Jupiter

[Daff]

I had the best view of Jupiter tonight, that I've ever had.

I used a 120mm Skywatcher refractor that I "borrowed" from my brother. Its a blue tube one I assume its a EVOSTAR,

Apart from the blue glow around the edge of Jupiter, it should more, much more detail than my 200p and my 127 mak.

I've read the mak should show detail but  ??

Was it just good conditions ??

It was also good on a few DSO.

On a side note I've killed a gear on my AZ synscan mount, power cable got stuck, opps.

Great Night.

Clear Skys

Mike

[Langy]

It can be a good and bad thing to use someone elses equipment, especially if it is better than your own.

Great to see more detail but bad to make you want to change everything or if you are in a position when you can't afford to change then can get you down.

Nice to hear you had a good time.

[Daff]

Good news is he does not want it back. Oh yes get in.

Bad news... I paid for the other stuff.

Wonder how much a used 127 mak goes for. mmmm

[Langy]

Lucky you, well at least you don't have to be in a rush to get rid of anything.

I don't know anything about the different models, but take a look and see what else you could use them for. You may prefer a different one if you travel away from home, one may be more suitable for imaging of some sort.

[Daff]

I'm trying to build a dob'  mount for the 200p.

I might look into the image route with the mak if I can get a few bits on the cheap.

Next has to be Mars. I wonder if I will get anything other than a red disk.

[Langy]

I think it could be another month before Mars is at its closest this year. I'[m sure someone will correct me if wrong.

[Qualia]

I used a 120mm Skywatcher refractor....Apart from the blue glow around the edge of Jupiter, it should more, much more detail than my 200p and my 127 mak.

I've read the mak should show detail but  ??

Was it just good conditions ??

Providing that the 200p is well maintained, was well collimated, and cooled before use, all other things being equal, its greater aperture should mean more resolution and a higher practical magnification than either of the 120mm or 127mm. The smaller refractor may give a slightly crisper image and you may not have to worry about collimation and diffraction but the bigger scope should be able to show more detail. Just looking at the numbers, the 200p should gather 2.5x more light than the 120mm, so if the 4.8" was really outperforming the 8", then something may have been amiss. The 127mm Mak's small central obstruction may suffer diffraction but I feel this is compensated by the 120's false colour, so again, all things being equal (cool down and collimation), they should perform equally as well.

Perhaps another night when the skies are calm, it would make an interesting experiment to compare the three again

[Daff]

Providing that the 200p is well maintained, was well collimated, and cooled before use, all other things being equal, its greater aperture should mean more resolution and a higher practical magnification than either of the 120mm or 127mm. The smaller refractor may give a slightly crisper image and you may not have to worry about collimation and diffraction but the bigger scope should be able to show more detail. Just looking at the numbers, the 200p should gather 2.5x more light than the 120mm, so if the 4.8" was really outperforming the 8", then something may have been amiss. The 127mm Mak's small central obstruction may suffer diffraction but I feel this is compensated by the 120's false colour, so again, all things being equal (cool down and collimation), they should perform equally as well.

Perhaps another night when the skies are calm, it would make an interesting experiment to compare the three again

Yes it would.

Not only is it amazing to see objects so far away but I'm lucky enough to be able to do the compare thing.

Is was thinking the same about the 200p maybe it needs a tweak