Ags

My skies are Bortle 7 according to the site, which would mean M31 would be possible naked eye, which hasn't been my experience. Regardless of what the map says, there is a lot of variation. Some nights feel like Bortle 6 and a lot feel like Bortle 8.

The two lobes are not round. They are just rough potato shapes. The object needs dozens of times the radius (millions of times the volume) to be spherical due to gravity.

Originally the LX2 was only suited to the northern hemisphere, but they have brought out an NS variant for 30 euros more that does both hemispheres: https://www.omegon.eu/camera-mounts/omegon-mount-mini-track-lx2-ns/p,57993

Pictures please, @AlYev!

Big milestone for SpaceX. Today a Falcon first stage flew for the third time for the first time. (Too many numbers in that sentence...) https://www.space.com/42599-spacex-falcon-9-rocket-3rd-launch-success-sso-a.html

Not exactly the postman, but my partner did spot a council worker on top of a cherry picker, doing something to my street light. Could it be connected to my complaint about glare from the light, which somehow got much worse a few weeks ago? Indeed it was! Tonight the I can see the worst of the glare has gone and while the light still makes its presence known, it is tolerable. For the first time in a few weeks I felt inclined to spend some time under the stars, just doing some naked-eye observing. Very relaxing - do we really need all this equipment?

With the Oculus Go you only need your smartphone to initially set up the headset. After that it is completely self contained and you don't need the phone for anything.

I am a big fan of the Oculus Go - I have two of them! Do you have links to the Apollo 11 and ISS sims?

Basically plastic, more plastic, and traces of microchip?

Big milestone for SpaceX: https://www.google.nl/amp/s/www.teslarati.com/spacex-falcon-9-block-5-return-to-launch-site-landing/amp/#ampf=undefined

Hi, welcome to forum! May I suggest NOT getting the scope yet. I've heard nothing but good about the ZS61, but maybe you don't need it. I presume you have some camera lenses for your camera - some of these may be excellent for astrophotography. That will save you some upfront expense and you will be able to start out your learning curve at a shorter focal length and less weight, which will mean easier polar alignment and longer subs. Also the lenses are probably faster, so those longer subs will also go much deeper. What lenses do you have?

Its been solid rain for several days but I don't remember buying anything?????

Start as you mean to carry on!

You have twice as many eyepiece cases as I have eyepieces! (Not counting the odd SR4 or Super 25...) My eyepiece case is quite deep, I was thinking of perhaps having a second layer of less used oculars.

This has become a bit theoretical as I have a Berlebach Castor on loan, and it now looks like all available funds may be diverted to the mount acquisition department. But my current thoughts are as follows: Widefield: ES 24/68, TS 16/82, SW 9.4/82, ES 6.7/82 (of these I still need to acquire the 16 mm) Planetary: 12SLV, 9SLV (I also have the ES 6.7 mm for golden nights). I've figured out my eyepiece case can only hold 8 eyepieces, so that leaves two slots. maybe room for a 15SLV and 6SLV ?

A fellow SGLer dropped off a Berlebach Castor; I have it on loan for a few weeks. It's twice as big as I expected, but very smooth!

I think a Radian is a bit too much money and it looks like other options go for less new and at least equal them optically. If one came along at the right price I would snap it up though!

I think comfort comes from good eye relief + 60 degrees AFOV. I find wider angle eyepieces generally less comfortable and harder to use, but I favor them for DSOs as I simply need to to use a higher magnification to tame light pollution, so need wider fields to compensate for the greater magnification. @vlaiv, I found the HR Planetaries good enough and nice to use in an F13 scope but quickly sold them on when I switched to F5 scopes. I also noticed a loss of sharpness. Yes I have also heard that the BSTs edge out these TMB Planetary clones. Even at F13, my Myperion 17mm (adjusted to 9mm with fine tuning rings) easily outperformed the Planetary HR 9mm. I expect a similar (maybe bigger) gap between the SLVs and the BSTs in all seriousness.

I had a couple of TS HR Planetary EPs for many years, these are apparently comparable to BSTs although they are of a different design. The HR Planetary EPs were great little eyepieces (wonderfully relaxing) and I was very happy with them, so I imagine an 8mm BST would work well. I might get a HR Planetary for nostalgia's sake, but it would have to have the old TS blue branding!

I definitely need the full football team!

I might just get a BST 8 mm to fill the gap. They seem to be likable and competent eyepieces. Maybe that will tide me over until Vixen release an SLV 8 mm!

I'm definitely not going down the binoviewer route as I am completely unsuccessful in looking simultaneously down both sides of a binocular. I always have double vision however hard I try, and I always end up closing or ignoring one eye. In fact I've been looking for a good monocular for a while. It is possible that binoviewing might work better than binoculars because of the more stable and comfortable viewing position, but I think I will wait and try it before spending any money! I think opinions, personal preferences and standards will always differ, but what I have taken away from this thread is that the SLVs hit the target focal length for me and seem to have sufficient optical fidelity. I can't find a bad word about them optically. Eye relief and comfort are good, and that is important as I often share the view with casual observers. And the field of view is Plossl-like, so not too narrow. OK, build quality may not be quite at Televue standards, but the same goes for my other eyepieces too! It is just a shame there is no SLV 7 or 8 mm... why the crazy gap between 6 and 9 mm? Other eyepieces may be better, and in all likelihood I will never know one way or the other, but I'm pretty confident that the 12 mm SLV would be good enough for me, especially if I can pick one up second hand. If I like it, I might get the 10 and 6 too! But what to do about that gap at 8??? ?

Lots of interesting thoughts on this thread. I had not been aware of the Vixen SLVs and they sound ideal, although it's a shame they do not have an 8mm. Pentax XFs come in 12 and 8.5mm focal length, which suits my master plan, but I have read mixed reviews of them. Televue plossls come in 11 and 8mm which is also good, but they are overpriced given their historical pricing. Eye relief is also not great. Ortho's have the same comfort issue and I think they won't be popular with my family and friends. So it comes down to SLV vs XF... Or maybe SLV 12mm and XF 8.5mm?

Ok, just read John's review..... Forget ortho's. SLV! SLV! SLV!

In the longer term, and with a heavy-duty mount under it, that would be a very yummy scope. I have tried Jupiter at 111x in my Newt and found that to be quite detailed despite the low magnification. It was hard to judge as the mount wasn't up to the task! Subjectively the image "felt" as big as the 150x equivalent in a 102mm mak, probably because of the better resolution and brightness. I think I am just about sold on the ortho plan, but what about the Televue plossl option at 8mm and 11mm? Some claim they can complete with orthoscopics... They fit in my stated budget, but I'm aware that TV used to sell these for a lot less, so that annoys me a bit. Then I would have (with ? marking the oculars I actually currently own): ES 24/68 ? Nirvana 16/82 Ortho/Plossl 11-12.5 Speer WALER 9.4/82 ? Ortho/Plossl 8 ES 6.7/82 ? And this would be for a Skymax 127 and an ST80 (which might eventually get replaced with a 70mm-ish apo). The Speer WALER is currently my go-to eyepiece for planets, but it's not ideal as it suffers a bit from scatter and reflections. I used to have a Hyperion 17mm which operated at 9mm with fine tuning rings and that performed far better on planets.