Tiny Clanger

🙂 I may not know much, but I do know where to find stuff out 🙂 That's a good site for nice clear explanations, which helped me a lot.

Check the advert : if the eyepieces it came with are plossls, it will announce the fact, they are a good selling point ! However, if Celestron 'scopes are equipped like skywatcher ones are, they probably bundled the cheapest possible eyepieces in with it, see if there is anything marked on the eyepiece : if it says 'MA' or 'long eye relief' (LER) or 'K' or 'R' it isn't a plossl . This is a good explanation : http://swindonstargazers.com/beginners/eyepieces.htm Plossl is a type rather than a trade name , they all have a field of view of 52 degrees, to get wider field of view than that means bigger glass, bigger heavier eyepiece, much bigger cost ! A handy tool is https://astronomy.tools/calculators/field_of_view/ if your 'scope is not listed, just input the 400mm focal length, 70mm aperture, find any manufacturers' plossl in the eyepiece dropdown menu, choose a target, click on add to view, and the tool shows you a photo of that target with a circle around it showing the boundary that eyepiece will give you in that telescope. You can add various eyepieces' circles to the same image for comparison Heather

I don't have any experience of that specific model of 'scope, or the accessories which come with it, but if the supplied diagonal is a 45 degree one, it will be awkward for viewing objects high in the sky, so would probably be best replaced. I have an Orion ST80 , a similar little 'scope with an 80mm aperture, and have a few small light (and cheap !) eyepieces I keep with it to make a compact portable kit : a skywatcher 25mm (not a plossl) which came with one of my other 'scopes, a 17mm skywatcher plossl , and a 12.5mm skywatcher plossl . They work pretty well. As a low cost upgrade a plossl or two of a reputable make would be hard to beat. I've not added a 32mm plossl ( the lowest magnification eyepiece for visual use on a 1.25" focuser ) because in my 400mm focal length ST80, a 32mm eyepiece would give me just 12.5x magnification, a range very close to the one my binoculars already cover very well. I'm happy with the 25mm, which gives a magnification of 16x The very small straight through , optical viewfinders are fairly useless , so if that is what you are struggling with, a simple red dot finder might suit you better : again, I use one on my ST80 which came bundled with another 'scope , so it was essentially free to me. Quite often I don't even switch it on, just line the 'scope up though, so if I were you, I'd experiment and see if you really need a finder at all ... this sort of small refractor sometimes gets used itself as a finder on a far bigger telescope ! You might find this thread useful: Heather

I confess to knowing nothing about Celestron telescopes, and the OP did not give detail of what model / type , so I just did an online search for "6" Celestron weight", and that was what came up . I suspect from their message that they will be thinking of buying buying a whole ready-made package I know that a person with medical challenges might even struggle to carry, for example, my 127mm mak on an AZ5 mount, which (without a sturdy tripod, which obviously needs to be added) weighs over 6.5kg (14lbs + ) which is not particularly heavy for a fit young person to shift, but may be for the OP. Apparently a skywatcher 150 mak OTA alone comes in at 6.3kg . Perhaps a 100mm ish mak , which would be lighter, require a lighter mount, a lighter tripod ,and be far easier to move around would be an alternative to a refractor, especially as it would be compact, but for all round, general purpose 'see a bit of everything' I think a refractor would be more forgiving Heather

