Telescopes and backpacks

[SwiMatt]

In the search for aperture and portability, I noticed a lack of reports about putting telescopes in a backpack and just walking somewhere. Sure, there are many threads and talks about "portable telescopes", but it always inevitably boils down to the same 2 or 3 scopes+mounts that are thought and targeted for travel. Yet, looking at sizes online (I don't have access to real telescopes - yet - so I can't test this) it seems to me that it shouldn't be impossible to put, say, a SkyWatcher Explorer-130PS with AZ-5 mount or even a SkyWatcher 150 PDS Explorer BD with AZ-5 or AZ-4 in a big hiking backpack, and walking somewhere to use it. The total weight and size of these seem compatible with a big 50-60L backpack over 1h of walk (I am doing quite a lot of sport, so I know for sure that I can walk on those distances with 15-20 kg on my shoulders), but is there anyone doing anything similar? Keep in mind that I'm not talking about 5-10 hours hikes here, in which case weight might be excessive.

I'm considering a similar option for my own future use, I live in a city with lots of parks and hills (all in Bortle 7, but isolated from street lights) and I would have access to some possible observing spots by taking public transportation and walking. Am I completely delusional here? 

PS: if I had a backyard where I could observe, I would buy a dobs 8in without a thought. And if I had tables everywhere I go, the Heritage 150p would be an ideal portable choice. But my situation is not as ideal, unfortunately, and it seems like I will have to get a solution such as this.

[Elp]

All my setups are in bags which can be slung onto my back for this very reason, but having collected a lot of items over the years and veered into AP they aren't light. My lightest is probably 20kg but it has everything inside it even a battery for remote AP. I can carry the weight on my back but wouldn't want to walk any distance with it, it may also cause imbalance issues over uneven terrain.

I did manage to fit a 130pds into a backpack too. Going carbon fibre with the tripod will help with weight massively. Choice of mount will also help, my dslr and refractor setups are designed for azgti use, the C6 unfortunately won't work for AP as well but for visual it will be okay. The gem I've got isn't portable at all over distance.

Edited June 16, 2023 by Elp

[Nik271]

A Newtonian has a focuser sticking out to the side, which is inconvenient in a backpack. There is also collimation to consider when transporting it. I have the AZ5 mount and 4 kilos is about the maximum for it with a bulky scope. Refractors and small  Maks are generally more compact and light. Even my 127 Skymax is just over 3 kilos (but will not be my top choice for a trip to dark site due to its long focal length). I would consider either 80-100mm ED doublet refractor or a 90mm Mak as my top choices for backpack travel. If your scope is under 3 kilos you can do with a sturdy photo tripod and a fluid head as long as you are happy to avoid high magnification.

Edited June 16, 2023 by Nik271

[SwiMatt]

5 minutes ago, Nik271 said:

A Newtonian has a focuser sticking out to the side, which is inconvenient in a backpack. There is also collimation to consider when transporting it. I have the AZ5 mount and 4 kilos is about the maximum for it with a bulky scope. Refractors and small  Maks are generally more compact and light. Even my 127 Skymax is just over 3 kilos (but will not be my top choice for a trip to dark site due to its long focal length). I would consider either 80-100mm ED doublet refractor or a 90mm Mak as my top choices for backpack travel. If your scope is under 3 kilos you can do with a sturdy photo tripod and a fluid head as long as you are happy to avoid high magnification.

Thanks! I had not considered the focuser as being so problematic. And I imagine that it can be quite "fragile" - fragile enough to have to carefully consider if I want to put a mount in the same pocket as the scope!

My problem is that this would be my main - and only, at least for now - scope. I want it to be as large as I can while being portable (in this specific context, "portable" = "on my back"). So it feels a bit sad to restrict it to max 100mm if I could get more. Same with using a photo tripod - I want to be able to push high(-ish) magnification when the night is right, as I'm not seeking for ultra-portability. A Mak is another way I'm thinking of pursuing, I'm a bit turned off by the long cool down time, which could be quite annoying if my session is also limited by the trip to the site I will eventually choose. It would be my top choice at a dark site just because it's my ONLY choice 🤣

Among all ideas I had was this of getting a reflector and make it somehow portable in a backpack, so I thought I'd ask if it's something I'm deluding myself on. If that doesn't work, I will probably resort to a 90-100mm refractor/mak (I would love a doublet, but it's a tad out of my range from what I could see). And then maybe I'm going at this all wrong and whatever aperture I buy I will be extra happy for all the things I can see...? So hard to really make out what is possible!

