we need to. I'll have a hunt for the CG-4, thanks for that steer. I agree fully with your last point, and I have been putting in some hours with my existing, (very) manual scope, so I although I class myself as a newcomer, I won't be completely at the mercy of the tech 😂

"There is a Sky-Watcher Star Discovery 150i WiFi ..." So there is, Kyle - I had completely missed that one on FLO. At £389 all in, that's comparable with the EQ3 Pro combinations and quite a bit cheaper than the EQ5 Pro. I will investigate.

I’ve been starting to think about my next scope, and knowing that order lead times are quite long at the moment, I’ve been spurred into writing by the pre-midnight appearance of Jupiter and Saturn. I’m hoping for some wise input to break me out of analysis paralysis. Here are my thoughts so far. Please feel free to rebut/add anything at all (but you might want to note my PS). Thanks in advance. Context: I’ve had a "budget" (but quite decent) 70mm F/10 refractor on a GEM for a while now, and recently have started to take observing more seriously, learned my way around a bit, and started to run up against aperture limits. My partner is also interested, but not so keen on spending long hours in the cold watching me failing to find stuff. We already have Telrad, barlow and a few extra EPs. Location: most observation is likely to be from the back garden, which ClearOutside declares to be Bortle 4 (I would say slightly generous, some nearby lighting) but we have darker skies within a 15 minute drive that we would like to take advantage of with the next scope. Likely Targets: equally interested in solar system, DSOs and doubles, so not much help on the decision there I'm afraid. Might be interested in spectroscopy at some point, but not a deal breaker. Not really keen on solar. Imaging: we are both interested to get into this “at some point” but I have taken on board the message that visual and imaging often send you down different paths, and we have agreed that we will prioritize visual for a few seasons, and consider buying further kit later if we do decide to do imaging. It might be a bit nuanced now with decisions like mounts, but ideally we would prefer to spend only what we need for visual work now, rather than going for a higher spec that would also support photography at some unknown point in the future. Budget: not particularly constrained, but ideally looking to spend no more than £600. Aperture: I know some have said good things about some 130mm scopes elsewhere, but I feel anything less than 150mm doesn’t seem enough of a step up from the current scope (and also possibly because Patrick Moore always said six inches was the minimum size for a beginner! ). I even considered a 200mm but decided against on portability (and on the heights of some of the prospective observers! ). OTA: looking to a Newt for bang/buck. There is so much choice that I’ve only been looking at Skywatcher models so far – not because I’ve already decided they’re best, but they seem to be a decent quality/price point for us and then I’ll have something to compare with if people suggest alternative ranges. So in the 150mm arena I've been looking at the Explorer 150P (F/5) and 150PL (F/8). Obviously if we were going to do imaging we’d opt for the shorter model, but for visual the F/8 is quite appealing to me with its 1200mm focal length – better contrast and magnification, more forgiving in various respects (eyepiece design, collimation, …) We’re probably not looking to spend more than £50ish per eyepiece, and may need two or three more yet, so that favours the PL. On the con side, we are obviously sacrificing some TFOV compared with the F/5, and it’s physically longer. I'm thinking a wide-field 32mm will span most DSOs with the PL. The 150P comes with a 2” Crayford focuser, the PL has a rack-and-pinion, I’ve read pros and cons for both? We’re unlikely to make use of 2” ultra-wide field EPs. Both scopes have parabolic mirrors, which I like, and I've read good things about the durability of the coatings. The PL seems to have attracted some good feedback in these pages. Mount: Getting tricky now. But GoTo (or at least PushTo) is an absolute must, because there will be one or more observers who will be wanting fast location (and even I will probably lose the will to live if I have to star hop too much). I have seen good things written about the Skywatcher AZ GTi (and it’s a keen price), but I’m advised that it’s not too stable with anything larger than a 130mm instrument. So if I went for the F/8 150 Newt, then in the Skywatcher range we’re looking at, minimum an EQ3 pro, possibly an EQ5 pro (I’m quite comfortable with equatorials). Is it worth the extra £160 for the EQ5? Would we only see any benefit in the future for imaging, or will a 1200mm tube behave better now on an EQ5 anyway? One other factor: noise. Small back garden, so motors must be quiet, and need to be able to slip and slew by hand without the GoTo losing its fix. So, where I am at the moment: For the sake of convenience, I’m still framing this in terms of the Skywatcher range (in the absence of some revelation of a better value offering elsewhere). I seem to have convinced myself of the following: - Newtonian - 150mm - GoTo (probably on an EQ mount ) - Skywatcher are a brand to beat But still undecided on the focal length. I’ve found one or two “150P vs 150PL” discussions on these forums that are interesting but haven’t been conclusive for me, mainly because I have no preference on planetary vs DSO. I think more of a factor for me on the longer focal length is just the effect on stability, and the impact of that on the mount decision. We could live with the PL on an EQ3 if it were steady enough for regular visual, even knowing that we wouldn't use the mount subsequently for photography, or even for upgrading to a 200mm for visual only. Is it just a question of living with a bit longer wait for the image to settle after focusing, for example? That wouldn't be a problem. But if an EQ3 is only marginally capable handling the 150PL, that would push us into considering either the 150P on EQ3 or 150PL on EQ5. So as I said, a bit deadlocked at the moment. If anyone can chip in with any thoughts that sway it one way or another (or unpick it and take it in some other direction), I’d be very grateful! (PS Yes, I know I’ve not mentioned Dobs. Yes, I have considered them, but as I mentioned, it’s important to me that we have a scope that finds and tracks objects. While I’m sure you can make a Dob do that, I don’t think that’s its raison d’être. Please don’t be offended, Dob lovers).

