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

Orion spaceprobe 130st

beginner equipment eyepieces Orion reflector
  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 juranich

juranich

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2015

Posted 30 November 2015 - 12:04 PM

Hello everyone,

 

I am in the difficult process of choosing a first telescope and so this is already my third post in a few days.

After looking at several reflector telescopes for a 300 euros budget I think I have identifed my best choice as the orion spaceprobe 130st as it offers the same focal length and aperture as others but give two good plossls eyepieces and a mount that seems sturdy and very good amazon reviews. I just wanted to ask if anybody could give me a report of their experience with this telescope and tell me if they think it is a good choice. Also if they think I would need other accesories.

Obviously if you know any other model with similar characteristics which you think is better please tell me.

Thank you all.

 

Giovanni.



#2 gene 4181

gene 4181

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4788
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2013
  • Loc: n.e. ohio

Posted 30 November 2015 - 12:40 PM

 You'll most likely need a barlow lense, 2x  for this scope to get a decent planetary views and I can't think of any reason not too get it.  I had and used a skywatcher 130 f5 probably  the same optically  and was very happy with it .  Its a very reasonable scope other than you'll need  some shorter focal length eyepieces for it , like a meade  60d.fov 6.5mm and the barlow to reach 200 power in the better seeing .   Today there's plenty of eyepieces sold with nice eye relief below 10mm, just saying. A 32mm plossl for widest fov  and the aforemention 7 or 6mm  LER  meade or celestron  widefield  60 degree  fov will be nice. The equatorial isn't the BEST mount , but probably acceptable at the price point .  I used it .



#3 skfboiler1

skfboiler1

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 319
  • Joined: 02 Nov 2013
  • Loc: NW Indiana

Posted 30 November 2015 - 02:56 PM

The Orion Spaceprobe 130st is a nice scope.  The mount will be shaky particularly when trying to focus.  If you can stretch your budget a little, check out the Orion Astroview 6 scope.  It is a 150 mm f/5 scope that will get you 33% more light than the 130T.  The mount, an EQ-3 is heavier than the EQ-2 of the Spaceprobe 130T.  It still shakes a bit when focusing however, but most likely not as bad as the EQ-2. With the Astroview 6, you can install a motorized forcuser.  I put one on mine and do not have to worry about shaking when focusing. The motorized focuser is not compatible with the Spaceprobe 130T.  With either scope you can install a motor drive for the RA that will track objects.  You will appreciate the drive if you like planets or other high magnification stuff.  It also will eliminate shaking which will occur when turning the RA slow motion knob when manually tracking.

 

The same Plossls come with the Astroview 6 and they are pretty good.  Yes, definitely get the 2x Barlow if you like planets.  If you are going to be looking at the moon, you will need a moon filter. The moon is so bright.  

 

If you do get the Spaceprobe 130T I think you will like it, particularly if you handle the shake issue.



#4 Kendahl

Kendahl

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1439
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2013
  • Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

Posted 30 November 2015 - 08:12 PM

The 130ST optical tube is fine. However, I have serious reservations about the EQ-2 mount. As skfboiler1 suggested, the Astroview is stronger and will be less susceptible to vibration. The 6 inch Newtonian optical tube is enough to get you through the Messier catalog if you can get away from city lights. If the 6 inch tube is beyond your budget, consider the same mount with the 90 mm refractor. It will be good for the sun (with a solar filter over the objective), moon and planets but only the brighter Messier objects. The $84 motor for the mount's right ascension axis is a good investment. It relieves you of the need to manually track objects to keep them in the field of view of the eyepiece.

 

For a visual observer, a Dobsonian would be a better choice for two reasons:

  1. For the same money, you get more telescope.
  2. With a Newtonian on an equatorial mount, the eyepiece invariably gets into awkward positions. (It's not a problem with a refractor because you can rotate the diagonal.)

Orion's XT6 Classic Dob is $310. The XT6 Plus costs $90 more but includes items like a second eyepiece, 2x Barlow and solar filter that you will want anyway. The one disadvantage to these telescopes is that there is no low cost motor to automate tracking. For that, you need a GoTo Dob. The cheapest one of those is the StarBlast 6i IntelliScope which, despite the silly name, is a good telescope.



#5 Sky Muse

Sky Muse

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7015
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012
  • Loc: Mid-South, U.S.

