wulfrun

According to Wikipedia, there is one quasar that can (just) be seen in a medium/large amateur telescope: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3C_273 Looks like you'll be out of luck on anything else though, sorry.

And even better, "vision of the future". Now they'd be very handy for any race-going punter! I see they also have the "exit of the student: 18mm", chinglish at its best 🙂

Actually, I totally forgot the "Heritage" dobs, which collapse down to about half-size. Great for storage or travel. If you only want visual, you could do far worse. Some are tabletop models though, a table or similar platform is required unless you're willing to contort on the floor or change the mount.

Worth pointing out that even a 150 Newt isn't actually small; depending which you choose it's around three-quarters to a meter-plus long. Mine is the "PL" version, i.e. the longest but it fits easily across the back-seat of a typical family hatchback though. Then there's the mount and tripod, whichever sort you went for. As for needing bigger, I'd mention that as the aperture increases, ALL light is increased - including what you don't want. Admittedly, you have more "spare" to lose in a LP filter etc but it's still a truism.

DSOs generally require low-ish magnification and a wide field of view because they are (mostly) large and dim. I think the plain fact that they are dim is inevitably going to mean you just can't see some things in light pollution, pretty much irrespective of scope. My level of experience so far it too limited for me to give you any serious advice so I'm mainly basing what I've said on my research and general knowledge of physics/optics. For planets, they're small but relatively bright, so you're far less affected by LP but you need a scope that gives high magnification (and need good conditions). As far as I understand, a Mak would be better for planetary but a short-focal Newt is better for DSOs. Conflicting requirements to do both, so a compromise somewhere. Ask your friend what their logic is, there are plenty of experts on here who can say if it's sensible advice or not.

It'd help if you explain what you're hoping to see. I don't think it's true that you need at least an 8" newtonian just because of light pollution, there's more to it than that. I use a 114 and 150 newtonians from a city light-polluted back-yard and I can see quite lot. The Mak and Newt are different scopes and each is better at different things.

Confusing isn't it. There's the 750/150 [f/5] in the Heritage (Dob) the Explorer's OTA and the 150PDS but it's 1200/150 [f/8] in the Classic (Dob) and 150PL (OTA). At least, I think that's right!

The solid-tube Dob 150P is an f/8 scope and the Heritage is an f/5. At the risk of patronising you if you already know this but this means the solid-tube has a more limited maximum field of view (FOV) BUT it is less demanding on eyepieces, so you can get away with cheaper ones. With a 32mm plossl, for instance, the solid-tube gives a FOV of about 1.3 degrees at x38 magnification, the Heritage gives 2.2 degrees FOV at x23. Nearer the other end, a typical 8mm (say a BST, 60-degree) in the solid-tube gives FOV 0.4 degree at x150 and the Heritage gives FOV 0.64 degree at x94. The upshot is that the Heritage is better suited to wider-field targets (DSOs etc) whereas the solid-tube is better suited to small targets (planets/lunar and double-stars etc). Worth thinking about. Also worth thinking about as a first lens purchase is a zoom. Not everyone likes them but I do (so far!) and many others love them. There's a cheap-as-chips SVbony 7-21mm, the slightly more expensive OVL Hyperflex 7.2-21.5mm or the - fairly expensive - Baader Hyperion 8-24mm, amongst other choices. Any of those will perform well in the solid-tube 150P and at least adequately in the Heritage. The SVbony is so cheap you can use it as a kind of "disposable" to find out what focal lengths you will use the most; then purchase fixed ones if you want. Downside of zooms is their narrow field of view at the longer settings, which is not ideal. For longer though, the 25mm that comes with the scope is tolerable for a while - or the abovementioned 32mm plossl isn't expensive. Just some things to think about, at the end of the day you pick what you feel is best.

If push comes to shove, I can make my own heater pretty easily and I have several LiPo packs I can use to power one. In another hobby I used them for model helicopters, they have more than enough juice for this for hours on end. I just don't want to be tied to powered solutions if possible - when I'm using that scope I'd like it to be unreliant on anything beyond the Telrad's AAs.

Apologies I mis-typed it. It's constantan not constantin.

Have you considered Constantin wire instead of Nichrome? It can be soldered. I think Kanthal might be solderable too but maybe not as readily. Kanthal is commonly used in E-cig heaters so it's cheap.

Costs the same as the Telrad itself, I can make something for peanuts. Already made a screen-cover for zilch but it could end up annoying me, we'll see.

The advice would always be to go with the largest aperture you can afford and are comfortable with moving around. So the 150 beats the 130 either way, all other things the same. The Heritage collapses down to about half-size and has a tabletop mount, ideal for storage and very easy to transport. Yes, you are correct that you'd need a table or something to put it on unless you're happy doing yoga on the floor in the cold or damp. The "full-size" Dob (e.g SkyWatcher "classic") is free-standing, no table required. A Dob is a decent starter and can last you far longer, depending where the interest takes you. As plenty of people on here will tell you, no one scope does it all. EDIT: I've just realised you mentioned the Explorer, which is on an Equatorial mount. If you just want a point-and-look, an equatorial is not the easiest way to go. They require setting up to align with the north celestial pole and that's a faff for a beginner. Bear that in mind but don't let it put you off if you want to go that way.

Pack it in! I toyed with getting a Rigel and instead bought the Telrad, the form-factor is better on a long OTA. I need a "fingers in ears" icon now 🙂

A Telrad will make finding things pretty straightforward, just be aware the screen dews up rather easily. I have almost the same scope as you - the "PL" version - and a Telrad has been a big improvement. As for the Moon, yes it's very bright! Use a neutral-density filter or a variable-polariser. I have the latter and it's nice because you can dial in the brightness you're comfortable with, even compensating for dimming due to using a higher magnificaton. A filter may or may not help with nebulae, depending. I recently bought a UHC and a few days back (when the moon was just over half) I managed to see quite a bit on the Orion nebula with it. It made a worthwhile difference anyway. Mars, basically forget seeing any detail for some time. Yes, it's not a star is probably the best you'll get for now. I looked at it back when it was much closer and even at 170x there was not much detail to be seen. You'll need to wait for the right opportunities to come.

Since you've been using binoculars, you probably have a fair idea already. Binoculars do give you a big advantage of zero set-up time, you only need to wait for your eyes to work at their best. They're also great for peeking quickly through cloud gaps at whatever happens to be on show at the time, if conditions are like that. If you want conditions of low or no moonlight, you can remove about 3/4 of each month anyway, leaving a week or so. Then there's the fact that UK weather is not exactly reliable so very much pot luck. Add local factors in and I think the answer should be "work it out for yourself for where you are, you're the best person to answer the question".

Completely different purpose but I use it to run model steam engines. I live in a very hard-water area and boilers scale up quite quickly on tap water. One side-effect is a slight aroma of fabric conditioner so I suspect the water is less-than-pure distilled. Never tried it on a mirror, telescope or otherwise. Don't see whay it wouldn't work though and if you have no marks afterwards I'd say it's all good. Melted ice collected from defrosting a freezer would also be fairly well distilled.

I'll go powered if I really have to but as a last resort. I put the Telrad outside last night in similar conditions (but overcast, so useless for observing) and left it out for a couple of hours. No dewing but of course it remained covered, so hardly a real-world test. I may get fed up of covering/uncovering and it may not be effective in actual use, we'll see.

To get 2 degrees something like the OVL PanaView 38mm (£85) would do it, on paper. I know precious little about 2" so I'll leave that to others to comment on. I don't know if that's a recommended route or not, so don't order yet! https://www.firstlightoptics.com/ovl-eyepieces/panaview-2-eyepieces.html

Apparent FOV is the field of view the eyepiece itself has. True FOV is the field of view the scope has with that eyepiece in it, i.e. how much sky the setup can see. True FOV = apparent FOV/magnification. Magnification=scope FL/eyepiece FL. So your scope is 1200mm FL and your eyepiece is 25mm. Mag therefore is 1200/25=48. Assuming a 50-degree AFOV for your plossl, you get 50/48 for TFOV, a touch over one degree. Pleiades is roughly 2 degrees so I think you'll struggle to find a suitable, cheap 1.25" eyepiece to double your FOV.

After first use of my Telrad the other night, I found it dews up to uselessness as quickly as I was led to believe. It lasted maybe a half-hour in very cold and damp conditions. I thought I'd have a go at a simple solution and came up with this as a first attempt: It's just 2 pieces of closed-cell foam cut to the screen size, stuck with double-sided tape to a clip made from brass sheet. Total cost zero since I had the stuff lying around. Note that the top piece is intentionally longer than the bottom, it's for correct fit. Yes, I know you have to take it off each time and not lose it in the dark (I'll arrange a string or something for that) but I think it should work for the long periods of staring into eyepieces. Not tried it in anger yet.

Thanks - I had thought of something along those lines anyway, then the clothes-peg idea popped into my head and seemed plausible too. Not tried either yet.

Yes, it took maybe a half-hour before it started being affected badly. To be fair it was sub-zero and everywhere's sodden. I have no personal experience of the Rigel but it's taller, so less sheltered and I'd expect it may be worse if anything. Fortunately the Telrad's footprint is academic on a 150PL but yes, they are BIG. The major improvement, apart from the obvious circles, is that you can actually turn the brightness right down to invisibility. The Celestron finder - with 2 circles - that came with the 150PL (fitted by PO) and the Virtuoso's RDF cannot be turned dim enough in my opinion. They just drown out fainter things even at minimum. I have an idea for the Telrad - a springy clothes-peg with two rectangles of foam glued in between the arms - clip it over the screen when not in use, covering the screen both sides. Tie the peg on with string so it isn't lost. I'll post about it if I find a solution that works.

Thanks folks, found it. Used to be a button but hey, progress. Yes, I've even corrected my "mitsakes" - well I had till you lot spotted it quicker than I did!

Is it just me but where's the edit button gone? Being a pedantic so-and-so and a not-very-good typist I often see mistakes and go back to correct typos. Has it just moved or is it gone? EDIT: Ah, I just found it, works differently!