Celestron Starsense Explorer DX 6"

[Beardy30]

Has anyone any experience with this rig? I’d be interested as it’s a very affordable way to get. 6” SCT on what looks a very sturdy mount - looks a great beginner set up 

[wesdon1]

@Beardy30 No experience with it but it looks a great setup to start out with, plus as you mentioned, a great price for an SCT Telescope! Just one thing, are you aware that SCT type telescopes are only really good for Planets, splitting stars, Globular Star Clusters and the smaller Galaxies and Nebula? They won't do much for large Nebula or large galaxies? That aside, Celestron are great quality and the Starsense tech looks brilliant for beginners, helping them find their way around the sky without needing a GoTo setup.

[Beardy30]

Yes I’ve previously had a 8” sct and I’ve regretted selling ever since - this option looks a get deal to get a sct 

[Stu1smartcookie]

Hi , The C6 scope is a real winner as is the Starsense , The only weak link is the mount .... But , the C6 Is a light scope and i'm sure it will be a great set up . 

[Beardy30]

I wonder if it would fit in my azi GTI ?

[Stu1smartcookie]

I think once you have a diagonal and an EP and an RDF or some other type of finder you will be getting to the upper limits but the good thing is , the c6 is quite short so it should be ok 

[Beardy30]

Just now, Stu1smartcookie said:

I think once you have a diagonal and an EP and an RDF or some other type of finder you will be getting to the upper limits but the good thing is , the c6 is quite short so it should be ok 

Yes thats my thoughts also 

[Cosmic Geoff]

20 hours ago, wesdon1 said:

Just one thing, are you aware that SCT type telescopes are only really good for Planets, splitting stars, Globular Star Clusters and the smaller Galaxies and Nebula? They won't do much for large Nebula or large galaxies? That aside, Celestron are great quality and the Starsense tech looks brilliant for beginners, helping them find their way around the sky without needing a GoTo setup.

This argument about the small field gets trotted out almost every time SCTs and MAKs are mentioned.  But let's ask, how many objects are there, that you can see with a small telescope in the kind of environment where most of us live, but will not fit into the field of view of a small SCT or Maksutov?  I think, not many at all. 

When I acquired my 127mm Mak, focal length 1500mm, I found that a handful of large and bright open clusters would not fit into the field of view, but thousands of other objects did.

As for large galaxies, quite a few are big when imaged, but do they look big when seen through a small telescope in Bortle 6 skies? No, they don't.  All you see is a fuzz of the central nucleus. Same with small and large nebulae which asides from M42 are basically invisible in an urban environment.

An aside about the Celestron C6 - this is a long-established design and is available as a bare optical tube and also with an unusual variety of mounts, from serious mounts valued at around £1000 to starter mounts which depending on the deal on offer may be included at almost no extra cost.

[wesdon1]

20 hours ago, Beardy30 said:

Yes I’ve previously had a 8” sct and I’ve regretted selling ever since - this option looks a get deal to get a sct 

@Beardy30 Oh right ok great, so you know exactly what you're buying. Ironically, you saying you regret selling your 8" SCT, well I'm currently looking for an 8" SCT myself, because I already own reflectors, Refractors but need a scope with the much longer native FL like SCT's and Maks have, because I want to really improve my Planetary and small DSO imaging! Just the damn cost of larger SCT's and Maks! They're eye-wateringly expensive! LOL. I did actually strongly consider buying the exact 6" Mak you mentioned but as is often the case, my aperture fever demands nothing less than 8 inches aperture! 🤷‍♂️😂

[wesdon1]

50 minutes ago, Cosmic Geoff said:

This argument about the small field gets trotted out almost every time SCTs and MAKs are mentioned.  But let's ask, how many objects are there, that you can see with a small telescope in the kind of environment where most of us live, but will not fit into the field of view of a small SCT or Maksutov?  I think, not many at all. 

When I acquired my 127mm Mak, focal length 1500mm, I found that a handful of large and bright open clusters would not fit into the field of view, but thousands of other objects did.

As for large galaxies, quite a few are big when imaged, but do they look big when seen through a small telescope in Bortle 6 skies? No, they don't.  All you see is a fuzz of the central nucleus. Same with small and large nebulae which asides from M42 are basically invisible in an urban environment.

An aside about the Celestron C6 - this is a long-established design and is available as a bare optical tube and also with an unusual variety of mounts, from serious mounts valued at around £1000 to starter mounts which depending on the deal on offer may be included at almost no extra cost.

