wulfrun

1 hour ago, saac said:

Cool.  I'll save it as mid week treat .  Second best quote " we will never know the name of the last star,   but we know that it will be a red dwarf".

Jim 

Except that by then it's highly unlikely that anyone will be around to give it a name, perhaps?

I found the whole thing seriously underwhelming and disappointing. Great CGI and I quite liked the music but neither were why I watched it. The whole thing felt like it was sci-fi rather than anything with actual science behind it. "Must do better" on Auntie's report!

Short answer: no, it isn't powerful enough.

11 minutes ago, HiveIndustries said:

This is short sighted backwards, imho. As a species we should constantly try and increase our production and consumption of energy and transportation is obviously one of the places this energy is manifested in useful ways.

I'm guessing this is meant to be provocative but you seem to overlook the fact that, for now at least, we live on a finite planet. Constantly increasing energy production and consumption isn't possible in this scenario.

35 minutes ago, DaveS said:

First of all cancel all non-essential air travel (Most *is* non essential) and stop making cement. These outweigh any current or near term foreseen space travel by many orders of magnitude.

No argument here, perhaps my wording wasn't good enough. Public perception of vast sums and vast resources. It doesn't look good and reality may end up not being the deciding factor.

Considering the plight of our current planet, I'd have to question our right to start interfering with another. Not to mention that if it doesn't happen very soon indeed, I wonder if the environmental cost to Earth would lead to its cancellation anyway.

I reckon many people do this kind of thing in pure ignorance. Perhaps it's time they came with a mandatory warning on the packaging, along the lines of "Warning: incorrect installation may lead to prosecution, read the instructions fully". Said instructions would include a bit about light trespass plus the environmental aspect.

If, instead, folk installed things that led to toxic chemicals running into a watercourse, I bet the authorities would be all over it like a rash. But it's "only" the nighttime environment and minorities like ourselves that suffer.

1 hour ago, bomberbaz said:

The classic 150p dob had a focal length of 1200 so it's a near F8 mirror so actually better for planetary.

Agreed and the confusion is due to there being Explorer 150P, 150P-DS and 150PL, the former two being f/5 and the latter being f/8. They call the dob a Classic 150P, which is confusing because it's a "PL" tube! Yes, the PL is better for planetary, I can attest to that since I have a PL. It's surprising how little difference there is in actual real-world use though.

It looks as though the vane would straighten pretty easily. However, it shouldn't be like that from new and you risk making it worse. Definitely try to get the supplier to resolve it. If you can't, I'd be tempted to try it out as-is and if the effects are noticeable I'd have a go at correcting it. If you do try, the golden rule is to have the tube horizontal so nothing gets dropped down the tube onto the primary mirror.

10 hours ago, Teledope said:

That's good to know.  I'm guessing the 150P Flextube will be very close/same quality as the 150P?

 

Whilst I'm here, are there any "must have" additions/accessories I really should think about from the word go?  I've already seen a couple of cheap simple mods (shroud + PTFE tape on the viewer) for the Flextube that look like they're worth doing.

It's the same mirror as the 150P, just in a different "package" - so it's the same scope...optically speaking!

The PTFE mod takes the wobble out of the helical focuser. Despite its simplicity, the focuser is quite robust and it'll cope with hefty eyepieces, I often use a 16mm EP together with a 2x focal extender, between them they weigh 460g and it copes.

The shroud is well worth the effort and small cost, it keeps stray light off the secondary mirror and also helps stop it dewing up. At a dark site in the UK I'd say you still need it for the latter, most of the time anyway. In a suburban back garden you'll need it for both reasons.

One thing you'll probably find lacking is the supplied 10mm eyepiece, few people have good things to say about it. I'd suggest something like the 8mm BST Starguider as a replacement BUT see how you get on before rushing into anything. You may find it adequate (and expendable) with kids in the mix!

Using a Heritage 150P, I've been viewing Saturn and Jupiter (amongst other things) when conditions permit over the last few months. I have seen far better clarity than the photo in the OP at times (but certainly a lot smaller!). Jupiter has shown all the Galileans and banding on the planet. With Saturn I have seen the Cassini division at times and several moons. I've not yet had the chance to take it to dark skies.

I've used the Heritage due to how quickly I can set it up and it is surprisingly capable. I have a better scope for planetary but it takes longer to set up and put away, so the Heritage beats it when the weather is changeable.

Yes, it's strength is lower power views but it holds its own impressively well at higher power. 150x is no problem (conditions permitting) and I'm sure it could go higher. As a portable "all-rounder" it's probably very hard to beat at the price.

You might want to ask a mod to move this, since you've put it in eyepiece discussions area...

4 minutes ago, DaveL59 said:

While apart, not a bad idea to also strip all the old grease away (white spirits work) and then re-grease with fresh synthetic heliciod grease. Saves any future fungus issues from the old grease. You would need to be careful dismantling the mechanicals so you can realign the focus threads accurately to be sure you can hit focus (near & infinity). Mark and measure etc and take lots of pics during the process to aid reassembly. With luck and care you'd have a lens that's nice and clean and silky smooth like new 🙂 

Good point, I'd neglected to mention that. I've done dozens of Russian lenses (and cameras), one thing consistent about them is the poor quality, congealed grease. On the other hand, in this instance I'd be inclined to clean the front element and see how things are before diving into full disassembly. It does look as though decades of exterior grime are this example's major challenge. The one I own is one of the few that still works smoothly, so he may get away with it.

My laptop fails due to the processor but it does have the tpm bit. It works fine and does all I ask of it, so it'll be staying on W10 for now. By the time they stop supporting W10, I'll be migrating it to Linux (if the W10 updates haven't driven me there beforehand!). I won't be upgrading it until I feel it's too out of date, rather than due to OS issues. I like Linux anyway, so no tears over W10.

As a minimum, you'll need to set the camera to either aperture-priority or manual. The camera doesn't know there's a "lens" attached since it can't talk to it. Some cameras have a setting "shoot without lens" or similar wording, it needs to be "on" or "yes" or it still won't fire. Not sure if that applies to yours.

On 12/10/2021 at 17:48, YogSothoth said:

I guess using refractors for years, I’ve been kind of anxious about the collimating process but doesn’t seem too bad.

Understandable, like most folk (myself included) you've quite possibly read several articles on it and decided it's complicated and best avoided. The first time you try it you'll probably spend a couple of hours faffing about but then things fall into place (not literally, hopefully) and you'll also realise that most of the time you'll need a small tweak of the primary, worst-case. Subsequently it'll be a couple of minutes tops, or even just a quick check-only thing. I thoroughly recommend this no-nonsense guide that doesn't over-complicate things:

https://garyseronik.com/a-beginners-guide-to-collimation/

Well done! Just keep well away from the iris (diaphragm) petals. If one of those comes adrift you'll be in for some proper "fun".

A proprietary lens cleaner of some sort? Alternatively, isopropyl alcohol should be fine. There will not be any seal behind the front element, so no pouring stuff on. You'll need to work carefully, so as not to scratch the coating (yes, stating the obvious!). Most Russian lenses are actually pretty easy to dismantle, if needed - you'd probably only need jeweller's screwdrivers and maybe a lens spanner. There may well be instructions online if you search.

The Helios 44 is a well-regarded bit of glass, I have one on a Zenith E somewhere. If it cleans up OK, definitely worth a go.

Click on your profile name (top right of screen), go to "account settings". Scroll down a little and on the left side click "signature". I'm assuming that's where you've put it!

Can't go far wrong with binoculars, they're always handy anyway. If you decide astronomy isn't for you, they can be used for sport, birdwatching or whatever else. They're also the ultimate "grab-and-go" and most observational astronomers have a pair or three. Great for "it could well rain" nights, when there are gaps in the clouds to peek through and so on.

1 hour ago, Tiny Clanger said:

The little things often used to be referred to as a 'Wixy', which was a trade name I believe

The trade name is "Wixey". Not being pedantic, just pointing out the correct spelling, which helps when searching! I have one too, very useful.

15 minutes ago, PeterC65 said:

My concern is that with a Newtonian having the eyepiece at the top end of the tube its height from the ground varies a lot as the altitude changes, whereas the height above ground of the eyepiece on a Mak (or a refractor) varies only a little with altitude, and there is no way to adjust the angle of the eyepiece in the way you can by canting over the diagonal on the Mak.

True for a Mak, since it's a folded-optics design and physically short. A newtonian versus refractor though, not quite true. Roughly speaking, they are both the same size (length) for a given focal length. The "swing" of the EP position is similar but opposite directions.

1 minute ago, Murray06 said:

I saw that one too, only reason I was put off was the expected delivery date of Feb. 
im slowly realising I will never make a perfect choice, only that I need to make sure I don’t make a bad choice. 

One thing you'll find everyone says and is true: no single scope can do it all. Like most things in life, there are compromises to be made and a lot of folk end up with more than one scope just because of it. Saying that, a SW200P (or similar) would only be a bad choice of first visual-only scope if you have nowhere to store it, can't move it around etc.

11 minutes ago, Murray06 said:

@PeterC65 Thank you for putting in the time to write such a detailed post. The Skymax 127 is currently on my shortlist, along with a sky watcher 200 Dob, so was interesting you mentioned that one. Need to read up further on the SynScan a bit more as want to make setup and viewing as simple as possible - not keen on drilling holes etc. 

If you have the SW200P dob on your shortlist, this one should be as well:

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/bresser-telescopes/bresser-messier-8-dobsonian-telescope.html

No personal experience but folk generally comment that is better for a small price increase. For starters, it has tube-rings - meaning it's easily transferred onto a different mount, should you wish to in future. The focuser appears better quality too.

One thing worth pointing out: all 3 of the OP's intital ideas were EQ mount. Not wishing to patronise but are you familiar with the EQ versus Alt-Az mounts (of which a dobsonian is one variety)? No reason a beginner can't master an EQ of course but an Alt-Az is more intuitive and quicker to set up. A (newtonian) reflector on an EQ can also end up with the eyepiece situated very inconveniently, so it's less than ideal for visual-only.

Just food for thought...

EDIT: welcome to SGL, you'll get heaps of great advice and suggestions and no-one will deride any "silly questions" you might have.

You'll probably find having both is better than either, so I'd not remove a finderscope. The Telrad works best for getting you close to where you want to be, quickly. The finderscope is handy for star-hopping from something easily found in the Telrad's view, you'll be able to see fainter stars with the finder. Depending what you're after, the Telrad alone may be enough but I wouldn't give up the "both" option.