Orion Starblast review (Comp entry)

[Andrew]

Orion Starblast 4.5” Newtonian reflector

Scope Specifications:

Mirror diameter: 113mm

Focal length: 450 mm

Eyepieces supplied: Orion Explorer II (6mm & 17mm)

Focuser: 1.25” Rack-and-pinion

Mount: Altazimuth

Weight: 13 lb

Some background:

I should start by explaining that I’m a relative newcomer to astronomy. My wife gave me an Orion Starblast for Christmas. She knew that stargazing appealed to me, but that I would never find the time to take it up without a push from her. She chose the Starblast based on a review of starter scopes in Sky and Telescope magazine. Not surprisingly, Christmas day was followed by several nights of cloudy skies, so while I sat around waiting for a chance to use my new toy I scoured the web to see what I could find out about it. I came across several reviews by people who obviously each had years of experience and a house full of telescopes to go with it. The general impression that I got was that my wife had made a good choice. Most of the experts seemed to feel that, for a scope of this price, it had decent optics and would provide good views of plenty of deep sky objects. It all looked promising, but I couldn’t help wondering if a novice such as myself would find it so easy or get as much out of the scope. After all, half the battle in finding an object is knowing what to look for, which I clearly didn’t! Anyway, that’s my roundabout way of explaining why I’m writing this review. I thought that since the Starblast is a beginners telescope, a few comments from a beginner might be of interest to others in the same position.

Delivery and customer support:

The scope was supplied by Telescope House and arrived very well packaged and fully assembled. I’m not sure if they still supply it, but you can now get it from SCS Astro, also with an EQ mount. The instructions are clear and reasonably detailed. However, I quickly found that I had several questions that they don’t address about aligning and removing the secondary (I’ve had no need to do either yet). When I contacted Orion with these questions I was very impressed by their prompt and clear reply (i.e. next day response from the US).

Mechanics:

Overall, the telescope’s mechanics are very good and I have only minor quibbles that I’m sure would be the same for any starter scope of this type. The altazimuth table-top mount is solid and smooth, particularly in the case of motion in altitude. I probably wouldn’t have noticed that the azimuth motion is a little sticky if I hadn’t seen this in another review. It is really only an issue at higher powers (above x100 for this scope) and can be fixed with the usual plastic washer modification. The rack and pinion focuser is adequate, although getting a really sharp focus at higher powers can involve a lot of fiddling sometimes (i.e. what seems like a fraction of a fraction of a rotation on the focus knob). One big advantage of the mount is that it takes literally seconds to be outside and observing. Having said this, if you don’t like sitting down while observing the table-top mount doesn’t lend itself to a comfortable experience. You must either build/buy a mount to raise the scope to eye level or put up with the sort of back pain that only four hours spent stooping can induce.

Optics:

When the telescope arrived collimation was a little off perfect (the secondary mirror was aligned okay but the primary was a little out). This only took a few seconds to fix thanks to the clear instructions and centre marked primary. The simple collimation cap provided by Orion serves its purpose. However, it took me a while before I realised that the reflective circle on the back of the cap that is seen when checking collimation had been placed off centre! For several weeks I’d been wondering why this reflection looked off (implying, according to the diagrams in the instructions, that collimation was slightly out) when the star images on either side of focus were symmetrical. It was quite a relief when I discovered the cause as I’d been toying with the idea of trying to realign the secondary, which probably would have resulted in many hours of frustration and cursing!

I lack the expertise to make any substantive comment on the quality of the optics. To my inexperienced eye stars appear as sharp points of light over the majority of the field of view. Some coma is evident in the outer 20% but not enough to be disturbing. Diffraction spikes are sometimes present on bright stars. Tight doubles are easily resolved (I have not tested this up to the theoretical limit for the scope) and the colour contrast is good in doubles such as gamma Andromedae and Albireo.

