Nexstar 102 SLT correlation with other users

[dweller25]

I would like to compare observing notes with other users of the Celestron Nexstar 102 SLT. I observed Jupiter last night and could see one equatorial band placed approx 25% from the top of the planet and I could see shading at the bottom of the planet. That was it. I saw no detail in the equatorial belt at all and the overall image at x132 was generally soft. I know Jupiter is well past opposition and is very low for good viewing but how does this compare with how other users see it in the same scope ?.

All my viewings are done without filters.

I am using good quality Celestron Plossl eyepieces which are better than what came with the scope (verified visually) but I am still using the supplied diagonal - has anyone benefitted from replacing the supplied diaganol with a better quality one ?

I am observing at full aperture has anyone noticed an improvement by stopping down the scope ?

I had hoped that this refractor would give the same performance as my 6 inch F8 dobby but I do get a little more detail from the dobby - it clearly has good optics. However the ease of use of the SLT gets me out observing more and quicker - to me that is a major plus, just wish I could see a little more detail.

Thanks in advance for your replies.

David.

[FLO]

The 6" f8 Dobsonian should win by a comfortable margin. It has more aperture, zero false-colour (mirrors don't refract light) and longer focal length. The Celestron SLT 102 is best seen as a low/med magnification, wide-field telescope. Planetary observing is not its forte.

HTH

[robindurant]

I have a 102 as a grab & go scope and what you describe is what I get from it. It is in my opinion a great scope. high quality pics for its size. Jupiter is Cr..p in my 8i. Dont spend money trying to upgrade the bits and pieces it wont make that much difference.

Robin

[Stormwatch]

I have a 102 as a grab & go scope and what you describe is what I get from it. It is in my opinion a great scope. high quality pics for its size. Jupiter is Cr..p in my 8i. Dont spend money trying to upgrade the bits and pieces it wont make that much difference.

Robin

Yeah my 102 SLT is about the same as yours. Even using better eyepieces like TMB Planetary 5mm, Meade UWA and with better diagonals, things stay pretty much the same.

I still love the scope though. As you say, it's SOOO easy to use!

[dweller25]

Thanks for all the replies.

I have now adjusted my expectations of the 102 SLT. It is as Steve says a very nice quick to set up low power refractor. I am impressed with the sharp star images it produces and it's ease of use. The goto is very good indeed - but a powertank is needed for best results. The only thing I would like to change in the future is the tripod which is a bit too light.

Regards,

David.

[Stormwatch]

Thanks for all the replies.

I have now adjusted my expectations of the 102 SLT. It is as Steve says a very nice quick to set up low power refractor. I am impressed with the sharp star images it produces and it's ease of use. The goto is very good indeed - but a powertank is needed for best results. The only thing I would like to change in the future is the tripod which is a bit too light.

Regards,

David.

Hang a bag of sand off it. I'm sure I saw that posted somewhere.

I found the tripod weight perfect for the scope. Any heavier and it starts to become a chore to lift it outside and set up.

You DO need a Powertank, or a proper power supply though, rather than batteries.

[dweller25]

Good idea - the simplest solutions are always the best.

[robindurant]

Or if you are using a Battery pack, use this but dont make the mistake I made in not making sure that the cable from the pack does not foul on the scope. Mine got between the revolving part and the tripod and got cut.