Jasonb

That looks a lot closer than I've managed! I have read that some 'faster' scopes can have the secondary offset and that's the way it's meant to be, so that might be the case with yours (I don't know the focal length of your scope)? Either way, I'm no expert at all, but that looks pretty good and if you're happy with the star test I reckon you're good to go?

Ok, I now have a new plan for collimation. I spent a while at it yesterday, and in the end I couldn't tell if I was making it better or worse! It just seems a bit too vague and inexact. Even with the cheshire, I could change the position of the crosshairs etc. by barely touching the focuser tube (the part that moves in and out, not the part that's mounted to the OTA). There was enough give in the tube to make getting it all centred guesswork at best. I got different results if I had the tube extended fully or not extended at all. And every time I adjusted one of the secondary mirror screws that act of just putting pressure on the Allen Key would move the view in the Cheshire, never mind actually moving the screw itself. And then the guides say that some fast telescopes (mine's an f/5) might have a built-in offset, so the secondary might be offset from the centre, and that's correct. So it's hard to know if an offset secondary is right for your scope, or wrong! So, in the end, I have a new, two part plan. Firstly, when I get a Barlow (when they are back in stock) and I can get much higher magnification, I'll try a star test and see how it goes. And the longer term plan is to get someone who knows what they're doing to have a look at it, once we're actually allowed to travel/meet people again. Until then I'll read through Turn Left at Orion and wait for some clear skies, whenever that might be! 😀

Ha! And a happy christmas to you too Heather! Yourself and Zermelo (and everyone else, to be fair) have been so helpful and welcoming since I joined, so do appreciate it!. I'm afraid that a BST, and a Barlow, were beyond even Santa's capabilities. But that's ok, a Cheshire was always first on the list, no point having better eyepieces and magnification if the scope isn't optimised in the first place. I'll be adding a Barlow next. I was also lucky to get a copy of Turn Left at Orion which turned out to be much more detailed and bigger than I thought. Have already started reading it, it's fascinating! Collimation does feel like the dark arts Malcolm, hopefully it'll become more natural over time!

Happy Christmas to you Zermelo! It did occur to me that there was nothing more 'newbie' than posting about Collimation on Christmas Day! 🤣 Yeah, I've tinkered a bit with it over the last few weeks, but was also wary of making it worse, or buggering it up completely! Now that I have a Cheshire I'll definitely dedicate some time to it and see what I can do. I just want to make sure that the scope is optimally set up as much as possible.

Happy Christmas everyone! So, good news, I now have a Cheshire, unwrapped from the FLO box this morning. This is the one I have... https://www.firstlightoptics.com/other-collimation-tools/astro-essentials-cheshire-collimating-eyepiece.html With 5 minutes to myself I put it in my SkyWatcher 130P and I've attached the view I get through the pinhole in the top of it, with the focuser all the way out. From what I can see, the crosshairs are fairly close, if not perfect, on the primary donut. As a reminder, the Primary is not adjustable on this scope, just the secondary. The donut doesn't look centred on the larger black circle of the secondary. And the 'white' circle with the black dot is from the hole at the side of the Cheshire, I don't know if that's meant to be centred or not? One of the three spider vanes looks straight on, but the other two look like I can see the side of them a little? So, what do people think, is it terrible/ok/pretty close/too hard to tell from this photo? I'm going to have a proper look at it when things have quietened down today or tomorrow, but just wanted to put a pic up for opinions! Thanks...

Thanks for your reply! In the end I got a closed tube scope so I don't have to worry about a shroud, though I may look at making a dew shield alright...

Just looked at a video of the Heritage 100P and while the primary is fixed the secondary looks like its adjustable, so collimation could definitely be an issue, or at least something to try!

Have been up to my eyes these last few days. and the weather hasn't been great, so I haven't go to see much at all. It was clearish last night, but it quickly changed, so I only really got a chance to look at the moon. Am hopeful I might get a chance to visit a darker site somewhere nearby over the Christmas if I get a good evening.

Well that's excellent advice, thanks Stephan! Got it all set up on Skysafari and I can see the 'view' ring change whenever I choose a different Eyepiece or my Binoculars. Thanks a lot!

I couldn't even go that low last night, Sirius was barely visible for me. Maybe later in the night it might have cleared the neighbour's house.

Yep, last night definitely got me thinking about the RACI again Heather. Apart from struggling with the orientation etc., I also found the RDF fine for bright stars, but anything else was kinda drowned out by the Red Dot itself, even at its dimest setting. I think a RACI would give me a few things. Firstly, the image will be the right way around etc., but it would also be magnified, which means I get to see some of the smaller 'guiding' stars I'd use for star hopping, just like with my binoculars. And while switching between the RACI and the scope would still present orientation difficulties, a similar number of stars would be in view (i.e. the main one I'm looking at and some of its neighbours), which should help me identify the area in I'm in easier, and it's quicker going from RACI to scope than from Binoculars to scope, and the RACI would be aligned, so I don't have to worry about finding the part of the sky I'm pointing my binoculars at with my scope. Food for thought! I've checked out Skysafari, which I'm sure has thousands of features I haven't even looked at yet. It gives me the option of choosing my FOV, and also adding some rings at whatever distances I want, so that would help. However, I'm guessing I'm missing some Maths/knowledge here: Let's say I'm using a BST (as I hope to in the New Year.). It has a FOV of 60 degrees. However, am I right in thinking that depending on the focal length of the eyepiece, and the focal length of the telescope, you will get a different 'area' of stars in your eyepiece for each different eyepiece, even though they all say 60 degrees? If that's the case, how do I know which FOV to enter into Skysafari for my telescope/a particular eyepiece? Does that make sense?

That's beautiful...

So I was driving home last night after being out for dinner with a friend (it's been a while since we were allowed to do that!) when I noticed that despite the forecast for rain and clouds, it was really clear out! I quickly got my scope out, and while it was cooling down, took out my binoculars and went back to the Moore Winter Marathon. I spent far too long trying to find number 3 on the list, M33. Still had no luck finding it, either with my binoculars or my scope. I did find M31 with my scope, but even that took a few minutes. I'm still struggling with the change in orientation between the naked eye/binoculars and a telescope. With binoculars I can easily star hop using a map, but with the telescope the orientation change, and the addition of a lot more stars, makes it harder for me to find my way. Anyhow, got to see M31 in my scope which was cool, and then went back to my binoculars and the list. Number 5 is the Beehive Cluster, M44, and I found it well enough, it was pretty low in the horizon, but Procyon was a good guide and it soon came in to view. Number 6, M67, was too low and some clouds were covering it, so that's for another night. 8, 9 and 10 are three clusters, M36, M37 and M38, and using Elnath and Capella as a guide, I was able to find all three, quite faint but there none the less! 11, M41, was far too low, I could barely see Sirius between two houses and it's lower than that, so that was will have to wait also. Similar for M50, number 12 on the list, not quite as low but still too low for me at that time. 13 was easy, the 'Celestial G' they call it, using the stars Betelgeuse, Bellatrix, Rigel, Sirius, Procyon, Pollux, Castor, Capella and Aldebaran. Sirius was the only one I had to strain to see (between those houses) and the rest were clear and obvious. Didn't even need binoculars for that one! 14 and 15 were in a part of the sky I haven't looked at much, pretty much overhead! 14 is M34, a cluster in Perseus between Algol and Almach. Using those as a guide it was easy enough to find with binoculars. 15 is Alpha Persei Moving Cluster, around the star Mirphak, and easy to find. Clusters always surprise me, looking up with binoculars and suddenly seeing so many more stars! 16 was another easy one, Theta Tauri, an optical double star to the right of Aldebran in the Hyades. One of those ones that just stands out and you can't miss it! 17 was a creak in your neck one, using Cassiopeia as a guide, you follow the top of the 'w' to find Kemble's Cascade, a faint line stars with a small open cluster at the end. Once you're in the right part of the sky, the faint line becomes obvious. At this stage I was getting cold (well, my hands were, I have to look at gloves I can wear that will still work with a touch-screen!) but I kept on going as it was still so clear apart from at the horizons. Using Cassiopeia again, I found number 18, a double cluster in Perseus, once again giving my neck some gip! 19 is Fornax, a small constellation but once again too low for me to see. I loved the next one, using my Binoculars to find the "Pi's" of Orion, basically the bow/lion skin (depending on which you prefer!). Always like anything to do with Orion! 21 was too low, and I did have a look at 22 again, Orion's Sword, using the telescope to have another look at the Orion Nubula. 23 brought me back to Hyades, using Aldebaran as a starting point and following a light to find Lambda Tauri, a variable star. Obviously the fact that it's variable isn't noticeable with one visit, but with a period of 4 days a few viewings in a row could show you the difference compared to nearby stars. 24 is even lower than everything else, and will have to wait for another night. So that was my night! Nearly 2 hours out there, and I got a lot done. Used the binoculars a lot more than the scope, it was handier for the size of the objects I was looking for, and handier for my star hopping to find them! I now have 7 left in the initial list of 25, and most of them were too low to be seen. Either I need to wait until later in the night, or, if I'm right, later in the winter, for them to become easier to see. And I haven't given up on M33 yet either! One thing I have noticed now is my familiarity with the sky is improving so much (wouldn't be tough considering where I started!). I can now point out Castor, Pollux, Procyon, Capella, Aldebaran, Sirius, Polaris, Pleiades, Hyades etc. easily. Nothing amazing there, all very obvious targets, but considering I started out with Orion/Cassiopeis/Big Dipper, it's a big difference. Have to try to get some more targets in the Northern Sky, but in my defence, I do have my house in the way!

Excellent, thanks for.posting that, it's good to have a sense of how long the dew shield is!

Thanks for that too Heather, I'll definitely give it a go with her. She loved seeing Mars, but quickly got bored after that! It's definitely going to be my go-to list for the next while, whenever there's a decent night. That and M31 and M42, 'cos they're just cool! How the hell have I got over 100 posts already? I only joined a little over 3 weeks ago!

Ah Heather, that Messier catalogue pdf is perfect! Had already decided the Messier Catalogue was next once I'd finished the Moore Winter one, and you've now given me a great format for it, thanks! Dull and cloudy here this evening, doubt I'll be seeing anything...

Yeah, I do think my location (urban back yard with a good bit of light pollution) wasn't helping. Will try again with my scope next time, or when I do visit a darker site I can have a look for it then too.

Great, thanks a lot Zermelo, good to have those figures!

Definitely gives me something to go on Zermelo, thanks! While I think of it, would you know their FOV as well?

Great, thanks! Will have to check them out the next time, so far I haven't tried wearing my glasses while using the scope...

Thanks! I can't take the credit for it, @Tiny Clangerrecommended it to me!

Hi all, So, if I'm right, eye-relief effectively means how far away your eye should be from the eyepiece to see through it perfectly? I've seen some reviews/comments on Eye Relief along the lines that if it has 'good eye-relief' (let's say 16mm or something) then it's handy for people who wear glasses, as I'm guessing that means they can have the glasses on and still see through the eyepiece correctly. This interests me as I've only recently started wearing glasses. However, what I'm curious about is what's the eye relief on the stock eyepieces I got with my scope? Is there any way I can find this out, or are they too generic to know? The two eyepieces I have came with my Skywatcher StarQuest 130P and are labelled Super 25 Wide Angle Long Eye Relief and Super 10 Long Eye Relief. Thanks in advance!

I had a similar experience a week or so ago. Delighted to see those 4 moons and the clear distinction between Saturn and its rings. Looking forward to seeing it again if I get the right conditions, though how low they are in the sky doesn't help.

Yep, came on here to post the same thing, the link Tiny Clanger posted! Great value, and as of this moment I think it's still available!

You can find the Observing Guide PDFs on this page... The Sky at Night: Winter Moore Marathon (cf.ac.uk) It's from a few years ago, so the planets are in the wrong position, but the rest of it is all correct. I think it's handy to have some guide/targets to aim for, especially for me as I'm starting out...