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

Best currently available planetary refractor?

  • Please log in to reply
127 replies to this topic

#76 gezak22

gezak22

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,256
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2004
  • Loc: On far side of moon. Send help.

Posted 31 December 2018 - 04:35 PM

yes - and because of that - before going to bigger apperture better get a good ADC smile.gif

Still won't fix seeing.



#77 Jeff B

Jeff B

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,820
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2006

Posted 31 December 2018 - 04:45 PM

In the lower cost portable segment, I am blown away by the APM 140 f/7 paired with a binoviewer.

 

If my wallet and my back could handle a larger scope and if the planets weren't at such low elevations over the next couple of years, I sure would have loved to pick up a 160+ mm TEC/CFF/AP.

Ok, let's stir it up a bit. 

 

How about a 140 F7 bino-scope Geza?  

 

I've been really curious about such an animal.  I see Yuri sold the few he made, like, instantly.  I believe CFF makes a 130mm version and I'm not sure what Markus has to offer in a bino-scope but I'm sure he and Mr. Wirth will make anything you want. 

 

Yuri tells me that, while resolution over a single scope is not increased like for double stars, brightness most definitively is increased and enhances detail on extended objects.

 

So maybe take that best, killer of planets, refractor and double it up.    

 

Now if I could just find another TEC 200ED........idea.gif

 

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYBODY!

 

Jeff


  • rcg likes this

#78 gezak22

gezak22

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,256
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2004
  • Loc: On far side of moon. Send help.

Posted 31 December 2018 - 05:10 PM

How about a 140 F7 bino-scope Geza? 

Believe me, I've thought about it. But for me, the cost/portability/mounting considerations favored a single scope with a binoviewer.


  • doctordub likes this

#79 Astrojensen

Astrojensen

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 13,072
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2008
  • Loc: Bornholm, Denmark

Posted 31 December 2018 - 06:11 PM

I initially felt that way as well, that binoviewing with lesser than best outperfromed these specialty planetaries.  But after some more years of comparisons I no longer believe this as I've had too many occassions where it was not the case.  So on evenings where the seeing and transparency are very good a bino paired of anything has not bested the mono view through a ZAO or Monocentric.  However, when seeing is not perfect I have found that the binoviewed pair can indeed provide a better view.  So my experience is it is a mix as to which will provide the best details and it is seeing dependent.

I think whether mono or bino is preferred depends a lot on the individual observer. Many people have one strongly dominant eye without even knowing it and that can obviously affect the benefits of a binoviewer negatively, perhaps even dramatically so. 

 

I observed for many years with very high-end (as good as I could afford) orthoscopic eyepieces from Zeiss Jena, Kokusai Kohki and others. The first moment I tried a high quality binoviewer (Baader Maxbright) it was all over. It was a complete game changer for me as a visual observer. It simply lifted my planetary observing to another level in terms of details seen. Details I *never* saw before, or only with great difficulty, suddenly became visible. Things I saw more regularly, but only with difficulty, became easy, not even a challenge any more. This is especially true of low contrast details and subtle colors. The Sun, the Moon, Jupiter and Mars, in particular, have benefitted dramatically. An additional HUGE benefit is that, with a binoviewer and my Zeiss surgeon microscope eyepieces (which are in themselves perhaps the finest eyepieces I've seen), I can literally sit at the eyepieces for HOURS without noticeable fatigue. This was never possible before with single eyepieces. 

 

But that's me and it may not work for everyone, but for me, a binoviewer is now an essential part of a planetary telescope, regardless of type. 

 

There are of course objects where I prefer a single eyepiece, because binoviewing is impractical or even a disadvantage, such as double stars, wide field deep-sky, etc. 

 

 

Clear skies!

Thomas, Denmark


  • JimP, Paul G, Jeff B and 3 others like this

#80 donadani

donadani

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,037
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2015
  • Loc: Germany

Posted 31 December 2018 - 06:25 PM

Still won't fix seeing.

 

Maybe a bit - but for sure it gives clearer views at high mags - we tested it on a starparty this year - with ADC a TEC-140 gave a view comparable to a TEC-180 next to it without ADC. Most people don´t belived that until they saw it ;)

 

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

 

cs

Chris


  • doctordub, Jeff B, edif300 and 1 other like this

#81 barbie

barbie

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,229
  • Joined: 28 Jan 2013
  • Loc: Northeast Ohio

Posted 31 December 2018 - 08:25 PM

The best available planetary refractor is one that you'll actually use, and use often!!  I've had the big ones and now, at this point in my life, I'm content with my 3 and 4 inch apos because I can use them every clear night!!  Unless one has a permanent observatory, big refractors will spend more time sitting idle as one grows older because of the hassle factor of setting up and tearing down of larger instruments and one's own physical limitations as they grow older.


  • JimP, Erik Bakker, m9x18 and 4 others like this

#82 BRCoz

BRCoz

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 921
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Moreno Valley, CA

Posted 31 December 2018 - 08:58 PM

I went with the APM/TMB 130 f9.2 riding on a G11. 


  • JimP, Paul G, doctordub and 3 others like this

#83 Heywood

Heywood

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,271
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2009

Posted 31 December 2018 - 09:30 PM

TEC APO160FL 160mm, f/7, oil-spaced triplet.  Well-known high quality.  

 

An expensive telescope, certainly, but not horribly expensive, and not too bulky or heavy (only 24 pounds).  A G-11 will handle it just fine.

 

Heywood

 

P.S.  Happy New Year to everyone!


  • Paul G likes this

#84 X3782

X3782

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 242
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2018
  • Loc: ---

Posted 31 December 2018 - 09:34 PM

I am not aware of the Richardson-Lucy algorithm but know that professional astronomers who build telescopes will have a good understanding of their systems and flaws (they must have done something similar with the first iteration of the flawed Hubble telescope).

 

Even if you know the theoretical point spread function (PSF) of an obstructed system you still haven't got the full picture of a point spread function superimposed on all the point spread functions of various aberrations of the system. I doubt many amateur astronomers have got access to an optical bench.

 

This is especially important since there are not many SCTs out there which are near perfect with a near perfect PSF (in that case all you need is some information of the size of the obstruction and maybe other theoretical parameters applicable to the design system of a SCT).

 

 

Coming back to the original question:

 

People are using theoretical point spread functions for their instrument in say Photoshop to do away with the obstruction effect? If this is really true I must say I have learnt a new thing. I was never interested in astrophotography and so must have missed a lot of developments in recent years.

 

You don't need the exact point spread function (PSF) to improve contrast, though having the PSF does often improve the convergence of the iterative algorithm. These programs are for example searching by trial-and-error for a reverse transfer function that maximizes the S/N ratio ("contrast") of the resulting image; having the exact PSF gives us a good first guess, but it isn't strictly needed.

 

Re information entropy, the CCD or CMOS data isn't truly random, we are imaging stars or human faces, so we can make all sorts of assumptions, e.g. that the picture shouldn't contain high-frequency spatial components comparable to the pixel resolution, and that any repetitive component with a near-Gaussian profile is probably coming from the lens or mirror or central obstruction, and not from the thing we want to image. The aberrations of the telescope give rise to an extra correlation between data collected from neighboring pixels that would otherwise not be there. We can try and analyze this and backtransfer it out of the image.

 

I could imagine a 6-6.25" apo in my future, but I could never handle a 8".


Edited by X3782, 31 December 2018 - 10:22 PM.

  • doctordub, Sasa, Bomber Bob and 1 other like this

#85 Daniel Mounsey

Daniel Mounsey

    Vendor (Woodland Hills)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 7,806
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2002

Posted 01 January 2019 - 12:37 AM

Imaging and visual are not Black and White, one can do either or both. I do both and enjoy both. Imaging belongs in whatever forum the person is looking for equipment. If I'm looking for an imaging refractor, I would ask here rather than in the imaging forums. A 6" apo has enough aperture to image (see below for moon, you can get the full 48 MEG file here https://www.dropbox....n 8-24.tif?dl=0, if you don't believe me you can use a 6"apo for imaging)

 

Nice picture but you're not understanding what I'm trying to explain to you. 



#86 Sasa

Sasa

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,537
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2010
  • Loc: Ricany, Czech Republic

Posted 01 January 2019 - 02:25 AM

You don't need the exact point spread function (PSF) to improve contrast, though having the PSF does often improve the convergence of the iterative algorithm. These programs are for example searching by trial-and-error for a reverse transfer function that maximizes the S/N ratio ("contrast") of the resulting image; having the exact PSF gives us a good first guess, but it isn't strictly needed.

Re information entropy, the CCD or CMOS data isn't truly random, we are imaging stars or human faces, so we can make all sorts of assumptions, e.g. that the picture shouldn't contain high-frequency spatial components comparable to the pixel resolution, and that any repetitive component with a near-Gaussian profile is probably coming from the lens or mirror or central obstruction, and not from the thing we want to image. The aberrations of the telescope give rise to an extra correlation between data collected from neighboring pixels that would otherwise not be there. We can try and analyze this and backtransfer it out of the image.

I could imagine a 6-6.25" apo in my future, but I could never handle a 8".


Excellent explanation to which I would only add that those deconvolution algorithms increase the statistical noise. More photons you collect, the more aggressive deconvolution could be applied. That is why larger apertures with lesser optical quality could pay off in astroimaging more than smaller instrument with better optics.

#87 JimP

JimP

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,411
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2003
  • Loc: USA

Posted 01 January 2019 - 08:17 AM

I could not agree more with the post by Max. Very well thought out and on target.

 

As for the fact that the planets are low for a few years suggests to me that there may be buying opportunities out there for “planetary” scopes. 

 

And, Dan, if you don’t think refractors are great planetary imaging scopes I have dozens of images to show you. 😂 Now, I did not purchase my refractors to image with. The decision to go with apochromatic refractors was based entirely on my desire to use the scopes for visual observations of the Moon, planets and double stars. This decision was made before modern planetary imaging techniques were invented. But once the techniques used today became available to me (around the year 2000) I applied those techniques very successfully to my refractors. A Refractor primarily for planetary imaging? No. If you already have a Refractor can it be used for high resolution planetary imaging? Absolutely!

 

Jim


Edited by JimP, 01 January 2019 - 10:33 AM.

  • Paul G likes this

#88 mikeDnight

mikeDnight

    Apollo

  • ***--
  • Posts: 1,162
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2015
  • Loc: Wild Wild West - North West England

Posted 01 January 2019 - 08:18 AM

Given the newer entries into the refractor market in recent years, what manufacturer and which version would you think is the better planetary refractor? Either by design parameters or from your actual experience with different models. For my purposes looking at 6-8" size but comment on other sizes and manufacturers welcome.

Here's a thought! Why not get yourself a Tak FC100DL, or if not, a FC100DF or DC along with some top class planetary eyepieces? Then you can enjoy great lunar & planetary views even in average seeing at a fraction of the cost of a giant frac, while you can still enjoy looking through other people's big frac's. You'll have a no hassle scope that will constantly impress you, and at the end of a long night when you're tired and everyone's scope is caked in ice, you'll be tucked up in bed while the big scopes are still being packed away. grin.gif


  • Bomber Bob likes this

#89 ltha

ltha

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 636
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Bend, Oregon

Posted 01 January 2019 - 09:28 AM

No question that there is a variety of answers regarding the “best” planetary scope. And even though the OP specifically asked about a planetary refractor, folks suggested other designs. Maybe not directly on topic, but definitely well intentioned. The variety of responses is why I included Roland Christian’s article regarding the best planetary telescope: even the guy who builds some of the finest refractors available recognizes the merits of other designs. No question each has its adherents. 

 

The comments by Jeff B, Jim P, and Max mirror my own experience. When my quest for the best planetary scope began I read many opinions about the subject, often backed up with optical theory and corresponding arguments, but just as often without the second half of the equation: actual use of the scopes for extended periods of time, under varying conditions and, even better, side by side comparisons. I set out to do exactly that in order to make sure my hard earned cash went into the right choice for me. After using and comparing dozens of different scopes of all kinds I had my answer, admittedly personal.

 

Years ago I hiked unsupported for 35 days up and over the Brooks Range in Alaska. As we were waiting for our bush plane to fly us in I ran into the wildlife biologist responsible for the area we were going to hike through and spent an hour asking him questions. After he commented on the danger of attempting to ford a couple of the rivers I asked when he had last been on the ground in the area and he admitted that although he had flown over it many times, he had never been on foot in the area we were discussing. Thirty-five days later I knew that though he meant well, almost everything he told me was incorrect as he had no actual experience. Alone on foot in the Brooks Range in 1984 with no way to communicate with anyone mistakes could be fatal. In my simple mind, experience is far more valuable than all the arguments about theory. 

Attached Thumbnails

  • 82F557D0-AF9F-4246-97B3-78C85C90595C.jpeg

Edited by ltha, 01 January 2019 - 11:14 AM.

  • JimP, Scott Beith, doctordub and 8 others like this

#90 Bomber Bob

Bomber Bob

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 17,326
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2013
  • Loc: The Swamp, USA

Posted 01 January 2019 - 01:27 PM

Why not get yourself a Tak FC100DL, or if not, a FC100DF or DC along with some top class planetary eyepieces?

 

IME, a 4" F10 frac is a convenient performance package -- can be grab & go depending on the scope & mount.  

 

"Best" for me has to be about quality, functionality, simplicity, reliability, & portability.  These days, with all the vendors + the used market, we can put together our own best scopes.  One more thing that I've learned is the value of variety.  Every scope has its strengths.  And, that justifies my collection -- a win-win situation.


  • Astrojensen, Terra Nova, barbie and 1 other like this

#91 Terra Nova

Terra Nova

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 22,359
  • Joined: 29 May 2012
  • Loc: Under the Blue Moon of Kentucky

Posted 01 January 2019 - 02:12 PM

“What is the best currently available planetary refractor?”

The one you can have without either getting a loan from the bank or seeing your chiropractor after carrying it outside. lol.gif
  • rcg, BRCoz, m9x18 and 8 others like this

#92 Daniel Mounsey

Daniel Mounsey

    Vendor (Woodland Hills)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 7,806
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2002

Posted 01 January 2019 - 02:18 PM

I could not agree more with the post by Max. Very well thought out and on target.

 

As for the fact that the planets are low for a few years suggests to me that there may be buying opportunities of “planetary” scopes. 

 

And, Dan, if you don’t think refractors are great planetary imaging scopes I have dozens of images to show you. 😂 Now, I did not purchase my refractors to image with. The decision to go with apochromatic refractors was based entirely on my desire to use the scopes for visual observations of the Moon, planets and double stars. This decision was made before modern planetary imaging techniques were invented. But once the techniques used today became available to me (around the year 2000) I applied those techniques very successfully with my refractors. A Refractor primarily for planetary imaging? No. If you already have a Refractor can it be used for high resolution planetary imaging? Absolutely!

 

Jim

 

 

 

Jim,

We've known each other for many years. You know my history and certainly my love of refractors and reflectors over the course of the past 25 years and we've even discussed it numerous times on the phone. One of the major problems we have now is comments that get taken completely out of context and/or the OP gets kicked to the curb because of information overload or the responses go into completely different subjects that really had nothing to do with answering what the OP's question appeared to be. You yourself have owned countless telescopes, have observed for many years and have many experiences in fact you even conducted your own survey on seasonal seeing conditions many years ago which I thought was brilliant.

 

The problem we face today is that there's a great number of individuals who speak as if they have actually used or compared the telescopes in question. To make matters worse, they go into a whole charade of technical details (which are often incorrect and not even remotely practical) as if they know how telescopes will perform in reality when used in the field. That's what really bothers me about some of the discussions that come up these days. 

 

I don't get this current get it quick and now mentality. It's as if people think they're entitled to know things because of something they read or heard on the internet and literally speak like they do. Most of those people are just sitting at a computer, conducting academic exercises and/or looking at fancy pictures. Many of them don't even observe. What happens to the OP who asked an innocent question? 

 

Planetary imaging is like adaptive optics where lots of data simply get pieced back together again like a puzzle and people in the forums go OMG! That must be an amazing telescope for the OP's inquiry!

 

Here's the post I responded/commented on...

 

 

"Now if you want the best planetary TELESCOPE, look at what the best imagers like Chris Go and Damian Peach use ...."

 

This is what leads to these endless arguments. Let's get real people! Do you think if you buy this particular telescope, you should expect to see images like Chris Go and Damien Peach when you observe with them? Jim, you know Damian has visited your place on a few occasions and he has processed data from your own telescopes and the images looked amazing, but that's because he's much better at collecting and processing data than others. It's not because of magical telescopes that are necessarily optically superior to others. It's data processing and some imagers are just reall horrible at it while other imagers are brilliant at it and instead, people start imagining it's gotta be a special telescope. Look at the raw videos through the telescopes instead of looking at the final processed images. Let's be logical, practical and sensible about nature. 

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=KDgsSQND49c

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=RavpiN0Axj4

 

Forum members get so pumped and wrapped up when they see nice pictures and they start to actually believe telescopes have magical capabilities that defy what takes place in real field observations and the saddest part of all of this is that most don't even know they really can see these amazing details, history has proven so. Instead, many are so busy tinkering with their equipment, gadgets and computers, they don't even understand what observing really is about. They're lost in a technical abyss of color index's, Strehl ratios, FPL53 and data. People need to get off their computers and learn about outdoor nature for a change and it's painfully obvious. I've never seen so much nonsense as I have in this modern era of amateur astronomy, I can't wait to retire from it. It's as if very few have any respect whatsoever for history and think because they read something about optics, they understand what observing is all about. Miles Davis didn't become a world class trumpeter sit'n on his a^s, reading about the technical specs of trumpets. He played through hard labor, practice, dedication, devotion and experience. I suppose if someone gives me a world class trumpet, that makes me a great trumpeter?

 

As far as imaging with refractors, absolutely you can take beautiful images with them, that's fine, whatever makes an imager happy is all that matters, but why spend $20,000 on an 8" apo when you can buy a telescopes that are a quarter the cost, easier to mount and achieve even better planetary imaging performance? Let's be logical, practical and realistic about this. 

 

Here's the OP...

 

Given the newer entries into the refractor market in recent years, what manufacturer and which version would you think is the better planetary refractor? Either by design parameters or from your actual experience with different models. For my purposes looking at 6-8" size but comment on other sizes and manufacturers welcome.

 

My answer to this is it's up to how much an observer wishes to dedicate themselves. I don't care how much money anyone throws into a telescope, nothing beats experience in the field and the only way to gain experience is to practice by actually getting outside and seeing what real challenges lie ahead. There's going to be a heck of a lot of mistakes and challenges ahead. There's no special shortcuts or quick magical answers. Labor is a sweet thing.


  • JimP, Joe Bergeron, punk35 and 36 others like this

#93 JimP

JimP

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,411
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2003
  • Loc: USA

Posted 01 January 2019 - 04:39 PM

Love your response Dan. Thank you for taking the time. Don’t ever retire Dan. I love reading about your experiences with various telescopes. 

 

Best,

 

Jim


  • Daniel Mounsey, RogerLaureys and kellyvictoria like this

#94 Jeff B

Jeff B

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,820
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2006

Posted 01 January 2019 - 05:07 PM

Love it Dan!  Excellent points regarding imaging versus visual.

 

Especially this part:

 

"Look at the raw videos through the telescopes instead of looking at the final processed images."

 

Boom, Bam, Biff, Boing!!

 

And those raw images are actually in focus (!)

 

Jeff


  • Daniel Mounsey, JimP and Crow Haven like this

#95 rockethead26

rockethead26

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,814
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2009
  • Loc: Northern Arizona, USA

Posted 01 January 2019 - 06:41 PM

I think the OP has left the building. step.gif


  • Bomber Bob and kellyvictoria like this

#96 25585

25585

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,078
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2017
  • Loc: In a valley, in the UK.

Posted 01 January 2019 - 06:42 PM

rcg, What do you hope to see on the Moon and each planet & their moons? What are you hoping to look for? 

 

If you buy a very expensive refractor, it will be excellent, but it may not be the best there is. But it may deliver what you want. 

 

Then there are diagonals and eyepieces, an appropriate mount and drive, no compromises, to do it justice. Insurance too.

 

How often will you use this scope? For how long?



#97 ltha

ltha

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 636
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2005
  • Loc: Bend, Oregon

Posted 01 January 2019 - 07:05 PM

Hi Daniel,

 

Over the years I have read and re-read any number of your articles and posts on scopes and eyepieces. I have always found them thorough and objective as well as informative and useful. They have often factored into my purchases, especially with respect to eyepieces. We lost Todd Gross wonderful reviews, so you and Ed Ting have been my go to guys. The thing all three of you have in common is the actual use and comparison of the scopes and eyepieces you write about. Reading your reviews, especially the shootouts done with other experienced amateurs, made me jealous that I could not be a participant. But what you wrote also corroborated the results I was finding in my own comparisons.  I respect your opinions and the experience they are based on and I second the hope that you do not retire, at least anytime soon! 


  • Daniel Mounsey, JimP and Edrow10 like this

#98 daquad

daquad

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,683
  • Joined: 14 May 2008

Posted 01 January 2019 - 07:55 PM

Oh I don't know...I have the "best" planetary instrument each and every time I go out to observe planets...even when I use different instruments lol.gif   Instruments can never be "best" as all they can do is bring a set of attributes with specific capabilities to the table.  And more capability for any single attribute never translates into "best" for the instrument since the mix of all the attributes play differently depending on 1) how they mix, and 2) the weighting each attribute gets by the particular observer at hand.  Different observer, different mix of capabilities for the attributes comes into play.  So the answer is always unique to the individual.  The instrument itself is never "best".

I think that's what he said.



#99 BillP

BillP

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 20,058
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Spotsylvania, VA

Posted 01 January 2019 - 08:03 PM

I think that's what he said.

 

Not me flowerred.gif



#100 Thomas Marshall

Thomas Marshall

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 623
  • Joined: 24 Feb 2015
  • Loc: Spring Valley AZ.

Posted 01 January 2019 - 08:40 PM

My vote would go for the CFF 185mm F8.7........ I am thinking of this as a future "One scope to Rule them All" for me when I get tired of the current stuff....

To really resolve detail while remaining within my budget I think the CFF185 would tick all the boxes..... I can't think of anything under 150mm that would warrant the term 'best' planetary refractor...

3 scopes for Elven Stars, - Sparkling in the Sky.  7 For Moons and Planets, Gaseous or Stone. 9 For A/P and for Visual  thru the Mortal Eye. 1 For ALL purposes, - for Solar, Earth or Sky.    One Scope to Rule them all, - One Scope that combines them, - One Scope that Sees ALL Things, - and Light or Darkness, Finds Them.  smile.gif   Good Luck. 


Edited by Thomas Marshall, 02 January 2019 - 02:45 PM.

  • Scott Beith, doctordub, Astrojensen and 4 others 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