OK, unlike (the no longer aptly named )Basementboy, I've never observed from my rooftop (I'd fall off, it slopes !) , and I'm lucky enough to be right out on the edge of a small city, where light pollution is not as awful as it could be , but still Bortle 6 skies , far from ideal. You will absolutely be able to study the Moon, it is bright enough to even be visible in the daytime, so light pollution at night won't be a problem. Most of the planets will be visible, when their, and the Earth's orbits have them well placed . I had major difficulty at first seeing Uranus, and have not managed to see Neptune yet (but I shall ... ) both are comparatively faint , distant , and challenging in polluted skies., but the other planets are bright enough to be seen easily, even without a telescope . There are bright star clusters and double stars you will be able to see , but many nebulae and galaxies are simply too faint to distinguish from the bright light polluted city sky. Should you buy a telescope ? That's a choice only you can make . If you are interested, and sustain your interest, and can live with the limitations of your location, it may be worthwhile for you. I'd suggest if you haven't done so already, you should spend some evenings up on the roof looking with just the naked eye, or possibly some binoculars if you have some . After half an hour or so your eyes adapt to the relative darkness and you may see more than you expected. If that whets your appetite, maybe a telescope would be a good investment. A star map , either printed , or a planisphere, or a 'phone app will help you find your way around the sky. If you decide you would like to buy a telescope, consider how easy it will be to get to the roof : a 10" dobsonian or a 6" SCT is a heavy thing to carry around, I just checked and a 6" Celestron SCT is reputedly about 30lbs , and I know (because I have discounted being able to carry one myself , even in two pieces) that a 10" dobsdonian is over double that , e,g, https://www.firstlightoptics.com/bresser-telescopes/bresser-messier-10-dobsonian-telescope.html If your health issues make carrying large awkward objects a challenge, a 'scope like either of those may not get used often, and unless you have plenty of storage space I'd say no full sized dob. would work for you. I'll agree with several of the previous posters , a refractor on a simple alt az mount would be easy to store, convenient to carry to the roof and quick to set up, and would give you great views of the Moon, the easier planets, and some brighter other objects. Heather

Takitis would be an inflamed Tak, which sounds quite nasty , I reckon this condition would be better described as Takophilia , which means affection and affinity for your Tak . 🙂 (Not to be confused with tacophilia, a love of Mexican food ) Heather

Wow, I'd not have anything to do with such a company ever again . Everything new I've bought in the UK from specialist astro and photo retailers has been exactly as advertised, and even the second hand items I've had from members of this forum have all been in far better condition than your purchase was ! Good luck getting it sorted, and finding a suitable replacement . Heather

Balance ? before mine, 2 posts suggesting individual focal length eps, 4 suggesting a zoom.

Well , how about buying a cheaper zoom (as I did ) to try the concept out ?

Is "a word of caution " 'issuing a "warning" '? That is rather emotive language, and precisely illustrates my point.

sey 🙂

The ecnad nair !

I'm sorry, I can't stop laughing .... must have watched too many carry on films in childhood ... not sure if this line would work best for Kenneth Williams, Charles Hawtrey or Sid James (with a yuk yuk yuk laugh added )

A word of caution : not everyone gets on with zoom eyepieces, they have their fans. but it is a personal thing, beware of jumping in and spending all of your budget too soon. Don Pensack really knows his stuff, he is a retailer of eyepieces etc in the US.

I'm not Philip, but I can tell you I could not look at the Moon comfortably with my 150mm aperture telescope, it was dazzlingly bright, so I bought a simple Moon filter. However, I now have a smaller aperture 127mm telescope and an 80mm one , and I do not need to use any filter to view the Moon in either of them. Your telescope is a smaller aperture than any of them at 50mm, so it will collect less light, and I'm sure you will not need a filter for comfortable viewing. So, I suggest not spending money on a filter unless you find you really need one. If it turns out you do, a short term solution while you wait for a filter to be delivered is to wear sunglasses - you look a bit crazy in them at night though ! The full Moon is not the best time to observe the Moon, the areas of interest are along the terminator, the curved line between the lit and dark parts of the surface. There the slanting light and shadows show the surface features really well, and you get a changing area to view from night to night https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/advice/skills/how-to-observe-the-moon/ Do remember before buying any eyepieces or filters, you need to establish that your eyepieces are 1.25" diameter barrels or they will not fit your telescope. Heather

OK, sensible answer now, there's an oldish thread on here that might help https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/204477-heavy-duty-diy-parallelogram-mount/ or http://binocrane.com/construction introduction.html or http://www.iceinspace.com.au/index.php?id=63,376,0,0,1,0 or scroll down to the bottom of this page for some more links https://binocularsky.com/binoc_mount.php

Zaphod, , I know you are a hoopy frood who always knows where his towel is , but ... won't you be needing two pairs of those binos , what with the extra head and all ? 🙂 Heather