@Cosmic Geoff Hey jeff! I totally see the logic in your sentiments Geoff. What I was trying to tell the man, based on my assumption he was totally new to the hobby, was the nature and capabilities of the Catadioptric type designs. I wasn't trying to put him off, or "knock" the catadioptric 'scopes, I was just trying to help him make an informed decision. I have later discovered he has actually owned an SCT before, so he's well informed already.

Also, I was telling him the Celestron brand is great quality and a great price? But from the comments you've made it appears you might have misunderstood what I was trying to tell him? Absolutely no problem though! We need open and honest discussions on here so we can all learn from each other!

Kindest regards, Wes.

[Cosmic Geoff]

Wesdon1 - Fine, but I think we have too much mention of the narrow FOV of SCTs and Maks. It would be equally useful to novices to point out which telescope designs (fast achromats) do not work well on planets and double stars, or need  more sophisticated eyepieces to do so (f5 reflectors). And warn them about wobbly entry level mounts. 

[Beardy30]

2 hours ago, wesdon1 said:

@Cosmic Geoff Hey jeff! I totally see the logic in your sentiments Geoff. What I was trying to tell the man, based on my assumption he was totally new to the hobby, was the nature and capabilities of the Catadioptric type designs. I wasn't trying to put him off, or "knock" the catadioptric 'scopes, I was just trying to help him make an informed decision. I have later discovered he has actually owned an SCT before, so he's well informed already.

Also, I was telling him the Celestron brand is great quality and a great price? But from the comments you've made it appears you might have misunderstood what I was trying to tell him? Absolutely no problem though! We need open and honest discussions on here so we can all learn from each other!

Kindest regards, Wes.

Thanks Wes much appreciated- incidentally I’m not new to the hobby and totally understand your view and appreciate your help - thank u ☺️ 

[Beardy30]

1 hour ago, Cosmic Geoff said:

Wesdon1 - Fine, but I think we have too much mention of the narrow FOV of SCTs and Maks. It would be equally useful to novices to point out which telescope designs (fast achromats) do not work well on planets and double stars, or need  more sophisticated eyepieces to do so (f5 reflectors). And warn them about wobbly entry level mounts. 

[Stu1smartcookie]

3 hours ago, Cosmic Geoff said:

This argument about the small field gets trotted out almost every time SCTs and MAKs are mentioned.  But let's ask, how many objects are there, that you can see with a small telescope in the kind of environment where most of us live, but will not fit into the field of view of a small SCT or Maksutov?  I think, not many at all. 

When I acquired my 127mm Mak, focal length 1500mm, I found that a handful of large and bright open clusters would not fit into the field of view, but thousands of other objects did.

As for large galaxies, quite a few are big when imaged, but do they look big when seen through a small telescope in Bortle 6 skies? No, they don't.  All you see is a fuzz of the central nucleus. Same with small and large nebulae which asides from M42 are basically invisible in an urban environment.

An aside about the Celestron C6 - this is a long-established design and is available as a bare optical tube and also with an unusual variety of mounts, from serious mounts valued at around £1000 to starter mounts which depending on the deal on offer may be included at almost no extra cost.

Plus 1 for the above ... i have just bought a 180 Mak and already i am seeing DSO's that i thought i wouldnt see due to the "experts" narrow viewpoint ( pun absolutely intended )  . 

[wesdon1]

On 15/02/2024 at 15:19, Stu1smartcookie said:

 

@Stu1smartcookie Sorry mate, I was trying to write a message but I got confused so i'll just start again on a new message! LOL

Edited February 21 by wesdon1
got mixed up!

[wesdon1]

On 15/02/2024 at 13:38, Cosmic Geoff said:

Wesdon1 - Fine, but I think we have too much mention of the narrow FOV of SCTs and Maks. It would be equally useful to novices to point out which telescope designs (fast achromats) do not work well on planets and double stars, or need  more sophisticated eyepieces to do so (f5 reflectors). And warn them about wobbly entry level mounts. 

@Cosmic Geoff Yes I would normally have mentioned those other important things in about astro gear but he was asking a very specific question about the Celestron 6" SCT price etc, so I kinda got fixated on telling him about the pro's and cons of them specifically. On that subject of wobbly/inadequate mounts, I remember a few years ago when starting out, I mounted a 4" achro F11 refractor to a skinny DSLR camera tripod while saving up for a proper mount, and I swear it was hilariously impossible to get the damn 'scope to stop wobbling while trying to view things!! Nightmare!! 😂

[wesdon1]

On 15/02/2024 at 15:11, Beardy30 said:

Thanks Wes much appreciated- incidentally I’m not new to the hobby and totally understand your view and appreciate your help - thank u ☺️ 

@Beardy30 Aww thanks James! You're welcome! ☺️

[tico]

Really, the mount and tripod combo is good for the SCT 6"? 

For stability without too much vibrations? 

Thanks

Tico

[Cosmic Geoff]

Here's a review: Celestron StarSense Explorer DX 6-inch Schmidt-Cassegrain - BBC Sky at Night Magazine

It reveals that the tripod is lightweight, so don't expect the kind of solidity you'd get with a steel tripod as supplied with e.g. the EQ-5 mount.

[wesdon1]

On 21/06/2024 at 17:20, tico said:

Really, the mount and tripod combo is good for the SCT 6"? 

For stability without too much vibrations? 

Thanks

Tico

@tico Hi, you could hand a bag with a few tins of beans from the underside of the tripod, that will give you much more stability for the Tripod/Mount.

[paulastro]

On 14/02/2024 at 14:47, Beardy30 said:

Has anyone any experience with this rig? I’d be interested as it’s a very affordable way to get. 6” SCT on what looks a very sturdy mount - looks a great beginner set up 

Let me say straight away, the Starsense Explorer system works great - in my view the best object finding system there is and more reliable and less trouble than any go-to I've used .  I have adapted my mounts to be able to use it with all my scopes and have used it for the last few years exclusively. 

However I did buy the Starsense  DX 130mm reflector version at one time and I found the mount rather inadequate. I know it's a longer scope than the 6inch SC but even so, it is not 'a very sturdy mount' as you specified.  I returned it.  I'm a Starsense enthusiast so I'm not saying this lightly.

I would suggest if you can find one set up ( at a dealers or perhaps at a local astronomy club) you try the mount  - you'll soon know then if it's for you.  The DX will be better with the SC on board as others have said because it's shorter, but try one first if you can.

All the Starsense Dob mounts are far superior than the DX, it depends on how much you're set on the SC scope.  They come in apertures from 114mm to 12 inches so plenty to choose from.

Good luck.

PS  Just checked on FLO and at £664 the Starsense DX mounted 6inch SC is neatly £50 more expensive than the Starsense 8inch Dob  which comes in at £616!   Unless you don't like reflectors or need a more portable scope you might want to consider this.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 23 by paulastro
PS added.

[Cosmic Geoff]

On 21/06/2024 at 17:20, tico said:

For stability without too much vibrations? 

Be aware that where mounts are concerned, 'light weight' and 'portable' tends to mean 'wobbly' whereas 'stable' means 'heavy'.

I have tried the expedient of hanging weights under the tripod (of a SLT mount), and while it may offer some percentage points of improvement, it's nothing compared with the orders-of-magnitude improvement gained by upgrading to a tripod with 1.75" tubular steel legs.

The mount of the CPC800, for instance, is extremely stable. It's also very heavy and not something most people would want to move more than a few yards without wheels.

[tico]

Maybe the DX5" SCT more stable? In the SS explorer mount...? 

[Cosmic Geoff]

4 hours ago, tico said:

Maybe the DX5" SCT more stable? In the SS explorer mount...? 

Maybe. But if mount stability is a concern, do one of three things:

get your hands on one and see for yourself how stable the combo is

Play safe and buy a C6 paired with one of the more stable (and expensive) mounts such as the AVX

Buy the C6 DX Explorer anyway and be prepared to put up with it being less stable than you hoped/expected.

You can't judge mount stability via a web forum.

[Martyn87]

I bought this exact setup for the same reasons you mentioned. Managed to pick it up for £260 which I feel was an absolute bargain for a 6" SCT! Obviously if you want to do any imaging then the mount will be no good, but the StarSense setup with the app gets you in roughly the right area as long as you have relatively clear skies. 

 

EDIT: 

Just to reply to what some others have said about the mount, it is basically a cheap camera tripod and for anything other than visual, almost entirely useless. It IS NOT a wobbly mess though, and I say this as someone who had no intention of keeping it when I bought the scope. Once you have it on a target, as long as you're not touching the controls, you can get a nice steady view. Obviously whatever you're looking at is going to move out of that view pretty quickly though.  It goes without saying that it is not as stable as it would be on a mount that cost more than this entire setup... 

Edited Thursday at 15:00 by Martyn87