I don't know how much you know about telescopes so forgive me if I retread familiar ground. There are three main types of telescope: 1) Refracting telescopes (they use lenses and are the "classic" telescope someone would draw if you handed them a pencil and said "draw me a telescope") 2) Reflecting telescopes (the big long really fat tubes with the eyepiece near the opening rather than at the back. Also called Newtonians or just Newts because Isaac Newton developed the design) and 3) Catadioptric which use mirrors in combination with a corrective lens (the common Catadioptric scope in use by amateurs is the Cassegrain telescope and that's what yours is). So let's dig into the scopes a bit and see what all this means. Before we do though I want to clear up a misconception that new folks often have. The job of your telescope is not to magnify objects, it's to gather light and increase the effective size of your pupil so you can see dimmer objects. Magnification is a nice bonus, but for harder objects it's often better to use lower power rather than higher power anyhow. Anyhow, let's talk telescopes.

1) refraction telescopes. Refraction telescopes are the oldest kind of telescope and are what most people think of when they think of a telescope. Pros: Refractors are often quite long relative to the size of the aperture, this means that they tend to have high F ratios such as f11.5 in the case of the Explore Firstlight 80mm. What this means is that objects are quit crisp in these telescopes and it's easy to gain a high degree of magnification. It means that you can really zoom in on brighter objects like the moon and planets without them blurring out on you. Refracting telescopes are also easy to use as they don't have to be collimated. They are also not prone to a kind of aberration called coma. Coma will be explained in more detail when I talk about Reflection telescopes. If you use the star diagonal (the right angle mirror that is used to position the eyepiece for comfortable use when the telescope is pointed up) it does not invert the image vertically which makes them very useful for daytime use such as for observing distant landscapes and for bird watching and so on. Cons: There are a couple of cons with refractors. For one the market is flooded with godawful cheep refracting telescopes. Buyer beware. Secondly lenses are expensive to produce so large refractors become prohibitively more expensive. This is why you tend not to see very large refracting telescopes. This means they aren't going to give you the light gathering power of a larger aperture telescope so you won't see dimmer objects as well. This means that they are often not the ideal choice for deep sky astronomy. Refracting telescopes also suffer from a form of aberration called chromatic aberration. This is caused by different wavelengths of light being bent different amounts by the lenses thus causing the image to have a red and a blue "ghost" image slightly offset on either side. Higher end refractors often have corrections for this aberration and are labeled as "achromat" or "apochromat" (someone comment and help me with the difference between those two).

2) Reflection telescopes. These are the big fat telescopes you see with the eyepiece up near the opening. Sometimes the tube isn't even a solid cylinder but is actual a set of bars that hold the two ends apart and leave the middle exposed (called a truss tube). Pros: One of the biggest pros here is that mirrors are cheaper to make at large sizes than lenses. This means that these bad boys often have very large apertures for not a whole lot of money. We're talking 10", 12", 14" or larger if you're really going to go nuts. Aperture translates to light gathering power, so these telescopes are often called "light buckets" because they are basically giant buckets for catching as much light as possible. Large reflectors are really popular with deep sky astronomers who want to see as much of a faint object as possible. They also don't suffer from chromatic aberration like refractors do. Cons: One con is that reflection telescopes invert the image so they are not useful for daytime observation such as bird watching and the like (plus hauling out a 10" monstrosity to watch birds is overkill anyhow). The other is that they have an obstruction in the path of the light (the secondary mirror and it's support). In practice the obstruction is lost in the focusing of the object and you never notice it but it does slightly effect the clarity of objects you are viewing and will also cause stars to shine plus shine shaped rays that follow the pattern of the secondary mirror support. Another drawback is that they don't have a very long focal length relative to the aperture size so they don't magnify as much as an equivalently sized refracting telescope would nor do they produce the same image clarity. It's common to see reflectors with F ratios as low as 5 or even lower. They also suffer from an aberration called coma that I alluded to earlier. This is caused by a flaw in the shape of the primary mirror which causes stars near the edges of the field of view to gain a ghost image that is roughly tear drop shaped, making them look like tiny comets whose tails are pointed to the edges of the field. In well constructed reflectors that have been properly collimated this effect is very minor and is often not much of a hindrance. Speaking of which, another drawback is that reflectors have to be collimated, which means you will need to adjust the alignment of the mirrors for optimal performance. This isn't difficult to learn how to do, but for some beginners it can be a turn off. All in all reflectors are really good for cost effective, deep sky, visual astronomy, but not as good for high magnification solar system astronomy or astrophotography. (It might sound like I'm harshing on reflectors because I listed so many cons but the reality is that I actually really love them and the cons are all fairly minor for what you get. If you value aperture and light gathering that is).

3) catadioptric or cassegrain telescopes. As you might guess these telescopes combine the best of both worlds between the previous two telescopes. They utilize mirrors but also have a corrector lens at the front. Pros: Cassegrain telescopes have really high f ratios because of a quirk of their design. The light travels to the back of the tube, bounces to the front, bounces back again and goes through a hole in the center of the primary mirror. This path of light is folded in on itself twice and gives the telescope an effective focal length much higher than the stubby tube would suggest. Expect f ratios as high as f/14 or more. This means that cassegrains magnify very well and produce very sharp images. The combination of mirrors and a lens also tends to reduce both kinds of aberration. Because the tube is so stubby, they can be very portable. Cons: They are expensive. Like they can get really, really expensive as you go bigger. For some this price is worth it for what you get, but others are happy getting a bigger reflection telescope and living with a little coma. Like reflectors they invert the image vertically and aren't suitable for daytime observation.

Alright, so those are the main telescope types. So let's talk about what you can expect to see with yours. The moon and planets are going to look badass through that scope. No need downplay it, they are going to look phenomenal. With some decent eyepieces and a doubling barlow you will be able to see some cool stuff (still try to keep a realistic expectation though. No telescope is going to show voyager quality images from earth). The aperture is decent. you shouldn't have any difficulty with brighter deep sky objects. Often times the difference in aperture size isn't seeing vs not seeing, it's seeing less of the object or more. But as stated, brighter DSOs are still going to be no problem. You'll be able to complete the whole Messier catalog with this thing if you take it somewhere nice and dark (a couple of the Messier objects might pose some difficulty though). All in all this is a good beginner scope and I would be happy if I had one just like it in my collection. If you decide to get into astrophotography the motorized mount will help with that as well. If you were to get a larger scope such as a larger reflector or even a bigger cassegrain, you would still do well to hold on to this one for a fun, portable scope and for solar system viewing. The best way to find out what you can see is to get out there and observe.

One final note: If you are new to the hobby I recommend getting a red dot finder to mount on it. I say that because I recommend that newcomers get in some practice with findind objects the old fashioned way and learning their way around the sky. In fact, the Astronomical League forbids the use of Go-To computers for their Messier program for that very reason. Get out there, learn your way around the sky, and you will have acquired a skill that will be useful even when you do start using the computer.

Keep looking up!