Tiny Clanger

Think of all the things you could do at age 6 with a telescope box ! Rocket, castle tower, tardis , racing car ... If the OP gets a 'scope which comes in the original box ( always good for future transportation) I urge him to unpack it after the tiddlers have gone to sleep, and put the box out of sight before they wake up , or it won't last long ...

Clanger spotting please, no guns 🙂 Best mention to them right at the start, Clangers, the Soup Dragon, the Apollo landers& vehicles, the US flag, all are far too small to be seen in any Earth telescope. Doesn't mean they aren't there ....

Right, from my 30 years experience teaching 7-11 year olds , I can tell you there is a major flaw in your thinking . You are expecting small people to behave in a way consistent with logic 😆 🙂 Seriously though, get yourself confident with setting up and quickly finding some 'easy win' targets, the sort of things I finish a session off with to end on a good note after failing to see various faint fuzzies I'd hoped to track down. The Orion nebula, the Pleiades, the Ring Nebula Or maybe a cluster which actually looks like something (the Starfish , or the Owl/ET /dragonfly for instance) . Small people won't appreciate standing around waiting . Looking through a telescope isn't a natural thing to do, so before trying to show them anything else I'd spend a few short sessions (stop before they get fidgety, leave them wanting more ) looking around the terminator of the Moon . Easy to target and keep in view, lots to see (craters within craters within craters with mountains in them !) and plenty of child friendly books / vids about the Moon landings & lunar facts, all rather easier to comprehend than the deep space stuff (especially when you will be their chief explainer ) But remember this isn't school, keep it fun. Maybe encourage some drawing (chalk on black paper?) or mud/ clay/ play doh whatever 3d art next day , which will help you see what they got out of it , and give them an incentive to check out more detail next time . If they get the hang of looking through the 'scope, (whatever it turns out to be) and enjoy looking at the Moon, then go for other targets. You'll have a good idea of how long their attention lasts , and if it's a good idea to do separate sessions for the 4 and 6 year olds , who will have very different needs, and be easily bored/cold/miserable when it's their siblings turn . Something distracting to do while waiting your turn is a good idea , exactly what depends on the kids, and whoever is in charge of the child who is not actively looking through the 'scope, and of keeping them amused while you faff with the tech . Make it fun, make it an occasion, make it special, don't be disappointed if their enthusiasm is short lived. Heather

The foam in your case will insulate the mak . Just like a sweater insulates you, it will slow the flow of heat energy (which always goes from the hot thing towards the colder thing) Putting your kit out inside the case will slow the cooling, just like a sweater slows your cooling. Putting the mak out sealed in a foam lined case will work, but take far longer than putting it out without the case. The foam is probably open cell, like a sponge, not closed cell, if so, the holes in it can and will hold moisture, so to protect your kit, you need to ensure that foam stays dry. Sealing any damp in would be a really bad idea . Unless you live in the desert (and there's none of those nearly nightly sudden thunderstorms I experienced in Arizona ) our air holds moisture, and when you have any good conductor of heat (things which feel cold to the touch in moderate conditions, eg metal, glass , but not plastic or cloth) which is colder than the air around it, water will condense on that good conductor. Taking a telescope (especially a mak with the front glass corrector plate) out at night means it will need to cool for at least half an hour outside any box, much longer if inside (as I explained above, the box will insulate it) It will cool further while being used , and it will attract dew. You can slow the formation in various ways, but you can't avoid it. Bringing the kit inside , to a home at a comfortable temperature , will mean it is in warmer air which will cause the condensed water to evaporate. You want this to happen, you want to encourage a flow of air around the telescope and eyepieces and diagonal etc etc. You don't want to have the kit warm up and the condensation evaporate inside a sealed case. Where would the damp go ? Into the foam, into small crevices in the equipment, forming water drop marks on the glass, rusting any vulnerable metal and encouraging fungus to grow in those dark damp conditions it loves. So, cool the kit inside the sealed case if you want : it probably won't hurt, but it will take ages. After use, do not pack the kit in the sealed case, it will be wet with dew. Instead, bring it indoors, leave the mak with the caps off (you do not want to trap any moisture where it cannot easily escape ) until the morning. I just carry mine in as one on the tripod , and leave it in the corner of a well ventilated room overnight. Same for the diagonal and eyepieces , leave them uncapped , on their sides, leave the case wide open too so the foam dries . Only put the caps back on and pack the kit away in the sealed case when you are confident it is all completely dry.

The Kyrre stool does get suggested a lot for the 130 heritage, but when I mentioned it in response to one of the many similar questions on here , someone measured their 150 heritage dob base and thought it wouldn't fit, so maybe the 150 base is a larger diameter ? I don't know , I've not checked the dimensions for myself. Heather

I made mine a triangular table from scrap wood (salvaged from a broken ikea sofa) and metal table legs which cost under £10 for the set of 4.

Yep, yesterday after an evening/ night of total cloud cover I gave up & went to bed, woke around 3:30am because my feline despot was using me as a trampoline to try and reach a crane fly which was whirring above the bed, I looked out, and there was a 50% clear sky (AAAARRGH! Why now ?!) Orion just rising above the buddleia .... I'm quite enthusiastic, but the idea of getting up, dressed, and going out with a 'scope or binos did not even cross my mind Heather

You are welcome Tony, I'm a relative beginner, still plenty to learn myself, and happy to pass on what I've managed to learn so far. I don't bother with detailed forecasts much to be honest, English weather being what it is , I just use the met office or BBC general forecast for my area to get a rough idea of how settled conditions are likely to be, then stick my head out of the door and look for myself. If the sky is reasonably clear, I park a 'scope out to cool. If a look through the 'scope suggests that the 'seeing' is poor, sometimes the transparency is OK, in which case forget planets, look at DSOs. If transparency is poor, maybe the seeing is good ... have a look at any available planets. If the Moon is up, spoiling faint fuzzy hunting, look at the Moon ! I just go with the flow. Patience is certainly a help, you can look at a planet for an hour, and get a handful of glimpses of better detail at random moments, your brain starts to build a better picture using them . I've also found it really helpful to be able to sit down to observe, much easier to keep my eye steady over the eyepiece. Heather

Well, the generally used rule of thumb is that a telescope can manage 2x it's aperture in mm as a maximum good magnification. So in theory our 150mm dobs could handle 300x. Bad news though much of the time, our unstable atmosphere in the UK means that 200x is a more practical maximum to expect . Just think that as you magnify the view of what you want to see more, you inevitably magnify the wobbles introduced by the atmosphere at the same time. There's more complication to atmospheric conditions than just light pollution (which is what the bortle scale deals with) , there's also transparency, which is how clear the sky is, and 'the seeing' which is to do with how stable the air is. A bit like the shimmering seen above a tarmac road on a hot day, turbulent air can make your view through the atmosphere unstable. More information than you probably want : https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/advice/what-is-astronomical-seeing/ and https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-equipment/beating-the-seeing/ In short, let the 'scope cool a bit , try to stand it on grass not slabs, try to not view over house roofs (which radiate heat, especially if the insulation's not up to standard !) , you want the air as stable as possible. Not a lot you can do about the air higher up except keep observing and hope for good conditions. It will happen 🙂 . Heather

Yep, but it's cheaper and less harrowing to learn from someone else's 🙂

I'm not defending the BST barlow, , and have only used (and disliked) a skywatcher barlow (which appears identical to the astro essentials one) but if you have been looking at planets with the 8mm plus 2X barlow in the heritage it will be giving you 187.5x, and some of the lack of detail might be down to the seeing , i.e. atmospheric conditions rather than the optics. It doesn't help if the planet you are looking at is at fairly low alt, so there is more of our atmosphere in the way . I've no idea if the BST barlow allows you to remove the lens only , screw it on the eyepiece filter thread and use it to get 1.5 x magnification, but if it does that might be worth a try with your 8mm . I was able to use a 6mm eyepiece in my 150 heritage on the one clear night we had round here last week , but Jupiter was a bit low when it finally emerged from behind a neighbour's tree ! Barlowing the stock eyepieces will , I suspect not be ideal, you probably get reflections from their uncoated glass ... Heather

To save you any more wondering, here he is https://stargazerslounge.com/profile/45149-rorymultistorey/

I'd suggest not adding any telescope kit to the package yet, apart from maybe a collimation tool , just use what arrives, and then see how it works for you before deciding what needs to be added for your particular circumstances. The one thing I'm sure you ought to get is a book 'Turn Left at Orion' ,a really helpful , practical volume which has suggested targets and how to actually find them. Not everyone finds they need a Moon filter , the 9mm plossl might not turn out to be an eyepiece you are happy with , you might discover that for you the excellent RACI finder needs supplementing with a rigel or telrad ... I guarantee you will find plenty of ways to spend some more money , it's just which turn out to be priorities for you ! Heather

YouTube has a huge range of stuff , from the technically inept to near cinema production values , from vid.s intended to entertain to those which simply aim to inform, from the exemplar of the Dunning-Kruger effect to the genuine expert. I'd say astrobiscuit has good production values, and knows his stuff, also is a personable guy , witty, an enthusiast , and a cogent explainer. I enjoy his vid.s , but see them as being more entertainment and inspiration than information, Not a bad thing, just that's where he has pitched his channel. I've zero interest in astro photography, and little idea how long/how expensive/how much study would be required to reach his level, apart from a suspicion that all three factors would require quite a lot of input Heather

