Posts Made By: David Colton

I'm intrigued by Celestron's new Sky Scout as an affordable alternative to digital setting circles; particularly as it doesn't require decoders (thus making the unit exchangable between scopes and mounts) and the potential for being more accurate, given GPS.

On the other hand, I plan to wait, as I consider the units that will begin to be marketed next month to be Beta versions ~ no doubt they'll have problems which will need to be addressed.

Nonetheless, Popular Science indicated they would retail for $300. The Celestron website does not provide a price and early listings on the astro equipment websites indicate $400.

It would seem to me that if Celestron wants this product to have mass market appeal they will need to price it under $300. However, if they plan to limit marketing to the amateur astronomy community, then the higher price will probably prevail.

If you read the literature (such as S&T's review of the UHTC) and check the Astromart archives I think you'll find that the UHTC make the most performance improvement when used for astrophotography; which after you purchase an LX90 you may want to get into. I have an LX90 with UHTC(currently for sale) but whether or not it makes a significant difference for visual viewing I couldn't tell you, as you'd have to compare two scopes, one with and without the coatings, under the same viewing conditions.

My understanding from Meade's advertising is that these scopes are optimized optically and mechanically for astrophotography. It doesn't appear that the additional cost would be worth it to someone who is purely a visual observer.

Going back to Sandy's original question, and not knowing that much about this scope, is it possible to remove the lens cell so that the inside of the tube can be painted flat black? That might cut down on reflections somewhat.

Also, you might take the mount to a local hardware store to see if putting felt washers or some kind of lock washer on the pivot points might help steady the scope.

I'm thinking of purchasing Celestron's new SkyScout at some point in the future as an affordable and portable alternative to digital setting circles. They were supposed to be available in April. If/when anyone purchases one of these devices, please post your observations as I would like to know if it produces accurate results and if it is worth the $$$.

According to the Clear Sky Clock in my region of the U.S. there will be virtually no cloud cover, it will be completely dark, and there will be high transparency, yet seeing conditions are rated poor. Are seeing conditions reflective of air currents and turbulence or other factors? I note that seeing is calculated based on mid-size to large instruments; so what can I expect using a smaller (4" APO) scope?

I have a Chinese clone of a Vixen alt-az mount and like the clone EQ mounts it is lubricated with a thick grease. I want to take it apart and clean it up and see if it needs to be deburred. (1) What is the best way to remove the grease? I am thinking mineral spirits but is there anything less toxic? (2) What type of grease would you recommend using as a replacement and about how much should I apply?

For years NASA sold the public on the idea of a reusable space vehicle that could be taken aloft on a small booster rocket or from the bottom of a jet, like the X-15 and then sent into orbit. The idea was that the shuttle is like putting a tracker-trailer into orbit and what is really needed is a people-mover; the equivalent of a mini-bus or van. So why did they scrape this idea and return to the space capsule concept. In stead of flying a space-plane back to earth, astronauts will now land in the water with a thud. Seems like we're going backward instead of foward in rocket design. Any thoughts? I wonder what the astronauts think of this idea, as I don't think they were real fond of not being in control of the landing process.

A while back I put myself on an equipment diet and I’m now down to two scopes: a Coronado PST Ha and a TV102. I chose the 102 in part due to its portability as well as quality. To fund the 102 I sold off some other scopes including an ETX90 and Orion 80mm ST.

With the impeding transit of Mercury I’m thinking that it would be nice again to have a small, portable scope for both terrestrial and night-time viewing; for example, something that will slip into a small travel bag and something I can use as a telephoto lens on a photo-tripod. I admit that I miss my Orion ST as I was lucky and it had exceptional optics with very little CA.

So, first question, which short-tube 70mm to 80mm refractors would you recommend in the $250 to $400 range? (Achro, Semi-Apo, or Apo – it doesn’t matter).

Second question: I have read reviews of some of the more recent ST refractors being out of collimation. While I won’t mention manufacturers’ names, from the reviews it seems to be a ubiquitous problem. Televue’s policy is if it needs collimation send it back to us. So, have owners of the newer small refractors found this to be a problem?

Thanks.

A couple months back I commented on the fact that NASA seemed to be going backward in that they plan to phase out the Shuttle and replace it with a capsule.

Now I see that the Russians are doing the exact opposite. They plan to update their Soyez and then replace it with the Kliper, a winged glider. And its interesting that while NASA is putting its money into a capsule, the private sector here in the U.S. is designing winged semi-orbital space craft. There's something ungainly about a spacecraft that just drops out of the sky and goes kerplunk in the water.