Tiny Clanger

Simul-post 🙂 Heather

Are you thinking of the 102 xs Stu ? There are three now four ! (they've added a 1000mm one I don't recall seeing before ) versions of the 102, the 102xs, which is the tiny short one with (reputedly) different glass, a 460mm focal length https://www.bresseruk.com/BRESSER-Messier-AR-102xs-460-Hexafoc-Optical-Tube.html?listtype=search&searchparam=102 xs the one I have, the 102s at 600mm focal length https://www.bresseruk.com/BRESSER-Messier-AR-102s-600-Hexafoc-OTA.html the 102/1000 , 1000mm focal length ( you guessed that, didn't you 🙂 ) https://www.bresseruk.com/BRESSER-Messier-AR-102-1000-Hexafoc-Optical-Tube-assembly.html?listtype=search&searchparam=messier ar and the 102L which is 1350mm focal length https://www.bresseruk.com/BRESSER-Messier-AR-102L-1350-Hexafoc-Optical-Tube-assembly.html?listtype=search&searchparam=messier ar OP might wonder why the weird different lengths , answer is ( briefly) longer tube acrhros control CA better. However, as I said, there is always a trade off ... the longer the tube, the harder and more expensive it is to mount properly, and obviously the more cumbersome it is .

I bought the 102mm achro as a speedy set up grab and go to take advantage of brief cloud gaps in my garden , it's OK for wide field but , to my eyes hopeless at high magnifications because of the C.A. , so I don't use it for planets. Other folk seem to notice CA less (on another similar thread, there;'s someone who finds the ST80 acceptable for planetary use , I cannot unsee the ST80 violet fringe though ! ) , maybe it's an eyesight thing, maybe it's that I've been a photographer (both pro and am) for longer than I care to mention 🙂 and notice this sort of thing more. I didn't suggest the 102 to you, because I don't think it is a good first 'scope choice. It is fine for what I wanted it for (mostly as a test of if it is a convenient size of instrument for me , both in terms of aperture and portability, and a worthwhile increase over an 80mm ) but it isn't wonderful . I expect to sell it on in the next year or so when I can afford a better 102mm.

Don't worry about the f number, it is only really relevant in telescopes when thinking about the 'scope's requirements in eyepiece upgrade quality . Nothing like as important as the photographic lens focal ratio. The difference in light collecting isn't negligible between a 90mm aperture and a 102mm aperture though : a circle of 90mm diameter has an area of 63.6 cm2 , while a circle of 102mm diameter has an area of 81.7 cm2 That is quite an increase in light gathering potential, which is good for viewing faint objects, However, (there's always a caveat in astro kit ) bigger aperture means a bigger , heavier 'scope , which means less portable and you absolutely have to have a heftier , steadier mount and tripod., or it is essentially useless. For instance, my cheap 102mm refractor (one of these https://www.firstlightoptics.com/bresser-telescopes/bresser-messier-ar-102s-600-refractor-ota.html https://www.bresseruk.com/BRESSER-Messier-AR-102s-600-Hexafoc-OTA.html) is nice for wide field views, but it is longer than the height of my 62l rucsac, weighs 4kg and requires (to be steady) a heavy tripod and mount at least as heavy again.

At the end of my first post on this thread, I said the same, "For something genuinely portable , with decent quality instruments available well within your price range, I'd suggest some 10/50 binoculars and a monopod / ball or trigger head are the logical choices. " and still think it is the only sensible rucsac friendly option.

Now might be a good moment to point you to this excellent post :

personally I've no idea, but here are some threads with suggestions: https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/360019-az-gte-problem/#comment-3923374 https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/359618-az-gti-nothing-but-issues-accuracy-apalling/page/2/ https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/380547-sky-watcher-az-gti-new-firmware-available-v330/?do=findComment&comment=4116087

A clothes peg to clip on to the focus knob and get fingertip, vibration free precise adjustments ! A lot of single use batteries , or a suitable power tank ? I think I've read of folk having trouble with rechargeable AAs in the mount, no experience of that mount myself though, my 127 is on an AZ5. Heather

I can only extrapolate from my 150 heritage, but I've found the collimation is pretty stable, I've had the whole mirror cell out 3 times for various reasons and after putting it back have only needed minor tweaks. I mostly use mine in the garden so its only had occasional brief car trips, but have seen no change in collimation. I've seen people who don't own a heritage saying the front will be flexible, but I regilarly use a pretty heavy eyepiece on mine (373 g) , and out of interest when I got the 'scope, tried out my DSLR , which is around 500g, and saw no problem. I ha d to retract the front section of the heritage maybe 5cm to achieve focus, but apart from that it was OK. Not ideal at all, the mount and focuser are not right for serious photography, but OK. I'm happy in terms of physical capability to put the DSLR on the dob, with the t mount and nosepiece , but simply would never consider it on the ST80, which has a cheap floppy rack and pinion focuser which I can easily imagine plunging my DSLR to its doom . To see what the little dob is capable of, check out this, 200 + page, years long thread on the cloudy nights forum from the US, , where the heritage 130 is available through a charity badged as an AWB OneSky newtonian. https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/463109-onesky-newtonian-astronomers-without-borders/page-217 Right, I'm off, it's time to do cooking 🙂

I own a 127 mak. It is great foe planets and lunar observing. But, It needs a good solid mount , preferably with slo motion controls ( handles you twiddle to make tiny smooth adjustments to the aim). It sees a tiny portion of the sky, if I'd not used my heritage dob for about 10 months before adding the mak to my ever increasing menagerie of glassware, I'd have found learning to aim the thing far more difficult to do than I did. The minimum mount my research came up with for the mak was an AZ5, which , with a tripod, costs pretty much your entire budget https://www.firstlightoptics.com/alt-azimuth-astronomy-mounts/sky-watcher-az5-deluxe-alt-azimuth-mount.html That's without the actual 'scope. The mount and tripod any telescope goes on is a vital, if unglamorous part of the setup, it has to be firm, solid , smooth moving and show minimal vibration to be any good, . The heavier and longer the telescope, and the greater the magnification, the more it demands from the supports. Which os where the blessed John Dobson's simple sturdy wooden mount design comes in, it allows most of the cost of a setup to be spent on the actual optics. Dobson wanted big telescopes to be available to all ( search out some films about him on youtube if you have the time) quite a character.

Hello , I have a t-shirt with your icon on, and the quote 'Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast ' 🙂 I don't know if this is true of the 1230 heritage, but my 150 has a dust cap which s also a collimation cap. The thing is, you don't actually need a focus tube dust cap when the 'scope is closed down , the focus tube doesn't then lead to the interior of the scope, so it doesn't matter that there's a hole in it to use as a quick collimation check.

You have to have a number of posts (25 I think)and have been registered for a month before you can see that area, it used to be open to all, but some scammers spoiled it for beginners , unfortunately ,and measures had to be taken to make the bad guy's lives harder.

Welcome 🙂 I can tell from your post that you've done some sensible research already , and have reasonable expectations and a sense of humour, so I'll reply 'no, not yet ...' to the thread title and chip in. That small, sticky fingered little person you are using as an excuse , sorry , I mean getting the 'scope partly for 🙂 is going to need a fast set up, easy to look through, not too delicate or easily knocked over sort of 'scope. It needs to not have a narrow field of view/ big magnification (like a mak ) because by the time you set that up with something like a planet in view, and move aside so the small person can get to the eyepiece, the target will have moved , probably out of view , similarly the slightest touch by the small person on the eyepiece or focus tube will move the 'scope , so the target is lost. That way lies frustration and tantrums, not to mention how the 4 year old will react ... Wide field, sturdy, under £200 , easy to set up and small enough to stick in the car for dark sky trips ... 130 heritage. Leaves you some budget for an eyepiece or two , which you will want, skywatcher 'scopes come with two eyepieces, the 26mm is OK, the 10mm is meh, and needs replacing ... some other manufacturers just include one slightly better eyepiece (Bressers get an acceptable 20mm plossl). If you are happy to go to £300 (including one eyepiece upgrade) , the 150 heritage is bigger, therefore collects more light, but might not be as packable , depends on your car and the volume of child related stuff you have to pack ... I own an ST80, I bought it second hand , it is used with a lightweight but good quality travel tripod , where I'd describe it as rather wobbly, and best at very low magnifications, much like using binoculars (except only one eye , obv.s, and somewhat steadier than hand held binos. ) The plus points for the ST80 over the heritage 130 are its compact size and that it looks like most people's idea of a telescope. Heather PS, you visited the Space centre ! Not far from me, hope you went to the free museum of technology next door too, lovely beam engine , and at the age your little one now is, my niece was obsessed with the see through cut away toilet, complete with flushable orange plastic cylinders you could watch go down the pan when you pulled the chain., then run to the end of the plastic tube 'sewage pipe' retrieve and repeat ... wonder if that exhibit is still there nearly 20 years on .

Martin, welcome to the start of the slippery slope that is 'spending a bit more than you initially budgeted for ' ! Fingers crossed for clear skies asap ! Heather

Stu said the exact same thing when I asked about this when I was getting geared up for solar back before the partial eclipse, and having bought the sheet of Baader solar film I was able to make filters for my 127mak ( I've subsequently adapted that to fit my 102 'frac , which is faster to set up and catch the Sun in brief cloud gaps ... ) and from the same sheet I managed to squeeze both full and cap aperture filters for my ST80. Doing a direct comparison in the ST80 , full aperture vs cap , did show more resolution with the full aperture. I really don't care about how the thing looks, so the DIY cardboard, duct tape and sheet of film works for me, and the low initial cost means if my filter gets damaged (and I give it a visual check as part of my routine before every use) I'll be fine about replacing it. But it's been used on over 40 occasions (I just checked my log book) and shows no sign of damage. On the ST80, the 'in cap' filter I used is simply a bit of the filter sheet stuck to the inner face of the dust cap over the hole, secured with tape, it is sat there permanently, invisible inside the cap , covered and protected by the removable small cap. If I happen to be out with the ST80 and it's the only solar filter to hand, it would be better than not being able to check out big Sun spots at all . Heather

I'll come down on the 200mm dob side too. In terms of what you get for your money, it is the standout option. Drawbacks include size, weight ,and storage, if you are aware of those and can deal with them, the 200mm (8" in old money) is a good compromise between light gathering ability and ease of use. For that reason an explore scientific I mean Bresser (same thing sort of ) 200mm dob is on my wants list, as a step up from the 150mm dob. I own and love. Bigger apertures will collect more light but .... and it's a big but ... you don't know how involved you will get, this is your first 'scope, and lugging a huge thing out of the shed/garage wherever and setting it up to catch the (seemingly increasingly brief) clear nights , only to put it away again is something which may soon lose its allure, particularly in winter. A smaller 'scope you do use frequently , because it is easy to set up, will show you more than the huge thing that stays in storage on all but a few nights. Any of these would do the job (assuming you can find one in stock) https://www.firstlightoptics.com/dobsonians/skywatcher-skyliner-200p-dobsonian.html £369 https://www.firstlightoptics.com/stellalyra-telescopes/stellalyra-8-f6-dobsonian.html £449 , better accessories than the skywatcher tho' https://www.firstlightoptics.com/bresser-telescopes/bresser-messier-8-dobsonian-telescope.html £433 , lighter weight than the other two (which is a big plus point for me, but maybe not you !) , tube rings and a different altitude pivot. Heather

As I said, the 6mm gets used very occasionally when the seeing is steady, mostly for lunar detail, but the magnification it gives (250x in the 127 mak) is usually too much for the conditions (and my eyes) . Much of the time for planets I use an 8mm (a BST starguider ) which gives 187.5x . My next eyepiece is a 12mm (BST) which gives 125x, which feels like a big step down, I'd rather like to add a 10mm sometime to offer an intermediate magnification . Hope that answers your question 🙂 Heather

Have a look at alpkit's info, lovely people to deal with , good kit at reasonable prices, a 3 year guarantee, and an informative website . https://alpkit.com/blogs/spotlight/choosing-a-sleeping-mat For car based camping I highly recommend their 'dozer' mat https://alpkit.com/products/dozer#product-content which has a nice , non slippery face material so you don't slide off it in the middle of the night if your sleeping bag is shiny outer material. One of those, with a reflective foil mat under it has kept me nice and warm camping in snow . I use a cheap picnic blanket as an extra tent bedroom carpet too , for additional insulation of the rest of the 'room' . Heather

I have a 6mm, looks exactly the same as Mr. Spock's photo, I bought it as a cheap way to see if I'd get a distracting level of eye floater intrusion with that focal length in my mak . (The answer was , probably best not invest in a flashier eye piece at that length, it's right at the edge of what I find acceptable, and defo. no point in me going for any higher mag.) I've used it to view the Moon several times , and very occasionally a planet, but the seeing isn't often capable of taking the 250x it gives me in the mak. It's not a bad eyepiece at all, (I appreciate this is heresy, but I actually prefer using it over my 6mm Baader ortho ) I did have some loose paint flakes inside the TMB clone, , between elements, which needed careful disassembly to get at , but for the price I paid was OK with that. I bought mine from Alan at Sky's the Limit , they are around £35 from him now I think, but I've seen plenty suggested to me by amaz. , outwardly identical, and some at crazy high prices. Heather

I'll agree with that. My vaguely relevant experience is of a heritage 150 dob, 102mm achro. and ST80 . The refractors (being achromats) show CA, the ST80 is easy to mount securely because it is short and light and widefield. The 102mm 'frac is still wide field, but needs a far more steady mount and tripod to avoid it trembling like a leaf , it is heavier and longer (mine is 80cm nose to tail, I just checked) so it can wag around. The heritage tabletop dob stand is sturdy and vibration free (I didn't even see any vibration in a 'scope when I owned just the heritage) but needs careful 'nudging' to aim it at high magnification. I can see faint targets (for example the Ring Nebula M57), in my little dob which are entirely invisible through the ST80 , just because of the greater aperture of the 150mm. I have been able to see M57 in the 102 mm refractor , but it was considerably less clear, and if I'd not already seen it in the dob I might have scanned right past it . I'm in suburbia, so my sky is rather light polluted . The 72mm ED will be better for photography, lacking the CA you get with cheap refractors , and fine for visual work on bright targets like the Moon, Jupiter and Saturn, but less good for faint visual targets. So, it depends where your priorities lie. Most people who get into observing tend to own more than one 'scope, precisely because there is no single type or size that does it all ! I thought all I'd ever buy would be the 150 dob it didn't quite work out like that 🙂 . It was, however, a great 'scope to start out with, and continues to be the one I choose for DSOs on Moonless nights .

'The (whatever) police' phrase you used is a criticism , it implies a picky, over officious attitude. For instance https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/the+grammar+police That was not nice. Maybe unintended, but as you have noticed, I read posts carefully.

No, I'm a person who tries to search out helpful information for people , and that thread came up top of my duckduckgo search. After that response from you though ...

I think I'm getting deja vu 🙂

Longanimity ! What a great word, thank you, I'm tucking it away for future use 🙂 I've never come across it before , but the context and obvious derivation meant the meaning was clear. Turns out the probable reason it was unknown to me was because it appears to be a word more common in Catholic cultures, one source I read said : " Longanimity originated in the early to mid-1400s, derived from the Late Latin longanimis, which means patient. The Latin longus, means long, and animus, means soul. With roots in Catholicism, it serves as one of the twelve fruits of the Holy Spirit " Heather

Before I bought my mak I did a lot of online research, and bookmarked this about collimating them (I've not needed it yet, but you never know ... ) It doesn't look incredibly difficult , just a bit of a faff to do in the dark. https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/476371-how-to-collimate-new-production-c90/#entry6217519