When I made my 'scopes dew shields (from 3mm closed cell foam left over from constructing a shroud for my little heritage dob) I got carried away and made a tiny dew shield for one of my finders , it fits snugly and stays on the finder's built in front dew shield. My intention was to slide it forward as needed, but I never have needed to, and I've no idea if it helps . But it doesn't hurt, and is unobtrusive, so I leave it on . In the summer I've had my eyepieces outside in their case on a table , and closed the lid (but not latched it) over them when they are not in the 'scope. Putting it down on the grass would be too damp (despite it being a waterproof case ) , and the ground would conduct heat away as well, chilling the eyepieces and making condensation more likely. In the winter when it is colder I use a waist bag padded with extra foam to keep the eyepieces safe and warm between uses. Heather

The Ring Nebula I've managed several times earlier this year from my suburban back garden with my 150mm heritage dob, and surprised myself by seeing it with my 102mm refractor too. Needed averted vision in the frac to spot the tiny fuzzy doughnut though. No filter used , just 15mm or 18mm eyepiece .

Ah, that explains it , especially the pasta bit ... it's the work of the all-seeing Flying Spaghetti Monster https://www.spaghettimonster.org/ Pastafarianism has been denied state recognition in Australia, apparently, This is probably his noodly revenge.

Leave the lens uncovered overnight, assuming the 'scope is left on its mount, swing it so the lens is downward to allow any water to drip away from the important bit, and not have any dust settle on it. You could leave the diagonal uncapped and rotated so the eyepiece fitting part is pointing downwards too (to avoid dust but release any damp) if there's a huge amount of moisture. My refractor got caught in a very sudden rain shower for a few moments one night , I rushed it indoors, dried the outer tube off with a microfibre cloth, racked the focuser right out to reduce the chance of any damp being trapped between the tubes, and left it overnight , caps off and aperture(s) down as I describe above . It shows no bad effects of it's adventure . Just don't touch the front lens , wiping it is a really bad idea ! Heather

I've looked at that dealer's site, noted the prices asked for second hand kit, boggled at their similarity to new prices, then I read their T&C's , saw no mention of any guarantee (several second hand photo kit dealers I've used give a 3 or 6 month guarantee) , and feature some blank lines where I assume the copy/pasted standard blah they use is supposed to have custom additions or maybe links added by the user . Confidence was not inspired. I'd choose to not buy from them for those reasons. I'm sure plenty of folk must do though, otherwise how are they still in business ? Buy cheap / sell high for profit is just how a capitalist economy works. I do find it a bit distasteful when someone picks up a thing from a charity shop for 50p, takes it to some antiques TV prog, discovers it is worth thousands, and makes no mention of donating some of that windfall to the charity. I'd feel the same if I saw , for example, someone bereaved selling off a relative or partner's astro kit without knowing what it was worth ( and with greater problems to deal with than spending hours finding out) , letting it go for a fraction of its worth, then having it sold on by a reseller at a premium price. But, that's just how things are, I don't think much of middlemen who do that sort of thing, but if it's legal , and they pay their taxes , there's little to be done. In a similar vein, the nice thing about SGL is that bargains can be had by beginners like me who have not a lot of cash to spend, because some folk choose to move kit on at very reasonable prices to encourage the likes of me, rather than with the aim of squeezing the last £ from the sale. If some vulture was posing as an amateur in order to sweep up such bargains, and sell them on, I'd hope their behaviour would be noted and stopped. Out of interest, those SGL classified rules also say there is no obligation to sell to the first to respond to an advert . I know it is a convention generally used, but if anyone selling doubts a potential buyer for any reason, you don't have to sell to them, even if they get in first. Heather

Spiders dislike a compound which is present in horse chestnuts (conkers) , you can buy products with it in , or just go for a walk, fill your pockets with nice shiny conkers, and leave little piles of 'em around the place. My neighbour's 30 year old son is spider phobic, 'phones his 70 year old mum to come round and remove them from his flat. Each autumn I pick up as many conkers as I can when out for walks, and hand a bagful of them to him, partly in jest. They do work though !

It's good for what it's good at , and for the price. Search for heritage 150 on here (there's a box at top right of this web page) there's plenty of information waiting to be read.

I thought you just need to buy one of these: https://www.firstlightoptics.com/misc/zarkov-cloud-gun.html

You can find plenty of folk on here praising the ortho design eyepieces for higher magnification work , citing fewer elements in that simpler design as a good thing, and not worried about the tiny fov (40 degrees I think?) and minimal eye relief. Very different to the usual expensive, big, wide fov , multi element eyepieces which usually get the love 🙂 It all depends on so many factors (price, 'scopes, eyesight, preferences for features, type of target, willingness to compromise on one factor, etc etc) that I doubt there is a 'best' to be found for any one individual without trying out a lot of possibilities for yourself. Which is why quite a lot of second hand eyepieces come up for sale on here , and (if interesting and sensibly priced ) are speedily snapped up ...

My tale of eyepiece upgrades (still ongoing !) went like this : Bought a 150 heritage, loved it, used the stock ep.s , wasn't sure if my eyes with my 'scope in my back garden (this was during lockdown #1, so no chance of trying out anyone else's ep.s) would see much improvement. So I bought a 17mm skywatcher super plossl for £20 from a camera dealer. Why 17mm ? Well, first it was somewhere between the stock 10mm and 25mm, so if it didn't provide an improved view, it would ay east offer a different one. And second, it was £2 or £3 cheaper than the other focal lengths It arrived, I used it. I loved it 🙂 Sharper, brighter, obviously much better made than the stock stuff. I soon added a 32mm skywatcher super plossl. I still use both regularly , the 17mm lives in my refractor , the 32mm gets used as a 'finder' eyepiece in any 'scope I happen to be using. I've since found that 15/16/17mm is an eyepiece focal length which works really well for me in the heritage for DSOs, and is what I use most. Sheer beginner's luck that it was a 17mm I happened to buy first, there's plenty of technical discussion on here about how exit pupil of a setup affects the contrast between a bright background and a faint DSO in light polluted skies , I guess that may be what is going on here. I added a 12.5mm SW plossl to my set, and was underwhelmed. It was a small step up from the included 10mm , but ... meh. Not impressed, and having read of the reduced eye relief as you go lower mm in plossls , I saved some pennies and made my next purchase an 8mm BST, which was an impressive hike in quality. The BSTs are solidly made, have big wind up eyeguards ,decent eye relief (which you need if you wear glasses , I don't, yet, but good to know ) and give a nice bright sharp 60 degree view, which is 10 deg. wider than a plossl. I've not bought a 5mm (it would be too much mag, for my mak, and I use that rather than the dob for high mag.) but have added BST 12mm, 15mm, 18mm and 25mm to my 8mm. As I've said elsewhere , the only one I don't like in the heritage (which is f5, so picky on eyepieces) is the 25mm. The stars around the edges of the field do not look good (perfectly fine in the f11 mak though, it's the 25mm in combination with the heritage that's my problem. Some say the 18mm is less good than the rest, but I like mine OK, I'm probably less discriminating than many, and I'm not looking for flaws. Because I use the 15mm BST (or 17mm plossl) so much, I had a hunt around to see if there was anything really nice to look out for , maybe second hand , in the future. I saw the 16mm Nirvana (£90 new) getting a lot of positive comment, and bought one last month. It has an 82 degree view vs the BSTs 60 deg. It is sharper, brighter, has a 'wow!' factor wide view for clusters etc, resolves more fine detail on sunspots (I've only been allowed a couple of hour's night viewing with it , thanks clouds 😞 ) . But it is double the price of the BST 15mm , and not twice as good . Don't get me wrong, it's a keeper, I'm happy with it, but as the cost of such things increases, the improvements you get for each extra £ become more marginal. I think that for what they cost (and especially if you can snaffle a good second hand version, at the moment they usually go for around £35 on here) the BSTs are a great balance between cost and quality of view. In an f5 (or lower number f ratio) 'scope, the 25mm might displease some, and a £30 32mm plossl could be a cost effective alternative. I've spent several cloudy evenings recently researching what would be a good replacement for the 25mm BST , and dicovered the general opinion is something from the Explore Scientific range for around £150, or a Baader Morpheus for close to £200. Not amounts I can contemplate spending ! However, I recently pounced on a well priced second hand maxvision 24mm (which I believe is an old ES eyepiece design which was rebadged to avoid stocks of it being confused with the newer design ). I'll be interested to compare it with the 25mm BST ! Heather

Nope, not CA, which I've not perceived in any BSTs (or any Skywatcher or Celestron plossls or Baader orthos for that matter) in the heritage. The only eyepiece I've ever seen exhibit terrible CA in the reflector is a comically bad, far east , bargain basement zoom eyepiece, which I'd be too embarrassed to sell on. The heritage at f5 shows up flaws in eyepieces far more than the more easily pleased maks (not sure about your 102mm, but my 127 is f 11.8) . I'd suspect the shortcoming is in your eyepieces , which are being shown up by the heritage, rather than the heritage itself ! It was the shape of the stars at the field edges which I found disturbing , I disliked it so much that I've used a 32mm skywatcher super plossl in preference to the 25mm BST in the heritage for the last 6 months. The 25mm is perfectly acceptable in the mak though.