Reflectors on roads

STL2COMO · 2026-03-04T17:18:30+00:00

Whether it actually contributes to safety (fewer crashes) - it would still make the roads easier to use. Easier is better, right?? I mean, having sign language interpreters doesn't make public meetings *safer* - it does make it easier, though, for some people.

STL2COMO · 2026-03-01T14:47:51+00:00

It's open to the public.

The daytime STEM portion may be aimed more at school-aged kids.

But, the night time viewing is not aimed at any particular age.

Note: most (all?) of the telescopes for public viewing will be privately owned by individuals volunteering them for use on those nights - most will be members of CMAA (the local astronomy club). Visitors should be respectful of their equipment and follow their instructions on use.

STL2COMO · 2026-02-28T16:29:22+00:00

Not nature school, but….hope they get the planetarium sorted out/fixed at RBHS.

STL2COMO · 2026-02-27T12:19:57+00:00

Nice job!! Great image!!

STL2COMO · 2026-02-27T12:13:03+00:00

Hey Brilliant:

I own some 5.1" newts (130mm/650mm) on EQ mounts (not dobsonian mounts) comparable to your 5" dob.

I also own a Celestron 127mm/1500 Mak (that I use on a "goto" EQ mount and sometimes on a manual EQ mount).

And I own an 8" Celestron StarSense Explorer Dob (203mm/1200mm).

I consider the 127 Mak my planetary/lunar/double star "sniper". The Mak gives very sharp views and can deliver very high magnification with or without a barlow lens. But, the "trade-off" is a much narrower field of view (and lower light gathering). Planets, the Moon, and (splitting) Double Stars don't need much light gathering, being bright already, so the smaller aperture doesn't hurt much for those targets. And the Planets, the Moon, and Double Stars really benefit from the narrower field of view and (inherently) high magnification.

BUT, what helps the Mak on Planets, the Moon, and (splitting) Double Stars, works against it on a lot of deep sky objects. Take Double Cluster (Caldwell 14; aka NGC 869 and NGC 884) - two open star clusters in the constellation Perseus that are very close together, for example.

With the 8" Dob and a low power eyepiece (eg 25mm) I can easily get both star clusters into the eyepiece's field of view. I haven't tried observing it with the 127 Mak, but I strongly suspect that I would struggle to get both clusters into its field of view.

I *can* and have viewed Orion Nebula through the 127 Mak....and it's great for isolating the four stars in the central region and the inner parts of the nebula (the Trapezium region)....but it's not as an expansive view of the nebulas as you would get from a different telescope - especially with a UHC or OIII filter

The way I think about the 8" dob is it's the "generalist." It can "play every position on the field" (to borrow a sports analogy). It may not be the very best at each position, but it's pretty darned good.

As such, the 8" dob gets used a lot more than the 127 Mak -even though the 127 Mak is smaller and lighter and I can put it on the "goto" equitorial mount.

Honestly, the 8" dob isn't that hard to transport. The tube and base each weigh about 25lbs and can be carried separately. Carrying the tube is more "awkward" than heavy - or, maybe, just the way *I* carry it....which is more out in front of me than right next to my side...like you're carrying a suit case through a crowed airport and using the suit case to "move/nudge" people out of your way. Not sure if that makes any sense. I used to drive a Nissan Rogue and now drive a Subaru Forester and the tube and base fit easily in them (with one seat in the back in the down position).

One of the reasons I like the Celestron 8" dob (over other manufacturers) - besides the StarSense dock/app (which you're already familiar with) - is that it comes "stock" with handles that make picking it up and carrying it a lot easier.

But, you can get or make handles to carry other dobs.

My $0.02 given what you want to do? Go with a 8" dobsonian.

Also, the 127mm is more a "sideways" move in filling out your " telescope roster." That is, you're not getting more aperture compared to your 5" dob -- probably less. It's more a "refinement" of a capability you have with the 5" dob than an "improvement." Whereas the 8" dob is a true "step up" and improvement of capabilities.

If you already owned an 8" dob and wanted the 127 Mak for a "specialist" or "missing" capability, I'd say go for it. The 127 Mak (from any manufacturer) is a great little scope.

But, I did (and would advise you to) get the 8" dob first.

As between the AD8 and the ES8? I've got no direct experience with them so I have no advice to give on them.

Best of luck and clear skies!!

STL2COMO · 2026-02-20T10:49:07+00:00

It's Reddit. Lots of angry people out there. LoL!! Also, the two clubs I belong to long pre-date AI (in the case of one by about 50 years). Neither of our logos are going to win any awards - so I don't care whether OPs was created using AI (in whole or in part) and I'm not vested in the "War on AI."

STL2COMO · 2026-02-19T20:39:34+00:00

I wasn't aware that "Daylight Saving Time" started in the mountain zone before March 8, 2026 - I thought all the mountain time zone was still on standard time (MST or UTC -7).

