NGC 1502

Best check for collimation is to view a bright star at high power. For a 10”, 200x is ok. Slightly defocus until you see diffraction rings. They look like several rings within each other. They should look concentric, not skewed to one side. VERY IMPORTANT- keep the defocussed star central in your eyepiece view.

“What could I see?” This is a very understandable question to ask. However if you don’t mind me saying, it’s a bit like a new car owner asking “where can I drive to?” Some good advice above. One of the posts suggested keeping it simple. That’s good advice to begin with. Perhaps observe what you’re already familiar with using your 4.5” scope, then take it from there. Over time decide what type of object you like to observe. Plenty of categories of object types- Solar System- moon, planets, asteroids, comets. Open and globular clusters. Double stars. Planetary nebulae. Dimmer objects like galaxies……lots more. A 6” reflector could sustain a lifetimes observing. I wish I had Bortle 4 at home with Bortle 2 not far away😊

I feel your pain…….right now where it hurts😢 But if astronomy is in your blood like it is in mine….please don’t give up and sell up all your kit…..you’ll only regret it and spend BIG bucks when you buy it all back again😊 Ed.

Ouch, hard to even read about. However, how is the collimation? Maybe it’s still ok but if not perhaps a repair is possible. One other thing….some home insurance policies might cover this? Worth checking the small print. Hope you sort it…. Ed.

Not everyone will agree to this, but it’s worked for me over many years without a problem. Use tepid water and regular washing up liquid- more than just a few drops. Buy good quality cotton makeup cleaning pads from Boots or similar. Gently wipe underwater, use each pad just once. Rinse with distilled/de-ionised water. Examine. Not clean? Try again, gently, then rinse. Stand mirror on edge, dry with a hairdryer on a not very warm setting. If necessary use a corner of good quality kitchen towel for larger drops of water, dab, don’t wipe. If it’s better but not perfect, quit while you’re ahead. Doesn’t have to be pristine to work very well indeed. A few drying streaks are no problem. As I said, never had a problem, neither has a clubmate who’s made mirrors for others and has an optical workshop, definitely knows his stuff. If anyone disagrees, all fine, I don’t bite😊 Ed.

While you’re in that area of sky you are close to Barnard’s star, the star with the highest known Proper Motion. It’s a mag +9.5 red dwarf in the same low power field as 66 Ophiuchi. On a moonless and transparent night I’ve bagged it with my 70mm Pronto from my light polluted back yard. Well worth tracking down😊 Ed.

I think this is a really great idea (or it would be if it hadn’t been cloudy for so long😢). The humble 60mm scope can sometimes be looked down upon as a beginner’s scope. And yet how many of us (me included) have exhausted the possibilities of a scope before “upgrading” to something larger? Over the years I’ve suffered from “upgrade-itus” with scopes and eyepieces, then ended up with so much stuff that only collects dust not starlight…. I’m wishing this idea every success 👍 Ed.

Great report, thanks 👍 I too find hand holding my 10x50s not so easy. Seated observing (as you do) certainly helps. Albireo is split in moments of steady hand holding. With the unaided eye Alcor/Mizar is an easy double for me. From my light polluted back yard M31 is easy even in my 8x30s. Part of the joy of binocular observing is the “correct” orientation views. A local clubmate, now sadly no longer around, used an 80mm spotter scope also used for birdwatching. Mounted on a steady alt-az and with its angled eyepiece, that too was a great way to observe with its “correct” orientation. For me my 7x50s are far easier to hand hold than my 10x50s, however the latter give a noticeably more “punchy” view. The answer to that is perhaps image stabilised binos. Once at a dark site I used a friend’s 15x50 IS and was blown away by the view and equally blown away when he told me the cost😢 Keep up the good work and let us know what you see👍 Ed.

The 2 scopes you already have complement each other nicely. ST80 for low power wide field, ETX90 for medium to higher powers. If the 130/900 Newtonian was not stable on your current mount your choices are very limited. Perhaps a short focal length 114/500 Newtonian? That would give more aperture than you already have, and still provide low power wide field, higher power, and be in budget. All the best in your choices😊 Ed.

Hi Alan…….love the new shed…….just one comment……..there’s room for a much bigger Dob in there😁😁 Ed.

I’m a Radian fan as well. I’m thinking the shift from 8mm to 7mm is not worth worrying about. I’ve tried a clubmates 9mm Delite, best part is the lightweight design compared with the Radian. The Delites have well documented and deserved approval in many reviews. I’m also a minimalist by nature……..unfortunately I’ve not kept to that in practice😁

Ouch🙁. Well ok then, I sort of get that and I certainly admit that digital photography is so much “better” in many ways. However, consider this, some folk like classic cars. It’s not because they’re more efficient, easier to drive, easier to get parts for, faster etc. It’s because some of them are stunningly beautiful, fabulously engineered. It’s the same idea as traditional film photography equipment. Just holding a Canon F1 35mm film camera complete with an FD lens, there’s simply nothing as satisfyingly fabulously beautiful. In comparison a DSLR is a lump of uninspiring plastic, even if it’s more “efficient”. I’ve had my moan and feel so much better😊unfortunately my shoulder is very sore because a Canon F1 and a bunch of lenses is so flippin’ HEAVY😁

Hi Marv. I’ve not done anything like that myself…….but on many occasions Mars has been reported as a Nova😁 BTW, I’m another fan of Burnham’s Celestial Handbook. My 3 volume set is the rarer hardback versions. Ed.

With reference to the star you have red circled and is designated Struve 2021 / 49. On my S&T sky atlas it’s just marked as 49 Ser. Therefore it’s definitely not 49 Herculis! On your chart it’s a bit confusing to have 2 stars with the same Flamsteed number in the same constellation!

What edition CDSA do you have? Edition 1 is very different from edition 2. Edition 1 definitely had mistakes. Edition 2 was not just an update but a complete rewrite, and much the better for that. Just checked my CDSA edition 2, chart 10. The star you have red circled and is designated Struve 2021 / 49 is just designated Struve 2021 in edition 2. It’s close to the Serpens Caput border. Perhaps precession has shifted it from Serpens Caput into Hercules. Also on your chart the 49 designation must be a mistake. 49 is a Flamsteed number and is way too high a number for the west side of Hercules. Also in my edition 49 Herculis agrees with the other star you have red circled and is designated 49. BTW, cannot recall if precession has shifted constellation borders east or west. Anyone remember? The above is astronomy when it’s cloudy😊

Cloudy Nights forum has a section on film based astrophotography. For regular daytime film photography check out West Yorkshire Cameras, or Clocktower Cameras Brighton. There are others and prices are often high!

I would be very interested to hear your comparison 😊

Do you have an alternative to the conservatory? Your very hot conservatory is not ideal, neither is the opposite, very cold and damp storage with no air circulation. Ideal would be cool, dry, dust free, air circulation and of course secure. But it’s often a trade off between the convenience you have near to your observing spot and ideal storage. If it were me I’d weigh up any alternative storage you may have and make the best trade off (compromise) you can. Perhaps in the coldest months of the year when your conservatory doesn’t get extremely hot, it may be the best compromise. And of course the coldest months have the longest hours of darkness. Ed.

Only a t-shirt? Well now, I suppose if it’s dark no one will notice you only have a t-shirt on😁

All of the above plus- Faster set up without having to put on many layers😀

Indeed, with most reflectors that’s true. Not so however with AstroSystems Newtonians. The whole primary cell with mirror attached to the tube with tiny precision screws. It was a simple job to remove, clean the mirror and reattach with collimation unaffected. Tape could be applied around the edge of the mirror and cell so the felt between mirror and cell did not get wet. Simple, effective, brilliant 👍 ……..sadly they don’t make them like that now! Ed.

AstroSystems of Luton got close to this. The primary was glued to thin felt, the felt was glued to a plate that was part of the mirror cell. This did not stress the glass because the felt effectively allowed expansion and contraction of the glass and the cell in different amounts without affecting the other. Simple and brilliant idea! And no mirror clips protruding onto the optical surface. The secondary was siliconed to its mount. Some versions had a full tube diameter support, some had a shorter single vane stalk. Whilst these used thicker metal than usual, once set up they did not shift. They were a bit of a faff to adjust but you only needed to do it once! I once owned an AstroSystems 8.5” f5 Newtonian on an alt-az pillar mount. It was brilliant. And then I STUPIDLY SOLD IT!! If anyone has one, I urge you to be TOTALLY STUPID AND SELL IT TO ME😁 Ed.

Please update when you can, will watch with interest👍

Over many years I’ve made several Dob mounts and modified others. I think experimenting is key because it’s hard to predict how well it will work in practice, especially (as mentioned) at high power. There’s so many factors involved and not just in the choice of materials. I once made a Dob mount for a Skywatcher 10” Newtonian tube assembly bought secondhand. It was ok at low power but iffy at over 100x. After lots of frustrating DIY eventually the problem was revealed. The plywood base of the mount was not completely flat. As it turned on the ground board at times it was ok but at other times it was not, like trying to push something uphill or downhill. Let me explain further “pushing uphill” :- As the mount is rotated you are also trying to lift the rocker box and tube assembly a tiny bit higher from the ground. At other times the opposite occurs. Stiction will vary greatly from no stiction to obvious and frustrating stiction. I’m hoping the above makes sense. Although the construction of a Dob mount looks simple in design don’t allow that to make you casual. Make everything exactly square and flat, rigid as possible. Make it less of a hassle to take apart if necessary by not using glue in the joints, just screws. The “stucco embossed aluminium sheet” certainly looks the part- and as it works so well rejoice👍 Ed.