The telescope was supplied with two Orion Explorer eps (6 mm and 17 mm) giving powers of x75 (40’ FOV) and x26 (a little less than 2 degrees FOV). Not surprisingly, these are fairly cheap eps. However, my lack of experience with better quality eyepieces suggests to me that while they may have limitations, they probably won’t be obvious to a beginner. In fact, having looked through a couple of Meade 3000 series Plossl eps I can’t say that the latter were obviously better. Having said this, the biggest weakness of the eps that are supplied is that, to my way of thinking, they don’t provide the best FOV for many objects. Consequently, I’ve added a 2x Meade Barlow, a 26mm Orion Sirius (which shows about 3 degrees at x17) and a 9.5 mm Meade 4000 series Plossl (which shows about 1.1 degree at x47). These are the eps that have been used to make most of the observations discussed below.

Observations:

So far I’ve managed to get in about 30 nights observing with the telescope, although only about a third of that time has been on cloudless, moonless nights. Conditions in my back garden where I observe are pretty good but not perfect (I live in Exeter). With the naked eye, limiting star magnitude is about 5.5-6 and during good conditions in Winter the Andromeda galaxy is visible and I can see at least 7-8 stars in the Pleiades.

At f4 this scope is by no means ideal for planetary observing. The moon is obviously stunning, but Mars is now nothing more that a small featureless disk. Views of Saturn during Jan and Feb showed the ring system, but with only a hint of the Cassini division on one occasion. Both Titan and Rhea are fairly easy, but the planet itself shows nothing in the way of surface detail. During the last few months I’ve had good views of Jupiter showing the Galilean moons and several cloud belts, but no sign of the GRS. The seeing is rarely good enough from my site and the theoretical magnification limit of x226 for this scope seems a little wishful. Views are crisp at x100, but at x150 they are rarely pin-sharp on the planets (this is not a noticeable problem on deep sky objects). My guess is that the steep light cone means that seeing is critical, and this is definitely the limiting factor on planetary views (at high powers pin-sharp views are possible but tend to be intermittent).

Most of my time has been spent working through the Messier list (86 objects found so far). I’ve included a few sketches here to give a better impression of the level of detail that is visible. In some cases these are indicative of what can be seen with careful observation (often over an hour or so using a range of magnifications) rather than what is immediately obvious at first glance.

Open clusters are definitely great targets for this scope. Despite its relatively small light-gathering capacity there are plenty of these objects that show good detail and many that are stunning (e.g. M24, M44, M45, the double cluster in Perseus, NGC457, NGC752, NGC2264 etc). The wide field capability of the scope really comes into its own on clusters like the Pleiades because it allows you to frame the cluster with plenty of darker sky which seems to set it off better.

Some of the Messier clusters are pushing the limit for this scope (at least from my site) in the sense that faint stars can be hard to see clearly. For example, M52 is difficult to appreciate although many stars are visible because they are so faint. M11 appears almost as a nebulous cloud, but relatively few individual stars are resolved (despite this it’s still impressive).

Globular clusters are easy to find, but are generally little more than a circular hazy patch. However, under good conditions the best of the Messiers (e.g. M13, M92 and a few others) show mottling and individual stars are resolved.

The brighter planetary nebulae are fairly easy to see (including some smaller targets like the Cats eye and Eskimo), although of course they lack any detail. The dumbbell nebula shows its shape on good nights although more often than not it is just a rectangular patch of light. At low powers the ring nebula is just a hazy circle, but above x50 the central hole stands out clearly in averted vision.

Galaxies can be a challenge and the majority are extremely faint and structureless (not surprisingly). M31 is easy and shows both the core and a little sign of the orientation of its outer region. Nearby M32 is also clear (but dim), but M110 is pushing it (a careful sketch combined with much straining at the eyepiece was enough to convince me that I could just get a hint of it but nothing more). M81 and M82 are probably the pick of the bunch with clear differences in shape and brightness.

The Leo trio plus M94, M106 and M51 have all been fairly easy and in the case of the latter its companion NGC5195 was also just visible in averted vision. I’ve also found most of the Messier galaxies in the Virgo-Coma cluster, but these pretty much define the limit for this scope under my sky conditions.

