Posts Made By: Doug Culbertson

The Orion Short Tube 80 will *not* reach focus if you try to look straight through it. You have to either use a diagonal or use an extension tube to observe straight through.

Doug
Midway, FL

How about the Takahashi clamshell ring for the FS 102/FSQ106? It is hinged in a way that should allow it to fit the Traveler. Of course, I don't know how the Tak green would look with the black OTA of the Traveler, and it probably weighs almost as much as the Traveler. I wonder if the TV 102 clamshell ring work?

Doug
Midway,FL

No, the University Optics orthos do not use an internal barlow. They just use a good old fashioned tiny eye lens and very short eye relief! Still, they are very nice planetary eyepieces if you can take the short eye relief.

Some that do employ the internal barlow lens (actually called a Smythe lens, IIRC) are the Orion Ultrascopics, Celestron Ultimas and the Takahashi LE. All of these are pretty darned good high power eyepieces, especially the Taks.

Doug
Midway, FL

I agree with that! Last year at the Chiefland Star Party I had the pleasure of looking at the sun in someone's TMB 105 with a SolarMax 90 and a AP/Baader binoviewer. The view I had of the sun that day stands out as the all time best view I have ever had of the sun anytime in my life. I can imagine all of the "Oh WOW's!" you must have had sharing that view!

Doug
Midway, FL

Tom,

Couple of thoughts. 11mm T5 Naglers. I have 24mm Pans and 16mm Naglers that I am using with my 14.5" f/4.3 Starmaster with a Seibert corrector (1.35X) and the 2X corrector. I also have the 3.8X corrector, but seldom use it. Anyway, I have also been toying with the idea of ditching my narrowfield eyepieces (pairs of 12.5mm Ultimas, 9mm UO orthos, 8mm RKEs) with Naglers myself. If I do so, I am leaning toward either the 11mm or the 9mm...or both!

What the hey, you already have 24mm Pans, and 9mm Naglers, right? So, you might as well indulge. I think you would be sorry going with a narrowfield anyway, having gotten used to the Pans and Naglers. Besides, I sure would love to hear about how a pair of 11mm T5's perform in a binoviewer!

Second thought is, why don't you buy a new set of trusses and the ball connectors from Moonlight? The Starmaster uses the Moohlight ball thingies anyway, so if you made a set of shorter trusses, you could have the best of both worlds...and not kill the resale value of the Starmaster.

Doug
Midway, FL

Anacortes comes immediately to mind.

http://www.buytelescopes.com/

Doug
Midway, FL

Oohhh, a new can of worms! ;^) This is sure to generate some passionate debate.

Well, I am on my fourth Starmaster, so I want to admit my bias right up front.

The Obsession may look a bit better than the Starmaster, but they both look pretty darned good, IMHO. The Obsession is brown, the Starmaster is oak. A matter of preference, I suppose, but I like the look of my Starmaster better. Then again, I didn't buy it to be furniture.

The Obsession, IMHO, has smoother motions than the Starmaster. This can be a good or bad thing. I have seen Obsessions windmill in a breeze that the Starmaster laughed at.

I prefer the triangular configuration of the Starmaster's trusses, as they make it faster to set up.

I don't like the sling that the Obsession uses, as I have seen Obsession owners have to recollimate two or three times during the night. I have seldom had to recollimate during the night after my initial collimation. Also, on the subject of the mirror cell, I love the fact that I can remove my mirror and transport it separately in its own transport box. It makes the whole thing easier for those of us with back problems to own a larger scope. I recently had to help the owner of a 20" Obsession unload his scope out of a SUV and just about ruptured myself.

I like the thinner mirror, as it cools down much faster. Regardless of what the Obsession website says, the thinner mirrors in the Starmasters (D. Kriege does not mention Starmaster specifically) do NOT show astigmatism because the mirror is supported properly, the way the mirror maker supports it for testing.

I know that there has been much said about Carl Zambuto's testing methods, and his claims for Strehl and wavefront error, but I have now owned three CZ mirrors and can tell you that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The deep sky views through my 14.5" Starmaster beat the views through any other telescope in my club, and on nights of good seeing, the planetary views do too. Having said that, if the Torus mirror is good, then I think that one would be splitting hairs to tell the difference in actual views at the eyepiece through either one. Once one gets into the area of premium optics, the views should be outstanding no matter who the mirror maker is.

I like the fact that Rick tests each scope throughly, under the night sky with eyepieces. He not only checks the mirror, but the goto/tracking system if it is ordered, and the whole scope for any flaws, etc.

Rick's customer service is second to none. I bought my first Starmaster from Rick six years ago, and I still get Christmas cards from him and his family. I can call him anytime at all, including weekends, to discuss anything from collimation to the weather.

Hope this helps!

Doug
Midway, FL

Tom,

I think that was Tom Trusock that mentioned that issue on one of the discussion groups, or on Cloudynights. A couple of weeks ago I was out observing in about 28 degrees and, for the first time since I owned them, I noticed the same thing. I could adjust mine, but it did take a bit more effort than usual. I have no idea what could cause that, do you?

Doug
Midway, FL

Jeff,

I *think* that the GM8 with the Dominator tripod should work for the MN66, but it might be kind of close to its limit. My MN66 with the Parallax rings is now pushing close to thirty pounds (15 lbs for the OTA and approximately 10 for the rings). My Orion Atlas (about the same capacity as a G11) seems to be up to the task but, as I mention in the thread below, I haven't had a chance to really put it to the test.
Perhaps Mark Rieck will chime in here, as I seem to remember that he did use a GM8 for his MN66 and Parallax rings.

As to selling the MN66, I have no intention of ever parting with mine...unless it is to upgrade to a larger Maknewt!

Doug
Midway, FL

Thanks Mike! Actually, I just discovered that group over the weekend when a search of saa archives brought it to my attention. There is enough information on that group to make me change my mind for the time being. Sounds like there are a lot of issues that still need to be worked out with the mount.

Doug
Midway, FL