New member saying "Hello".

[bluegoatwoods]

Good evening, everyone.

I'm the sort who could have spent my life watching the sky at night and sleeping during the day. I've know since childhood that the night sky is fascinating. And I've known since shortly after childhood that I hate the sun anyway.  So I sure could have been an amateur astronomer. But making a living has always gotten in the way of that. It's a shame.

If you look back, say, thirty years or so I had a couple of those very basic refractors with an objective lens of about 2 1/2 inches or so. I don't remember either of them having a brand name I recognized. They probably came from Sears or K-Mart. I'm sure we've all seen the sort of scopes I'm talking about. The sort of thing you'd buy a twelve year old kid. But they really weren't bad telescopes. Decent images of Jupiter, for instance. One was trashed by a young nephew when I wasn't looking. When confronted, he seemed proud of himself. That was one time I had to use an awful, awful lot of self-control when dealing with a child. (Don't worry: he grew up to be quite a cool young man and we're on good terms.) I don't recall what happened to the other scope. It wouldn't have been so hard to replace them. And during all of this time I'd often give that matter a bit of thought. But I never got around to it because I just couldn't put large amounts of time into it.  

One time during this interval, using a borrowed 4 in reflector, I did manage to track down the Andromeda galaxy. I used star maps out of a book. And I well remember the feeling of accomplishment having peered between the stars of our own galaxy at an object well outside. Two million light years away! (Or is it 200 mil? I have a hard time keeping it straight.) It was only a white oval in that little telescope. But I was glad to have done it. 

So now I'm making the transition from middle age to 'senior citizen'. I've cut way back on employment that makes me stick to a schedule. And I'll soon do away with that completely. My eyesight has been on the poor side since adolescence. But it's still good enough that I can see pretty well with the help of lenses. And I'll hope it stays that way for a while. And now I'm going to start watching the planets, galactic nebulae and other galaxies at night, while listening to the 'rhythm' of my neighborhood. It'll be nice.

And as it happens, not too long ago, my daughter came home with a telescope she'd picked up at a garage sale for ten bucks. A 4 inch reflector. She just had a feeling I'd like it. She was right. 

It didn't have any recognizable name on it. And I could tell by the feel of it that it wasn't 'high end'. But maybe it'll be good enough? 

So I took it out and found that I couldn't focus on anything!  I guess I must have had the gut feeling that the optics simply couldn't be all that bad, or I might have just given up on it. But instead I started googling it and discovered "collimation". Newtonian reflectors need to have their optics adjusted? Who knew? :)

Maybe you've heard this before, but the instructions were pretty confusing and hard to grasp. But some of the primers and tutorials I was reading addressed this with messages along the lines of, "Yes, it seems confusing. But it's not really all that hard. You do gotta practice. But once you get it, then you'll be okay."  And I said, "Yeah. Okay. I can do that." So I got started.

The first job was to put it on a better tripod. While disassembling the old mount I found the "Toys R Us" logo hidden on the inside. ("Ooh....this is not going to be good....)   So I then bought a Cheshire collimation eyepiece, figuring that I might need more than a cap with a pinhole.

Attempting to collimate this poor thing, I found myself kinda horrified at just how shabby it was. Forget all about the objective mirror mounts. While they did have adjustment screws, the mount was so poor that no one could possibly make any good use of them. So I just removed that flange altogether and fashioned my own mirror mounts out of L-brackets, machine screws and nuts as adjusters. I had to grind a wrench down a bit thinner in order for it to fit in those small spaces. But I can adjust the mirror! It's true that there's now a gap of almost a half inch between the bottom of the tube and the mirror. And I suppose light from outside could get in there and pollute the image. But I figure a dark colored ditty sack wrapped around the bottom of the tube ought to fix that. And it'll be easily removed for collimation or cleaning the mirror with a bit of compressed air. If I'm missing anything, please do feel free to point it out. But so far I'm feeling confident that this shouldn't hurt anything.

The focusing tube was quite bad. Even fastened down it wobbled pretty badly. Nearly a quarter inch. I did my first collimation hoping that in it's 'relaxed' position it would be square, or nearly so, with the tube. But looking in the eye-piece I could see that the optics were not at all on the straight and narrow.

But I took it out anyway and gave it a try on Jupiter. That was three or four nights ago now. And it was an improvement. I was able to get a sharp-edged focus on Jupiter itself. I even thought maybe I could see cloud bands. But that might have been wishful thinking. But there seemed to be a second image of Jupiter super-imposed on the real image. It was somewhat distorted and  spread out and I couldn't focus it out of there. 

But I did see Io and Callisto. A bit more dim, perhaps, than ideal. Also I would never have been able to identify them by name. I only knew that they were in believable positions for two of the four. And I suppose I could have guessed that the further of the two would have been Ganymede or Callisto. But I don't recall thinking about that. I went inside and brought up an online image of just what Jupiter should have looked like right then. That's what identified those moons for me. Plus Io and Ganymede were exactly in that smeared second image of Jupiter that I'd seen. So this was encouraging.

So I started working with mirror adjustment again. I also tackled that focusing tube. A couple more L-brackets plus screws make a sort of brace that holds the tube still, as close as I can see to a right angle with the main tube. I had already put a little reinforcement ring on the middle of the objective mirror. And I'm sure I'm accurate to within a millimeter. In fact, I'm sure it's a bit less than that. Yet I still don't seem to be able to get that centered. But I don't think the problem is there anyway. I think it's in the secondary mirror. I've taken it, plus the spider, apart a couple of times now and looked it over. And gotten the 'feel' of the adjusters, stuff like that. There doesn't appear to be anything wrong with it and I can make it look like a perfect circle in the eye-piece. All the same, I can't see the entire objective mirror in it. My field of view is too narrow. I wonder if the secondary mirror is simply too small? A cheap telescope made in a factory you-know-where? It's possible. But it's also possible that I still don't fully understand how to adjust it yet and that practice will make perfect. I'll find out.

The last thing I did was to order a few new Celestron eye-pieces. I simply didn't trust the eye-pieces that came with it. They arrived today.

Now since that night I got an almost decent view of Jupiter, we've had nothing but clouds and thunderstorms. I think it'll be Sunday before I get clear skies again. It's heartbreaking. But this evening I did get a bit of a look at the Moon as it came and went behind clouds. Even when the clouds were at their thinnest they were still there. Yet I got a decent focus on the Moon with a 9 mm eye-piece. I could see the contour of the land. I might get this telescope working respectably even yet.

Now when you consider where it was made, then maybe it was never collimated in the first place. And if you imagine that the folks who owned it before I did might never have know of collimation, then it's possible that no one has ever gotten a decent image out of this telescope. I'm going to try to be the first. If I succeed, then that'll be another feeling of accomplishment. And I'll deny Toys R Us' claim on this telescope. This will then be my telescope. I won't mind saying it either. :)

What I'll also do is to buy a proper telescope as well. I'll probably place the order in the morning. This will give me something to work with for the time. And it'll give me a metric on my progress with my lipstick-on-a-pig telescope. I'll be able to compare images and measure my progress that way.

And with two telescopes, then I might even persuade my wife to join me. That'll take some doing. But it's not impossible.

I'm pleased to meet you all!

What the heck......I might as well show you my diamond in the rough telescope, right?

 

[Ben the Ignorant]

2 hours ago, bluegoatwoods said:

What I'll also do is to buy a proper telescope as well. I'll probably place the order in the morning. 

Hi! 

Cool story, good thing you're a tinkerer, that's what saves many things that would otherwise be trashed. But are you sure you know enough now to chose the right scope for you?

[PeterCPC]

Hello and welcome.

Peter

[sloz1664]

Hi and a very warm welcome to the Lounge

Steve

[laudropb]

Hello and a warm welcome to the SGL.

[Floater]

Welcome. Hope you enjoy the forum.

[bluegoatwoods]

6 hours ago, Ben the Ignorant said:

Hi! 

Cool story, good thing you're a tinkerer, that's what saves many things that would otherwise be trashed. But are you sure you know enough now to chose the right scope for you?

Well.....no.......I still don't really know what I'm doing. But I'm going to go ahead and do it anyway.

And since I'm only going to invest $150-200 into my first telescope I'm not very worried about choosing just the right scope. There are four or five from Celestron, Meade, and so on that I'm considering. Portability is a major concern. My home and immediate neighborhood are just full of trees. Some are pretty magnificent. Mostly it's a blessing. But it stinks for an amateur stargazer. I've got no sky. But there's clear public land within an easy bicycle reach and I'd only have to drive ten minutes or so to get away from the worst light pollution. So my telescope doesn't need to be miniaturized. But it needs to be small.

I haven't quite decided yet whether to get a reflector or a refractor. I guess I'm leaning mostly toward a 100 mm reflector. Probably of the table-top dobsonian type. That'll be portable enough. Having another reflector will help get me familiar with collimation. And, mostly, I want aperture. 

You see, I'm definitely interested in deep sky objects. The Solar System certainly is interesting. But it's kinda limited. (Though maybe there's something to be said for asteroid hunting. I've never tried that. Still.....I want more than just our solar system.)

 

[Ben the Ignorant]

Good criteria. Note that Sky-Watcher makes a collapsible 130mm dob that costs around 190€.

[ronl]

Hello and welcome to SGL, see you around the forums.

Clear Sky's.

[Demonperformer]

Hi and welcome to SGL.

I would echo Ben's suggestion of the 130 over the 100. Some of these "tabletop" dobs have a very short focal length which can cause distortion unless VERY carefully collimated.

Enjoy the journey.

[Dave Lloyd]

Hi and welcome. 

[Pete Presland]

Hi welcome to SGL from Pete in Bedfordshire ?

[bluegoatwoods]

Hello, everyone and thank you for the 'welcomes'. 

I've been making some progress. I bought some entry level Celestron eyepieces. I'm not competent to judge yet, but they don't seem like professional quality. Yet they do seem better than the eyepieces that came with this Toys R Us telescope.

I also bought an entry level Orion telescope.

https://www.amazon.com/Orion-FunScope-Dazzle-Reflector-Telescope/dp/B00QAB4BFS/ref=sr_1_14?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1531378410&sr=1-14&keywords=Orion+telescope

A 4 1/2 inch reflector. I  chose this one because the optical components looked, from the photos, like the same ones on the Orion Star Blast telescope. At less than half the price. And it seems like a good telescope. Collimation was easy. Nothing to fear there.

Learning collimation better on this one allowed me to collimate my toy telescope much better. The two now seem to be giving me images of about the same quality. In fact, I got an image of Jupiter tonight with the Toys R Us telescope which, I think, is the best image yet from either scope. Tonight might have been the best sky yet that I've looked at with either scope. So that might have entered into it. I doubt if the toy scope is giving images better than the Orion. But they might be about equal.

Jupiter's Gallilean satellites are easy to see and pinpoint sharp. The gap between Saturn's rings and the planetary body is easy to see sharply. This goes for both telescopes. I spotted one of Saturn's satellites the other night. I think it was Rhea. I spotted the Omega Nebula, in Sagittarius, tonight using the toy scope. I've failed to spot the Andromeda Galaxy in both scopes after three or four tries over the last few weeks. But it's low in the north right now. Down in the glare from the city. I'll bet I'll nail it when winter comes and it rises higher.

I've also found that my wife is a more eager stargazer than I would have thought. I also bought a cheap pair of binoculars. She mostly sits in a lawn chair and roams the sky with those. Then she'll come have a look in the telescope when I find something worth seeing. But I'm about a foot taller than she is and it's actually kinda hard to adjust the height down far enough for her. We really need to each have our own telescope. We do, of course. But I've only got one decent mount. I'll take care of that sometime soon.

Wait......I got a little side-tracked there. My images are still not quite perfect in either scope. Bright planetary bodies such as Venus, Jupiter and (for the time being) Mars are distorted. It seems as though their brightness is over-powering. Planetary filters tend to damp them down too much, too. I can see a sharp image. But there seems to be another image super-imposed on the main and somewhat distorted. My wife sees it too. And that's hopeful since I have some fear that this is due to astigmatism of my eye. But left eye and right eye show pretty much the same thing. This plus the fact that my wife sees it too suggests that the trouble is not in our eyes. I'll keep hoping on that. It could be that we still just don't have great optics. So the next upgrade will be some good Plossl eyepieces.

As for future upgrades, I don't think I'll go for larger telescopes. Though a nice light bucket does seem tempting, doesn't it? Instead I'll look forward to portable scopes of about this size, but with higher quality optics. Better binoculars, too, will be on the list.

I am feeling pretty good about taking a telescope that was laughable and tweeking and adjusting it into the seeming equal of a scope that, while low end, is something more than a kid's telescope.

[mcinek82]

Very pleased to meet You, too. Welcome to SGL.