Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Orange C90

  • Please log in to reply
423 replies to this topic

#401 Moffett

Moffett

    Sputnik

  • *****
  • Posts: 46
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2016
  • Loc: Orlando, Florida

Posted 14 January 2019 - 03:08 PM

I have had probably four of these, and was disappointed in all of them with the optics. They would go to about 80X  OK, but no further. So I would sell it, and read a forum from someone saying how good the optics was on theirs, so I would try another one, and the same thing. It took me about 2 or 3 more tries until I learned my lesson. I still see forums from owners saying how good the optics are on theirs. So I guess I just bought a bad one every time. They are nice little scopes, and there are probably good ones out there, but the good ones will be kept, so getting a good one is a slim chance I think now.

I may have been lucky with mine. There is a little bit of slop in the threads because the immage will shift a bit when focousing but with patience it will sharpen up. Last night must have been unusually good seeing because I was able to push mine further than I have before on the moon.

 

First using a 12mm ortho for x83 and it was very crisp, then tried my luck with a 4mm ortho for x250 and to my surprise also a very clean immage only darker. Unfortunately my skills at holding an iPhone to the eyepiece are lousy. 

Attached Thumbnails

  • 5AA6F528-8876-4E47-8D08-35B104764C39.jpeg
  • F5B595BB-5AD4-4A21-AEB8-D192D6E489D2.jpeg

Edited by Moffett, 14 January 2019 - 03:12 PM.

  • Masvingo and Kasmos like this

#402 grif 678

grif 678

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1308
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2010
  • Loc: NC

Posted 14 January 2019 - 04:55 PM

compared to what scope?  you have to remember, these are not $2,000.00 scopes.

I like the one I have.

I have never had a two thousand dollar scope, I am comparing to $200 refractors, the newer black C-90, and scopes like that



#403 RyanSem

RyanSem

    Messenger

  • *****
  • Posts: 423
  • Joined: 29 Jul 2018
  • Loc: Marietta, GA

Posted 14 January 2019 - 07:42 PM

Spitballing an idea here... assuming you can remove the OTA from the mount of a Celestron Firstscope or Orion Funscope, do you think the mount is strong enough to hold a C90?

 

This also assumes the screw for these mounts would fit into a C90 port which I cannot find any information about. 



#404 wfj

wfj

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1628
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2008
  • Loc: California, Santa Cruz County

Posted 19 January 2019 - 01:27 AM

Spent time with the single conical primary baffle on the moon at zenith and star tests.

 

It's sharp past 250x, and at 80-150x quite like a good 60mm f/11 refractor. With the atmosphere steady, exceeds one  by a fair degree on crater wall detail, and craterlets inside some craters. Unlike with the stock baffles, can see features like Vallis Alpes on the gibbous moon, which would have been washed out, along with the subtle tones of the surface. And there is some residual color on the bright limb - see below.

 

Star tests reveal mild HSA 1/10th wave (looks like zones, but they show up the same on either side of focus). Breakout of the secondary shadow  measures the same inside/outside focus.

 

It snaps to focus better than before, where dozens of others were impossible to focus.  And a new surprise - one can see as the seeing is uneven it drifting in/out of focus. Before that made it a lot harder to find best focus as a compromise, even if better than most of the others. Seems like a Mak now.

 

But with the reduced CO and slightly more aperture, the fast f/11 Mak has one downside that did get worse. The false color inside/outside focus has increased, so unless you focus it exactly, there's some residual color. One can use it for the positive as a means to determine when you are in focus, for the color's absent.

 

With the star test and near focus within breakout, inside focus has a reddish inner rings, surrounded by yellow middle rings, with blue outer rings. Outside focus, its in reverse order, blue inner rings, red outer ones. If sufficiently inside/outside of focus, this residual color vanishes. It's due to the corrector meniscus not being achromatic - because the primary is f/2, not f/3 like slower Mak's. Also, because it's relatively thin (compared to slower Maks). - if it was thicker, more HSA and aspherization to avoid it would have been required.

 

Which is why this will never match a Questar or an ETX. If one can't live with that defect, don't play with optimizing the orange C90. Doesn't bother me, I just focus til no color and it works just fine.

 

But there's the limit of the design. Unless I add a flint element as a counter corrector ... nah.


Edited by wfj, 19 January 2019 - 01:30 AM.

  • memento and shooze like this

#405 terraclarke

terraclarke

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 18820
  • Joined: 29 May 2012
  • Loc: Third from the Sun

Posted 19 January 2019 - 12:31 PM

Your analogy to a 60mm F11 fits my side by side comparison of my very good Mayflower 60mmx700mm and my so-so C90 (no longer mine). The views were identical on the double-double (ε1 ε2 Lyra) and the Ring (M57). As far as the moon, I have never really found it a good test subject. It has so much energy (light) that there’s plenty to spare. Planets are much more telling and that is precisely where my C90 began to suck at mags >100. The Q is a whole different thing when it comes to the planets, moon, solar, etc.


  • memento likes this

#406 wfj

wfj

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1628
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2008
  • Loc: California, Santa Cruz County

Posted 19 January 2019 - 12:46 PM

Indeed. Unfortunately just the moon and Capella through last nights sucker hole. This morning the sky is full of wafting cirrus clouds, so no Jupiter yet.

 

Why I even bothered with this one was I spotted the GRS hollow at 150x on a casual check, and 6 bands, unmodified. Have yet to have a chance at Jupiter since mods. Oh, and it nicely split Al Fawaris (Delta Cygni) and Alnitak then too.

 

As a proxy for Jupiter, I often check baffling by looking at a washed out moon. Also, it allows to test for difficult focus, digging through the mud of scattering to discern a sharp edge. I find that if I see such details in those conditions, I see low contrast planetary detail even better with such a scope.

 

Am approaching the limits of optical testing and subjective assessment. Perhaps the next step might be to follow JW's lead and attempt to capture the same image of Jupiter with reference scopes and C90, then measure the dynamic range with a histogram "height", and the detail with same scale / location "pixel strips" across features. Objectively contrast should follow the first, and resolution would track spatial variation (perhaps with a Fourier spectrum of amplitude/intensity variation?)

 

A lot might depend on the imager chosen to do this. What would be a good one to sensibly match the human eye? Perhaps my iPhone 7’s HDR camera is a solid example of that.


Edited by wfj, 20 January 2019 - 12:45 PM.


#407 wfj

wfj

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1628
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2008
  • Loc: California, Santa Cruz County

Posted 18 March 2019 - 07:23 PM

All of my refractors came with baffles & blackened interiors -- except The Mogey.  It's a case study for me, because I improved it in stages.  First, I re-blackened the interior.  Next, I cannibalized baffles from a Celestron frac, made a light path diagram, and installed 3 baffles at the correct distances from the lens.  Finally, I flocked from the lens cell to the first baffle, and the inside of the focus tube.  At each stage, I saw improvements in contrast (more) & resolution (less significant).  Yes, that's subjective, but I'm not sure how I could measure those attributes objectively at home as a hobbyist.

I've run a test, and yes, you were right to suggest flocking. But it may be that the best, measurable benefit with this occurs AFTER you remove the secondary baffle, and replace the primary baffle. Because then with the secondary baffle's work being done by the primary, and the secondary exposed to the entire tube insides ... it is significant.

 

How you measure the contribution is to look at the unmodified planetary pictures histogram. One with more scattering will have a "flatter" appearance, with less will have a greater disparity.

Screen Shot 2019-03-18 at 5.21.09 PM.png


  • Bomber Bob likes this

#408 wfj

wfj

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1628
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2008
  • Loc: California, Santa Cruz County

Posted 18 March 2019 - 07:58 PM

When flocked and the baffle/secondary size reduced, it now matches at 150x what my Unitron 114 62x900 shows on Jupiter.


  • Bomber Bob likes this

#409 terraclarke

terraclarke

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 18820
  • Joined: 29 May 2012
  • Loc: Third from the Sun

Posted 19 March 2019 - 09:28 AM

When flocked and the baffle/secondary size reduced, it now matches at 150x what my Unitron 114 62x900 shows on Jupiter.


I thought my former orange C90 gave a view fairly similar to my old Mayflower 60mm x 700mm refractor at 140X, with a slight edge in sharpness and contrast going to the Mayflower.

Edited by terraclarke, 19 March 2019 - 09:29 AM.


#410 wfj

wfj

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1628
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2008
  • Loc: California, Santa Cruz County

Posted 19 March 2019 - 12:08 PM

I thought my former orange C90 gave a view fairly similar to my old Mayflower 60mm x 700mm refractor at 140X, with a slight edge in sharpness and contrast going to the Mayflower.

I can believe that. Most C90's didn't star test well. This one's "edge" was a good star test inspiring a DPAC, which turned out good. Perhaps that's the difference?

 

One of the surprises as I've gradually altered this one has been the role played in focus. Being slight off focus provokes color much more. So with improved subtle focus movement with lapped threads and thinnest possible oil wetting the threads, one can "single finger" focus and hit the "spot on" focus with no color, without shaking.

 

Last night had "referenced good" 120mm, 62mm refractors next to C90 on the moon. All at 180x. Used 120 to find subtle color/details, then looked for them in the two others. Change with the flocking was that contrast fall off on the 62mm due to exit pupil bounded seeing subtle color/details,  where the modified C90 noticed them.

 

Tried to confirm this on Jupiter this morning, a better test. Clouded out.

 

If anyone is interested, here's a short list of how to get the best out of an older C90. 1) Find an orange "astro" model. 2) Confirm quality with star/DPAC tests as better than 1/4 wave (this one's much better than that). 3) Remove both baffles and replace the primary baffle with a thin (0.02") metal cone of calculated size, flocked both sides. 4) Flock upper OTA barrel carefully. 5) Trim back aluminized spot to 28mm (secondary baffle limits to 25mm inside flange), if any issue with flooding (likely miscalculated cone) touch up with thinnest black surround of secondary spot.

 

If there is enough interest, I'd do a detailed DIY thread. But like the Astroscan, the old C90 has a bad reputation, so many simply just do not want to countenance hearing about it, being burned many times. (I've recently got a Carton 450mm/108mm mirror that does wonderfully on Jupiter details on a 22oz foldup pocket scope which has been a fun project using cheap "selfie sticks", exceeds many smaller scopes.) Don't feel like it now, but I've carefully recorded all the details for such if it were to ever happen. Including the quantitative proof.

 

The above not a defense of a "bad" classic - that's for others here to "litigate" the merits of. (Didn't take the California Bar, but I did get the necessary education). Perhaps an Classics "moot court" would be a thread should one find a ironclad moderator with the time.

 

But I believe I got to the bottom of why a old C90 doesn't do well. Which was the point. Haven't added the last step of a "counter meniscus" to remove remaining HSA. Done.



#411 terraclarke

terraclarke

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 18820
  • Joined: 29 May 2012
  • Loc: Third from the Sun

Posted 19 March 2019 - 12:48 PM

I thought my former orange C90 gave a view fairly similar to my old Mayflower 60mm x 700mm refractor at 140X, with a slight edge in sharpness and contrast going to the Mayflower.

 

 

I can believe that. Most C90's didn't star test well. This one's "edge" was a good star test inspiring a DPAC, which turned out good. Perhaps that's the difference?

 

What’s not to believe. Jupiter, Saturn, and ε1 and ε2 Lyra looked very similar in both except the 60mm refractor had a slight edge. The C90 was a bit brighter owing to the greater aperture, but not quite as sharp. That’s the best I could the C90 to do. It wasn’t significantly easier to set up than the little refractor and it definitely wasn’t a Questar so I let it go. Actually, it seems to me that the astronomical performance of C90s is pretty commonly compared to being on par with a 60mm refractor.

Attached Thumbnails

  • E4A5C8EF-E855-4479-ABD5-350CB62886F4.jpeg
  • 82162615-56B8-4D06-ABC5-D7C5360330A7.jpeg

Edited by terraclarke, 19 March 2019 - 12:50 PM.

  • Bomber Bob and Kasmos like this

#412 wfj

wfj

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1628
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2008
  • Loc: California, Santa Cruz County

Posted 19 March 2019 - 01:22 PM

Sorry, not challenging a claim (or claimant) before the court. An amicus curiae brief supplied as benefiting the public good.


  • terraclarke likes this

#413 Max Lattanzi

Max Lattanzi

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 861
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2007

Posted 20 March 2019 - 06:34 AM

I can believe that. Most C90's didn't star test well.

Got three of them (Astro, Orange, Black).
The three of them were rather poor when tested and were all out of alignment.

 

Re-aligning the primary made the three of them challenging a 60mm apo refractor.

 

I suspect the bad reputation comes from the greatest majority out there being simply out of alignment. And from users not wanting to mess with them.

 

It is the same thing with LZOS MTOs 60, 80 100 Maks — most of them suffer from pinched/distorted primary and give poor results

Are just mechanical issues due to mismanagement, that a careful dismantling/reassembling can fix. As per my experience, optics are excellent.

 

— Max


  • terraclarke and Bomber Bob like this

#414 wfj

wfj

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1628
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2008
  • Loc: California, Santa Cruz County

Posted 20 March 2019 - 02:41 PM

I did figure out ways to supply a knob focuser (enhancing existing helical focuser) and adjustable, edge supported mirror cell (getting rid of the idiotic glued primary in the base). But I don't see the point in doing either, given I've no trouble focusing/collimating or mirror distortion.

 

Like above, there is no point in doing a DIY on old C90 because those with Q's see it as a challenge to their considerable Q possession. (As I've mentioned, C90 is compact for backpack - my only interest in this matter.) Information provided on a "as-is" basis for others. Because what may be seen as a useful project for some, might be seen by others as a challenge that undercuts a value/presumption of quality, and blurs a distinction.

 

I'd never claim APO for any C90 either. However, now that that's been entered into the record, low f/ APO's do experience the C90's most difficult weakness to fix - both share HSA that degrades contrast/detail at high magnification. Due to them both having considerable angles on primary objectives, and the corrector needed for them. Jupiter shows this well.

 

Amateur astronomers are very passionate about instruments/choice. But it shouldn't blind "objective" measurement and justified scientific curiosity as to "why". Reminds of "eye witness" testimony as having subjective flaws even in a first hand evidentiary hearing. Which often reverses cases on appeal.


  • terraclarke likes this

#415 memento

memento

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 563
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2008
  • Loc: 51N 7E

Posted 21 March 2019 - 04:43 PM

I had the Astro C90. It's really cool to look at and the single-fork mount is beautiful and very well made. I think the thread about mine has been mentioned already somewhere in this thread:

 

https://www.cloudyni...stro-questions/

 

I used long screws to be able to adjust the main mirror, that worked pretty well. Also I modified a 1 1/4" diagonal to work with it without coming too far out of the rear, so that the scope would not become too rear heavy and also the effective focal length remain as short as possible.

 

3503028-_I4M3384.jpg

 

That also worked well, but overall, I recall I preferred to use it with the .96" eyepieces. Maybe that's just me, I love those super small little eyepieces and tiny diagonals. The C90 was the scope got me into collecting them. :)

 

From my memory, it was sharp and good but would not match the (super-sharp) optics of the Meade ETX90. On the other hand, the C90 had substantial mechanics and a really good mount.

 

Eventually I sold it. What terra says is right: While it is super small, it's not ETX90-small (where you just screw the three legs right into the mount base). So the C90 still not that much easier to set up than any small refractor. Mount, wedge, and so forth. The C90 Astro mount is actually the best part of the whole scope, you should always try to find that mount as well, and then put it on a C5-style table top wedge. But once you did all that, you could just as well set up a real C5 on that wedge. I was lucky to find a C5, which is every bit as easy to set up as the C90, yet is a more capable scope.


  • terraclarke and Kasmos like this

#416 Kasmos

Kasmos

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1640
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2015
  • Loc: So Cal

Posted 21 March 2019 - 08:36 PM

I agree. I have both and the C5 is not that much larger nor harder to set up, (especially the small base C5) so if you have a C5 there's really no need for a C90. That said, the C90 Astro is such a cool little package. Every time I've thought of selling mine all I had to do is take it out of it's case and the thought would vanish. 

C-Amigos.jpg

 


  • davidmcgo, astro140, memento and 1 other like this

#417 terraclarke

terraclarke

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 18820
  • Joined: 29 May 2012
  • Loc: Third from the Sun

Posted 22 March 2019 - 09:42 AM

I got rid of my orange C90 because it was no better than a 60mm refractor and no match for my Questar. Plus, like you, I figured- Why not use the C5 instead if I want to use something orange? Then came my C8, a 2nd qtr 1977, exactly the same vintage as the C5. Since the C5 was the ‘large base’ variety (same size as the C8), I realized that setting the C8 up on a wedge and tripod was scarcely more trouble than setting up the C5 on the same wedge and tripod. Can you guess where this is going? Right, C5 was going. Now the only orange I have is the C8 and I’m good with that. :lol:

 

(Yes, the Q stayed too! ;) )


  • memento and Kasmos like this

#418 wfj

wfj

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1628
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2008
  • Loc: California, Santa Cruz County

Posted 22 March 2019 - 12:10 PM

It's the "more better" aspect of amateur astronomy. Talking yourself into more kit, because it's only a little more.

 

Right now debating taking a C8 Nexstar 8 on a flight to Hawaii later this year. Because the OTA in it's fabric carrying bag, it fits under the seat with 3" to spare, and it's not much weight more ... than the C5. Shows southern sky objects that much better.

 

I've only one scope now that packs more densely than the C90, and goes with me when I'm taking no luggage, no even a carry-on. Perhaps it will displace the C90 - we'll see. It doesn't even need a tripod.

 

The side benefit of the C90 that's hard to beat is it's use as a spotter. With mods, it's contrast, FOV, and vignetting issues have all been reduced as well. It does not exceed the NK65, excepting lower surface brightness DSO's.

 

Keep in mind that the primary baffle's "flat" front decreases contrast (more scattering to secondary), the secondary baffle reduces aperture (especially for 0.965 diagonal/hybrid, and the CO is 1/8"+ too big. The benefit of those in place is you don't need to flock the tube - which does little good to do with the other issues present.

 

The C5/C8 issues are largely a function of the corrector, although the primary baffle in both is next on the list, and a marginal improvement can be had on the secondary. Flocking helps more.


Edited by wfj, 22 March 2019 - 12:12 PM.

  • terraclarke likes this

#419 terraclarke

terraclarke

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 18820
  • Joined: 29 May 2012
  • Loc: Third from the Sun

Posted 22 March 2019 - 12:29 PM

I’ve had several tiny traveling scopes 50 to 70mm in aperture, two refractors and a little Mak, that were my airline travel scopes, but for all intents and purposes, I’ve found that I would in all cases rather travel with binoculars. They don’t require a mount, don’t require additional eyepieces and other accessories, and are well suited for viewing both day and night. We are going down to Cabo week after next for a week, taking only carry-on luggage, and one of us will take a pair of 8x40s, the other will take 16x50s, both vintage Japanese of course! ;)

 

In the late fall we are planning a trek to southern South America- Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and a side trip to Easter Island. I think I will be compelled to take my 12x60s for that one. By the way, the tiny travel telescopes have been sold. 

 

Car trips are another story. In that case, more room allows a telescope or two as well as binoculars. The tele’s of choice in that case are my two ATM RFTs, the 80mm F5 and/or the 102mm F6.4. on alt-az, fluid head tripods.


  • wfj and shooze like this

#420 memento

memento

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 563
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2008
  • Loc: 51N 7E

Posted 22 March 2019 - 02:09 PM

Terra, yes I know that an 8 inch SCT is also almost as easy to set up as a the C5 :) ... they have more or less the same base, then you set it on the same wedge, then the same tripod ...

 

My C5 isn't even orange, I have the white one.

 

Yet somehow I completely bonded to my C5, even though outings with my brother (also interested into astronomy) who has a C8 clearly showed me that a C8 is so much more than a C5. :)

 

That brings me back to the topic: The C90 Astro is just such a cool scope. I would never call it "practical" after having owned and enjoyed one. But it is cool, it has a really great design, including some flaws but who cares.

 

So either you are a collector, then you will need them all anyway. C90, C5, C8. Or you are a user, then you'll eventually end up with the logical choice, the C8, I am sure. Or you are just crazy. Then you have just one of them but it won't be the logical choice :)


  • terraclarke and Kasmos like this

#421 terraclarke

terraclarke

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 18820
  • Joined: 29 May 2012
  • Loc: Third from the Sun

Posted 22 March 2019 - 02:25 PM

Thomas, I heartily agree! They are cool and for the definitive Celestron collector, the whole orange trio is a must! I had all three for a short time, but I’ve decided that I’m a user primarily; tho I do have a modest collection of refractors. So my collection of ‘mirror-based telescopes’ consists of a single iconic example each of a classic newt, a Mak, and an SCT.
  • Kasmos likes this

#422 Kasmos

Kasmos

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1640
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2015
  • Loc: So Cal

Posted 22 March 2019 - 03:32 PM

IMO, the ease of use is more similar between the C90 and the C5. Carrying the C8's case and setting it up takes quite a bit more muscle and care to get it on the wedge. But then again, we're talking with Superwoman! usa.gif

 

For now, I'm a bit of a Celestron collector, but one day I'll probably be faced with the reality of aging issues (and storage space), so will likely par down to one of the C5's.


  • memento and terraclarke like this

#423 terraclarke

terraclarke

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 18820
  • Joined: 29 May 2012
  • Loc: Third from the Sun

Posted 22 March 2019 - 05:36 PM

IMO, the ease of use is more similar between the C90 and the C5. Carrying the C8's case and setting it up takes quite a bit more muscle and care to get it on the wedge. But then again, we're talking with Superwoman! usa.gif

 

For now, I'm a bit of a Celestron collector, but one day I'll probably be faced with the reality of aging issues (and storage space), so will likely par down to one of the C5's.

If I had to carry it out in the heavy trunk I would agree; I found my C5 in its trunk to be heavy. But my C8 has a lighter PVC trunk with wheels, and I also have a coaster wagon I can set it on a coaster wagon. Usually tho, I leave it set up on the Wedgepod, and so I just take out the bottom two bolts and leave the top bolt in, just backed off so that I can just slip the C8 out of the slot on the top of the wedge, set it aside, then carry out the Wedgepod and put it where I want, then bring out the C8 and hang it on the wedge with the top bolt, then tighten down the bolts. I wouldn’t pick it up and move it all in one piece as I could with the C5. It’s definitely not a grab and go, requiring a couple of trips both for set up and take down.


Edited by terraclarke, 22 March 2019 - 05:41 PM.

  • clamchip, memento and Kasmos like this

#424 clamchip

clamchip

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9454
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Seattle

Posted Yesterday, 08:01 PM

Here's my C90 just the way I like it, .965" Vixen (Celestron) prism and a Chinese (Celestron)25mm

wide field and a fluid head camera tripod. The ultimate garden scope.

Bottom photo is Mr Hyde. I don't like the barrel focus for astronomy so I put a JMI Crayford on

the milkman. I didn't like it, although it did give me a very nice focus.

I call my C90 the milkman because, well you know, how else do you explain a MCT in a SCT family?

Funny because my wife is a red head and they all thought it was the milkman.

Robert 

 

post-50896-0-78218400-1462033134_thumb.jpg

post-50896-14074156617971_thumb.jpg


Edited by clamchip, Yesterday, 08:03 PM.

  • memento and terraclarke like this


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics