wulfrun

Yes, I know about those and thought about one, or making one (easy enough). Reliance on battery-power was the only reason I went for a simple slide-on foam protector - the no-power option!

I bought a s/hand 150PL that came with a Telrad base already on it, previous owner(s) had obviously been unwilling to try removing it. So, obviously, I bought a Telrad to go on it. The base has been on for an unknown number of years and shows no sign of coming off without a determined effort (I'll not be trying). I'd say it's unlikely to give way if you attach it properly. One thing the Telrad is susceptible to is dew - the glass dews up fairly easily. You'll need some sort of cover for it, when not actually being used. A suitably-velcroed and shaped piece of foam sheet will do fine.

Dew straps are resistive heaters, I can see no reason for them to be polarity-sensitive. Easy enough to trace which wire is which, with a test-meter, after you've cut the old plugs off though.

Just posted about this in the space/theories section...then discovered this post...beaten me to it!

Spotted this on the Beeb today. Not seen anything posted about it, news or old news? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-63418056

Good result, looks rather better than before! I've cleaned a few (photographic) lenses over the years with similar effect. The coatings got etched by fungus to some degree. Good news is it didn't seem to affect the image quality so hopefully you'll be fine.

Well, this was the best I got, shot through cloud but you can *just* make out a sunspot. Crop

Well, at least @IB20is getting reasonable clarity! Pretty dense cloud here now with moments that are lesser enough for a (non-detailed) snap.

As above, I think it'll be fine as well. I've had a 2x focal extender plus ES 20mm or Nirvana 16mm and it doesn't seem to mind. If there's any sag, I haven't spotted any effects from it. Biggest worry is not unscrewing it too far with that much £££ attached!

Your scope is plenty good enough. You need a filter over the front aperture of your scope, the eyepiece won't need one. Three choices, a ready-made one which is above your budget in that size. Or...make your own type with this: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/solar-filters/baader-astrosolar-safety-film-nd-50.html Ideally, you'll need the larger, roll-size and make a full-aperture one (it comes with instruction how make a filter) but you could make a smaller one that isn't full-aperture or make a small one to fit over the off-axis cap if your scope front cap has one. You'd lose a bit of resolution versus full-aperture. However you proceed, be sure to check, double-check and triple-check your work before aiming it at the sun, including making sure the filter is secure against wind or accidental knocks (use vecro, tape or whatever)...and don't forget to remove your finder-scope or make a filter for that as well. EDIT: someone else's fingers were faster than mine @Giles_B

Not a problem at all. The idea of a Dobsonian is that it's easy to nudge along to follow your target. You can also get "go-to" versions of some Dobs (including the Heritage 150P) that will locate and then track your target. Nudging is a quickly-acquired skill that becomes second nature in no time. At really high magnifications it can be a nuisance but such high powers aren't used that often, especially in a smaller scope.

Which of the Starguiders do you have already? And which version of the 114? A short, lightweight Barlow might work better, using a BST you might have already. In theory, x156 is usable in the scope. I don't own the 3.2mm so can't speak from personal experience but (and based only only on comments I've seen) it's not as well regarded as the 5/8/12/15mm ones. I'm a bit dubious about how much better a view you'd get in reality compared to the 5mm and how often you'd make best use of it. If you have the tabletop Dob version of the 114, you'll also find your target moves pretty quickly across the view, meaning a lot of nudging. I've used a Baader x2.25 Barlow and a 9mm Nagler (worth more than the scope!) in mine but that combination is fairly lightweight and didn't stress the focuser badly. I wasn't convinced it was clearer than using the BST 5mm alone but it could also have been other factors at play.

Just to point out, there isn't a 10mm in the Starguider range. Nearest is 8mm or 12mm. Since the focuser isn't the most robust (I have the same scope on the Virtuoso mount) I'd try and avoid a Barlow plus eyepiece due to the weight and length. The 5mm Starguider works well in that scope and gives a decent x100. I've used that exact combination on Jupiter with success. The image is small but sharp and vastly better than the 10mm EP the scope comes with (even if you Barlowed the 10mm). Ideally you'd want more magnification on Jupiter but you'll be reaching the limitations of the scope, realistically, if you try much more. The Starguiders are only relatively cheap but they are good value and well-regarded, don't be put off.

A small (compared to some on here) and eclectic collection... 32mm/48 (ish) Plössl 20mm/68 ES 16mm/82 OVL Nirvana 9mm/82 Nagler T6 6mm/50 (ish) TMB Planetary 5mm/60 BST Hyperflex 7.2-21.5mm zoom and SVbony 7-21mm zoom (bought whilst waiting for the Hyperflex to be in stock). Baader 2.25x Barlow and an ES 2x focal extender. I make that 8 actual EPs, bought as a mixture of new and s/h. I don't use the zooms much since I don't like the narrow FOV but they're handy sometimes. These cover most requirements in my 3 Newts in sig below.

Fair play, not everyone is aware of the function so I thought it was worth pointing out. I agree the G9 is pretty competent, I've had mine 18 months or so and I really like it. It does also do decent video, although lacking the more advanced GH5/6 features and also having time limits.

Before writing it off as no use, try using "Pixel Refresh" in the settings menu (the spanner symbol). My G2 and G9 both have that, so I'd assume the GH6 has it too. Worth a try! Haven't noticed hot pixels on mine but I don't use them "in anger" for astro. EDIT: I found this, might be of interest (not your camera but similar): https://www.mu-43.com/threads/lumix-g9-for-milky-way.100248/

I've watched some of it, as per report in "what did you see tonight" thread. Not good conditions here, sadly.

Saw more than I expected! Not great conditions, a bit damp and a vague halo around most things. Had a peek at Saturn first, all a bit wobbly and moons scintillating in and out of view plus a wriggling Cassini division (some of the time!). Clearly no point in upping the mag. Next up Jupiter. I saw the Europa transit starting, well the shadow not the moon. I also had a look at a few favourites, including the ring nebula, double clusters and owl cluster. Managed to split the double-double at 133x, not bad given the conditions. Went back to the transit for a bit, which was a little over halfway. Finished up on the Pleiades, which were just about high enough and *just* fitted in a 32mm Plössl's FOV (using the 150PL, since I was mostly after the gas planets). Had to pack up earlier than I'd have liked, needing an early start tomorrow 😞

That one is a locking screw, not strictly needed - especially if you leave the other 2 slightly slack. Can't be quite sure in your original photo if the bolt has stripped the thread it goes into, in which case a replacement won't help.

Pretty sure it's the shadow of the secondary and not down to bad collimation. I get a worse version using long f/l eps in my Heritage 114P (e.g. 32mm plossl), which is an f/4.4. I think it's more pronounced with "fast" scopes and longer eps. Don't see it at night but I suppose it's there still!

No, wrong, sorry. Take the mirror out of the tube altogether if you want, the focal length is not changed. Any light reaching it from wider angles will simply not reach the focal point. Indeed, any such light will be only a nuisance.

No, the focal length of the 130 Heritage is indeed 650mm, f/5, it's determined by the mirror curve and nothing else. If you don't fully extend the upper part you would simply push the focal point so far beyond the focuser* you would not get an eyepiece anywhere near in-focus. Likewise the Heritage 150 is a 750mm, f/5. They are simply collapsible for storage, so they are half tube (roughly) and half open in use. A shroud is easily made and very advisable, to enclose the extending part when in use. * and simultaneously lose a lot of light since the secondary mirror is now too small for the light-cone

Your calculations are correct on the Barlow use. But (there's always a but!) a 90/900 would have lower chromatic aberration, assuming equal quality. So the Barlow would not correct for that. A good Barlow should be "invisible" in the sense that you shouldn't notice it besides the increased magnification. There's more glass involved, so a loss is inevitable but it's slight. With a small budget, I agree that you'll get more for your money with a dobsonian reflector, as mentioned above. Don't let collimation scare you, it's intimidating when you read all the stuff about it but the reality is that its not scary at all after a couple of times. Anyway, if your scope doesn't get knocked about it'll never be more than a small tweak and often nothing required. If you're dead set on a refractor, you might find one second-hand? Oh and welcome to SGL, keep asking the questions.

Another vote for the 150 over the 130. It gathers about 1/3 more light but takes up barely any more storage space, if you can afford the difference it's the better choice. They are highly capable scopes that will show you a great deal. (Yes, I do have one so I could be biased).

If you get a Telrad or equivalent, leave the finder on too. A lot of folk (myself included) prefer both. Swing around till the Telrad gets you close, then the finder gets you pretty much bang on target.