Thanks Zermelo, You are probably right,, that is very likely what I was recalling https://www.firstlightoptics.com/adapters/baader-t-thread-to-125-helical-focuser.html I'm not thinking of getting one myself, as I find the heritage 150's native plumbing fitting has a certain rustic charm 🙂 and gives me no trouble or annoyance. Anyone thinking of trying this might find that further ironmongery would be needed for focus tube to T thread , and I bet the whole thing could shift eyepieces too far out, and require the 'scope not be properly, fully extended (which is the case when a DSLR is used on it ) Heather

My first go at using PFTE tape on the heritage 150 did not work well, shreds started to detach , not good . I tried again, used fewer winds of tape , and made sure they were pulled very tight as I wound them on, and smoothed the tape into the thread with my hand before replacing the focus tube in the 'scope. That second attempt has now lasted me 10 months , with no problem. It's never going to be a wonderful focuser, but it works, and as one of the cost cutting ploys which let us buy a 150mm aperture 'scope for such a bargain price, I'm happy to put up with it. I've a vague idea I saw mention somewhere of some Baader adaptor which has an inbuilt micro focus ability , but I cannot recall where, and Baader have a dizzying list of such things. No idea if it would help, or even if I just imagined it ! Heather

The planets are relatively bright, compared with galaxies and other deep sky objects so, like the Moon, they are ideal targets for urban skywatchers. There is plenty of free general information on the internet to help you get started, for instance here are a few, very different samples: https://themcdonalds.net/how-to-select-beginner-astronomy-targets/ https://www.astroshop.eu/advice/telescope/telescope-knowledge/ebook-download/c,9154 https://web.archive.org/web/20190525224540/http://www.wwnorton.com/college/astronomy/astro21/sandt/startright.html Do be aware that a lot of information about what you can see this week or month on webpages or blogs is made by, and therefore specific to, Europe and the USA. This site though lets you set a location and gives you advance notice of what will be visible where you are https://in-the-sky.org/newsindex.php Hope that helps Heather

I don't know the weight of your specific kit, but I have a 127 mak on an AZ5 , which is at least 6.5kg , and it sits happily on my decades old Manfrotto 55 . If I recall correctly the current alu. 55 has a theoretical limit of 9kg , and while a new one will set you back a fair bit, the things are bombproof and second hand ones are quite common, samples without photo heads sell for £70-£90 , sometimes less. When my beloved old 55 got taken over by the 'scope, I needed to replace it for photographic use, and found a Manfrotto 190xpro for £50, second hand. It has a lower weight limit, but out of curiosity I've tried it with my heritage 150 newt (which is around 3kg) and found it fine. The ratings for the Manfrotto tripods are realistic, but based on the tripod fully extended, centre column and all. I don't raise the centre column to use a 'scope, neither do I extend the thinnest, lowest leg section, and am confident either tripod could take more weight easily. You do miss out on a central brace, which makes astro and video tripods a bit more sturdy, but as you said, the photo tripods do tend to close down to a neater, shorter package. My 190 has now been commandeered by a little ST80 frac, so I need yet another Manfrotto for my DSLR ... Heather

Venus will simply be a bright thing with no detail (but with phases just like the Moon) whatever 'scope or filter you might use : you are seeing the top of a very reflective sea of gas, never what lies below. Planets which a telescope can show some detail are Jupiter, Saturn (gas giants, but with features )and Mars, where you are seeing the rocky surface. I'd suggest reading this very informative post :

I just had a quick look for the specifications of the telescope, and can't see if it uses the fairly standard 1.25" diameter barrel eyepieces ? Some 'scopes like this use smaller ones . Any filters you might buy would screw on a thread inside the bottom of the eyepiece, and such filters are usually made to fit 1.25" eyepieces. So before buying any accessories like filters or more eyepieces, do check the diameter first ! Heather

Fabulous session, 🙂 the one astro accessory we can at long last access for a relatively low price * ... a few miles drive to a darker site 🙂 * I can hear the wail of pain from certain car- free city dwellers from here . Sorry .

It still seems to be included in all recent versions as far as I can see http://stellarium.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Plugins maybe in your new version it needs to be enabled as described on that page ? Heather