[Geoff_L]

FWIW, I have a Skywatcher 150 PDS. I suspect you might be OK with an AZ5 but not an AZ4. This on the basis that I have an Explore Scientific Twilight AZ mount (similar to AZ4) that isn't up to use with the 150 PDS and also an EQ5 Pro mount that is. I can't do astronomy from home as there is too much light pollution (can't even make out half the stars in the big dipper) and so I have to drive to a dark sky site, where that 150 gets knocked out of collimation about every third trip. I suspect it would be worse if backpacked.

My 'grab and go' visual setup tends to be an Orion ST80 refractor with either the Twilight mount or a sturdy photographic tripod. ST80, photo tripod and a bag of eyepieces etc. probably comes to under 10kg. One day, I aspire to having a 127 Mak, which would be a good match for both the Twilight and EQ5, but in the meantime the small 'frac is the best I have for 'grab and go' as it's light and easy to set up and use.

[grjsk]

Getting the 150PDS into a backpack I would think is doable, but I am guessing you would need the Az4/az5 on a steel tripod for it to be sturdy enough for you. A 1,75 inch steel tripod is about 5 kg, but the bigger problem is its shape. It's fairly long, and the balancing would be pretty bad. I actually tried it in a 60l backpack once, and it was not very comfortable. 

I would instead have chosen a C6 SCT. It's still 150mm, but it's shorter form makes it easier to pack, and you can get away with a shorter carbon fiber tripod. I use my C6 on the Az-gti or the Az5 on a Leofoto LM 363C tripod from time to time, and it works okay.

If you want a reflector, I think a 130PDS or perhaps a 150 Heritage (on a tripod) MIGHT be doable on something else than a steel tripod. 

[SwiMatt]

27 minutes ago, Geoff_L said:

FWIW, I have a Skywatcher 150 PDS. I suspect you might be OK with an AZ5 but not an AZ4. This on the basis that I have an Explore Scientific Twilight AZ mount (similar to AZ4) that isn't up to use with the 150 PDS and also an EQ5 Pro mount that is. I can't do astronomy from home as there is too much light pollution (can't even make out half the stars in the big dipper) and so I have to drive to a dark sky site, where that 150 gets knocked out of collimation about every third trip. I suspect it would be worse if backpacked.

As @grjsk suggested later, I meant the AZ-4 with steel tripod! I forgot there is the version with aluminum tripod, sorry about that. With steel it should hold more than the AZ-5 (up to 8kg if my memory serves me right). However, if collimation is that fragile I might reconsider the whole thing (again, one of those things that gets wildly misunderstood no matter how many times people talk about it - according to some, collimation never gets knocked off, but I suspect it's their setup that makes it so, not the scope).

 

34 minutes ago, grjsk said:

Getting the 150PDS into a backpack I would think is doable, but I am guessing you would need the Az4/az5 on a steel tripod for it to be sturdy enough for you. A 1,75 inch steel tripod is about 5 kg, but the bigger problem is its shape. It's fairly long, and the balancing would be pretty bad. I actually tried it in a 60l backpack once, and it was not very comfortable. 

I would instead have chosen a C6 SCT. It's still 150mm, but it's shorter form makes it easier to pack, and you can get away with a shorter carbon fiber tripod. I use my C6 on the Az-gti or the Az5 on a Leofoto LM 363C tripod from time to time, and it works okay.

If you want a reflector, I think a 130PDS or perhaps a 150 Heritage (on a tripod) MIGHT be doable on something else than a steel tripod. 

Thanks for the suggestions! The C6 SCT, unfortunately, is well beyond my budget at the moment. I don't *need* a reflector, but it seems to be almost universally considered as the type that has the right balance between planetary, moon and DSO observation - at least for beginners. I would probably be perfectly happy with any telescope, but I need to make sure I won't regret what I buy, while I make sure that it will get used.

