NGC 1502

Skywatcher ED80 is a great choice but above your budget at £599 at FLO, but they’re often available second hand. Or there’s the ED72 version at under your budget. The ED80 has been around for many years, tried and tested and a favourite with many without breaking the bank. All the best with your choice, Ed.

I’m not nit picking here- When you say you’re trying to remove the mirror do you mean the mirror cell complete with mirror as a single unit? To remove the mirror cell complete with mirror you need to take out all of the screws that attach the mirror cell to the tube. The screws on the back surface of the cell are collimation screws and lock screws, leave those in place. When the cell finally pulls away from the tube it may come free suddenly, so be prepared for that. As mentioned above it’s possible that tube rings have distorted the tube enough to hinder what you’re trying to achieve. Hope you sort it, Ed.

I’ve had a 2” Orion Ultrablock for years and found it excellent, mainly used with my 10” Dob under typical town skies and better country skies. I always found it excellent as long as used appropriately on suitable objects. A few weeks ago I had the chance to purchase a used 2” Lumicon UHC from a friend. I had several sessions comparing the Lumicon and Ultrablock. On objects like M27, M76, the Veil east and west sections, I could not detect a difference in the views. The only difference I found was the thread issue mentioned above. The Ultrablock was not completely compatible with some eyepieces but the Lumicon has no issues like that. I think it’s likely that my Ultrablock was one of the better ones, it’s now found a home with a local friend. Ed.

By ‘tracking’ I’m presuming you mean a motor driven mount. Essentially as long as the mount is properly set up and the correct tracking option selected then whatever magnification you’re using the object you’re viewing should remain within the field of view. Does that answer your question? Ed.

Very definitely agree that an occasional DIY is best. Save your money 👍

Thanks for that👍 Like most of us I use online info. However printed info in a magazine is great, especially if it simplifies by only listing events visible from UK. It’s a VERY big disappointment when you hear of a triple transit and then read it’s below the horizon from here😢

Brilliant, thanks Stu👍

Hello all. Can anyone please point me to an online source that lists Jupiter events for this year? Moon transits and shadow transits, occultations, great red spot. I’ve searched and all that comes up are previous years! What I’m looking for is likely staring me in the face but I can’t find it, a bit like in the supermarket🙄 Thanks in advance, Ed.

Absolutely no worries at all. I often get it wrong myself, therefore when someone else does, it’s a big relief😊

Thanks for your excellent well written review👍 Are you certain the TV diagonal has a non-metal base plate? Plastics can be excellent and long lasting but I agree it’s disconcerting in such a high end product. I own 2 TV diagonals. One is a late model 1.25” Everbrite purchased used for my elderly Vixen 80 achromat that has a 1.25” focuser. The second is a 2” from the 1990s before Everbrites were made, it’s used with my TV Pronto. The aluminium coating looks fine from the coated side. However when removed for cleaning it does show the first signs of deterioration. When viewed from the reverse side against a bright light there’s one or two patches that are mildly blotchy. So for very long term service the Everbrite is a good idea. I also have an unbranded 2” diagonal that came with a used TV85 bought 8 years ago. Sadly the TV85 suffered abuse in transit. The lens cell had shifted relative to the tube and was obviously out of collimation in use. (TV lens cells are fixed to the tube by 3 screws, not threaded on). In your section about the Altair diagonal you mention you “can’t tell any real difference” with the others. I’m guessing you mean the views were similar through all, and that’s my experience with my own diagonals. Enjoyed your review, thank’s again, Ed.

I like that mount in several ways. Simple no fuss, looks like the tube won’t hit the tripod legs. I hope you don’t mind me mentioning that the altitude shaft does look a bit too thin? Just wondering how vibration free it is, especially at high power. Maybe it’s fine and my reservations are unfounded.

I think it depends on what you mean by “ok”. At 120x the view is likely to be pleasing but not pin sharp. For me I’d sooner have a smaller but sharper view. If you wait until the planets are at their highest above the horizon that will help. No need for a dark site and if the moon is up it won’t spoil the view of bright objects. Others have suggested using filters to improve the view so that’s worth exploring. Considering the price the 80/400 refractors are a great buy.

Sounds like your scope is like the Shortube 80, an 80mm objective with 400mm focal length. It’s far from useless, I once had a very similar scope and can confirm it’s great👍 A short focal length achromat does have false colour (chromatic aberration) but don’t let that discourage you. For deep sky observing that’s often not a problem. You can enjoy great low to medium power views. On brighter objects like moon and planets the false colour is seen, but again you can get great views if you don’t use too high powers, perhaps up to 100x or possibly a bit more. So, to get back to your original question, how stable is that mount, at low to medium powers it will be fine. If you don’t fully extend the tripod legs that helps, a lower mount is more stable. If the eyepiece is low then use a chair for seated observing. If you can get away from a brightly lit town that helps greatly especially for deep sky observing. Enjoy your astronomy. Best wishes from Ed in the UK👍

