Tiny Clanger

I'm in a similarly light polluted area, with a 150mm aperture, 750mm focal length reflector, and have managed to see some nebulae & galaxies , but it has taken quite a lot of persistence . Presuming your computerised set up is pointing you to the correct spot (I have no experience of them, so can't help if that part of the setup is letting you down ) there are a few things you can do to maximise your chances of seeing a faint fuzzy . First, give you eyes plenty of time to adjust to the dark : mine need at least half an hour , so I look at clusters etc while my eyes adapt. Don't go indoors, don't look at any screen that is not switched over to red display , don't use a bright torch . Turn off , or draw the curtains of, any lit house windows or bright garden lights . Second, choose your observing time with care : no Moon in the sky, and as late as you can, it's not properly dark at this time of year until around 10pm I find . You don't say where you are, but my local council save money by turning every other streetlamp off at about 1am so that's the start of hopeful fuzzy hunting for me. Third, on some nights the sky clarity is really good, the stars twinkle (poor 'seeing' ) but the sky appears more transparent , so you see more stars. Those are the best nights to look for faint fuzzies , there was a recent cold blast of Arctic air which was perfect, but it made for a chilly time in the garden. Fourth, try for targets which are quite high in the sky, at least 40 degrees, preferably higher. The lower you look , the thicker the layer of air you are looking through. I've also found that there are areas of sky below 50 degrees which , from my garden, are hopeless because of the light pollution being stronger in that direction, so I simply don't bother looking for anything faint in that part of the sky. And finally ... persist. I've looked, I don't know how many times (over 2 dozen at least) for the Leo Triplet, and failed miserably, failed again, caught a suspicion of one component, tried several more times, failed , and eventually managed 2/3 of it , it is actually come as a relief that it is now too low , and in my more polluted sky area for me to spend time on it ! But there's always next year. I've recently (on a very cold clear night) had really nice views of the almost overhead Bode's Galaxy and the Cigar Galaxy (M 81 & M82) give them a try, start with your 32mm plossl, and if you get a suspicion of a couple of smudges visible , change to your 25mm stock EP. Good luck ! Heather

Quite. The kit you use , whatever it may be, is better than the kit that stays in the spare room because it s too much of a pain to lug outside. I've had far more use out of the cheap, colour aberration laden little ST80 in the couple of months since I bought it second hand , than the 127 mak with its superior optics, streets better mount etc etc. Just because I've noticed a brief unexpected window in the clouds and ducked out for the odd 20 minutes. Heather

RVO is easy to get to from the M1, I bought my heritage 150 from them in lockdown#1 when travel was allowed, and they offered a 'buy online, call us when you are outside and we will put your order in the car boot ' option. I'd get in touch with them before making a trip, not just to ensure they are open to visitors, but also to check they actually have display 'scopes to look at , I'd imagine it would be tempting to sell off the 'slightly shop soiled' stock over the past 12 months to keep some cash coming in while astro kit has been in such exceptional demand and low supply. Meanwhile, thinking about the practicalities of carrying it up & down stairs, my heritage 150 with the tube closed and upright makes a reasonably compact package, with the whole thing held 2 handed by the circular base with my hands at waist level , the top of the 'scope is roughly level with my collarbone (as I said above, I'm about 1.7m /5'7" tall) The weight is given online (not of me, of the heritage 150 ) as 7.5kg (16.5 lbs) , while the heritage 130 is 6kg (13.2 lbs) An st80 itself will weigh between 1 and 1.5kg (2 to 3.3 lbs) and the tube with diagonal etc is almost exactly the same length as the closed up heritage 150 (but obviously the st80 is a far smaller diameter) but you need to add in a sturdy tripod, the one I use weighs 2kg, with a pan tilt head that comes in at an extra 1.5kg, for a total of 5kg . Obviously it is possible to take any 'scope off the mount, and make two trips to get it outside, but personally I'm lazy and the fewer complications between me and observing the better, I don't want any faff or extra effort which might make me decide to stay on the sofa instead of getting out observing. I can carry my st80 out and be observing in moments (I roamed the local streets with it over my shoulder at 2am the other week to get a vantage point where i could see the nova ) , the heritage dob is carried out in one go, extended, left to cool for a few minutes then ready to use long before my eyes are dark adapted. Of the two 'scopes, I'd choose the dob (probably with your portability issues, the 130) because it gathers more light and has a longer focal length than the st80, so you can see fainter things, as well as getting greater magnification with the same eyepieces. Heather

Is it 12lbs or less ? I thought the 200 dobs came in at around four times the weight limit the OP set ? Heather

Purchased yesterday afternoon from Mark at Beaufort, and posted out to me very promptly, altho' the postie (new guy on the walk, so maybe he got lost along the way) was so far behind the usual schedule I'd already given up hope of it arriving today . However the doorbell rang a few minutes past 1pm,... What a neat little EP, weird eye shield wing thing and all, and in perfect condition . Couldn't resist sticking it in the st80 for a view of the bird feeder at the bottom of my garden,and had a terrifying close up view of a scabby feral pigeon. Heather

I own a 150 heritage dob, a 127 mak and an st80, so I suppose I ought to chime in here ! The 150 heritage 'tabletop; dob was the first 'scope I bought , about 10 months ago. I think it is an ideal first 'scope. It is easily carried around , not too bulky to store, and the 150mm aperture gathers loads of light. Unless the user is quite short, it needs to go on some sort of stand to provide comfortable views. I am about 1.7m tall ( 5'7" ish) and made mine a sturdy 30cm tall,3 legged table out of scrap wood, which brings the eyepiece to a good comfortable height for me when viewing things high in the sky. When Jupiter and Saturn were low in the sky last summer, I needed the 'scope up higher , dragged a heavy old black & decker workmate out of the shed, and parked the dob on that . If the weight of the 150 might be too much (I don't recall what it is offhand) the smaller heritage 130 might suit you better, there is a vast thread about it on the US cloudy nights forum , it is sold under a different name there, same 'scope tho' : https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/463109-onesky-newtonian-astronomers-without-borders/ There is a particular £10ish ikea 3 legged stool which apparently fits the 130 base perfectly ! Advantages of the 150 (or 130) You get a lot of aperture for your money, you get a stable base included, it is amazing value, it is a proper telescope. The 150 has a focal length of 750mm (the 130 is slightly less) which makes it reasonably powerful to magnify the Moon and planets, but not so great that it is hard to aim it where you want. The dob base is simple to use, you get the hang of nudging it after a few goes, and it becomes second nature. Disadvantages of the 150 (or 130) The focus is something that resembles a slightly rough plumbing fitting , you need to add some pfte tape to make it smoother to use, you also really need to make it a light shroud to cover the open section when in use. Neither thing is expensive or difficult (ptfe tape can be bought for £1 a roll, you can make a shroud from craft foam, cheap camping mat foam, or just card )and making the 'scope better and individual is something I enjoyed. My second purchase was the 127 mak on an az5 mount (and a sturdy photo tripod I already owned) , it has double the focal length of the heritage 150, so magnifies 2x as much using the same eyepiece. It is quite a lot heavier than the dob, 3kg for the az5, 3 .5kg for the 'scope and finders and dew shield , probably another 3kg for the tripod., maybe 10kg in total, 22lbs in old money . So far too heavy for your needs. If you want high magnification for bright things like the Moon & planets I'd suggest you check out the smaller 102 mak on a porta mount, I've not used them myself, but it looks a good combination, and will be lighter, and more compact My most recent purchase was a second hand st80 . It does not need a 'proper' telescope mount at all, but sits happily on a photo tripod with a photographic head. The reason this is possible is that it is a widefield , short focal length device, so is relatively forgiving about where you aim it., as well as very light in weight That is not the case for the mak, which I'd not contemplate using without slo mo controls to give very fine adjustment in aim. The st80 is not perfect (no telescope can be ) it shows some obvious colour fringing around bright objects, but it is a good price , and if you can get your hands on one, you could put it on top of any decent photo tripod (if you don't already have one, they are much more plentiful and cheap second hand than astro equivalents) as a temporary measure until stocks of astro kit return to the retailers and you will have more idea, from using your 'scope, what will work for you. Which would I recommend as a first buy ? For you, not the 127 mak, it's too heavy for the weight limit you gave. The 150 dob (or 130) would give you extra light gathering over the st80 , and the immediate upgrades (ptfe tape and foam or card) are trivial. The st80 will probably come (various brands sell essentially the same 'scope, different labels ) with a cheap diagonal or prism (the 90 or 46 degree bend thing at the back) and you will want to upgrade it asap, which will cost maybe £40 or more. The st80 is a very easy thing to move around and store, the heritage dob is a little larger and bulkier. The heritage's 750mm focal length means with the included (rubbish) 10mm eyepiece,you get 75x magnification, whilst the st80 has a focal length of 400mm, which with the same 10mm eyepiece would only give 40x magnification. You might think those 'scopes are too cheap, you could afford better within your budget, but .... everyone buys a 'scope and then realises that the eyepieces included are poor, and you will want to upgrade soon : the BST starguider range at £45-£50 each or a £200 Baader zoom are the usual suggested 'cheap' options. Also your 'scope will come with a red dot finder , and you will want an optical finder , ideally a 6x30 RACI for about £45, and maybe a rigel or telrad , roughly the same £45ish cost again , and a foam lined case to keep the eyepieces safe and .... You get the picture ! There's plenty of time to do your research , it doesn't look as if worthwhile 'scopes will be arriving here for at least a month, try using the search on here and you will find lots of information on the st80, heritage dobs etc, good luck ! Heather

I use my ST80 (for observing, not photography) on a sturdy photo tripod in a similar way , I like pan/tilt heads, so have the head flipped over as if using a camera to take a portrait oriented photo, and to get enough altitude angle, that also involves mounting the telescope 'backwards' , pan tilt head controls on the side away from the user. The horizontal movement is left free to rotate, and I reach forward to loosen or tighten the altitude control as needed. With a wide field instrument like the 400mm ST80 the movement is precise enough. This works really well for me , but rather than just using the tripod socket on the 'scope, I have one of these https://www.firstlightoptics.com/dovetails-saddles-clamps/baader-vixen-style-dovetail-clamp.html which has a standard photo tripod socket below, and grips the dovetail rail of the telescope very securely. It allows you to slide the telescope back & forth a bit to get the balance right. Heather

Hello again 🙂

That quote sounds like a rather partisan refractor user's defence of their chosen instrument ! Large aperture refractors of decent quality are expensive. Very expensive. Comparable aperture reflectors are less expensive, even if you apply some reduction in aperture. If one type of telescope was better than all the rest, no-one would buy any other , and no one would own more than one type of telescope . I'm a relative beginner, and own 3 types ! Every type of telescope has its advantages and disadvantages, every type of telescope has a vast price range, some are better for certain purposes than others. And then there are various kinds of mounts to consider as well. If you can set a budget, think about what storage you have for the equipment, consider how easy it needs to be to transport it to where you view from , and decide what sorts of targets are of most interest to you, we can give some suggestions.

Oh, and do say hello with a post in the 'welcome' section too, you will get plenty of replies there .

Welcome ! That certainly is a long first post 🙂 I only have time to make a few short responses though ... I think you have made a really good start by beginning with binoculars and finding your way around the sky. Your telescope is not a fabulous , expensive refractor , but as long as you don't expect too much from it , it will show you plenty. I'd suggest you search out the threads on here which talk about 'st80' telescopes, which are 80mm aperture, 400mm focal length cheap ones, very similar to yours, which will give you an idea of what may be possible, and how to get the best out of yours. If you have , or can borrow, a photo tripod with a pan tilt head , and if your telescope has a suitable socket for a standard photo tripod screw , you could try your 'scope on that. It might be a steadier, easier to adjust mount for your telescope than the one which comes with it. I use my st80 on a photo tripod, and it works very well. If you can't use a photo tripod, try improving the one you have by adding a weight of some kind , a bag with some stones, or a plastic bottle of water , hanging off the centre of the tripod. This adds some mass and steadies the thing. The reflector 'wrong way up' effect is only really a confusion for me when I am looking at the Moon or Mars , and using maps to identify features, so I don't think it is a worry ! Heather

Like everyone else I can only comment on my immediate , back garden area during lockdown (and it isn't over yet ... ) but in my bit of suburban/rural transition , neighbours lockdown spending on cheap garden lighting last summer has significantly raised the light pollution, and with a sickly blue glow at that 😞 Heather

Here's a report from someone who actually owned and used that 'scope a few years ago:

Nice report, I suspect clusters are the way to go in polluted skies, they certainly seem to be the things I can manage to see ! Like you, I've looked straight at the Rosette Nebula for sometime hoping to perceive it , had a suspicion of a hint of a vague redness, but not confident it was anything but wishful thinking on my part ! I'm not saying anything about the Leo Triplet either,it's a sore point ... I we all need to get to darker skies ! Heather

I have a skymax 127, and use it on an az5 mount. I have no intention of using it for astrophotography, so see little point in an eq mount. Be aware that maks do need time to cool down if taken outside from a warm room , I usually leave mine outside for 30 minutes before using it. I've said on other threads in the past, that I think I'd have found it difficult to find objects in the narrow field of view of the mak if I'd bought it as a first telescope, and hadn't spent time with a 150 heritage dobsonian first, but the mak is a very good, compact 'scope for viewing the Moon and planets.

Taking words in common use and using them with a precise meaning in a scientific context is fraught with difficulties : force for instance ... is it a deliberate , intention to make someone or something do whatever ? Or a collective noun for police or soldiers, or the physics definition, which is neither, but subtly similar to the first definition in some ways, which provides problems when talking about forces when teaching science. In the context of the study of ecologies, food pyramids etc, predation is eating. I've no idea about harvesting vs. slaughter as subtle distinctions in energy relationships , I've tried in the past to get my head around the relatively simple stuff, which includes a whole extra set of relationships for the decay and consumption of carrion , and that is complex enough. Symbiotic relationships (which come in varying degrees of mutual benefit, from the 'we need both of us to live', to the 'parasite kills host' , it's a whole other, fascinating subject on its own, I recommend you look it up ) are no doubt accounted for somewhere in the ecologist's understanding, but as I said, I'm no expert and don't claim more than an interested amateurs knowledge. I do know that plants which produce fruit don't do it for no reason, again it takes energy and if it were not a useful survival trait it simply would not evolve naturally . Flowers are adverts to pollinating insects : they say 'land here, nectar available' and arrange it so pollen is brushed off on the bug and transferred to the next flower, enabling sexual reproduction. Fruit and berries are just tempting wrapping for seeds, to encourage animals to carry them elsewhere to grow away from the parent plant. As the old joke goes, when you eat your bacon & eggs for breakfast , the chicken was involved, but the pig was committed .

Energy is plentiful, but the trick is converting that energy efficiently to something you can use . I've no time to check this (things to do, people to annoy) but I seem to recall the conversion rate for sunlight to energy in green plants is below 10%.

I'm not saying life on Earth is the only template for life, far from it, as a fan of SF I'm very happy to accept the possibilities suggested by writers whose imaginations far outstrip mine. It's the processes though : if the laws of thermodynamics hold true across the universe, then life, whatever and wherever it might be , will be constantly fighting to acquire energy and combat entropy. On Earth, our 'producers' ( there are exceptions, but the vast majority of our producers) i.e the life forms which start the food chains , are green plants which get their energy from the Sun. Other 'higher' levels on the food chain (trophic levels is the term if you fancy doing some research) form what ecologists call an energy pyramid, with the top predator at the peak . That's the creature which eats but does not get eaten . That's us. First step in any food chain, producer sources of food/energy across the universe , I'd guess will be stars too. Maybe some life might use chemical or thermal energy (like the weird bacteria which occur deep in the ocean in hydrothermal vents and 'eat' hydrogen sulphide) Is one , straightforward, competition free , low energy pyramid life form possible ? Yes, I think it is. But I also suspect that where one life form appears, and thrives, you won't get a static , single type of life. Or if you do it won't last long : environments change , the waste products of that life accumulate, etc etc, and if the life form does not randomly mutate or vary in any way, it will not be able to continue as the environment changes around it. If it does change, and some successful changes happen to accommodate it (quite by accident) to the new conditions, it is evolving ... and off we go . I'm by no means an expert in this stuff, just an interested amateur with some geological um, grounding , the scientific advances made in evolutionary biology since they have been able to sequence DNA have been amazing, and ecology has become a huge complex web of knowledge from many disciplines , life is a complex thing ...

I read that.and thought the film would be about The Leakey's exploits in uncovering fossils ! It seems not 😉 There is a line given to a character in Babylon 5 by J.M Straczynski ( a perhaps surprisingly philosophical show considering the general shallowness of TV SF) which makes perfect sense to me : 'We are the universe made manifest, trying to figure itself out.'

Just a whistle away 🙂

A few years back the magazine 'Trail' tested waterproofing liquids for jackets etc, and found that fabric conditioner was almost as good a waterproofer as the expensive purpose made stuff. Why on earth anyone would use the stuff on towels etc defeats me . Rohan specifically says 'do not use fabric conditioner' on many clothing labels too, as the stuff reduces the fabric's breathability. Oh, and I just wanted my avatar near yours 🙂

Interesting. Predation (which in biology simply means the consumption of one life form by another, the energy moving up the food chain, so applies just as much to 'grass is eaten by cow' as it does to 'antelope is eaten by lion') is a driver of evolution though. A life form which is well suited to its environment (because natural selection stopped the individuals who couldn't cope with the temperature or other straightforward environmental factor from breeding ) can succeed in that environment. Success in this case is living and producing offspring . Predation complicates this. An apparently evolutionarily well fitted organism can fall prey to a predator * and further random genetic variations can throw up a variation more capable of survival in the face of that risk of predation. A classic example is the Peppered Moth. Would an environment without predation have organisms evolve the ability to see , smell, hear, run, hide, collaborate in a hunt ( and develop language to do that well ) , hide from a hunter, employ tools (chimps using twigs to get bugs out of crevices, thrushes using rocks as anvils to crack snail shells ) teach the offspring how to hunt and / or hide, imagine making tools which do not easily exist, flake bits off a flint nodule to form a new shape which is an ideal hand axe, note that fire has a remarkable effect on some specific rocks ... ? When I was an undergrad, one of our geology prof .s Sylvester-Bradley had quite a lot to say on the subject of evolution of life (when he wasn't enthusing about Ostracods) and he rather seemed to enjoy telling the students that it was all about sex. ( as teenagers, we didn't think an old bloke should be talking like that ... what did he know ?! He was as old as our parents ...) That it is all about sexual reproduction is at least partly true. More complex life on Earth mostly, (altho' parthenogenesis is common in simpler life forms) uses the combined chromosomes from two parents to produce a zygote which has the genetic 'blueprints' to build the offspring .That combination causes variation, that variation may be a good thing, a bad thing or an unimportant thing in evolutionary fitness terms. Sexual reproduction must be an important survival trait for the species though, because the process is not cost free to the creatures involved. So, for genetic variations which result in physical changes, evolution can sift for fitness to the environment, but then we need to combine chromosomes, and to drive evolution towards what we think of as intelligence , we need predation (as predator, prey or both). And then there's the concentration of energy as you go up the food chain, the effect which means many grazing creatures, one level up on the food chain from the producer (usually a green plant) at the bottom, have to eat all day, whilst the top predator (a lion or a human) can laze around for much of the day, surviving for some time on the energy tied up in the meat of a single successful hunt. With sexual reproduction, evolution, predation , and the concentration of energy high in food chains, it seems to me the likelihood of a delightful, peaceable Co-operative Socialist Collective of Intelligent Alien Life is quite low, if we are thinking of the sort of life which may be able to start to understand the universe in a scientific or mathematical way, and communicate with us. * examples of this abound, where animals like cats, rats, cane toads , grey squirrels etc have been introduced on to islands either on purpose or by accident , and had a terrible effect on the wildlife which evolved to live without those alien species predating on them.

I thought the chart was a homage (an homage ? Depends if you voice the 'h' or not when saying it ! ) to the Dad's Army opening titles , I'd like a TV weather forecast where those arrows were animated and advance and retreat ... A very good friend from uni. had their first job after their astrophysics degree at the Met office. Now,decades , several jobs in other areas, and a PhD later, they can still be instantly triggered to a spirited defence of weather forecasters just by a casual reference to inaccuracy ... Of course I never do such a thing to tease them .... Predictions have improved enormously since the met office got their own Cray in the 1990s (no I've no idea what that is, but I heard a lot about it over many dinners ... , ) for example look at the percentage likelihood of precipitation , it is a very good guide for the next day , and not bad for up to 5 days into the future. And I believe they are actually getting a shiny new super dooper computer soon 🙂 Heather

Got a good view at 250x with my mak, at around 00:30 to 1am Dorsa Harker was very clear, as were the two bright points that form the quadrangles north corners, the rest was less distinct but definitely visible. I really appreciate the heads up advance notice and helpful notes / illustrations for such things, thanks to all who post them 🙂 Heather

Welcome, Loughboro' dweller ! I'm just down the road ... If you specifically want a long focal length 'scope for planets and lunar work, a 102 or 127 mak would be a good compact choice , I use a 127 mak on an az5 head and a decades old manfrotto 55 tripod, and find the combination works really well . Personally I'd not want to try and use the 'scope at high magnification on planets without it being on a mount with slo mo controls (or, I suppose tracking, but I have no experience of that !) The 127 mak has a focal length of 1500mm , the 102 is a bit smaller, a bit lighter , and has a slightly shorter focal length of 1300mm . I don't think the difference in aperture between the two maks would be a worry for the bright objects you are considering as your main targets, and the 102, being lighter, could be used on a less expensive mount , for instance it is bundled with the az pronto mount and a tripod for £260 https://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/sky-watcher-skymax-102s-az-pronto.html or with an az gti mount if you fancy that, for £450 https://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/sky-watcher-skymax-102-az-gti.html On the other hand, the larger 127 on an az5 with tripod is a bit over your budget at£520 https://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/sky-watcher-skymax-102-az-gti.html but if you can use your own tripod, a 127 OTA is £330 and an az5 £170, which just squeaks in at £500. However, be aware that the dovetail is in a different place on the 127 mak tube if you buy the OTA on its own compared with the package version, and that may make it awkward to use . Probably better to buy the whole kit for the sake of £20. There are some good comparisons of the 102 and 127 maks here http://www.waloszek.de/astro_sw_mak102_e.php and several relevant videos by this guy