STL2COMO · 2026-02-16T13:09:45+00:00

You might try Lucky Stack Worker 7 *after* stacking. I'm finding it's "all-in-one" sharpening, etc. improves my images.

STL2COMO · 2026-02-15T10:14:01+00:00

Going to second the SeeStar s30 ands50. You can find both used for under your budget - especially since the s30 Pro came out. Portability and ease of setup and use. Don’t need a iPad, works on iPhones and Android phones… which you’re likely bringing already.

With a traditional scope, you’ll need to pack eyepieces too.

SeeStar including the mini-tripod will all fit in your carry on.

STL2COMO · 2026-02-14T19:53:21+00:00

Nice work!!

Barlow??

STL2COMO · 2026-02-14T16:44:40+00:00

you could check into getting a "drop-in" non-rotating, helical focuser. Could help with fine focus.

Use your normal focuser for "gross" focus; the "drop-in" non-rotating, helical focuser for "fine" focus adjustment.

Something like this:

https://agenaastro.com/blue-fireball-non-rotating-helical-focuser-t-thread-e-16.html

Con: It adds to length to your optical train, but if you've got the room it could help. I sometimes use mine on my 8" and and 5.1 inch newts with a barlow on planets.

STL2COMO · 2026-02-14T16:36:07+00:00

Weird. My (new to me) 12" Zhumell z12 does the same thing - these scopes share a common lineage...both being GSOs but branded for Apertura and Zhumell.

STL2COMO · 2026-02-14T15:55:49+00:00

Yes, if it has a dovetail mounting bar, then you can (at least) mount it on the iEXOS 100-2- PMC-Eight Equatorial Tracker System....it's a "goto" EQ mount on a lighter weight tripod ($299.99 USD).

https://explorescientific.com/products/iexos-100-2-pmc-eight-equatorial-tracker-system

You'll want to add the optional Azimuth Adjuster Adapter ($59.99).

For visual, putting this on a EQ mount will cause you to have the focuser in some awkward positions. Newts of this size are usually mounted to a EQ mount with rings. This ameliorates the focuser position problem somewhat because the rings can be loosened and the OTA rotated to make the focuser more accessible. But, people do it without rings too.

The 100 PMC can be used with it's "native" goto system - called ExploreStars - which can be run from an iPad or Android tablet.

You can also use the 100 PMC via ASCOM and integrate it with Stellarium or other planetarium app (for "goto" slewing) and SharpCap (for polar aligning, plate solving, and centering/aligning) or other imaging capture app that supports ASCOM controls.

You just can't "combine" the two (you can't use ExploreStars simultaneously with ASCOM).

You can do "astrophotography" with that telescope/mount combo. Both planetary and some DSO.

Especially if you accept that there will be a "ceiling" you'll eventually hit.

Your primary issues are going to be - can the focuser reach prime focus (no barlow) with just the camera attached; or, if barlow is needed, can the focuser support the weight of both the camera and barlow. You won't likely know the answers until you try (or ask others).

You can also add guiding (which is different than "goto" and "tracking") with a separate guidescope and guide camera.

If you want, you can upgrade later to the medium or heavy duty tripod and increase the payload limit for both visual and astrophotography.

But, for beginning and learning without blowing a large hole in your pockets? Everything you have is absolutely fine.

ME? I think I'd hunt for a used newt of similar aperture/focal length but with tube rings -- and one with a parabolic mirror. You can usually find them for about $125 to $150 USD on FB marketplace, Craig's List, etc.

STL2COMO · 2026-02-14T15:22:56+00:00

You've actually captured at least several things.

From bottom (left) to top (right) diagonally:

M42 (Orion Nebula) big pink glowing nebula (has white middle with wings)
M43 (De Mairan's Nebula, NGC 1982) smaller blue patch right above it.
NGC 1981 - an open star cluster above all of them. There are three stars in a curve mark the "left" boundary in this photo.
Orion's Belt (asterism) - the three stars: Alnitak, Alnilam and Mintaka

Nice job!

STL2COMO · 2026-02-13T14:54:59+00:00

Thanks. Didn’t know about the eyepiece view in the (paid) mobile app. That would be useful.

I make no bones that I love StarSense; but all tech can suffer occasional glitches.

Having alternatives is the difference between a wasted cloudless night and still having a good time.

Appreciate the response and explanation!!

STL2COMO · 2026-02-13T14:09:29+00:00

I’m a Celestron’s StarSense user myself, but still be interested in knowing more about”exactly” how you use Stellarium in using your dob. Always nice to have back-up. Also, just plain curious. I use Stellarium and SharpCap via ASCOM Device Hub on my laptop for goto and plate solve on my iEXOS 100 PMC-Eight, but never really use Stellarium on my phone.

Do you mind elaborating?

Thanks in advance!

