Posts Made By: Rod Mollise

David Brokofsky said:

So what is everyone's opinion here, is it better to observe galaxies (not find them but actually observe them) with a low power, wide field or is it better to bump up the power?

I've heard both ways on this but I'm curious what everyone else thinks.

Cheers

The answer is, "It Depends on the Size of the Galaxy."

It's always helpful to bump up the power if the skies are not perfect (darkens the bright background) or the galaxy is a teeny tiny (pops out better).

OTOH, something like M101 needs plenty of sky background to frame it. Which is why M101 is so difficult from the city--though I could almost always see at least the core from my urban site with an 8-inch f/5 Synta when I was doing the observations for my last book.

OTOOH, do NOT eschew high power on any galaxy. At high power the huge M31 is a wonderland. So is M101. I've spent some remarkable evenings under the dark skies of French Camp, Mississippi counting HII regions in M101.

8)

Yeah, I'm aware. This two-bit company has decided to PROTECT THEIR PROPERTY...LOL.

What can we do? Tell everybody to stay away from this loser-outfits products and let the Skyclock goobers know you're doin' that.

Steven Lynn said:

My humble abode will be fumigated with Vikane. I'm guessing it is to meet the lenders' requirements regarding termites.

To heck with my lungs and beating heart: does this have any possible risk to eyepieces, objective lens, Newtonian mirrors, etc.? Anyone have any experience or knowledge?
Thanks,
Steven

I've never had anything fumigated, but I wouldn't expose my optics to it... What you've got is aerosols in the air that are bound to land on everything.

8)

Quite a few folks would tell you that the astro-economy has been depressed for some time.

I don't expect to see run away "inflation" in telescopes or any other huge bumps. There is no doubt that the cost of primary mirrors for big Dobs has gone up significantly, but what will happen is that current makers will find sources of less expensive mirrors/blanks, or they will price themselves out of the game and new folks will come along who will.

8)

Doug Peterson said:

My vote:

The TMB 92mm F5.5 triplet APO, 6x the real field diameter of a Questar 3.5, no central obstruction so wider useful magnification and no contrast loss at highest powers.

I'd have to say, yeah, a small APO or ED scope from any of the several excellent manufacturers we have now.

Don't get me wrong. I love Questar 3.5s...always have wanted one...but.

Given what they command price-wise, I have never EVER seriously contemplated buyin' one. It's not just the 5 grand one will drain from the bank account, it's what you get. Sure, it's a great scope for what it is...but what it is is a slow Maksutov with a limited/limiting drive and mount. Now, a li'l refractor can be used for any number of things...visual observing...deep sky imaging...guiding...etc. A Quester is really best for casual visual use.

My love for CATs is well known, but I suppose it kinda runs out when you get to the Q3.5...

8)

Tony Aguire said:

I have a Celestron Ultima mount with the Byers gear setup. Has anyone ever heard of anybody taking the goods in one mount and installing them in another mount? The idea being taking the best attributes of a couple systems and merging them to create a killer setup for cheap. I understand there would be machine work involved.I like the Byers gears but I am less enthusiastic about the fork/wedge setup. So maybe if I could put the Byers gears on a GEM with decent load characteristis but which came with (origionally) a less than stellar drive....

Thanks for the input

Well, I'd question whether it is worth the trouble. I have this very mount, a Byers geared Ultima 8 from the early 90s. It's a very nice mount with PEC and all, and had a very acceptible PE figure for the day, a bit under 30" before Pecing. That's still OK, if you don't mind either PEC training or autoguiding, but it's not like what you'll find in an A-P or a Paramount. ;-)

In fact, it's comparable to...or actually worse than what's normal in Synta's HEQ5 and EQ6.

Byers produced some great gears over the years, but there are Byers gear sets and there are Byers gear sets. One problem, if you want to call it that, in the Celestrons (and Meades) is that the worm gear drives are only half there. The wheel, the big gear, is still a spur gear.

Again, you could do this if you wanted to devote the time and trouble to it...but...what I did was pull the U8 OTA off that fork and put it on an inexpensive CG5. I did that mainly for go-to, but I find the mount tracks as well--or maybe a wee bit better than the ol' Ultima drive base.

The performance of the other Ultima drivebases I've used has been similar to mine: good for the day, ho-hum today.

8)

Jay Martin said:

I couldn't find much on this so thought I would ask.
Does anyone have a recommendation on what would be the best beginner inexpensive solar filter - say below $250 or- for a Celestron 8 inch CPC telescope. I know virtually little about this aspect of the hobby but I am interested in doing this. It seems that these filters can be very expense. Any help or recommendations will be great. Thanks.
Jay

Depends on you. If you just want a great, inexpensive filter, go with one that uses the Baader Astro-Solar Film. You will not beat that for image quality. If you want something a bit more durable, a glass filter, that is, my favorite is the JMB Identiview. Its image quality is comparable to Baader, it's more likely to stand up to my abuse, and it provides a very pleaing orange-yellow Sun.

8)

Dan Lamoreaux said:

MCTs have a general reputation as being a good choice for lunar an planetary observation while SCTs seem to be less valued for this purpose. Not being an optics design expert, my question is if both scopes are built to the same basic specs. say an 8" f/12 with a 34% c.o. is there an inherent design advantage for the mak that makes it better or is the difference in reputations because the maks are usually built by smaller specialty optical shops that use better components as opposed to the mass produced SCTs out there?

DanL

And yet...and yet... the premier planetary imagers...Damian Peach, Chris Go...just to name two, use SCTs.

Maybe that's not a completely fair comparison, since light helps, and larger aperture SCTs are far more affordable than their MCT cousins.

MCTs do have some advantages. One thing is that the corrector is potentially easier to do very well than is the complex curve corrector of the SCT. Also, MCTs can be (but not always are) all spherical systems which, again, potentially can be easier to do very well.

8)

Andre Moutinho said:

Hello,

Can I use this finder on my Celestron C11 scope?

Thanks
Andre

Yep.

8)

The trade off is that the Lumicon (not sure they make 'em any more) is just a reducer and not a reducer-corrector like the Celestron.

Another reducer people like is the .5 from Astro-Physics.

8)