Posts Made By: paul jones

Can anyone tell me what Schmidt-Newtonians are like, quality wise? I'm not really thinking of buying one, but the Celestron Comet Catcher was the first scope I ever wanted. I never got it (got a C-8, which I love, instead) and every now and then I see a Comet Catcher go up for sale and wonder. Also, I think Meade has a line of Schmidt-Newts. Just wondering if there are strong opinions one way or the other on these systems. Thanks.

-Paul

Mike,
You should take no grief for having a goto. I don't have one, probably won't have one for a long while (I'd rather spend the money on aperture and goodies) but I don't understand this reaction to goto technology. The assumption on the part of the critics is that you won't learn the sky if you have a goto. Well, that is true. But I know plenty of "amateurs" already who buy every new gadget that comes out and who also never bothered to learn the sky. They strut their equipment at star parties but would come in last in any observing challenge. And, just like with goto scopes, there are those who buy every new thing, strut their equipment at every chance who would kick my --- in any observing challenge.

My point is, it isn't the equipment that is important, it is the operator. If the operator is a curious sort who likes to learn, they will. If not, they won't, regardless of what equipment we're talking about.

Now, with that off my chest; excellent observing of the daytime planets. I did this once with a polar aligned C8 - set it on Jupiter just before sun up, left the drive on and took a good long look once the planet was near culmination. A good trick.

ALso, you may not know, Venus is observable with the unaided eye in daytime. However, I've never found it without first finding it in binoculars or a finder. Once you know where it is, it is easy. The goto should make that a breeze. Just don't look at the sun!

Has anyone recently bought a Televue Everbrite diagonal or similar premium diagonal? I noticed last night that there is a slight dropoff in brightness using my 20+ year old diagonal and looking "straight through." It isn't much (and may have been my imagination) and certainly isn't worth the craning required to routinely use my C8 straight thru, but it has made me consider upgrading the diagonal.

What say you, oh astronomical community? Is a premium diagonal worth the $$$$?

Is it possible to put a 2" back on a C8? Has anyone done this?

Same questions for a C11. Thanks.

Does anyone here have experience with a 14" Tscope (http://www.tscopes.com/)? In particular, I'm interested in hearing about quality of construction and mechanics relative to other commercial Dobs (Obsession, Discovery, etc.). Thanks. -Paul

I've heard that collimation is essential, too. However, I've owned a C8 for 18 years and haven't collimated the scope in a long, long time. The scope provides excellent images, resolves doubles down to 1", looks fine out of focus, etc. Anyway, folks with newer models say collimation is essential and frequently necessary. Since you'll be buying a new one, you should probably listen to them and not me.

(How was that for help?)

Dan,
Please don't take this the wrong way...
What do you mean by trouble seeing M51? Do you mean that it is difficult to detect, even with averted vision, in your ten inch? Or are you disappointed that it doesn't look like the pictures?

My first view of M51, in an 8-inch SCT from small town OK (limiting mag around 6) was disappointing because I expected clearly visible spiral arms and lots of detail. It turns out it isn't nearly as clear as photos.

Anyway, I'm just asking because I'm not sure how "new" you are. Talking to folks in the local astronomy club sounds like a good idea. They can give you a reasonable idea of how dark your skies are and, if they're bad, where a good observing location in the area is. It may well be worth the drive.

8" C8, 300-500x, 2-3. When the seeing is excellent, 2, when it is average, 3. Actually, on some particularly bad nights, 4 or 5. I would say that under any seeing conditions, the color is much closer to 1 though nowhere near as sharp.

By the way, Michael, after mornings where you get your wife up to look at Mars does she keep shooting you dirty looks all day? If not, I'd definitely say a refractor is better than an SCT.

Sunrise from the summit of Haleakala (Maui) is well worth a trip. The volcano is awesome as well if you like to hike.

There really is a lot up there not on the Messier list. I agree with Ron's statement about surface brightness; don't be intimidated by magnitudes of DSOs. There are a number of high surface brightness globulars, for instance, that can easily be seen in your scope. NGC 6712 is a great object, for example. Small planetaries down to the stellar magnitude limit of your scope may be visible (if you like PNs, you may want to invest in an OIII filter).

You could also follow asteroids, time occulations, chart variable stars. You've got plenty left in that scope.

(I also agree that doubles are great targets.)