Thanks all, I won't be sending it back then. To be clear, the batteries are definitely fresh (tested with battery tester) and I was trying it out in a pitch black room. But I'm reassured that the operation seems to be typical of the brand - a logarithmic pot seems to be a good call, niallk. And Astro-Geek, the pulsar add-on looks a really neat idea, I wish you hadn't mentioned it ! There are just too many gadgets in this hobby, and not enough pennies.

I've just taken delivery of a Telrad, never used one before. I thought I'd been sent a dud at first, I couldn't see anything when I switched it on. But it seems that I need to turn the rotary switch very nearly to maximum (it has a 270 degree range) before the reticle starts to light at all. At maximum setting I can see the rings clearly in the window and it certainly seems bright enough to work with, but I have only the last 10-15% of the 270 degrees in which to set the brightness from zero to max (to be clear, I haven't tried this in the field yet, I was just testing that it worked in a darkened room. The way the weather is looking, it won't be seeing any real action for a while). My question for experienced users: is this normal behaviour for a Telrad? It seems a bit odd to configure the potentiometer circuit so that the LED fires up only at the very top end like this (I know semiconductors do have different characteristics from filaments). One concern is that I'm testing it now with new batteries at 25°C, so the voltage is unlikely to be as healthy come midnight in January - if it's only just lighting at the top end now, might it fail to at all, in more taxing conditions?

My first order from our friends at FLO arrived yesterday. Obviously things are running a bit slower at the moment with COVID, but that did mean that the out-of-stock EP became available before dispatch😁 All these items were chosen based on (multiple) recommendations from forum members. Although my Other Half and I plan to upgrade to a GoTo before too long, I figured an RDF would still be a good call in the short term. I still can't believe that the filter is our most expensive purchase to date, by some distance. You have a lot to prove, little UHC, when the darker skies return! We tried out the new EP last night on the moon. As it was a 12mm, I thought it would be nice to compare it against the 12mm stock Kellner that came with the budget 'frac we use (no specs for the stock EP of course, but I had previously calculated a 33° APOV from a drift test). Wow, very impressive - I've never viewed through an EP with a 60° APOV before. Lord knows what the view in a 110° Ethos is like, but that would be more than we were planning to spend on the next scope😂

Well, the conclusion was that last night (25th) was showing a similar forecast (high cloud only, starting from about 23.00) but I went out anyway and didn't see a trace of cloud until I finished at a quarter to 2! Brilliant night.

This is my third report, the first time having had a bit of good fortune, the second time out having had a reverse and found very little of what I was looking for. Armed with a few tips from members of this forum and some learning points of my own, I start setting up at 22.30. It’s still far from dark, but some patterns now showing above. A little low cloud on the horizon, forecast is for some high cloud moving in from 23.00. I’ve planned a target list in two parts for tonight. First part is objects I’ve seen before but my other half hasn’t (she has to be in work tomorrow and will be staying out for the first act only). I need to be able to find these quickly. The rest of the list is objects I’ve yet to find, which I can take my time over after she’s retired. By 11 I’m aligned and I can see enough to find the first target by eye – nu Draconis. While the contrasting doubles get the plaudits, there’s something to be said for such a perfectly symmetrical pair, in brightness and colour. Next I switch to beta Lyrae, again an easy enough find by eye (though my partner remarks kindly at the speed of operation). A nice contrast to the Draco pair, obviously different mags, and we argue about the colours for a while. Then on to Albireo, which she has heard much about, and seems impressed by, even in the twilight. Again we discuss colours. I’ve left the fuzzies until later, and I now pick out M13 surprisingly quickly. In our 70mm at x27 it’s only a smudge, though as on previous evenings, averted vision does suggest some speckling. I try adding a 2x barlow, which I’ve not done before, and am surprised to see now some differentiation – a slightly denser core. Partner’s eyes are a bit astigmatic, but she does see it too. Pushing it now, I head back to Lyra for M57. The sky isn’t as dark as when I (just barely) saw it before, but we try. I can just get beta and gamma into view in my widest EP, so somewhere in the middle. I flick my eye about as I did last time, and catch it again. I try to describe the procedure to my other half, and after a few minutes, she says she does too. I would have bet against that one, but the last item on list A is one I haven’t even found myself before – the Dumbbell – and it will take some finding. Learning from last time, I’ve ditched the Mag-7 Star Atlas Project maps - pretty though they were, I just couldn’t read them in the dark. Instead, I have printed a selection from the Michael Vlasov atlas (also plugged on this forum) which are larger on each A4 page. The other thing I have realized is that my hopping technique was flawed (or non-existent). I was either just finding a known starting point and then sweeping in the direction indicated by the chart, and hoping to spot the target in the EP, or else I was trying to use the finder but “giving up” too soon and switching to EP view when I thought I was in the general vicinity of the target. The problem with approach 1 is that for a faint target, with a small scope in polluted skies, you could pass right over it and not spot it. The problem with approach 2 is that a refractor pointing upwards (hence with star diagonal) reflects up-down and left-right so if you switch to your EP before you have your target in field, a beginner is going to struggle making that last hop from the chart. Whereas my finder gives a true view. This makes good sense now, but I needed to spend a cold, fruitless evening at the EP to realize it. So for M27, softly softly – there’s nothing especially close and naked eye that I can use. So I start at Albireo, nudge a little down and northwards with the slow-mos, then check in the finder against the chart. I’m just looking to match a pattern of the new stars now in view, and I can see one. I repeat the process. It still works, this is great. I’m amazed that this tiny, plastic 6x30 is delivering the goods. I can now see a star in my finder that I can see on the chart is right next to the Dumbbell. I adjust the scope a last time to centre on where the chart says it should be (and I know that actually M27 is pretty big). And only now do I switch to the low-power eyepiece. OK, I must have knocked my finder alignment out slightly during the evening, but a slight correction and there it is, in all its glorious smudginess. Extra mag doesn’t make much difference; I can see structure alright, but I can’t honestly say I can see the apple core, certainly not as good as the (full colour!) sample illustration in my Bresser instruction manual. But I don’t care, it’s M27, it’s another first, and I found it the proper way. It’s gone midnight now and my other half wishes me luck and heads off to bed. Before I look at the second half of the list, I take a breather and have a look at the sky. It’s actually not that bad, considering we’ve now officially lost astro dark. It looks perhaps better than last time I was out – I could see the milky way behind Cygnus then, but now I see it extending across the eastern sky well into Ophiuchus, and I can see bands of light and dark structure. It’s going to be interesting to see if this is maintained when lockdown is over. Back to the list, and I yet again try to split delta Herculis, without success. This will definitely be the last time until I get a bigger scope. Then to another double, kappa Bootis. I’ve found iota previously, and looked for kappa twice, but failed. That was before I used my finder properly though. So let’s start from lambda, work up to theta, then I recognize the field from the chart. Again, the finder’s slightly off, but there’s certainly a double in the EP, with a companion noticeably fainter. To be sure I haven’t found iota again by mistake, I quickly slew to compare with Mizar (which I know has almost the same separation). Tick. Another previous escapee, psi1 Draconis. This one is a bit trickier and I end up doing three or four separate hops, having to start again at one point. But I do find it, a nice pair at 30”, the brighter one seems slightly whiter to me. The tail end of the list has some clusters: M10/M12 in Ophiuchus, M92 in Hercules and M4 in Scorpius. A bit frustratingly, I realize that these are either now behind houses, or else dead vertical, and after a few minutes trying the starhopping procedure in a painful crouched position (BUY THAT NEWT) I decide I’m far enough in credit now to call it a night. It's nearly two.

Thanks for that steer on Sky Safari, I'll certainly check that out. I am currently using a combination of a planisphere and Stellarium to orient myself, and printed charts for detail. I have just ordered a Telrad though, which seems a great idea in principle. Sky Safari appears to come in three versions for different prices - would I need at least the "plus" version to get the star hopping capability?

Glad you saw some stuff Neil, I'm obviously not hard core! I think if the forecast stays the same tonght I'll stay up.

Yes, that's a fair point - it could be 75% cloud but thin stuff, and my kit isn't going to see many DSOs in the first place so I'm mainly looking for doubles and clusters.

I had a finely balanced decision to make yesterday about whether to stay up and attempt a post-midnight astro dark session, factors including: - BBC/Met Office forecast was "clear all night" - BBC/Met Office forecasts have been woefully innaccurate, both day and night - Clearoutside was forecasting clear early evening, but later on it had "0% low cloud" and "75% high cloud" cover - Lack of moon - My other half is somewhat keen, but I didn't want to keep her up that long for a potential damp squib - It's very late, and not dark for that long - There look to be one, perhaps two more clear nights forecast in the coming week - I have a new eyepiece and filter arriving soon 😀 I decided not to wait up, and instead charged my batteries for a possible session this coming week. I see in the observing reports this morning that at least some UK people did have clear skies, so I am a bit regretful. I've only started observing in the last couple of months, so I may have been spoiled by the number of good evenings we have been having? Looking back at some of the older comments, I see people wishing they'd never bought their scopes, after fifty or sixty days without sight of a star! Anyway, to my question. Was I unwise to be put off by the Clearoutside prediction of "75% high cloud"? I mean, leaving aside the obvious possibility that they might be wrong anyway, Is there any difference in the effect on observation between low, medium and high cloud? Would you take one more seriously than another? I noticed that the "visibility" line was still saying 10 miles (the highest it ever seems to say) even when cloud cover was 75%. Is that significant? Tonight is looking very similar!

My second report, quite different from the first. In fact, I almost didn’t bother writing it up, then I thought it might be some comfort to any other beginners who luck out on a nice evening! I didn’t venture outside until 23.30 (small refractor, minimal setup time) as clearoutside.com was showing astro twilight after midnight now. ISS drifts over at 23.44 as I check the eastern half of the sky, where I have been concentrating. Cygnus is already above the haze, and I’m guessing I can now see bits of Libra and Aquila above the horizon; and Scorpius? Maybe. I’ve made another list of objects I’ve not yet seen – doubles and clusters. I start with delta Herculis, which I found previously but failed to split. And it’s the same result tonight. However I’m not so surprised this time, as in the interim I’ve noted that while the separation (12.4”) is comfortably within the capacity of my 70mm, the companion in this case is only mag 8.3, so the combination may be asking too much of my £29.99 LIDL special. Onwards and upwards – literally, to psi Draconis high overhead (if I consider anything other than a Newtonian for my next buy, please shoot me). Earlier, in the comfort of the living room, it had looked easy to navigate to this 4.6/5.6 pair from the nearby, slightly brighter, chi Draconis, which has about the same declination. After an extended period of crouching, squinting and fumbling, I decide it is perhaps not so easy, and have to give up and stretch my joints. At least this target is circumpolar and will probably succumb on some other night. Perhaps kappa Bootis will oblige? Another escapee from a previous evening, it lies close to another double, iota (which I have split before). Bootes is now high and working southwards. Slewing the scope to its northern end, I find it resisting my push, and realize it’s a problem I encounter now and again – the tube fouls on one of the slow-mo controls, which means there is a patch of sky I can’t access – just the patch where I want to be right now. I have never gotten around to investigating whether there is a way around this (assuming that I want to stay polar aligned of course) – is this what is called “crossing the meridian” or is that something else? Anyway, Bootes is out of bounds until the sky has rotated a bit. So, not good so far – 0/3 ! I feel I now need a bit of encouragement, so I drop the list for a while. Cygnus is high enough that it’s worth another look at Albireo. I try it with a range of eyepieces: a 26mm plossl, a 15.8mm orthoscopic, then both of these with a 2x barlow, and finally with a 6.3mm plossl (the last giving slightly over 100x which adds nothing and loses much). It’s interesting that the orthoscopic shows a tight ring around both components (which I assume are diffraction rings?) and a bit of a faint ‘haze’ around both, which it does with all stars and I assume is an aberration. The 26mm (with or without the barlow) shows no rings and no haze, having a nice, black field making a pleasing frame for the yellow and blue stars. OK, back to the list. M5 Rose Cluster in Serpens Caput. I have some brief starhopping instructions jotted down and had printed off a new chart earlier in the day. Unfortunately, it is rather small and difficult to read in the garden. From memory, I identify the relevant stars in Serpens and track across, but without success. Also on the list as possibles are M10 and M12 in Ophiuchus – I try scanning for those with binoculars instead, in the absence of any obvious guide stars. No joy. Time to switch to something I can find a bit more easily. M29 is an open cluster near gamma Cygni, which is a pretty site in my widest eyepiece (and seen for the first time), perhaps diminished only by being set against the milky way rather than an empty sky. While Looking at Cygnus, I notice that the milky way is visible tonight. I couldn’t see it at all on the 14th, which I thought was as good a night as we were ever going to get here (neither had a moon). The seeing also seems to be better than it was on the 14th – the images in the scope seem to be rock steady. Another cluster on the list, also not seen before, is M92 in Hercules. Again, apparently an easy navigation from the armchair, but not so twelve hours later. My plan had been to find iota Herculis, then track across towards eta in the keystone, which (almost) passes through M92. I do find iota OK, but never find the cluster. Starting to doubt my vision by this point, I see if I can find M13 – and do so immediately. Although I have seen this before, it has only been a fuzzy patch in my modest 70 mil. This time, I try glancing at it with averted vision and I’m pleased to detect the tiniest speckles in the fuzz which, to retrieve a depressing evening, I decide are individual stars rather than artefacts of failing eyesight. It’s now nearly 1 a.m. and I’m wondering if Bootes has moved far enough for me to attempt kappa again, but as I glance southwards I see a massive bank of cloud has swallowed up a quarter of the sky. To the northwest there are also wisps and before long it’s time to pack up. So, not a productive evening, but some valuable lessons. Planning needs to be better. Printed charts need to be clearer, and annotated for every target. I think I’ll laminate them, then I can draw on them and re-use them. Think more clearly in advance about how you’re going to get around the sky. Some of the manoeuvres are either too vaguely specified or too ambitious for the stars visible/scope capabilities. I need to investigate starhopping techniques!

I'll offer my thoughts as a new starter with a small refractor, though you already have more experienced comments. I have a cheap 70/700 (sounds like the same one Cosmic Geoff mentions above) - a Bresser Skylux that LIDL occasionally feature. Although very cheap, it does have an EQ mount that looks more substantial than any of the three you point out (there's an item on it here: https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/199746-bresser-eq-mount-motor-drive/ although Bresser have also supplied the same scope on alt-az mounts that look less good. It's probably worth more than what I paid for the whole scope and easily capable of taking the weight, but still limited in terms of precision (apparently can even be retro-fitted for motor drive). The tripod is steel and no better than you'd expect for a low-end scope, and I do find it wobbly. The objective is, of course, achromat not apo but I've been pleasantly surprised by the sharpness right across the field and the colour aberration hasn't been too bad (I have read that you can get some variation in these Bressers, so perhaps I got a "good" one) - however, I was only able to come to this conclusion once I'd given up on the dire Kellner eyepieces it came with and bought a couple of half decent ones. As you're already started, I assume this won't be an issue for you. The main limitation for me is the aperture. How dark are your skies? Mine aren't great, so an 80mm might have been a better start for me. Would it be worth the extra expense and weight?

RH323, you're right that it couldn't have been comet Swan, nor could it have been any comet if it was moving noticeably - comets follow paths around the sun and so they don't appear to move against the background stars to the naked eye, only very slowly, as do the planets. Can you give any more information? You say about baseball size, but a baseball held how far away? Or better, can you compare it with the size of a celestial object like the full moon? Can you describe the speed, or say for how long it was visible? Did it have a noticeable colour?

A great list, some things I hadn't thought about as a new observer. Another thing I have noticed is how difficult it is to see some colours under a red LED headlight (star charts, books, planispheres ...) so I've taken to trying them out in advance in the downstairs loo - and then making substitutions or adjustments as necessary. For example I have three planispheres and I found they vary quite a bit in their visibility under red.

Thanks for the comments, all. I'm just starting to work my way through this great resource and I can see there's a wealth of experience here. If I get to feeling that I'm hitting the buffers with the 70mm, then perhaps I'll use the summer to shape up my (currently very conflicted) ideas about where to go next kitwise, and hope to get some input here.

First report from me. Lifelong armchair enthusiast, but only started to observe properly this year. I have decided to learn the basics with a cheap 70mm F/10 refractor before spending any serious money. I live on the outskirts of a small town, back garden is limited to about mag 5 naked eye, even in these amazing skies we’ve been having in lockdown. I skipped the last couple of clear nights because of the moon, so decided to stay up for this one and made up a mixed list of a few easier objects I hadn’t seen yet. Venus was almost set as I went out, so I let that go. My scope has no drive but it does have a German mount, so I do find it worth polar aligning at the start, saves me fiddling with one of the two slow-mos later on. By the time I’ve done that, the sky is darkening and I can see how much the constellations have moved since I was out last – quite a bit. On previous nights I’ve been focused mainly on the East and North-East, but I can see how far to the South Leo has now moved, while in its place Bootes and Hercules are now high and distinct, and there is a jumble of less obvious shapes beneath them that I know must be Ophiuchus and Serpens. To the North-East, Lyra is now higher than before behind Hercules, and Cygnus is now making an appearance through the light pollution. This familiarity comes as a pleasant surprise – I could always pick out half a dozen of the brightest isolated constellations, mostly winter ones, but never able to scan across the sky like this. I don’t think you can learn it from charts alone, you need horizons and reference points, and you need repeated observing sessions like this to see the changes. Before full dark, I start the list with the double stars. First up is nu Draconis. Draco was one of those constellations I had always assumed I could never even make out before this year, but now I find it quite easily snaking around the Little Bear. I identify the “head” and line up on the star – nothing. Strange, as it should be very wide at 62”. I check again, wrong star! I re-align, and there it is, very nice in a 26mm plossl. Two very white components, I can’t tell any difference in colour or magnitude, as it should be. Next, beta Lyrae. The sky is dark enough now that I can make out the four stars below Vega by eye. I can just get both of the lower two into my finder at the same time, so it’s easy to identify and line up beta, and then check again in the 26mm – yes, it’s double. I also try it with a 15.8mm orthoscopic, but there's not much to choose between them. This is still very wide at 45”. Both components are white, but this time one is much fainter. Feeling confident, I now try delta Herculis, apparently separated at 12.4”. This should still be comfortable for my kit (only a bit tighter than Mizar) and it’s easy enough to find delta, but I can see only one star. Odd. OK, what about kappa Herculis? I can’t identify it with my eye, but I’ve noted down some instruction about “following down one leg and then carrying on about the same distance”. I spend a little time manually shunting the scope while scanning with the 26mm eyepiece, and get lucky – there it is. A wideish pair, one slightly brighter and possibly more yellow? Nice. By now, Cygnus is just about out of the low haze so I might as well have a go at Albireo for my first time, and it does not disappoint. A brighter, yellow main with a dimmer blue companion. It will be worth returning to this one on another time when it is higher. It’s almost midnight now and as dark as it’s going to get, so I try to assess the conditions (this is one aspect I hope to get better at – I realize I have previously contented myself with “aren’t the stars good tonight?”). I found a guide on the astroleague website that uses criteria to rate Transparency and Seeing. For transparency, I would say 6 out of 7, on the grounds that I could see all the stars in the Little Dipper, but not any surrounding ones. For Seeing, I’d say probably "Very Good": I didn’t notice twinkling with the naked eye, but I did experience a little jumping in the eyepiece at higher magnifications. Now with the sky dark, I turn to another first attempt – the Ring Nebula. Obviously I know where it ought to be, back to beta Lyrae in my finder, and line up half way between beta and gamma, then switch to – which eyepiece? I knew it was small, but also dim, so I couldn’t push the mag much with my limited aperture. I try it with the 15.8mm and see only background stars. I wait, and flick my eye around the field. There. Yes – no – yes. With averted vision only, and small, but definitely identified. I try adding a barlow, but as I suspected, blowing it up washes it out completely. Another time, a darker place, a bigger bucket. But still very pleasing. Confidence in the little scope now abounding, I turn it vertically for an attempt on M82. I had failed to find this previously on a very clear evening, but this time I had a different star-hopping approach – a diagonal line through gamma and alpha in Ursa Major, the same distance further on should just about do it. I’m not even using my finder now, just lining it up straight down the barrel. The temperature has plummeted now and my fingers are numb. Back to the 26mm eyepiece, and some manual shunting around the sky. Stop – were those two fuzzy patches in the field at the same time? Just then, a neighbour switches on their bedroom light and floods my view. Cursing, I lock both axes, wait for the light to go off, and hope to find the same view when I return. I do. I play with the slow-mo’s while my eyes re-adapt, convincing myself that there is something there. And they become a little more distinct, though only blotches. But I can see that the left hand one is more elongate and the other is more rounded, and in the rounded one I can – just – detect slightly more density in the middle than the edge. So there it is, M82 with a bonus of M81. Time to call it a successful night, and rescue my fingers.