Discussion
I have a Meade ETX 125 that was bought for the FIL as a retirement present 20 years ago.
We used it once to look at the moon when we got it but then it got stuck in his attic and stayed there apparently. He went into care some time ago and I asked the MIL to bring it up when she came to visit.
It was in a bit of a dirt state: the batteries had been left in it and it was all corroded up but I managed to clean it up and got a transformer for it and it’a working.
I haven’t had a chance to set up the Autostar computer controller for it yet but am looking forward to it. All I’ve done is have a quick look at the moon which is always fascinating.
Anyway… anybody here into telescopes? I’ve always been interesting in star gazing and am quite excited about getting the ETX working properly.
Does anyone in the know have any tips, especially for setting up the Autostar unit?
Also I guess technology has moved on quite a bit since this thing was made 20 years ago. If I get suitable inspired, what’s the next significant step up from the ETX to get images that would make me go “wow!” And how much is it likely to cost out of interest to get a significant improvement?
We used it once to look at the moon when we got it but then it got stuck in his attic and stayed there apparently. He went into care some time ago and I asked the MIL to bring it up when she came to visit.
It was in a bit of a dirt state: the batteries had been left in it and it was all corroded up but I managed to clean it up and got a transformer for it and it’a working.
I haven’t had a chance to set up the Autostar computer controller for it yet but am looking forward to it. All I’ve done is have a quick look at the moon which is always fascinating.
Anyway… anybody here into telescopes? I’ve always been interesting in star gazing and am quite excited about getting the ETX working properly.
Does anyone in the know have any tips, especially for setting up the Autostar unit?
Also I guess technology has moved on quite a bit since this thing was made 20 years ago. If I get suitable inspired, what’s the next significant step up from the ETX to get images that would make me go “wow!” And how much is it likely to cost out of interest to get a significant improvement?
There are a few of us on here into telescopes etc. I don't do much visual astronomy but rather Astrophotography. However to help, make sure the tripod is level, super level, use a spirit level rather than the bubble level in the mount. Make sure you are dead north and level before powering on the scope. After than have fun 
So the ETX will be a Maksutov and a long focal length so its ideal for the moon, planets and some galaxies but its not ideal for DSO (Deep Sky Objects). If you want to stay purely visual and want to learn how to star hop etc then a Dobsonian would be a good step up, a decent focal length with wide mirrors will give you lots of light gathering capability. If you want to stay go to then a reasonable size newt on either an AZ or EQ mount will do just as well. Always go for a newt over a refractor as they tend to be cheaper and lighter and you dont need fancy ED glass to remove the chromatic aberration. That said, I I have a 120 refractor (is a basic one that I am actually gonna sell shortly as I have too many telescopes now) that doesn't have fancy glass and is pretty good so just do your research ask questions etc. Also a couple of good youtubers to have a look for on this would be Astrobiscuit and also Nico Carver (Nebula Photos)
So the ETX will be a Maksutov and a long focal length so its ideal for the moon, planets and some galaxies but its not ideal for DSO (Deep Sky Objects). If you want to stay purely visual and want to learn how to star hop etc then a Dobsonian would be a good step up, a decent focal length with wide mirrors will give you lots of light gathering capability. If you want to stay go to then a reasonable size newt on either an AZ or EQ mount will do just as well. Always go for a newt over a refractor as they tend to be cheaper and lighter and you dont need fancy ED glass to remove the chromatic aberration. That said, I I have a 120 refractor (is a basic one that I am actually gonna sell shortly as I have too many telescopes now) that doesn't have fancy glass and is pretty good so just do your research ask questions etc. Also a couple of good youtubers to have a look for on this would be Astrobiscuit and also Nico Carver (Nebula Photos)
Step up would likely be a 10” Dobsonian.
I've got https://www.harrisontelescopes.co.uk/acatalog/skyw...
(Well it's the wifes really)
As for images that make you go wow, I guess it depends. I think being able to make out the bands of Jupiter makes me go wow but it doesn't look like a Brian Cox documentary or anything.
I've got https://www.harrisontelescopes.co.uk/acatalog/skyw...
(Well it's the wifes really)
As for images that make you go wow, I guess it depends. I think being able to make out the bands of Jupiter makes me go wow but it doesn't look like a Brian Cox documentary or anything.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge guys.
I’m a little bit confused though as I’ve read that the Dobsonium is more of a “beginner’s” telescope than a Mak. I don’t know how much of an indicator it is but but back in the day the ETX cost the same as that 10” Dobsonian? Maybe things have cheaper since then.
I guessed I would have to be spending 2-5K to get to the next level of major “wow!”.
Bujinkhal, funnily enough, the rings of Saturn is exactly what I was thinking of
I’m a little bit confused though as I’ve read that the Dobsonium is more of a “beginner’s” telescope than a Mak. I don’t know how much of an indicator it is but but back in the day the ETX cost the same as that 10” Dobsonian? Maybe things have cheaper since then.
I guessed I would have to be spending 2-5K to get to the next level of major “wow!”.
Bujinkhal, funnily enough, the rings of Saturn is exactly what I was thinking of
I think (and I am by no means an expert) that the one you've got, at least 60% of the price comes from the motorised mount, on the Dob all the cost is the scope itself.
So the actual image will be better on the Dob, to get the mount to make it motoroised + the scope would be around £1200.
I may be wrong
So the actual image will be better on the Dob, to get the mount to make it motoroised + the scope would be around £1200.
I may be wrong
Not in any way a criticism, but why bother when there are sites like this?
https://www.itelescope.net/
https://www.itelescope.net/
Theraveda said:
Not in any way a criticism, but why bother when there are sites like this?
https://www.itelescope.net/
No criticism taken https://www.itelescope.net/
I had a look at those sites and interesting though they are I feel that the viewer is disconnected from the images.Looking at an object and knowing that the actual light from it is falling on your retina can’t be replaced in my view.
It feels kind of special
Theraveda said:
Not in any way a criticism, but why bother when there are sites like this?
https://www.itelescope.net/
This always bothers me, why bother with that when NASA makes all of its stuff publicly available. https://www.itelescope.net/
Then you get to take your own shots like this and it makes sense
geeks said:
Theraveda said:
Not in any way a criticism, but why bother when there are sites like this?
https://www.itelescope.net/
This always bothers me, why bother with that when NASA makes all of its stuff publicly available. https://www.itelescope.net/
Then you get to take your own shots like this and it makes sense
eharding said:
geeks said:
Theraveda said:
Not in any way a criticism, but why bother when there are sites like this?
https://www.itelescope.net/
This always bothers me, why bother with that when NASA makes all of its stuff publicly available. https://www.itelescope.net/
Then you get to take your own shots like this and it makes sense
Driller said:
...Does anyone in the know have any tips, especially for setting up the Autostar unit? ...
If it's anything like my old Celestron (which I happened to buy on the 2nd February) you have to input the date is US format (mmddyy).It took me a while to work out why it worked perfectly the first night but not the next.
eharding said:
geeks said:
Theraveda said:
Not in any way a criticism, but why bother when there are sites like this?
https://www.itelescope.net/
This always bothers me, why bother with that when NASA makes all of its stuff publicly available. https://www.itelescope.net/
Then you get to take your own shots like this and it makes sense
Nimby said:
Driller said:
...Does anyone in the know have any tips, especially for setting up the Autostar unit? ...
If it's anything like my old Celestron (which I happened to buy on the 2nd February) you have to input the date is US format (mmddyy).It took me a while to work out why it worked perfectly the first night but not the next.
Driller said:
Thanks for sharing your knowledge guys.
I’m a little bit confused though as I’ve read that the Dobsonium is more of a “beginner’s” telescope than a Mak. I don’t know how much of an indicator it is but but back in the day the ETX cost the same as that 10” Dobsonian? Maybe things have cheaper since then.
I guessed I would have to be spending 2-5K to get to the next level of major “wow!”.
Bujinkhal, funnily enough, the rings of Saturn is exactly what I was thinking of
Ok here goes. The short answer is no, dobs are not "beginner" scopes. But they are easy for beginners to get to grips with than a mak. The mak you are using has a long focal length (so has good magnification) but a small aperture, this means it is a relatively "slow" scope. This means you take a big hit on the brightness of your chosen target, so when people say the maks are good for things such as planets and bright DSO's, this is why.I’m a little bit confused though as I’ve read that the Dobsonium is more of a “beginner’s” telescope than a Mak. I don’t know how much of an indicator it is but but back in the day the ETX cost the same as that 10” Dobsonian? Maybe things have cheaper since then.
I guessed I would have to be spending 2-5K to get to the next level of major “wow!”.
Bujinkhal, funnily enough, the rings of Saturn is exactly what I was thinking of
When you move to a dob, you will have a similar focal length but a much larger aperture and thus a faster optic train, this means your bright stuff will be very bright indeed and your faint stuff that would be all but invisible to your mak will be visible. A comparison to give you an idea of the concept is below. These are two shots of the same target, on with a fast scope and one with a slow scope, both are the same image time, this shows you the light gathering capabilities across the same target. the one of the lest with a 120mm frac the one of the right a 90mm MAK. Both images are about 1 hour of data
Granted a little of the difference will be down to aperture but I am sure you get the idea. When it comes to astronomy you want to gather as many photons as you can get, the bigger the bucket, the more photons you collect, the more photons you collect the more you will see. Maks are great and have their uses but when you want to see what is really up there and the detail there is no substitute for a stonking great light bucket!
Dobs are just a way of mounting a scope, what you actually have is (usually) a large newtonian telescope with a simple to use mount. To get the wow you are looking for, the rings of Saturn, the bands of Jupiter etc then the scope you were linked to from Bujinkhal is ideal. The cost of any "goto" scope is always in the mount. My EQ5 pro cost more than the dob Bujinkhal linked on its own. If you want to couple light gathering with goto functionality then something like the Orion Starquest XT8 is a solid choice as would the Skywatcher Skyliner range (can get a little pricey though)
Hope this helps.
geeks said:
Ok here goes. The short answer is no, dobs are not "beginner" scopes. But they are easy for beginners to get to grips with than a mak. The mak you are using has a long focal length (so has good magnification) but a small aperture, this means it is a relatively "slow" scope. This means you take a big hit on the brightness of your chosen target, so when people say the maks are good for things such as planets and bright DSO's, this is why.
When you move to a dob, you will have a similar focal length but a much larger aperture and thus a faster optic train, this means your bright stuff will be very bright indeed and your faint stuff that would be all but invisible to your mak will be visible. A comparison to give you an idea of the concept is below. These are two shots of the same target, on with a fast scope and one with a slow scope, both are the same image time, this shows you the light gathering capabilities across the same target. the one of the lest with a 120mm frac the one of the right a 90mm MAK. Both images are about 1 hour of data
Granted a little of the difference will be down to aperture but I am sure you get the idea. When it comes to astronomy you want to gather as many photons as you can get, the bigger the bucket, the more photons you collect, the more photons you collect the more you will see. Maks are great and have their uses but when you want to see what is really up there and the detail there is no substitute for a stonking great light bucket!
Dobs are just a way of mounting a scope, what you actually have is (usually) a large newtonian telescope with a simple to use mount. To get the wow you are looking for, the rings of Saturn, the bands of Jupiter etc then the scope you were linked to from Bujinkhal is ideal. The cost of any "goto" scope is always in the mount. My EQ5 pro cost more than the dob Bujinkhal linked on its own. If you want to couple light gathering with goto functionality then something like the Orion Starquest XT8 is a solid choice as would the Skywatcher Skyliner range (can get a little pricey though)
Hope this helps.
Thanks Geeks yes that helped a lot. I definitely wasn’t considering the effect of the mount on cost.When you move to a dob, you will have a similar focal length but a much larger aperture and thus a faster optic train, this means your bright stuff will be very bright indeed and your faint stuff that would be all but invisible to your mak will be visible. A comparison to give you an idea of the concept is below. These are two shots of the same target, on with a fast scope and one with a slow scope, both are the same image time, this shows you the light gathering capabilities across the same target. the one of the lest with a 120mm frac the one of the right a 90mm MAK. Both images are about 1 hour of data
Granted a little of the difference will be down to aperture but I am sure you get the idea. When it comes to astronomy you want to gather as many photons as you can get, the bigger the bucket, the more photons you collect, the more photons you collect the more you will see. Maks are great and have their uses but when you want to see what is really up there and the detail there is no substitute for a stonking great light bucket!
Dobs are just a way of mounting a scope, what you actually have is (usually) a large newtonian telescope with a simple to use mount. To get the wow you are looking for, the rings of Saturn, the bands of Jupiter etc then the scope you were linked to from Bujinkhal is ideal. The cost of any "goto" scope is always in the mount. My EQ5 pro cost more than the dob Bujinkhal linked on its own. If you want to couple light gathering with goto functionality then something like the Orion Starquest XT8 is a solid choice as would the Skywatcher Skyliner range (can get a little pricey though)
Hope this helps.
Presumably then you can have your cake and eat it by buying a bigger Dobsonian which would have a greater focal length as well as giving brighter images.
Also if I understood correctly, all Dobs are Newtonian but not all Newtonian are Dobs?
Eric Mc said:
What are these "maks" you are referring to?
Maksutov Cassegrain. Similar to an SCT Driller said:
geeks said:
Ok here goes. The short answer is no, dobs are not "beginner" scopes. But they are easy for beginners to get to grips with than a mak. The mak you are using has a long focal length (so has good magnification) but a small aperture, this means it is a relatively "slow" scope. This means you take a big hit on the brightness of your chosen target, so when people say the maks are good for things such as planets and bright DSO's, this is why.
When you move to a dob, you will have a similar focal length but a much larger aperture and thus a faster optic train, this means your bright stuff will be very bright indeed and your faint stuff that would be all but invisible to your mak will be visible. A comparison to give you an idea of the concept is below. These are two shots of the same target, on with a fast scope and one with a slow scope, both are the same image time, this shows you the light gathering capabilities across the same target. the one of the lest with a 120mm frac the one of the right a 90mm MAK. Both images are about 1 hour of data
Granted a little of the difference will be down to aperture but I am sure you get the idea. When it comes to astronomy you want to gather as many photons as you can get, the bigger the bucket, the more photons you collect, the more photons you collect the more you will see. Maks are great and have their uses but when you want to see what is really up there and the detail there is no substitute for a stonking great light bucket!
Dobs are just a way of mounting a scope, what you actually have is (usually) a large newtonian telescope with a simple to use mount. To get the wow you are looking for, the rings of Saturn, the bands of Jupiter etc then the scope you were linked to from Bujinkhal is ideal. The cost of any "goto" scope is always in the mount. My EQ5 pro cost more than the dob Bujinkhal linked on its own. If you want to couple light gathering with goto functionality then something like the Orion Starquest XT8 is a solid choice as would the Skywatcher Skyliner range (can get a little pricey though)
Hope this helps.
Thanks Geeks yes that helped a lot. I definitely wasn’t considering the effect of the mount on cost.When you move to a dob, you will have a similar focal length but a much larger aperture and thus a faster optic train, this means your bright stuff will be very bright indeed and your faint stuff that would be all but invisible to your mak will be visible. A comparison to give you an idea of the concept is below. These are two shots of the same target, on with a fast scope and one with a slow scope, both are the same image time, this shows you the light gathering capabilities across the same target. the one of the lest with a 120mm frac the one of the right a 90mm MAK. Both images are about 1 hour of data
Granted a little of the difference will be down to aperture but I am sure you get the idea. When it comes to astronomy you want to gather as many photons as you can get, the bigger the bucket, the more photons you collect, the more photons you collect the more you will see. Maks are great and have their uses but when you want to see what is really up there and the detail there is no substitute for a stonking great light bucket!
Dobs are just a way of mounting a scope, what you actually have is (usually) a large newtonian telescope with a simple to use mount. To get the wow you are looking for, the rings of Saturn, the bands of Jupiter etc then the scope you were linked to from Bujinkhal is ideal. The cost of any "goto" scope is always in the mount. My EQ5 pro cost more than the dob Bujinkhal linked on its own. If you want to couple light gathering with goto functionality then something like the Orion Starquest XT8 is a solid choice as would the Skywatcher Skyliner range (can get a little pricey though)
Hope this helps.
Presumably then you can have your cake and eat it by buying a bigger Dobsonian which would have a greater focal length as well as giving brighter images.
Also if I understood correctly, all Dobs are Newtonian but not all Newtonian are Dobs?
I have just started up again and picked up a used Skymax 127, which is a Maksutov like yours, on a goto alt azimuth mount.
They are long focal length so the field of view is more suited to smaller objects such as planets, I saw Uranus through mine a few nights ago, it is fine for objects like the M42 Orion nebula and double stars, however with a 25mm plossl eyepiece the Pleiades is larger than will fit in the field of view, a 32mm will give you the widest view at around 50x magnification. Jupiter will look good with a 10mm eyepiece, you can go shorter, but unless you have a very clear and steady sky it will not be any clearer/better. It the very bright 'star' to the south in the early evening at the moment.
A large newtonian on a Dobsonian mount will give you brighter and wide views, however you should consider portability, the little mak is a good scope to take on holiday or go out into the countryside if you garden has light pollution. Newtonians tend to need collimating at least occasionally, which your mak will not providing it hasn't been treated roughly.
Get the Clear Outside app for your phone, it is pretty good at forecasting the seeing conditions for where you are or might want to go.
Binoculars are great for learning your way around the sky, I'd suggest you use those and your mak to get a feel for what you enjoy looking at before you spend too much more money.
You may tend to get dew forming on the lens on the front of your telescope, don't try to wipe that off, you can try using a hair dryer, look up 'dew shield'. Dont take your cold telescope back into the house and put it straight into a box or put the cap on front allow it to warm up and the condensation to clear first. Do put the rear cap back on though as it will stop warm damp air getting inside, you can get something called a desiccant cap to try and keep moisture inside the tube to a minimum. None of the ones normally for sale were available when I wanted one so I made one up from a 1.25" to T2 nose, a T2 cap, a cheap 1.25" filter which I replaced the glass with a bit of mesh and some colour changing desiccant packets. I'll post a list of eBay bits if you like?
The Stargazers Lounge forum has some good beginners advice.
Most of all enjoy yourself, but beware it can get expensive if uou really get the bug, I've already bought a £500 refractor to do the wide field job and will be spending more on a 2" diagonal and no doubt eyepieces.
They are long focal length so the field of view is more suited to smaller objects such as planets, I saw Uranus through mine a few nights ago, it is fine for objects like the M42 Orion nebula and double stars, however with a 25mm plossl eyepiece the Pleiades is larger than will fit in the field of view, a 32mm will give you the widest view at around 50x magnification. Jupiter will look good with a 10mm eyepiece, you can go shorter, but unless you have a very clear and steady sky it will not be any clearer/better. It the very bright 'star' to the south in the early evening at the moment.
A large newtonian on a Dobsonian mount will give you brighter and wide views, however you should consider portability, the little mak is a good scope to take on holiday or go out into the countryside if you garden has light pollution. Newtonians tend to need collimating at least occasionally, which your mak will not providing it hasn't been treated roughly.
Get the Clear Outside app for your phone, it is pretty good at forecasting the seeing conditions for where you are or might want to go.
Binoculars are great for learning your way around the sky, I'd suggest you use those and your mak to get a feel for what you enjoy looking at before you spend too much more money.
You may tend to get dew forming on the lens on the front of your telescope, don't try to wipe that off, you can try using a hair dryer, look up 'dew shield'. Dont take your cold telescope back into the house and put it straight into a box or put the cap on front allow it to warm up and the condensation to clear first. Do put the rear cap back on though as it will stop warm damp air getting inside, you can get something called a desiccant cap to try and keep moisture inside the tube to a minimum. None of the ones normally for sale were available when I wanted one so I made one up from a 1.25" to T2 nose, a T2 cap, a cheap 1.25" filter which I replaced the glass with a bit of mesh and some colour changing desiccant packets. I'll post a list of eBay bits if you like?
The Stargazers Lounge forum has some good beginners advice.
Most of all enjoy yourself, but beware it can get expensive if uou really get the bug, I've already bought a £500 refractor to do the wide field job and will be spending more on a 2" diagonal and no doubt eyepieces.
Driller said:
geeks said:
No problem at all. Yes you are pretty much correct on that.
Brilliant, thanks again!I have to say, if I look through any telescope and see what you posted up either the left or the right photo…
…a galaxy with spiral arms like that…I would be beside myself, like child at Christmas
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff