Tiny Clanger

Double stars are a matter of complete indifference to me as far as observing goes 🙂 Interesting that actual binaries are estimated to constitute about half of our galaxy, but a far lower proportion beyond, but that's theory, not observing.

The size and weight of the bresser dobs is made clear on Bresser's site, and far easier to find than the equivalent info for some 'scopes (I know, 'cos I rather fancy the next size up, a 200mm dob, and research shows the Bresser is far lighter than the equivalents from other brands, an important factor for a weedy girlie like me , who would be carting the thing in and out of the house myself) So Bresser 150 (6") dob https://www.bresseruk.com/Astronomy/Telescopes/BRESSER-Messier-6-Planetary-Dobson-Telescope.html DIMENSIONS & WEIGHTS Net weight OTA (incl. accessories)8.3 kg Total length 45 cm Total width 45 cm Total height 128 cm Tube diameter 175 mm Tube length 800 mm Net Weight total (incl. accessories) 16.1 kg Net weight mount (incl. accessories) 7.8 kg I know the ads say the base can be dismantled/rebuilt easily , but as it is held together with furniture fasteners I'm not sure how it would cope with being taken apart regularly, maybe someone who owns one can give an opinion there . Remember you look in the side near the top of a dob, so that 128cm height (roughly where my light switches are) will be where an observer's eye needs to be for objects close to overhead, maybe not ideal for small folk ... Heather

Probably best I keep my conclusions to myself on that Heather

I came across it pre lockdown#1 , when I got home from a few days stay just down the coast , and though, gah ! I could have dropped in at one of their meetings ...

The answer is .... that depends ! What do you want from a finder that the stock RDF doesn't give you ? How do you use the RDF ? What sort of targets are you interested in ? Heather

Similar experience to Zermelo here , I have the 127 mak and BST 8mm & 12mm, and 6mm Baader ortho as my planetary use eyepieces in it. I've spent as much time looking at Jupiter and Saturn as possible, some nights the 12mm (125x) is OK but not the 8mm(187.5x) , best views have been on a very few nights of steady seeing, on one of which the 8mm's 187.5x showed me an absolutely stunning sharp black groove of a Cassini Division in Saturn's rings, and I could make out the swirling shapes within the coloured bands on Jupiter, and even pushed the mag. to 250x with the 6mm,( altho' that does also push the exit pupil to 0.5mm and therefore my eye floaters spoil the view as much as the atmosphere does, so not ideal ) It was a stunning few hours, my only gripe was that the GRS was round the back and out of sight at the time 😞 So, I'll agree, the seeing is probably most of the problem, I've no idea how long you are spending on each target, but persistence over an hour or more can give glimpses of better seeing , otherwise in the short term just hope for nights of great seeing this winter. Heather

I don't give 'scope aperture in inches, ever, and had to make an effort to check out what my 102 and 80mm refractors were in imperial when reading a US website to see if their info. applied to me. Celestron is US company so that explains their use of inches, which probably plays well to the locals, even if the kit is made in China .

Come on, people, OP was initially comparing two 'scopes of the same aperture, made a point of saying a major factor was their 'severe shortage of storage space' and has now actually ordered the Heritage 150 ... While you wait for the 'scope to arrive (and the clouds which will arrive in the box with it to disperse ...) if you've not already come across these links, have a look at this rather good free PDF which has a range of interesting targets possible to see in the UK, in less than dark skies, and with a small 'scope.The targets are rated gold/silver/bronze by a coloured bar , with bronze the easiest . https://las-astro.org.uk/docs/Loughton_List_v2_0.pdf a really good overview of the coming month http://www.whitby-astronomers.com/sky-notes and binocular sky's excellent monthly newsletter https://binocularsky.com/newsletter/BinoSkyNL.pdf is not just for binoculars 🙂 Heather

What really worries me about your account isn't the 'two countries divided by one language' thing, but that someone in the US employed a security person apparently unfamiliar with the concept of switches ...

Weight is good for stability, but obviously you need a permanent site for it to avoid breaking yourself trying to shift the thing . Way out of my field of knowledge, but I've read that people do build (or buy) piers , hefty columns as alternatives to tripods, do a search in the box top right for piers, and you'll see plenty, some will be concrete blocks, but there will be metal ones too.

Welcome to SGL. Any eyepiece with a 1.25" barrel diameter should fit the focuser and get the 'scope working, banjaxed's kind offer would be a start 🙂 Heather

Not surprised the befree was too wobbly, that's a tiny, lightweight travel tripod , I think it weighs less than a couple of kg ? I've not tried any out, but came across some interesting looking plans for triopds when I was looking for DIY observing chair plans, here are a few I bookmarked : https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/advice/build-a-low-cost-wooden-tripod/ https://www.eyesonthesky.com/tutorials/diy/2x4-tripod/ http://www.davetrott.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/How-to-Redeem-a-Department-Store-Telescope1.pdf https://www.cloudynights.com/articles/cat/articles/how-to/making-a-sturdy-wood-tripod-r1270

🙂

Low magnification is where the eyepieces faults get shown up, higher magnification ones are less of a problem, which s why I suggest an 8mm BST starguider, the consensus is that it and the 12mm BST are the best of the range, and you have to spend quite a bit more to get a substantial improvement. The stock 25mm is OK though, while the 10mm is less satisfactory. But I think it's sensible to be cautious. My first extra eyepiece was a 17mm plossl , with no idea (back in lockdown #1) if I'd perceive for myself any improvement over the stock eps I went for a focal length in between the 10 and 26, so even if it wasn't better, it would be a different magnification. It was sharper , clearer and altogether nicer, I got a 32mm plossl next, and so the slippery slope began to slide me away from my money ...

I bet Schopenhauer would have beaten me to my wording if carriages came equipped with brass bands back in his day 🙂

Not sure if anyone has pointed you here before, but if not, this will help you make realistic expectations::

That's very similar to my inverse law : "The volume of car stereos is inversely proportional to the tastefulness of the music involved."

The hyperions are not generally thought of as good in f5 'scopes, I've done a lot of research, believe me ! Very few eyepieces for low magnification views with wide fields give acceptable edges in an f5 or faster 'scope. My choices came down to something from the explore scientific ranges, or the Morpheus . While hoping something second hand would pop up , I noticed positive reviews of the OVL Nirvanas, and bought the 16mm , under £90 and 82 degrees FOV. It so happens that experience has shown me I like the 15/16/17mm sort of range in the dob, it gives me the best contrast between faint fuzzies and my suburban , light polluted sky . I'm very happy with the Nirvana, and will defo. buy a 7mm when they are back in stock. I also managed to buy an oldish, good quality , now discontinued , 24mm 68 degree eyepiece second hand , which is roughly similar to the explore scientific 24mm 68 degree https://www.firstlightoptics.com/explore-scientific-eyepieces/explore-scientific-68-degree-series-eyepieces.html , and it is really very good in the dob, and my other 'scopes too. So, I'm sorted for wide field (24mm and 32mm plossl) and over equipped for mid range ( 15 and 18mm BSTs, 16mm Nirvana) . But it's taken me a while to get there !

Sticky stuff removal is one of the only two things I use WD40 for (the other is drying my bike chain after cleaning it) give it a try, bet that Rigel sticky pad glue rubs straight off with a bit of rag or kitchen towel dosed with magic spray ... Heather

I'm a fan of individual eyepieces, and find I like to see a wide field , so zooms are not my thing , but plenty of people like them. The heritage dob , as a function of it's focal length (750mm) and aperture (150mm, divide the FL by this) has a focal ratio of f5. In practise this isn't terribly important except when you are looking for a low magnification, wide field eyepiece. Then bargain eyepieces can't cope very well, for instance I don't like my 24mm BST starguider (60 degree field of view) in the f5 heritage, but find it fine in my f11(ish) mak . So the little heritage would love some 'tasty' eyepieces (I'd like the Baader Morpheus 17.5mm thanks, a 72 deg, FOV for around the same money as the entire heritage dob ...) but the 'scope is fine with narrower field, mercifully cheaper e.p.s like the 32mm plossls ( plossl isn't a brand, but a lens arrangement) which have a FOV of around 50 degrees . It's all very confusing to start off with, but essentially in general cheaper eps give smaller FOV, while at the same magnification bigger more expensive eps are like looking through a bigger window , which a lot of people like, including me (unfortunately for the bank balance) Anyway, I found I actually preferred my skywatcher 'super' 32mm plossl (about £35 new) to my BST 24mm (about £50 new) in the heritage 150 , if you order your heritage 150 from flo it would be cost effective in terms of delivery to get at the same time one of their in stock 32mm plossls which look identical to the skywatcher ones https://www.firstlightoptics.com/astro-essentials-eyepieces/astro-essentials-super-plossl-eyepiece.html and are in stock and only £29. It's not a fabulous eyepiece , obviously, but it does the job. Heather

Simple physics isn't it ? I find it fascinating the way that some things like this fall outside general 'common sense' and loved working out how to explain it to the small folk I used to teach. Heather

It will be no surprise to anyone who reads the beginner kit threads on here that I'm going to chip in with great enthusiasm for the heritage 150. It ticked all the boxes for me as a first 'scope : price, aperture, ease of storage, I could not find anything to compare with it. If you've read around on here about the heritage, you'll know all about making a light shroud and doing the easy plumber's tape mod on the focuser, you will also want to think about a good stable stand, base or small table to raise the little dob to a workable height. Get the dob, and spend some of the money saved on a copy of 'Turn Left at Orion' an 8mm BST starguider eyepiece (to replace the horrible stock 10mm skywatcher bundles with every reasonably priced 'scope, the bundled 25mm is OK though) and a 32mm plossl to use as a wide view and 'finding stuff' eyepiece. Go on, get buying before the xmas gift rush snaps up all the good, well priced stuff ... Heather

1) to an extent. It will help, and delay dew condensing, but it's not perfect . It is, however, cheap and easy to make, so why not do it ? 2) I've not checked my sources , in fact I've no idea where I read it, but somewhere I came across a suggestion that the max. length for a dew shield (i.e. before it started to vignette the corners of the view) was 1.5x the aperture . Ha, I've found my bookmark, there's a formula in post #6 https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/486858-dew-shield-length-how-long-is-too-long/#entry6374801 3) Foam works fine, I started with cheap camping mat , but when I ordered some closed cell foam to make a shroud for my heritage dob I bought enough of the thin black closed cell foam to make a dew shield for the little dob and one for ny 127 mak, which is very dew - prone . The thin foam works really well. I looked at proplex, (or corriflute) which is essentially like corrugated card, but made of plastic (estate agent's signs are often made of similar stuff) but for a small diameter tube I didn't like the way it creased along the channels rather than making a smooth curve (sorry Wickes, that was me experimentally cracking the top sheet in the stack...) I also wondered if the open channels in the proplex might hold moisture. So, I went with this stuff https://www.efoam.co.uk/closed-cell-polyethylene-foam.php It is closed cell, so does not absorb water, is opaque, dark and dull, so will help avoid extraneous light as a bonus. I used 3mm thick , but for a larger diameter aperture 'scope I'd suggest going up to 5mm or more to avoid it being a bit floppy if there's a breeze. I did a bunch of experiments to find out how best to glue some velcro onto it , and the best glue I found was hot melt glue gun stuff, which surprised me as I has expected the hot glue to melt the foam ! A year on, and all the things I made are still going strong. I found the self adhesive velcro stuck to itself far better than it did to the foam., total waste of money, simple velcro + the correct glue for the job is far better. Heather

On here second hand BSTs usually go for around £35 , they don't hang around long , get in fast if any become available. At that price they are a risk free investment, anyone buying one and wanting to upgrade in the future can sell it on again easily. I wasn't confident that I'd see any improvement over the stock skywatcher eyepieces by spending more, so tried a skywatcher 17mm plossl , which gave far sharper views than the 10mm stock one, albeit at a lower magnification (the 25mm stock ep is actually OK though, don't rush to replace that) . Convinced by my personal experience in my 'scope (at the time, the heritage dob) I tried a sw 12.5mm plossl, hated it, bought an 8mm BST and saw how much better , sharper and more detailed a view it gave than the stock 10mm or 12.5 plossl . The BST's eye relief and 60 degree field of view are greater than a plossl too. Heather

Something just struck me ... despite being never further than arms length from a DSLR (well, except when in the bathroom ) , and having at least two adequate tripods not actually occupied with telescopes available to deploy, it didn't even cross my mind to try and photograph the aurora , I was too fascinated with just looking. I think I'm innately safe from the dangers of the astro photo money pit 🙂 Heather