I read that you're from Oslo, how's the situation in the city up there? Here in Gothenburg, they managed to put artificial light on seemingly every available square meter of space - which is why I cannot easily observe close to my apartment, as there are no directions available to adapt the eye to darkness

[Franklin]

I've done a fair bit of "wild camping" over the years and have taken numerous scopes out with me. Firstly, I'd try and keep my pack down to 10kg or less, even an hours walk with anymore is not good (unless you're a Marine?) and of course, a night in the wild requires other kit as well, not just the scope and mount. This all boils down to compromise on the size of the rig but on the plus side, the darker skies don't require a huge aperture. A small tent or bivvy and sleeping bag plus some food and water can be sorted at around 5kg with the pack so you need to be looking at a rig that weighs around 5kg, all in. My suggestion would be to get a small ED refractor such as the SW 72ED mounted on an AZT6 or similar and photo tripod. Diagonal, 32mm plossl, 8-24mm zoom, 2x barlow and an OIII/UHC filter. I currently use an even smaller refractor for my nights out, the FL55SS which is tiny but under a dark sky performs better than much larger scopes under urban skies. Here it is doing some solar WL.

 

 

[Louis D]

Here is @Geoff Lister's 127 Mak backpack setup:

I setup my daughter with a similar rig for her camping trips.  I don't know about Sweden's secondary market for telescopes, but 127 Maks come up for sale at around $300 here in the States all the time.  When I bought hers in 2018, they were going for $200 apiece.  Inflation has crept into the secondary market, apparently.

I have a 127 Mak myself.  You can use it at lower powers just fine while you wait for it to acclimate.  It never needs collimation.  I love that there is no focuser flex.  I also love the short lever arm on a manual alt-az mount.

[SwiMatt]

13 minutes ago, Franklin said:

I've done a fair bit of "wild camping" over the years and have taken numerous scopes out with me. Firstly, I'd try and keep my pack down to 10kg or less, even an hours walk with anymore is not good (unless you're a Marine?) and of course, a night in the wild requires other kit as well, not just the scope and mount. This all boils down to compromise on the size of the rig but on the plus side, the darker skies don't require a huge aperture. A small tent or bivvy and sleeping bag plus some food and water can be sorted at around 5kg with the pack so you need to be looking at a rig that weighs around 5kg, all in. My suggestion would be to get a small ED refractor such as the SW 72ED mounted on an AZT6 or similar and photo tripod. Diagonal, 32mm plossl, 8-24mm zoom, 2x barlow and an OIII/UHC filter. I currently use an even smaller refractor for my nights out, the FL55SS which is tiny but under a dark sky performs better than much larger scopes under urban skies. Here it is doing some solar WL.

Not a Marine, but I was in the military in my country so I have quite a bit of experience with heavy load.  And yes, I agree that 10kg is a safe limit to keep. Myself, I know I can get up to 12-13 for that kind of walks. I wasn't planning on sleeping out with my gear, but now that you mention it - it is something I might like to do down the line. And you're right, it will mean compromising on the weight of my scope.

The discussion "small scopes under dark skies VS big scopes under urban skies" is an always an interesting one, but sometimes a bit incomplete. Most of my use will still be under light polluted skies, despite walking to get there. The question here then is: is a smaller scope similarly good (or bad, lol) as a larger scope under polluted skies? I was under the impression that whatever you do, in equal observing conditions a larger aperture allows you to get more. But I imagine that a larger scope also amplifies significantly light pollution...

5 minutes ago, Louis D said:

I have a 127 Mak myself.  You can use it at lower powers just fine while you wait for it to acclimate.  It never needs collimation.  I love that there is no focuser flex.  I also love the short lever arm on a manual alt-az mount.

Ah-ha‼️

Being able to use it at low powers until acclimation makes the Mak very attractive all of a sudden... I thought it would be an hour everytime before looking at anything. And I imagine that the smaller field of view is a relatively lesser problem for a beginner who doesn't know what "wide field" means anyway 🤣

[Franklin]

59 minutes ago, SwiMatt said:

The question here then is: is a smaller scope similarly good (or bad, lol) as a larger scope under polluted skies?

Aperture will always win, the bigger the better but it's also about compromise, you can't get a 10" dob up that hill😁. Many people, myself included, have more than one scope because different situations require different equipment.

