C10NGT, Z8, 150 Rumak, XLT 150, C6, C5, SW5 Newt, 4.5 Ball, C102GT, C90, ST80, A70LF; 15x70, 25x100; Burgess BV; Paracorr II; T6 2.5, XO 2.58/5.1, Ethos-SX 3.7, Delos 4.5, TV Plossl 7.4-26, BCO 10, Hutech HC 12.5, Sterling 12.5-25, ES100 14, CZJ H 16/25, CZJ O 16, M5k UWA 24, T5 31, Ultrascopic 35, Titan-II 40; Bino Pairs M5k UWA 6.7, Baader Zoom 8-24, M5k SWA 24, TV Plossl 26, RKE 28.7; Zooms NZ 2-4, NZ 3-6, Leica ASPH 8.9-17.8, Baader 8-24; Baader Zoom Barlow, VIP Barlow
“I am the only person to ever ace a 1951 USAF resolution test. My 'to observe' list says 'done'. I do not use charts or atlases when I starhop; men do not use maps. One of my sketches won an SBIG deep sky imaging contest. I am the life of star parties I have never attended. I never say anything looks like a faint fuzzy - not even a faint fuzzy. Pilots aim green laser pointers at me. Don Pensack proofreads my CN forum posts.” - The Most Interesting Astronomer in the Universe
Celestron C8 XLT on CG5 8inch EQ mounted newt Parks 8inch f/6 90mm mak
Quote:...was the improvment also seen at night? ...if it helps in the dark I will do it myself too.
Norme 150mm MCT f/13, 31% CO Yellow Zone "People say I'm in denial. I disagree."
Quote:Late question on the successful baffle mod with black sandpaper that you did, was the improvment also seen at night? I belive the initial contrast test was during daytime, and if it helps in the dark I will do it myself too.
Quote:The rear opening is only 0.63"? That's only 16mm. Is it really that small? Looks like I'll have to get out my digital caliper this weekend.
Quote:A mere 16mm rear opening on a C90?! The one I once owned was made to accept a 0.965", or 24.5mm barrel of a diagonal. Is this 16mm referring instead to the primary baffle's font opening? For that seems to be in the ballpark, from my own memory of visually examining it.
Quote:Is this 16mm referring instead to the primary baffle's font opening? For that seems to be in the ballpark, from my own memory of visually examining it.
"A telescope is either good or cheap, but not both" - but sometimes you get lucky!
Observing from a red-zone in MA with an MCT, an SCT, and a couple of EDs
ES AR152 (By PowellAstro) iOPTRON IEQ45 Mount, Orion XX12i,Orion 80mm Short tube, Celestron C8 w/XLT OTA, ES 9mm 100 deg, ES 82deg complete set, ES 28mm 68deg, ES 2X 2 inch barlow. TV 35 & 41 Panoptics. Several other eyepieces, Telrad w/variable pulse, Artificial Star, Kendrick DigiFire 7 Kendrick dew heaters, Glatter Laser System, Filters, Celestron 25X100 binoculars Garrett tri-pod --------------------------- Looking to the heavens for little green people
Quote: If it was at night, write it off to being a small telescope with an obstruction. You can flock it up or whatever, but it was, is, and always will be a small scope with an obstruction. Best case, don't look for it to outperform a 65mm refractor. Just my opinion.. Have owned a C90 in the past, and have a Meade 90mm ETX. These small scopes simply can't compete with even a good 66mm ED spotter scope.
"You're not afraid of the dark, are you?" - Riddick "The best scientists are humble. They seek to understand, not to ensure their legacy, but merely to understand." - Mori
Quote:Quote:Is this 16mm referring instead to the primary baffle's font opening? For that seems to be in the ballpark, from my own memory of visually examining it. If the primary baffle's front opening is 16mm, that's farther up on the light cone and should have an even greater impact on reducing the clear aperture than the baffle size on the rear opening. So in terms of CA, I don't see that there is any advantage in the opening being bigger in the back if it's already only 16mm at the front.Mike