Posted 30 November 2015 - 11:41 PM

For an extra 70 euros, you can get this 150mm f/5 equipped with a 2" focusser(!) and mounted on a much-sturdier EQ3-class(!) equatorial...

 

http://www.firstligh...150p-eq3-2.html

 

It also comes with two eyepieces(10mm and 25mm) and a 2x barlow.

 

 

Incidentally, Synta of China manufactures the equipment for both Sky-Watcher and Orion.  Sky-Watcher, however, gives you more for your money.


  • skfboiler1 likes this

#6 S.Boerner

S.Boerner

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1173
  • Joined: 29 Apr 2010
  • Loc: Chesterfield, MO

Posted 01 December 2015 - 01:19 PM

Do you really want an equatorial mount?  It will need to be polar aligned every time out or you'll be frustrated.  Most beginners find an alt/az mount easier to use.  I give a +1 on the Orion's XT6 Classic Dob for $10 more.  You can add other eyepieces later. 


  • Jon Isaacs and howard929 like this

#7 Sky Muse

Sky Muse

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7015
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012
  • Loc: Mid-South, U.S.

Posted 01 December 2015 - 10:26 PM

For visual, the latitude of an equatorial usually needs setting only once, unless one relocates to another latitude.  It really only amounts to pointing the RA axis to the north and ensuring that the mount is more or less level.  An equatorial also has fine slow-motion controls, for both axes, and the ability to be easily and inexpensively motorised, for automatic hands-free tracking of any and all objects.  In addition, the tube's focusser can be rotated for a more comfortable viewing position, unlike that which is fixed on a Dobsonian.  A 6" f/5 is also more versatile than a 6" f/8, and for observing what little there is within the solar system and without into deep space with its far more numerous denizens.

 

An equatorially-mounted 6" f/5 is simply on a higher plane of observational enjoyment.


  • skfboiler1 likes this

#8 Tony Flanders

Tony Flanders

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 17040
  • Joined: 18 May 2006
  • Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA

Posted 02 December 2015 - 05:16 AM

For visual, the latitude of an equatorial usually needs setting only once, unless one relocates to another latitude.  It really only amounts to pointing the RA axis to the north and ensuring that the mount is more or less level.  An equatorial also has fine slow-motion controls, for both axes, and the ability to be easily and inexpensively motorised, for automatic hands-free tracking of any and all objects.  In addition, the tube's focusser can be rotated for a more comfortable viewing position, unlike that which is fixed on a Dobsonian.  A 6" f/5 is also more versatile than a 6" f/8, and for observing what little there is within the solar system and without into deep space with its far more numerous denizens.

 

An equatorially-mounted 6" f/5 is simply on a higher plane of observational enjoyment.

I like equatorial mounts just fine, and I agree that it's very easy indeed to polar-align them as long as you don't care too much about accuracy. However, I think that many of the points listed here are a little misleading. In particular, rotating the tube. Yes, you can rotate the tube on any decent equatorial-mounted telescope -- and a good thing, too, because if you couldn't, it would be almost impossible to view much of the sky. But this is a handicap, not an advantage. Rotating the tube is a nuisance. And it's unnecessary on a Dob, where the tube is always in a comfortable position, with no need to rotate it.

 

Likewise, slow-motion controls are great on an equatorial mount, but they are an extra level of complexity. It takes quite a while before you instinctively know where the slow-motion knobs are in all of a telescope's myriad possible positions. They're unnecessary on a Dob, which can be moved easily just by pushing the tube.

 

Personally, I prefer 8-inch f/6 Dobs to equatorial-mounted 6-inch f/5 reflectors. I can easily imagine preferring the equatorial version, but calling it more versatile or "a higher plane of enjoyment?" That's a bit much!


  • Jon Isaacs likes this

#9 Sky Muse

Sky Muse

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7015
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012
  • Loc: Mid-South, U.S.

Posted 02 December 2015 - 06:44 AM

 

For visual, the latitude of an equatorial usually needs setting only once, unless one relocates to another latitude.  It really only amounts to pointing the RA axis to the north and ensuring that the mount is more or less level.  An equatorial also has fine slow-motion controls, for both axes, and the ability to be easily and inexpensively motorised, for automatic hands-free tracking of any and all objects.  In addition, the tube's focusser can be rotated for a more comfortable viewing position, unlike that which is fixed on a Dobsonian.  A 6" f/5 is also more versatile than a 6" f/8, and for observing what little there is within the solar system and without into deep space with its far more numerous denizens.

 

An equatorially-mounted 6" f/5 is simply on a higher plane of observational enjoyment.

I like equatorial mounts just fine, and I agree that it's very easy indeed to polar-align them as long as you don't care too much about accuracy. However, I think that many of the points listed here are a little misleading. In particular, rotating the tube. Yes, you can rotate the tube on any decent equatorial-mounted telescope -- and a good thing, too, because if you couldn't, it would be almost impossible to view much of the sky. But this is a handicap, not an advantage. Rotating the tube is a nuisance. And it's unnecessary on a Dob, where the tube is always in a comfortable position, with no need to rotate it.

 

Likewise, slow-motion controls are great on an equatorial mount, but they are an extra level of complexity. It takes quite a while before you instinctively know where the slow-motion knobs are in all of a telescope's myriad possible positions. They're unnecessary on a Dob, which can be moved easily just by pushing the tube.

 

Personally, I prefer 8-inch f/6 Dobs to equatorial-mounted 6-inch f/5 reflectors. I can easily imagine preferring the equatorial version, but calling it more versatile or "a higher plane of enjoyment?" That's a bit much!

 

 

It is not "always" in a comfortable position...

 

I've used my 6" f/5 on a Dobson-mount, and found that I needed to rotate it on occasion for more comfortable viewing.  It came with tube rings in order to do so.  Larger, mass-produced Dobsonians come with fixed focussers because it would be more expensive to enable the ability to rotate them; certainly not as some imagined advantage.

 

The handicap is the design of the telescope, a Newtonian, not the mount.  Telescopes with rear-mounted focussers rarely if ever require rotating.  Of course, a Newtonian is "the best bang for the buck", and if one desires the luxury of an equatorial, especially when motorised, for their Newtonian, it does rotate to enable comfortable viewing, and like all Newtonians should.  Specifically, a 6" f/5 optical tube is most easily rotated, and with little effort.  I rotate mine on my Voyager I alt-azimuth even, and with no trouble at all.

 

It's not the monster as others seem to portray it.

 

Then, there are quite a few who would prefer to simply twist a single, little knob to keep an object in an ocular's field-of-view, rather than bumping the tube up and down and left to right.  I think that's most certainly worth effecting the very slight learning curve required.

 

Incidentally, the versatility I spoke of was in reference to the optical, observational advantage of a 6" f/5 over that of a 6" f/8, and in observing the gamut, not to mention the former's more compact footprint.

 

Personally, I prefer to sit quietly when observing, rather than jumping about and banging on a tube.  Now, when I mount my 8" f/5 in future, à la Dobson, it may very well come to that, and a necessary evil.

 

:lol:



#10 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 79037
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 02 December 2015 - 06:48 AM

 

For visual, the latitude of an equatorial usually needs setting only once, unless one relocates to another latitude.  It really only amounts to pointing the RA axis to the north and ensuring that the mount is more or less level.  An equatorial also has fine slow-motion controls, for both axes, and the ability to be easily and inexpensively motorised, for automatic hands-free tracking of any and all objects.  In addition, the tube's focusser can be rotated for a more comfortable viewing position, unlike that which is fixed on a Dobsonian.  A 6" f/5 is also more versatile than a 6" f/8, and for observing what little there is within the solar system and without into deep space with its far more numerous denizens.

 

An equatorially-mounted 6" f/5 is simply on a higher plane of observational enjoyment.

I like equatorial mounts just fine, and I agree that it's very easy indeed to polar-align them as long as you don't care too much about accuracy. However, I think that many of the points listed here are a little misleading. In particular, rotating the tube. Yes, you can rotate the tube on any decent equatorial-mounted telescope -- and a good thing, too, because if you couldn't, it would be almost impossible to view much of the sky. But this is a handicap, not an advantage. Rotating the tube is a nuisance. And it's unnecessary on a Dob, where the tube is always in a comfortable position, with no need to rotate it.

 

Likewise, slow-motion controls are great on an equatorial mount, but they are an extra level of complexity. It takes quite a while before you instinctively know where the slow-motion knobs are in all of a telescope's myriad possible positions. They're unnecessary on a Dob, which can be moved easily just by pushing the tube.

 

Personally, I prefer 8-inch f/6 Dobs to equatorial-mounted 6-inch f/5 reflectors. I can easily imagine preferring the equatorial version, but calling it more versatile or "a higher plane of enjoyment?" That's a bit much!

 

 

I agree with Tony.. I prefer both 6 inch F/8 and 8 inch F/6 Dobsonians to equatorially mounted 6 inch F/5s...  In comparing the 6 inch F/5 to the 6 inch F/8, the forgiving nature of the F/8 scope is a big plus, collimation is much less critical, it's less demanding of eyepieces.. the sweet spot is much larger.  If transporting the longer tube of the 6 inch F/8 is a problem, then the shorter 6 inch F/5 can address that issue. 

 

In any event, this thread is about the Space Probe 130ST.  I have had two of them. One of them I had for only a short while, it was stock and rode on the Orion EQ-2 mount.  The scope itself had good optics but as others here have suggested, the mount is really not up to the task. It's really too bad because the scope itself is very competent.  The other SpaceProbe 130ST I had for several years, it was fitted with an aftermarket 2 inch focuser and rode on a EQ-3 (Astroview) mount that was stiffened up with Vixen Super Polaris wooden legs. That was the right mount for the scope and the right focuser as well.  

 

The stock Spaceprobe 130ST focuser is also a weakpoint, it's mostly plastic and unlike the metal Orion focusers, there is not much that one can do to make it better.  The Starblast scopes including the 6 inch have a similar focuser.  I consider these focusers borderline because they make precise focusing difficult.  An excellent focuser is transparent to the observer, you just dial in the focus.  A good focuser is one that makes it easy to get the best possible focuser, no messing around, just a little care.  A focuser like the Spaceprobe 130ST, if one is careful and patient and willing to trying several times to get the sharp focus, it is generally possible but in my opinion this focuser gets in the way of getting the good views that the optics are capable of.  

For what the Spaceprobe 130ST costs, I think there are better ways to spend the money.  

 

Jon

 

3920634-Space Probe 130ST.jpg


#11 Tony Flanders

Tony Flanders

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 17040
  • Joined: 18 May 2006
  • Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA

Posted 02 December 2015 - 07:03 AM

Then, there are quite a few who would prefer to simply twist a single, little knob to keep an object in an ocular's field-of-view, rather than bumping the tube up and down and left to right.  ...
 
Personally, I prefer to sit quietly when observing, rather than jumping about and banging on a tube.  Now, when I mount my 8" f/5 in future, à la Dobson, it may very well come to that, and a necessary evil.

In thousands of hours observing with my own Dobs, and watching other people observe with theirs, I have never seen anybody jump up, nor have I ever seen anybody banging on the tube. Rather, you sit there peacefully, drawing the tube smoothly toward you from time to time as your target begins to drift out of the field of view. It becomes second nature around the third day you use the scope.
 
I do agree, however, that it's nice to be able to track an object by twisting a single knob. And perhaps more important, it's very nice to be able to retrieve your target after it has drifted out of the field of view by moving the telescope on one axis. With Dobs, there's always a little edge of anxiety when you turn away from the scope and fiddle with your charts or search out that extra eyepiece or accessory ... does this mean that I'm going to need to re-acquire my target all over again?

 

Even so, I find that for reflectors in particular, the disadvantages of an equatorial mount generally outweigh the advantages.



#12 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 79037
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 02 December 2015 - 07:05 AM

 

I've used my 6" f/5 on a Dobson-mount, and found that I needed to rotate it on occasion for more comfortable viewing.  It came with tube rings in order to do so.  Larger, mass-produced Dobsonians come with fixed focussers because it would be more expensive to enable the ability to rotate them; certainly not as some imagined advantage.

 

I have owned Dobsonians of pretty much every size imaginable, from a mini 3 inch that I built myself to Junior that requires a ladder.  With a comfortable, adjustable chair and a focuser set at somewhere between 25 degrees and 45 degrees, I have never felt the need to rotate the tube.  The standard commercial 6 inch F/8, 8 inch F/6, 10 inch F/5 and 12 inch F/5 certainly are comfortable without rotating the tube.  And it's not just mass produced scopes that have fixed focusers, premium truss scopes are the same way.. Get that angle right, have a comfortable chair.. 

 

I have also owned equatorially mounted Newtonians of a variety of sizes ranging from 4.5 inches to 12.5 inches.  With an equatorially mounted Newtonian, it's a different ball game, without the ability to rotate the tube, the eyepiece can be pointing in an impossible to view position.  And rotating the tube can be a problem itself.  It is best done with the tube level so it does not slip down and out of position, out of balance.  Ideally a Newtonian on a GEM has what is called rotating rings, they allow the tube to be rotated without loosening the clamps. There are do it yourself mods that work reasonably well.  Also, with a 5 or 6 inch scope, rotating the scope is doable with the stock rings..

 

Jon 



#13 Loren Gibson

Loren Gibson

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 190
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2013
  • Loc: Northern Florida, USA

Posted 02 December 2015 - 08:00 AM

Hello, Giovanni. I own an Orion 130 ST Newtonian reflector on the EQ-2 German equatorial mount. I've added the optional motor drive to the mount for an additional $80-ish (if memory serves me correctly) so that it tracks automatically. For the price, I think it's a fine telescope. I wish that I had one this good as a first telescope.

 

Others have pointed out some shortcomings of this telescope and mount, and I have a qualified agreement on most of the points raised. By that I mean that I acknowledge the shortcomings stated, such as the light-duty mount (vibrations) and the tube rotation issue, however I don't find them to be bad enough to rule this scope out as a candidate. Tremors from focusing can be minimized with a little practice and gentle touch (possibly using both hands, one on each focus knob), although breezy conditions will induce some shakes. Little can be done about the windy conditions, and certainly a scope on a heavier-duty mount will better resist wind-induced vibrations. Tube rotation is easy, and in fact is somewhat easier on a small, light-tubed scope like this one than a big one. When I use mine, I can foresee the tube orientation when it's to be pointed to a particular area of the sky, and I know where I'll be standing and what direction I want the focuser to be pointing. Prior to pointing the scope to that part of the sky, I move the telescope tube to a horizontal orientation, loosen the tube ring clamp knobs slightly, rotate the tube to the desired rotation, gently snug down the tube rings, then point the telescope to the object sought. (I do the same thing with larger GEM-mounted Newtonians as well, and it's still easy to use this procedure.)

 

All that said, this doesn't necessarily mean that the 130ST is the optimum telescope for you as a first telescope. Some who are new to telescope usage (I don't know if this describes you) are perplexed by the procedures for setting up and using a telescope with a German equatorial mount. If you're new to a GEM and don't have anyone to show you the ropes, you might want to surf around the Internet for web pages having guidance about using equatorial mounts before you buy. You can also download the instruction manual from Orion for this telescope, which has a section on aligning the equatorial mount. The tube rotation, while simple to do, is still something that a newcomer to GEM mounted Newtonians will have to learn. As others have alluded to, a Dobsonian-mounted telescope has a simplicity of setup and use which might invite its use more frequently, if you think an equatorial mount is unappealing. There are pros and cons to each type of mount, obviously.

 

You do have a somewhat bewildering array of telescopes to choose from, and this is both a good thing and a bad thing! I hope the advice you're getting from me and others is helpful. Feel free to follow up with more questions.

 

Loren


  • Juan Rayo likes this

#14 Sky Muse

Sky Muse

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7015
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012
  • Loc: Mid-South, U.S.

Posted 02 December 2015 - 08:38 AM

Even so, I find that for reflectors in particular, the disadvantages of an equatorial mount generally outweigh the advantages.

 

Rather, the fascinating ability of a motorised equatorial in halting the Earth in its otherwise irresistible rotation, seemingly halting time itself even, most certainly outweighs any and all disadvantages; and in said light, regardless of the telescope utilised.



#15 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 79037
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 02 December 2015 - 09:17 AM

 

Even so, I find that for reflectors in particular, the disadvantages of an equatorial mount generally outweigh the advantages.

 

Rather, the fascinating ability of a motorised equatorial in halting the Earth in its otherwise irresistible rotation, seemingly halting time itself even, most certainly outweighs any and all disadvantages; and in said light, regardless of the telescope utilised.

 

 

Motorized tracking can certainly be an advantage.  In 1980 the standard Newtonian was GEM mounted. A 6 inch was a large scope, a 10 inch was rare, a 12.5 inch was essentially an observatory scope.

 

About that time, John Dobson showed that with his simple, stable alt-az mount, the Newtonian could be effectively tracked manually, it no longer required a heavy, awkward, counter weighted mount and it opened the doors to a new world for the amateur astronomer..   Beginners scopes were no longer 4.5 inch Newtonians, they were 6, 8 inch and now 10 inch and even 12 inch.. 

 

The Dobsonian revolution:  It's not about cost, it's about usability.. about what is practical.  

 

Jon


  • howard929 and Juan Rayo like this

#16 juranich

juranich

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 6
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2015

Posted 02 December 2015 - 12:30 PM

Thank you all for your answers, I understand that most of you think I should get a dobsonian but unfortunately that type of telescope is not portable enough for me as even when disassembled it is still pretty big, also I am already stretching my budget by choosing this telescope. If possible could someone give me some review of the actual optics and eyepieces that come with the telescope and with the beginners kit (http://eu.telescope....yCategoryId=528 ) in addition to the mount? Because it looks like every telescope similar to this does not have a mount that is perfectly stable so I wanted to know if the rest of the telescope was ok. 

Thank you all

 

Giovanni



#17 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 79037
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 02 December 2015 - 01:26 PM

Thank you all for your answers, I understand that most of you think I should get a dobsonian but unfortunately that type of telescope is not portable enough for me as even when disassembled it is still pretty big, also I am already stretching my budget by choosing this telescope. If possible could someone give me some review of the actual optics and eyepieces that come with the telescope and with the beginners kit (http://eu.telescope....yCategoryId=528 ) in addition to the mount? Because it looks like every telescope similar to this does not have a mount that is perfectly stable so I wanted to know if the rest of the telescope was ok. 

Thank you all

 

Giovanni

 

Giovanni

 

I think the telescope itself is fundamentally sound, the optics are good, the rest of the telescope is usable.  It could be better but you would be getting something capable of providing good views.

 

Jon



#18 Sky Muse

Sky Muse

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7015
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012
  • Loc: Mid-South, U.S.

Posted 03 December 2015 - 02:37 AM

 

 

Even so, I find that for reflectors in particular, the disadvantages of an equatorial mount generally outweigh the advantages.

 

Rather, the fascinating ability of a motorised equatorial in halting the Earth in its otherwise irresistible rotation, seemingly halting time itself even, most certainly outweighs any and all disadvantages; and in said light, regardless of the telescope utilised.

 

 

Motorized tracking can certainly be an advantage.  In 1980 the standard Newtonian was GEM mounted. A 6 inch was a large scope, a 10 inch was rare, a 12.5 inch was essentially an observatory scope.

 

About that time, John Dobson showed that with his simple, stable alt-az mount, the Newtonian could be effectively tracked manually, it no longer required a heavy, awkward, counter weighted mount and it opened the doors to a new world for the amateur astronomer..   Beginners scopes were no longer 4.5 inch Newtonians, they were 6, 8 inch and now 10 inch and even 12 inch.. 

 

The Dobsonian revolution:  It's not about cost, it's about usability.. about what is practical.  

 

Jon

 

 

Dobson's goal was to make astronomy more accessible to the populace, and inexpensively.  Within Dobson's videos on YouTube, the materials used reinforces said vision.  A Dobsonian is nothing more than an economically-mounted Newtonian.

 

One cannot use their hands to cause an object in the eyepiece's field-of-view to remain motionless, try as one might.  Therefore one cannot make that comparison legitimately.



#19 Sky Muse

Sky Muse

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7015
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012
  • Loc: Mid-South, U.S.

Posted 03 December 2015 - 03:45 AM

Giovanni,

 

I have the same eyepieces provided with the Orion SpaceProbe 130ST, and that came with my Orion StarBlast 6...

 

Sirius Plossls.jpg

 

They sell for over €50 each if purchased separately, and are of better quality than those bundled with many other kits.

 

 

In future, you can the motorise the equatorial... http://www.teleskop-...EQ-2-Mount.html

 

First Light Optics also carries it... http://www.firstligh...ve-for-eq2.html

 

Rother Valley Optics offers an economical version in addition to the standard...

 

http://www.rotherval...ve-for-eq2.html

http://www.rotherval...ed-handset.html

 

You can bypass the battery pack for the standard drive set with an AC adaptor.  The AC adaptor must be 6V and the tip of the adaptor's power connector must match(+/-) the hand controller's DC input jack.

 

 

One of the really nice things about that particular kit, besides the parabolic primary mirror, is that it's comprised of minimal plastic, and no particle board. 


  • Juan Rayo likes this

#20 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 79037
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 03 December 2015 - 09:52 AM

 

 

Dobson's goal was to make astronomy more accessible to the populace, and inexpensively.  Within Dobson's videos on YouTube, the materials used reinforces said vision.  A Dobsonian is nothing more than an economically-mounted Newtonian.

One cannot use their hands to cause an object in the eyepiece's field-of-view to remain motionless, try as one might.  Therefore one cannot make that comparison legitimately.

 

There was a time when I thought of Dobsonians as crude cardboard contraptions.. And many of them were and some still are. But the original Dobsonian has gone through a number of transformations so that it is far more capable than John Dobson ever imagined.  Gone are the days of mirrors made from portholes and heavy, massive cardboard tubes.  While the Dobsonian mount can be inexpensive, it's primary virtue is that it is very compact and stable so that larger apertures are now practical.  

 

Just as with an manual Equatorial mount, it not truly possible for an object to remain motionless when manually tracking a Dob...  A good approximation can be achieved with a Dobsonian if needed but most find it easier to let the object drift across the field.  In any event, if one wants precise tracking, motors can be added to the equatorial mount, motors can be added to a Dobsonian mount, though it is definitely more expensive.

 

The fundamental engineering principle is KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid.. That's the Dobsonian in a nutshell.. In the old days, professional observatories depended on Equatorial mounts for tracking but all modern large telescopes are mounted ALT-AZ just like the Dobsonian.  

 

This discussion is irrelevant to Giovanni's needs except to suggest that the Starblast 6, depending on it's cost, might be a viable alternative to the SpaceProbe 130ST.  One of the virtues of the Dobsonian mount is it's inherent stability.  

 

Jon iSaacs



#21 Loren Gibson

Loren Gibson

    Vostok 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 190
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2013
  • Loc: Northern Florida, USA

Posted 03 December 2015 - 10:52 AM

Thank you all for your answers, I understand that most of you think I should get a dobsonian but unfortunately that type of telescope is not portable enough for me as even when disassembled it is still pretty big, also I am already stretching my budget by choosing this telescope. If possible could someone give me some review of the actual optics and eyepieces that come with the telescope and with the beginners kit (http://eu.telescope....yCategoryId=528 ) in addition to the mount? Because it looks like every telescope similar to this does not have a mount that is perfectly stable so I wanted to know if the rest of the telescope was ok. 

Thank you all

 

Giovanni

 

The Orion Sirius Plossls are good quality eyepieces and provide fine views through the 130ST (and other telescopes that I have). I don't have the 2x Shorty barlow, so I can't comment specifically on that item. Like others have stated, I think the optical quality of the telescope itself is good.

 

Regarding portability, this scope will certainly break down into fairly small chunks. Right now mine is stowed in three "components." The optical tube is standing on the floor (150 mm diameter and a 600 mm tall, more or less), the three extension legs of the tripod are bungee-corded together into a compact bundle (less than a meter in length), and the rest of the mount and accessories are in an easily carried, modestly-sized box. Assembly and disassembly probably takes me 20 minutes each, at a guess.

 

The 130ST is not my only telescope, so I don't use it full time. However, I could be a lot worse off than to have this as my only telescope. That's my take on this. :-)

 

Loren



#22 Hesiod

Hesiod

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3215
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2013

Posted 03 December 2015 - 11:20 AM

Thank you all for your answers, I understand that most of you think I should get a dobsonian but unfortunately that type of telescope is not portable enough for me as even when disassembled it is still pretty big, also I am already stretching my budget by choosing this telescope. If possible could someone give me some review of the actual optics and eyepieces that come with the telescope and with the beginners kit (http://eu.telescope....yCategoryId=528 ) in addition to the mount? Because it looks like every telescope similar to this does not have a mount that is perfectly stable so I wanted to know if the rest of the telescope was ok. 

Thank you all

 

Giovanni

There is a sort of "Dobsonian" model, the Skywatcher Heritage 130/650, exceptionally easy to transport.

Yes, it it very low, but with some simple "tricks*" can be made more comfortable and user-friendly than the sample you have posted.

Furthermore the telescope is 190€, so you can purchase a few of good optional, if you wish (e.g. a good Barlow lens and an additional eyepiece).

 

Similar "mini-Dobsonian" were sold under the Orion USA label, up to 150/750, even equipped with digital circles (the "intelliscope" version)

 

*the easiest is to make (or purchase) a wooden box with handle to carry around the telescope, and use it as a rise under the Heritage when observing



#23 gene 4181

gene 4181

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4788
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2013
  • Loc: n.e. ohio

Posted 03 December 2015 - 12:16 PM

Thank you all for your answers, I understand that most of you think I should get a dobsonian but unfortunately that type of telescope is not portable enough for me as even when disassembled it is still pretty big, also I am already stretching my budget by choosing this telescope. If possible could someone give me some review of the actual optics and eyepieces that come with the telescope and with the beginners kit (http://eu.telescope....yCategoryId=528 ) in addition to the mount? Because it looks like every telescope similar to this does not have a mount that is perfectly stable so I wanted to know if the rest of the telescope was ok. 

Thank you all

 

Giovanni

Its a scope to use for 2-3 years , learning as you go.  Its a decent  scope with decent plossl eyepieces, collimation cap and an acceptable mount.  It'll provide reasonably wide fields of view and  very respectable planetary views too. 


Edited by gene 4181, 03 December 2015 - 05:02 PM.


#24 Sky Muse

Sky Muse

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 7015
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2012
  • Loc: Mid-South, U.S.

Posted 03 December 2015 - 11:15 PM

"...but most find it easier to let the object drift across the field."

 

Rather, many find it necessary, and unavoidable.  Stiction may play a role in that as well.

 

Today, I received the latest Orion catalogue, and filled with red holiday bows, from cover to cover.  I must admit, that 7.5" f/5.3 Mak-Newt certainly caught my eye.  Also within was a comparison scale illustrating a 6-foot individual standing next to a row of solid-tubed Dobsonians ranging in apertures from 8" to 12". 

 

Doesn't Orion realise that the average height of the human male here in the United States ranges from 5' 8" to 5' 10"?  :rimshot:



#25 Jon Isaacs

Jon Isaacs

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 79037
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2004
  • Loc: San Diego and Boulevard, CA

Posted 04 December 2015 - 05:12 AM

"...but most find it easier to let the object drift across the field."

 

Rather, many find it necessary, and unavoidable.  Stiction may play a role in that as well.

 

Today, I received the latest Orion catalogue, and filled with red holiday bows, from cover to cover.  I must admit, that 7.5" f/5.3 Mak-Newt certainly caught my eye.  Also within was a comparison scale illustrating a 6-foot individual standing next to a row of solid-tubed Dobsonians ranging in apertures from 8" to 12". 

 

Doesn't Orion realise that the average height of the human male here in the United States ranges from 5' 8" to 5' 10"?  :rimshot:

 

On their website, I found two images, showing their 4.5, 6, 8 and 10 Dobs versus a 6 ft observer and an image showing their 12, 14, and 16 inch Dobs and a 6 ft observer.  Maybe it would be better if they used someone 5ft 9 inches tall but one can add or subtract a few inches from the photo to get an idea.. The important thing is that they provided those images so people can have an idea.. My experience is that nearly everyone can comfortably view through a 12 inch F/5 without needing a stool. 

 

The Orion Dobs are taller that most, in particular the GOTO scopes.  I am exactly 6 feet tall, I have no problem observing at the zenith with my 16 inch F/4.42, the Orion 16 would require a ladder or stool for a large part of the sky.. 

 

As a side note, it would have been instructive to see equatorially mounted Newtonians for comparison purposes.  It would explain one reason why Dobsonians became so popular, the low to the ground mount allows for comfortable observation of a large aperture scope.

 

In Giovanni's case, transportation issues restrict him to 5 or 6 inch scope..  There is plenty to see, particularly from dark skies, in a scope of that size.  For his sake, I post this photo of my SpaceProbe on an old Meade LXD-500 EQ mount converted to Alt-AZ..  I think it is enticing and it shows the scope at it's best.

 

6059969-SpaceProbe 130ST ALT-AZ at the Starpad.JPG

 

jon




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





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: beginner, equipment, eyepieces, Orion, reflector



Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics