Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

  • Announcements


NGC 1502

Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

757 Excellent


About NGC 1502

  • Rank
    Brown Dwarf
  • Birthday 13/06/1948

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Essex U.K.
  1. Mirror clips on OO UK scopes

    Sorry to hear about the screwdriver accident, a bit of a pain, but as noted, it won’t make a scrap of difference to the viewing. However, those mirror clips are way too large. I’m a compulsive tinkerer, and while my OO 10” mirrors were away for a recoat several years ago, I reduced the size of the oversized clips. I like OO Newtonian scopes in general, but sometimes wonder about some of the features. The aluminium trim at the front end of the tube has an opening only fractionally larger than the primary mirror. If you read up on construction of truss tube Dobs, the upper tube section is always larger than the primary by some margin. I reduced the width of the trim on mine, therefore increasing the size of the opening to almost the diameter of the tube. Ed.
  2. Well done to find that. You have said you may flip it for a Dob. Now I’m a definite Dob fan, love them, suit me fine. But I’d give your new scope a good try out, at least several sessions before you jump. 8” SCTs are popular for a reason, decent aperture in a compact tube, tracking as well. It takes a while to fully evaluate a scope. Hope you can fix the motor. Maybe let us know how you get on. Cheers from Ed.
  3. Fully agree that M74 is tough. Never seen it from my backyard in SE Essex using my 10” Dob. The location next to Eta Pisces makes it simple to point a scope at it, but seeing it is another matter entirely. But when on holiday in the Peak District bagged it with no problem using a 6” F4 travel scope. No detail, just a fuzzy patch, but satisfying none the less. Enjoyed the opening post report. Ed.
  4. Foggy lense

    Sounds like a good idea to me. Yet another non-astronomy product that’s useful to us. Ed.
  5. Foggy lense

    As already mentioned, keeping eyepieces capped in a closed box when not in use helps. Some have a gently heated eyepiece box using a rechargeable hand warmer or those single use hand warmers. I often keep eyepieces capped and in an inside pocket, that works well too. Another way is a 12 volt hair dryer working from a power tank, or there’s dew bands that go round the eyepiece. Lots of options to try. HTH, Ed.
  6. 90 v 102 mak

    If a Mak won’t give you the low power you want, then your ST 120 will fill that role, or binoculars perhaps. For a long while my 90mm Mak had a Baader filter semi-permanently fitted, I used a 40mm Plossl that gave adequate field of view to see the whole solar disc, with plenty of room. Tack sharp views 👍 Ed.
  7. 90 v 102 mak

    If it were me, I’d go for the 102. I don’t know about makes other than my own 90mm Mak, it’s the optical tube from an ETX 90 removed from its go to mount, I use it on an alt-az. It makes a very portable planetary / lunar / double star scope, but a bit more aperture would be welcome.........a 102 wouldn’t be a big leap in what a 90 will do, but a bit extra all helps. HTH, Ed.
  8. EP advice for planetary - do I go ortho?

    I’ve found similar with my 10” Dob, Jupiter best at 120-200x, but other planets can take a bit more power given good seeing. Possibly it’s all that potential low contrast detail on Jupiter that limits somewhat very high powers ? Do others agree with that ? Ed.
  9. EP advice for planetary - do I go ortho?

    Eyepieces do make a difference, but echoing what Moonshane said in an earlier post, the biggest factor with planetary observing is how stable the atmosphere is. Other factors include a cooled and collimated telescope, planet as high in elevation as possible, being patient and waiting for the (usually rare) moment of best seeing, avoid viewing over a nearby warm building........ Ed.
  10. helios 80x20 binoculars

    Hi Garry, welcome to SGL. If you scroll down from the home page, there’s binoculars in the equipment section, and also in the observing section. Lots of good stuff in there, keep you busy for a long while...... Cheers from Ed.
  11. I need to lie down....

    Betcha it’s clear when I’ve got friends round............. 😫
  12. I need to lie down....

    It was good to see you at CPAC Alan, and great to see your signature “Visual Luddite Astronomer” 👍 See you soon, Ed.
  13. Skytee-2 spare parts sellers?

    I’d try the importers, optical vision, or our sponsors, first light optics. Or could you try to straighten the shaft ? If one end were taped to protect it in a vice, then a tube for a lever on the other end, then maybe you’d be sorted ? Hope you can fix it, Ed.
  14. New telescope

    I’m inclined to agree that a SW Heritage 130 would be good, and will allow a lower power/wider field than a Maksutov, as well as higher powers when needed. I do like Maksutovs, but they are more restricted for a nice low power, although binoculars can fill that role of course........so many choices........ Ed.
  15. Eyepiece choice is a very big subject, and there’s a huge range of opinion out there. If I let you know my own choices, it’s not likely to help all that much. Many of us own several telescopes, each with varying capability, so that confuses the issue even more....... Having said that, many would say that with a given telescope, you don’t need more than 3 or 4 eyepieces. I tried to make do with just two, but found that didn’t work very well and over time I need at least 3, a low power for finding objects and to view large ones, medium and high power. So for my 10” reflector, low power is 44x, medium 92x, high 171x. That covers 90% of my observing time. As I said, that suits me, but other folk may well find it doesn’t suit them. One point I have found to be valid, I’d far sooner have a small number of top eyepieces than a large number of inexpensive ones. See what others say, Ed.