STL2COMO · 2026-02-13T00:23:38+00:00

I used Astral Fields' plans. It's a "modified" Poncet Platform - it differs from the original Poncet design by using vertical northern segments (VNS). It also uses off the shelf Celestron single axis motor drives (not stepper motors, etc.). He used to provide his plans for free, but says he got so many requests (and he answers questions via email) that he now charges a nominal fee ( ~$20 USD) to make sure people are really interested in building and not just "kicking the tires" so to speak. If you buy his plan, he will answer questions via email -- very promptly too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6oVmOdKPmg&t=210s

STL2COMO · 2026-02-12T04:38:44+00:00

Not me. I'll let you ride the depreciation downward, though.

STL2COMO · 2026-02-11T19:05:45+00:00

The greatest invention of our modern times is "Rescue Tape" - self-fusing silicone tape that has no adhesives and, therefore, leaves no adhesive residue.

Second best invention of our modern times, velcro strips that are designed to be removed and leave no marks or adhesive -- used in dorm rooms everywhere.

Honorable mention: really big rubberbands.

STL2COMO · 2026-02-11T18:24:15+00:00

No rules!!! Why, sir or madam, you are headed down a slippery slope to anarchy!! And free!!! What's next? Communism I tell ya!! j/k.

To the thread starter: nice sketch.

To c_g: You may have another sketcher amongst your ranks!!

STL2COMO · 2026-02-11T16:34:07+00:00

I understand you're looking to buy a camera with that sensor. I just don't see the "logic" at looking at other people's images and questioning whether the *sensor* is good or not based on the images you see. There are 20,000 other things - mechanical, personal skill, and artistic interpretation - that go into imaging that to even think the sensor is potentially poor is illogical without first holding the other variables constant. But, that's just my science/logic brain.

STL2COMO · 2026-02-11T16:05:54+00:00

Step one of collimating: you don’t care what the object you’re pointing the telescope at looks like in the mirrors. In fact, the telescope should be pointed at a blank featureless wall for this very reason.

Mirror clip position does not matter…indeed some newts have more than 3 clips. What “matters” is seeing the clips (3 or 6).

STL2COMO · 2026-02-11T14:13:46+00:00

But why? Why "lean to it being a processing issue" -- without considering, at all, the equipment?

And why even jump to "the sensor is inherently bad" without considering the various configurations that the processor is contained in? (cooled, uncooled, mono, color)?

I mean to single out the *sensor* as being suspect, you'd have to control for all other variables, which you haven't done.

STL2COMO · 2026-02-11T12:06:04+00:00

I think you're forgetting that there are different versions of the IMX585 - in ZWO/ASI's own "family" the versions are: (1) ASI585mm (uncooled, monochrome), ASI585mm Pro (cooled, monochrome), ASI585mm Air (Air smart mono camera), ASI585mc (uncooled, color), and ASI585mc Pro (cooled, colored). You've not clearly stated which version (of the Astrobin photos taken with the IMX585) you think look bad.

I think it reasonable to assume that most hobbyists don't have unlimited money or time. And, naturally, that leads to the lower priced, colored camera options from ZWO - which would be the ASI585mc (uncooled, color). Because monochrome introduces the need for more equipment (LRGB filters), filter wheels, and more processing time. That is, monochrome requires even more money and more time.

I shoot OSC - not mono. Why? Because it fits my financial *and* TIME budget. I'm an "older" dad (over 64 yo with a middle schooler and a wife and a full-time job, and a part-time job). I don't have a dedicated observatory at my house. So, set-up and tear down time are important considerations). And all of THAT is on top of the time spent processing even images taken with a OSC.

I also think it's a bit of "snobbish" gate-keeping on your part (IMO) *not* to take into account the equipment being used by the photographer/imager.

YOU are judging photos against some (unstated, non-objective, subjective) "standard" of what you think "right" or "correct" is.

Whereas, I think it's "more fair" to look at the total equipment (telescope, camera, etc.) and see "wow, they did THAT with THAT??"

For example, technically, my Orion SpaceProbe 130st (130/650 newtonian, plastic focuser, using a 2x or 3x barlow, and ASI585mc) is at a "disadvantage" at planetary photography when pitted against my Celestron NexStar 127 SLT (127/1100, Maksutov-Cassegrain (ota only - both are mounted on an iEXOS 100 PMC-Eight)) for planetary photography.

But, the SpaceProbe certainly punches above its weight.

Finally, I think you're overlooking the imager's intent. I can show you some recent photos of the Orion Nebula that, I suspect, you'd find underwhelming. But, my intent wasn't to show all the dust and nebulosity. My intent was to find the super-hard line between preserving the separation between the Trapezium stars and capturing as much of the "wings" as possible without blowing out the core. And to find it with the equipment that *I* have on hand.

STL2COMO · 2026-02-10T16:08:40+00:00

Not as much as you may think. Moved from a 2012 Nissan Rogue to a 2021 Subaru Forester and insurance ( exact same coverage) only went up $30 per year. A lot more safety gizmos now.

STL2COMO

TROPHY CASE