Celestron 102 SLT vs. Skywatcher ST102

[mattft]

"Oh no!" I hear you cry!  Not another thread about entry-level scopes!  Fear not.  I have some specific requirements and I'm looking for input from any owners on which is best for my needs.

Requirements:

- this is my travel scope.  I travel a lot and would like to be able to take a scope with me.  At home I have a 250 newt f/5 which I use for deep sky visual mainly.

- I want to OTA to be able to fit in hand luggage.  The mount will get wrapped and in hold luggage.

- I want something that is able to take advantage of dark sky sites that I travel to, such as the Scottish Highlands.

- I want something that can handle planetary as well as bright DSOs.  I know that a small aperture is going to limit me here.

- I have no interest in imaging at this point.  It's purely visual.

- I have a good collection of eyepieces so I'm interested in the scope and mount much more than the accessories.

Questions:

- the skywatcher is f/5 and the celestron is f/6.  I don't think this is going to make a big difference at the end of the day.  Neither is going to have huge magnifications.  Anything I missing?

- what's the construction/robustness of the ota like?  Even taking care of it in my carry on it's going to get some knocks.

- is either optically better?  I'm expecting some chromatic fun but I can live with that

- am I barking up the wrong tree altogether and should I be thinking about a small schmit-cas or mak?

Thanks in advance!

[Moonshane]

I think your assessment is spot on given your stated requirements. Although I'd recommend a small apo (e.g. a Celestron 80mm), out of the two I'd go for the Celestron at f6. This would be better all round in terms of potential magnification (Ipresume but never used one) and CA,

[Moonshane]

I'd avoid more delicate designs given your warning about in transit bumps.

[mattft]

I think your assessment is spot on given your stated requirements. Although I'd recommend a small apo (e.g. a Celestron 80mm), out of the two I'd go for the Celestron at f6. This would be better all round in terms of potential magnification (Ipresume but never used one) and CA,

Thanks for the feedback!  What would be the advantages of a small apo over an achro for visual?  Trading aperture for size?

[dph1nm]

Hmm - I have the Celestron and I would hesitate to call it hand luggage, although I guess it would be possible if you didn't have much else to carry. It is, however, a very nice OTA, and doesn't show much CA to my eyes (it isn't too bad for imaging actually). The mount on the other hand is rather flimsy and benefits from having some weight (e.g. power pack) on the eyepiece tray. I use it as my holiday scope, but I always take it around by car.

NigelM

[DevonSkies]

I went with the ST102 with a manual alt-az mount as my travel scope rather than the Celestron as I didn't want the added complication of a go-to mount and batteries to worry about. Also the ST102 is slightly shorter (being f/5 rather than f/6). You would probably still need to remove the dew shield to fit it in hand luggage, however.

I think the Celestron and the Skywatcher are made in the same factory, so quality should be very similar. Theoretically the 102SLT should show slightly less CA, but I doubt you would notice the difference in practice.

Either will be fine for DSOs from a dark site. The Celestron might have the edge for planets.

Ed

[Carbon Brush]

There are two potential problems with an OTA in hand luggage.

First, the size & weight varies with different airlines. Some are very flexible about this. While others won't let you take anything 1mm over size, and want to take your house for being 1mg over weight. Choosing an OTA that fits every airline's rules could well compromise your choice.

Second problem. Is it on the list of banned items? Whether global or particular to the airline. In the aftermath of terror alerts, there are often additional restrictions on hand luggage contents. In the olden days, I have flown with cabin luggage containing hand tools, wires, chemicals, etc. In my experience anything that is a little different to what Mr Average is carrying tends to cause questions. Can you use the OTA as a weapon against cabin crew? It is a big metal tube. Take out the lens to use as a blade?

On balance, it is probably better to put the OTA in hold baggage. If it is well surrounded by other items, it will withstand being thrown onto the tarmac, falling of a conveyor, etc.

A 'basic' refractor won't suffer if the hold is unpressurised and unheated. If your suitcase ends up in Bagdhad instead of Berlin, then the loss of an ST102 or similar is easier to bear than the loss of a Tak. Also, it would be easier to claim.

Just a few ramblings. David.

[mattft]

Good points David.  I've checked with most of the airlines I fly with and an OTA of 50 to 52cm should be fine and give me some space for padding.  Does anyone here who has either able to give me a length without diagonal?

[Moonshane]

The main advantages of an ed scope are that usually the build quality is better and views far cleaner allowing more detail and magnification.

[happy-kat]

This chart I have seen on here posted by John shows the CA that might be expected by either scope.

I have packed my ST80 in hand luggage I can't see the Celestron at f6 fitting as easy.

[Peter Drew]

If the scope is too long for the baggage limits I unscrew the objective end and the focuser and hand carry these, the tube then goes in the hold.     

[mattft]

Thanks all.  For the CA, I am expecting it and not too concerned.  I'm not looking for imaging and if it's really bad on something bright I'll stick a filter in.  But what I'm really looking for is someone with the Celestron 102slt and a tape measured

[mattft]

Some fine members of this very forum have helped answer this for me - the Celestron 102SLT OTA will get down to about 60cm and so is not hand baggage friendly.  ST80 I think!