Never had conditions like that!! On rare occasions my scope has had to warm up rather than cool down when the outside temp had changed fast due to rapid weather change. At the other end of the temperature scale I’ve never had sessions ended due to being cold myself. But on a few occasions the dew got so bad that my Newtonian primary dewed up. The secondary dews up more frequently but I can usually sort that with a dew gun pointing down the focuser. Well done for setting up at 11.30pm, definitely done similar to grab an unexpected clear sky👍

I’ve owned all focal lengths of BST Starguiders except the 25mm. I found the best of the bunch are the 5mm, 8mm, 12mm and for the price are exceptional. The 15mm and 18mm were not as good with my f4.8 Dob but still not too bad considering the price. The 3.2mm was a disaster and perhaps a faulty unit. I realise the 3.2mm produces very high power, but compared with my 2.5mm and 4mm Vixen LVs the BST 3.2mm Starguider was only sharp in centre field and very fuzzy off axis.

As far as optical quality is concerned I wouldn’t be bothered where eyepieces are made. Even the very inexpensive eyepieces like Astro Essentials sold by our sponsors FLO are remarkably good especially considering the price. You’ve mentioned “viewing Andromeda”. For deep sky observing eyepiece quality is less demanding that planet or double star observing. When observing planets like Jupiter/Saturn/Mars at high power in good conditions, that’s when high end eyepieces may possibly pull ahead. Squeezing that subtle last drop of planetary detail is very demanding of sky conditions, optical quality and observer skill. Ed.

First of all welcome to SGL😁 Presumably you have a reflector scope and your “feractor” is miss spelt. As a first step it’s best to make sure it’s properly collimated and I realise you’re saying you think that’s ok. Sometimes laser collimators are themselves not correctly collimated leading to errors. Maybe a more basic method would help. Do an online search for- “Gary Seronic telescope collimation” and carefully follow the instructions. It’s the best collimation guide I’m aware of. When you’ve done that try another session using the scope for nighttime observing. Make sure you don’t try too high magnifications. For a 114mm reflector 150x is realistic. Better to have a smaller but sharper view than larger but fuzzier. Best if you don’t observe objects that are very low close to the horizon, wait until they’re higher up. If you still don’t get good views then I’m not sure what your next step would be. If you’ve already replaced parts you have a decision- further expense and spend more money than a brand new scope, or invest more with unknown results. All the best with your project. Whatever you do persistence will be worth it eventually, a lifetime of great views awaits👍 Cheers from Ed.

Yep, I’d like to know too🤔

But it is what you asked for😁

Good call from Louis D.

A 60mm/400mm refractor makes a lovely low power wide field scope. If the mount is not great then low power will give the least wobbly view. If it were me that would be how I’d be using it. A great low power eyepiece would be a TeleVue 24mm Panoptic, it’s small and light for traveling. It would give 17x and around 4 degrees of sky. Add to that a UHC filter. Without the filter you would have an excellent low power for things like sweeping along the Milky Way in the autumn. Add the filter as appropriate, like the North America nebula near Deneb. Do not underestimate what can be seen under a good dark sky with a 60mm. Once I took my 70mm Pronto to a star party in the UK leaving my larger instruments at home. The lightweight simplicity was great and I did not regret my decision. Your suggestions may certainly help, like a water bottle counterweight, take it empty for traveling then fill it for use👍 Even at home under my light polluted sky my Pronto is great, it transforms a seemingly blank bit of sky into loads of stars just below what’s visible to the unaided eye. Whatever….enjoy your scope and let us know you get on😊

I take my hat off to those with the skill and patience to successfully make a mirror. Financially not worth it in the smaller sizes but immensely satisfying I would assume.

So many options…..only you will know what suits you best. For me being purely visual I’d stick to a Dob mount. The fact that the tube assembly is supported on both sides helps a great deal with stability. As mentioned earlier, best to make the mount tall enough for seated observing. The Cape Newise can be difficult to collimate, but with patience it can be done. The physically short tube makes it wonderfully compact👍

Maybe a google search could help, or contact local astronomy clubs? In the UK we have 3 coating companies- Galvoptics, Orion Optics UK, and another who’s name escapes me🙄 All the best in your search, Ed.

Traditional Newtonian offset is achieved by offsetting away from the focuser and nearer the primary by equal amounts. The excellent diagram in the previous post shows that. Offset can be achieved by fixing the secondary non symmetrically, or having unequal length spider vanes. However there’s another school of thought that says correct collimation can be achieved with non-offset. In that case it means that the optical train is correct but won’t be concentric within the tube. Both methods work but with non-offset collimation it will cause a problem with go-to scopes. That’s because the optical train is not pointing in the exact same direction as the tube. Another problem will arise with Orion Optics UK Newtonians. The front end trim opening is the same diameter as the primary mirror. Light will be cut off from reaching one edge of the primary mirror, unless the lip is removed as previously mentioned. For me I prefer traditional offset, it’s not hard if you take your time. I know all this can be a deterrent for some folk to choose a Newtonian. I think that’s a shame because the Newtonian is definitely the “best bang for the buck” when compared to the alternatives. And once grasped collimation is not difficult but becomes routine.