Regards sleeping outside, the whole point is to do some stargazing under dark skies, but if you're up a hill at night and a thunder storm blows in unexpectedly you really ought to be prepared. Coming off a hill in the dark can be quite dangerous, as you're probably aware.

[John]

I recently took my travel scope, a 70mm ED refractor, to the island of Jersey. The whole setup, including the mount and tripod, weighs under 5kg. Under the dark, transparent skies of the northern side of the island, where we were staying, the little scope did amazingly well even showing the supernova in the galaxy M 101 and a fair view of the core of that face on galaxy as well. The 70mm of aperture, under those skies, was doing about as well as 100-120mm does for me at home in terms of "going deep". 

I had a similar experience at one of the SGL star parties a few years ago when the 150mm scope that I took along was providing the sort of views that I normally needed 10-12 inches of aperture to get at home.

Now more aperture under really good skies scores even higher of course but there is a tipping point where, unless a really specialised design, simply getting a medium aperture scope out to those skies just becomes impractical. Where that tipping point is depends on individual factors, how much effort you can expend and how much access you have to specialist scope designs I guess.

For me, the scope must not become any sort of inconvenience, must be "off the shelf" and just needs to become part of the regular luggage.

Others though, will go to much greater lengths, Gary Seronik, for example:

My 8-inch Travelscope - Gary Seronik

Edited June 16, 2023 by John

[Elp]

Portable: refractor, carbon fibre tripod, manual alt az mount.

I've had aluminum, steel, wood and carbon fibre tripods, the latter is the most versatile. Wood is the best for dampening but it's heavy so not portable.

As mentioned in my previous reply I did fit a 130pds into a backpack, but I would not consider it portable, refractor is your only choice, you don't really want to be going long focal length as your mount and tripod stability will need to be rock solid which adds to the weight. If you're driving choice is not an issue, walking you have to be very strict in your choices especially with regard to equipment weight and volume. Even a 60mm refractor like I have provides excellent views, I've used it for planets, lunar, solar, deep sky is a bit focal length and aperture limited but for portability you could potentially go up to something like 80-90mm.

[grjsk]

6 hours ago, SwiMatt said:

 

Thanks for the suggestions! The C6 SCT, unfortunately, is well beyond my budget at the moment. I don't *need* a reflector, but it seems to be almost universally considered as the type that has the right balance between planetary, moon and DSO observation - at least for beginners. I would probably be perfectly happy with any telescope, but I need to make sure I won't regret what I buy, while I make sure that it will get used.

I read that you're from Oslo, how's the situation in the city up there? Here in Gothenburg, they managed to put artificial light on seemingly every available square meter of space - which is why I cannot easily observe close to my apartment, as there are no directions available to adapt the eye to darkness

 

Light pollution is pretty bad here, but I have «solved» that problem by focusing on objects that do not require dark skies: the moon, planets and stars. The same objects do not need a big scope to be enjoyed, so a small 72mm refractor is my weapon of choice, even at home.

If a C6 or a small refractor is out of the question, a 125-127mm maksutov would be the next suggestion on my list, like others already have mentioned. 

[SwiMatt]

On 16/06/2023 at 16:18, Franklin said:

Aperture will always win, the bigger the better but it's also about compromise, you can't get a 10" dob up that hill😁. Many people, myself included, have more than one scope because different situations require different equipment.

Regards sleeping outside, the whole point is to do some stargazing under dark skies, but if you're up a hill at night and a thunder storm blows in unexpectedly you really ought to be prepared. Coming off a hill in the dark can be quite dangerous, as you're probably aware.

Sounds to me that I will also go in the direction of multiple scopes. My wallet just didn't want to go in that direction quite yet

The hills around here are quite "safe" (not isolated, good paths, often maybe even streetlight on the path) but you have a good point since I would maybe like to go out camping once or twice...

On 16/06/2023 at 18:15, John said:

For me, the scope must not become any sort of inconvenience, must be "off the shelf" and just needs to become part of the regular luggage.

I really like this philosophy. As someone who likes to be at the ready and to bring my binoculars with me wherever I go, it's very appealing to do the same with my scopes. And once it's regular luggage, it will always find a spot on the car when I'm going out of town with friends

On 16/06/2023 at 18:22, Elp said:

Portable: refractor, carbon fibre tripod, manual alt az mount.

Without checking the prices, carbon fiber is probably quite expensive, no? At least judging by the same consideration when buying road bikes

On 16/06/2023 at 20:50, grjsk said:

Light pollution is pretty bad here, but I have «solved» that problem by focusing on objects that do not require dark skies: the moon, planets and stars. The same objects do not need a big scope to be enjoyed, so a small 72mm refractor is my weapon of choice, even at home.

If a C6 or a small refractor is out of the question, a 125-127mm maksutov would be the next suggestion on my list, like others already have mentioned. 

I will probably start doing the same. Light pollution can be bad here - but then again, going just out of the city the situation improves drastically.

After this thread, I'm starting to feel that a Mak 127 might be a way forward for me - and then later on maybe a small refractor for some wide views. As you say, Moon, planets, double and variable stars are plenty. Throw in a solar filter, and you got yourself a 24/7 hobby

Thank you all for the contributes!

[grjsk]

One last piece of advice: get a stool! Personally I prefer a Walkstool (a sweedish product!). Sitting down and relaxing is the best advice for enhancing your viewing abilites. It also makes sure you can keep the tripod in a low posititon, making it a lot more sturdy. There are many large, wooden observing chairs out there, but a simple stool gets the job done, and is a lot more portable. 

Something like this might be what you are looking for: 

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/sky-watcher-skymax-127-az5-deluxe.html

The biggest problem with this setup is the tripod, so being able to keep it low would be a great benefit. A total weight of 8.6 kg is also nice even for extended walks. 

[SwiMatt]

9 minutes ago, grjsk said:

One last piece of advice: get a stool! Personally I prefer a Walkstool (a sweedish product!). Sitting down and relaxing is the best advice for enhancing your viewing abilites. It also makes sure you can keep the tripod in a low posititon, making it a lot more sturdy. There are many large, wooden observing chairs out there, but a simple stool gets the job done, and is a lot more portable. 

Something like this might be what you are looking for: 

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/sky-watcher-skymax-127-az5-deluxe.html

The biggest problem with this setup is the tripod, so being able to keep it low would be a great benefit. A total weight of 8.6 kg is also nice even for extended walks. 

Hurray for Swedish products (I'm not Swedish myself, so I care little, but Sweden did produce some really good stuff for the outdoors)! I will go test some Walkstools at Naturkompaniet...

In what way is the tripod the biggest problem? For observing, or for carrying?

I had also thought of opting for the Bresser Messier Mak 127/1900 (there is something about white telescopes...), coming with only one eyepiece, but with red dot finder and slightly sharper optics - based on a review I read I think here on SGL. The REAL problem I have is that not all mounts are equal, meaning that it's really hard to know how portable they are, beyond weight At this rate I will never decide what to get...

[Elp]

A stool is imperative if doing visual, even for AP it's good just to be able to sit whilst it's imaging. Something like this is totally within portable spec and one I use as long as the tripod is set quite short (would be no use for a Newtonian, but also short tripod means struggling to see things near zenith):

Regarding carbon fibre tripods, no they're not expensive at all, you just need to know where to look (if you're looking at an astronomy tripod product for carbon fibre expect to pay much more than is necessary). The cost of my two which I use for AP (much more stringent than visual as they need to be fairly stable otherwise your images will be ruined, likewise with visual but they normally settle down the vibration so you can continue to view), were much less than a wooden one which I also have for times when it's much windier. Steel ones are also good but not portable at all due to length and weight. Avoid multiple leg section aluminum ones, even the extrusion type ones supplied with kit telescopes.

For visual a head like an az5, vixen porta I would have thought are still fairly compact and rigid. I don't use either, mines a solid lump of zinc, still portable though (Tecnosky Cubo). A goto mount would be even better but costs ramp up, and you need a portable battery.

I think you need to go to an astro meet or event, see what's out there.

Edited June 19, 2023 by Elp

[grjsk]

2 hours ago, Elp said:

Regarding carbon fibre tripods, no they're not expensive at all, you just need to know where to look

I would sure love some more information about where to look

[SwiMatt]

2 hours ago, Elp said:

Regarding carbon fibre tripods, no they're not expensive at all, you just need to know where to look (if you're looking at an astronomy tripod product for carbon fibre expect to pay much more than is necessary). The cost of my two which I use for AP (much more stringent than visual as they need to be fairly stable otherwise your images will be ruined, likewise with visual but they normally settle down the vibration so you can continue to view), were much less than a wooden one which I also have for times when it's much windier. Steel ones are also good but not portable at all due to length and weight. Avoid multiple leg section aluminum ones, even the extrusion type ones supplied with kit telescopes.

For visual a head like an az5, vixen porta I would have thought are still fairly compact and rigid. I don't use either, mines a solid lump of zinc, still portable though (Tecnosky Cubo). A goto mount would be even better but costs ramp up, and you need a portable battery.

I think you need to go to an astro meet or event, see what's out there.

Same as @grjsk, I'd be very grateful for a lead on where to find the carbon tripods. However, take into account that for us poor newbies it's hard enough to understand what the "astronomy-driven" market has to offer, without getting into trying to buy a tripod and a mount head separately...

[grjsk]

4 minutes ago, SwiMatt said:

Same as @grjsk, I'd be very grateful for a lead on where to find the carbon tripods. However, take into account that for us poor newbies it's hard enough to understand what the "astronomy-driven" market has to offer, without getting into trying to buy a tripod and a mount head separately...

Personally, I would simply go for the Skymax 127 package. I doubt the difference between the Skywatcher and the Bresser is all that great. You get everything you need in one package, at a good price. You could always upgrade the tripod at a later date. And hopefully you can afford a stool as well

[grjsk]

If you want go-to, this is the same scope and tripod, but with the az-gti head in stead of the az5:

 

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/maksutov/sky-watcher-skymax-127-az-gti.html

[Elp]

Tbh I bought one from eBay and the other a used (it was practically new and unmarked) from Amazon of all places. A Leofoto LS-253 is as short as it gets (there is a shorter one but you'll be lying on your belly trying to look up through it and you couldn't mount anything reliable onto it anyway, probably not even a camera on tilt), collapsed it's as small as your forearm and holds my Z61, C6 at a push on my azgti in EQ mode, you can't really put anything bigger on it as it shifts the centre of gravity and the bottom of the legs fully extended can't secure it (maybe if you hung a weight in the centre of the legs it could), it practically weighs nothing and doesn't take much space of anything. It was less than 100 when I bought it, carbon fibre tripods however have gone up considerably since. The stool recommended above is ideal as your head (an average height head maybe, what is the average?) will sit comfortably at a short refractor eyepiece with this one. The other is a innorel nt364, it's heavier and longer when collapsed but has thick leg sections which is good for astro tripod use, with one leg extension your scope setup is typically at just above hip height (again average hip height?), this tripod also extends higher than me which I'll likely never use but I could potentially view at zenith in comfort like this standing up. This tripod wasn't much more than the first. Both are 3/8 male threaded for flexibility of use (I use my gem28 on the innorel with an adaptor plate) and they'll be future proof for most small harmonic drive mounts. You'll struggle to buy a wooden Berlebach for the price I paid for these two, if you can however get a Berlebach (uni or planet recommended for astro) they are a work of art lifetime purchases.

I've used a steel skywatcher one and they're also excellent but as mentioned not portable.

All other photo ones I've used (nothing special) were no good but many people do have good ones if you do a forum search online.

[SwiMatt]

17 minutes ago, grjsk said:

Personally, I would simply go for the Skymax 127 package. I doubt the difference between the Skywatcher and the Bresser is all that great. You get everything you need in one package, at a good price. You could always upgrade the tripod at a later date. And hopefully you can afford a stool as well

Thanks so much @grjsk! And I assume that FLO is a good provider also for Scandinavia, since you suggest it

The price is more or less in my range, a stool is included in my mind. My main issue isn't the price tag itself, it's how much money I'm ready to invest to start with!

[Elp]

Stick to a budget to start with, if not you'll end up buying all sorts of unnecessary stuff. With the likes of Amazon you can also save by purchasing from non native Amazon sites, obviously factoring in delivery, currency conversion and any import costs (made simpler with Amazon's import fee deposit within the price). FLO are a good provider period, ask them for advice if you've got any queries.

Edited June 19, 2023 by Elp