Nebulae can by tricky, although I’ve had good views of the brightest – e.g. the Orion nebula is, of course, stunning. The fishmouth embayment is clear, the trapezium is easily resolved into four stars and a couple of other faint stars are visible between M42 and M43. I’m fairly sure I could see some nebulosity around the Ghost nebula to the North, but I couldn’t be absolutely certain since this was immediately before my first major experience with dew! The Swan nebula is clear (although its neck is faint and its head is usually missing!) and the Lagoon is also impressive although the nebulosity is quite limited in extent.

I’ve had no luck with finding the Veil, North American or Pelican nebulae and I’ve tried on several occasions, with and without a filter (Baader neodymium). I’m hoping that darker skies during some late summer camping will help with this. The filter certainly hasn’t! It doesn’t seem to improve the view of anything and I wonder if the scope is just too small – i.e. general loss of light outweighs the filters benefit’s?

Summary:

Overall, I’m very happy with the Starblast and I would recommend it to other newcomers looking for a low price starter scope (unless they were particularly interested in the planets). Perhaps the best thing that I can say about it is that it’s made me want to buy a larger scope! – i.e. it’s good enough to keep me interested in observing. My wife is thrilled that my new hobby has given me a better appreciation of the fact that ‘need’ and ‘want’ are almost the same thing when it comes to spending money (she’s been trying to explain this for years). Fortunately, the Starblast is good enough that I won’t have to tell her just how much money I need to spend for a little while yet!

[Grant]

Fantastic review Andrew, you've clearly spent alot of time and effort writing it and I'm sure it will be very useful to lots of people.

I particulary loved seeing your sketches, not many sketches get posted on the forum and I really love to see them because it really shows what can be seen from the eyepiece, thank you for posting them.

Cheers,

Grant

[Kaptain Klevtsov]

Fortunately, the Starblast is good enough that I won’t have to tell her just how much money I need to spend for a little while yet!

It will come soon enough, honest.

Excellent review BTW.

Captain Chaos

[MartinB]

A superb review Andrew!! You have described every aspect of the scope in a clear and honest manner which will be of great help to anyone looking at something similar. Your description of what can and what can't be seen is really helpful. I agree with Ant about the drawings, the standard of these is excellent and illustrates the text perfectly.

You have done fantastically well with your observing. 86 messiers!!!

Personally I think 4 1/2 " reflectors are great starter scopes. My Tal 1 provided some superb views.

Thank you very much for this

[geppetto]

Yes indeed, fantastic review with obviously a lot of effort put in.

Some of the reviewers in the magazines should take notes from your style 8)

[anthony]

Great review - I agree with everyone above. A great reference for those wanting to get started themselves.

Anthony

[domfog]

Hi Andrew

I am just starting and found your review really informative, thank you.

I am looking to get a second hand scope to further my budding hobby and like the look

and way your scope works. May consider getting something like that.

More help from is what I am looking for.

Cheers

Dominic

[Greg]

Superb review Andrew...

An enjoyableand informative review and as Grant has already said it's nice to see some sketches on here.

Nicely done.

Greg

[Andrew]

Thanks for the kind words.

I've been away for a few days and it's nice to come back to some positive feedback.

[Saso]

Fantastic review with a a lot of effort. Sketches are absolutely stunning. :hello1:

Saso

[mark RD]

One of the best I seen so far, great stuff.

RD

[FLO]

Nice one Andrew 8)

[FLO]

Recently,

Andrew, Greg and I got together for some observing so I got to try the Starblast myself.

I was genuinely surprised at how pleasing the low-medium magnification views are thru this scope and how quick and easy it is to setup.

Highlight for me was when Andrew framed both Bode's galaxy (M81) and the Cigar galaxy (M82) in the same FOV - the difference between the top-down view of the Bode's and the edge-on view of the Cigar was clear to see.

Worth mentioning though that the scopes optics are capable of much more than the supplied eyepieces can show.