Emperor!Takahashi!

No beef, Stu! I'm a vegetarian! And especially not with you! You're one of my SGL faves! But it's permissible to make a point with a certain degree of respectful adamance when it feels helpful, no? And maybe also with a certain playfulness? Although I admit that my attempts at humor usually fall flat... Respectful, playful disagreement isn't too beefy, I hope 🤞 In any case, no insult or injury intended. Please PM me if further communication on the matter would help. Wishing you a good day ❤️

Of course it's his choice, but I'll respectfully repeat my opinion that adjusting the collimation isn't the best action to take at this point 👍 I doubt that my opinions are robbing him of free will ☺️ Another point worth mentioning is the inherent coma of the DK design. Stars have to be dead center in the FOV for the diffraction pattern to appear concentric. So, if a star is a little bit off to the side, it may appear as though the collimation is off. There is a benign learning curve when using a Mewlon after refractors. I think it's most helpful to point out the possible variables first rather than, at this point, suggesting fixing collimation that may not need fixing.

Because it would be sad to make changes to the collimation if it isn't actually an issue 😭 That's why I think the thing to do would be to address the thermals and wait for good seeing. That may solve the hairy stars problem. And if the collimation is the problem, adjusting it would still require a thermally acclimated scope and good seeing since a steady defocused star image with a clear diffraction pattern is needed for the job (assuming that's the method of collimation being used). So, in either case, I think it would be a mistake to touch those collimation screws right now.

But wait until you have the thermals sorted and good seeing before adjusting the collimation!

PS - Really.

A major consideration with the Mewlon is thermal acclimation. I would pay close attention to that (especially during the winter) since a lack of thermal acclimation can be mistaken for poor seeing or collimation. Here's some essential reading: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/530068-seeing-vs-thermals/ I'd bet money that that's the main culprit behind your hairy stars. The solution is to keep the scope in a cool place before you use it and put it outside with the eyepiece opening pointing up after sunset for a couple of hours. The baffle, and not just the mirror, in the Mewlon traps heat, so positioning it in that way may help with acclimation. I share this based on plenty of first-hand experience with a 180C. When that Mewlon is acclimated and the seeing is good, the views will blow your socks off.

Has anyone used a Baader Steeltrack focuser with their FC-76 or other Tak?

I've read your review several times over the years with great interest. (I'm a fan of your reviews, in general!) I'm curious whether you still feel the same on the following point or whether your perspective has changed any since writing the review: "While I have been unable to convince myself that the scope actually sharpened up performance on the planets and double stars, from the already impressive base FC-76, the last residual false colour seen on the most challenging of objects is eliminated, and the truly flat field, even to my accommodative eyes, means large open clusters and the Moon really do impress... Even though the CQ module is “only” £301, which is cheap for Takahashi, I am not sure I would recommend purchasing the module if it is only for use with the FC-76 DCU as I did not see enough additional benefit to really justify the expense." The way I read your comments is, "The extender does improve things, but not significantly enough for me to recommend it." Your assessment, along with Roger Vine's (which is more explicitly in favor of the extender) are ones I keep mulling over.

Should be WWE, Stu. You'll anger the wrestlers... and the conservationists. That's a dangerous game to play.

I admire your courage.

Really?! A couple of years ago, I tested out my Mewlon 180 on a Super Polaris. My mind immediately plays Elton John when I think about how well that worked... "It seems to me you lived your life like a candle in the wind...!" But I was using a pretty light tripod.

Sort of like waiting for the clouds over Britain to clear...

They're M8!

If you decide to show us your partner's legs, show her this thread after. Then update us on whether she's still your partner or whether it's just you and Berlebach.

I actually feel a bit bad about underutilizing my AP/APZ. The alt-az APZ is perfect for the 6" mak-newt that will soon be my only telescopes. But after I sell off my smaller telescopes, I'll have no use for the AP in EQ mode 😞 I've considered selling it off and buying another comparable alt-az, but I don't know of any! Small and light, well-made, robust, and with slow-mo controls... A unicorn of the mount world 🦄

Another worthy APZ upgrade: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/325409930148 I like these inexpensive M8 knobs better than the "official" Vixen ones, and it's so nice to be able to adjust the tension easily.

Beautiful. FC-76?

Nice job, Mike. Looking forward to seeing additional festoons in your sketches, now.

Hi Alan 😊 Yes: It's a Ceravolo HD-145 (6" f/6) mak-newt 🦁

This was an enjoyable read. Thanks! Good to keep in mind that a 6" f/8 newt designed for visual observing would probably have a ~20% CO. Those don't give up much (if any) contrast to refractors. If we changed that variable, I think all of the points you mentioned would be either "tie," or a "win" for the newt 😊 I enjoy the unbridled enthusiasm that some of the refractor fans express for their instruments. But, at the eyepiece, I've never seen a smaller refractor (whether APO or long-focus achro) outperform a larger reflector as long as the latter: - has good optics, - is collimated, - is thermally acclimated, - and isn't being pushed to do things that the seeing won't realistically allow for the given aperture. This won't help me win any popularity contests, but my suspicion is that those who are stunned by refractor superiority have ignored one of more of those points!

The second picture seems to show that one may use a Newtonian as a giant bong. Try that with a refractor. Another point for the Newt.

You might be sparing yourself a headache! I've owned a few 60mm refractors of this ilk. When they work, they're fun. But some of them had lenses that, over time (I assume), became astigmatic and, thus, the telescopes weren't good for much. Is there a shop return policy in case you don't get one of the good ones? Also, it's worth noting that it'll require an adapter to use 1.25" accessories. Those are obtainable on eBay.

Well, I do like Lovecraft!

Some of my favorite dreams are undoubtedly influenced by stargazing. Here's one from a few years ago that I wrote down: I dreamt that I was flying above Earth’s atmosphere, looking into space. As I flew, countless galaxies and nebulae passed through my field of vision. In my dream, I felt a deep, wordless recognition that I am part of life’s limitless beauty. Have others had astronomy/stargazing dreams?

One idea is to ask for a brief phone call if one has any doubt.