145 replies to this topic

[vintageair]

I just turned 71 and was in the same boat as you two months ago. I ended up buying the Apertura because it seemed to be the best value with a nice RACI finder scope, 2 speed focuser and a couple of decent eyepieces. I like the quality of the altitude bearings and the fact that they have an adjustable range for balance. I bought the ten inch model and I'll say, it's pretty big. You'd probably be better with the eight inch.

 

I've been using Astro Hopper. It's not as sophisticated as Star Sense but really doesn't need to be. All you do is center a known bright star, hit the align icon then "hop" to your target. For best results simply realign the app before doing another hop.

 

After buying the scope I joined the local astronomy club and have been taking it out to star parties. I found that about 90% of the members are purely into photography but call me old fashioned, I just want to see these things live through the lens and the challenge of just finding them is half the fun.

[Dave Mitsky]

The OP should be aware that it's not a good idea to move the Celestron NexStar 8SE manually.  The NexStar Evolution OTA can be moved manually.  

[maniack]

The OP should be aware that it's not a good idea to move the Celestron NexStar 8SE manually.  The NexStar Evolution OTA can be moved manually.  

This is true, but unlocking the clutches on the Evolution and moving the 8" OTA around manually isn't the best experience anyway - especially when you haven't balanced the OTA on the mount after changing eyepieces and the sort.

[dmgriff]

The OP should be aware that it's not a good idea to move the Celestron NexStar 8SE manually.  The NexStar Evolution OTA can be moved manually.  

And aware that, per the manual, the large clutch knobs on the EVO are features

 

"that allow you to manually move the altitude (up/down) and

azimuth (left/right) axis without using the motors. This can be

useful for daytime terrestrial use or when storing the telescope.

Note: You should not unlock the clutches when the telescope
is aligned with the app or hand control, or the alignment will
be lost. The telescope accounts for movement made by the
motors. If the telescope is moved manually or bumped after
it was aligned, you should perform a new alignment."

Edited by dmgriff, 17 June 2025 - 03:37 PM.

[rgoode57]

I apologize for my absence in replying to all your posts over the past few days - had a lot of stuff to take care of. Anyway, I deeply appreciate all your thoughts and suggestions. You have all been very generous with your time and thoughts. However, as a telescope idiot, I find that all these comments have raised as many questions in my mind as they have answered.

 

I have, however, arrived at a few conclusions:

 

1. I am going to be a 75 year old star gazer, not a star hunter. But, having said that, I am not particularly inclined to fully automated scopes - feels a bit like going to the shooting range and then paying someone else to clean your gun. I don't mind doing a bit of work, but I don't want to be frustrated to the point of giving up either.  Therefore, I am inclined toward StarSense technology, though I am not sure I want to pay for ity if there are good alternatives.

 

2. I will use my scope for planetary viewing. Of course, the more I can see, the better. But, I am not looking for Hubble-type views of deep space.

 

3. Portability and ease of set-up is a big factor. I will always have to drive to a viewing spot. At age 75, and counting, my strength and flexibility is not what is used to be and is not getting any better as the days pass.  And, I will primarily be doing my viewing alone. 

 

4. I am not going to be doing any photography. 

 

I spent some time a couple of days ago looking into refractors. I understand the FOV is narrower, but I also understand that images are clearer and crisper - with a good refractor. But, the weight of a 3.5 or 4 inch refractor concerns me some, and set-up (especially by myself) seems like it might be awkward. Also, it appears that by the time you purchase good eyepieces, a mount , and good tripod, you are going to spend maybe $2,000 to $2,500. The cost does not scare me if it is money well spent, but I try not to be stupid with money either.  If I were to buy a refractor, it would be something along the lines of a SkyWatcher Evostar 100 mm. But, any comments you have regarding a refractor versus a dob or sct would be appreciated. Remember, this is probably the only telescope I will ever buy.

 

I have also decided, if a dob is my decision, to go with a 6" scope.  As I age, it will fit me better, and I will be able to handle it longer. One of the posters here talked about his 6" tabletop dob with a collapsible tube. I understand how that makes storage and transport a lot easer. Any comments you may have about collapsible tube dobs would also be appreciated.

 

So, I guess I now have the following questions:

 

1. Good refractor versus dob or sct.

2. Tabletop dob versus traditional dob setup for transporting and using in the field.

3. Is the StarSense technology really worth paying for?

 

Thanks again for your patience and willingness to share with me.

[Starman1]

I apologize for my absence in replying to all your posts over the past few days - had a lot of stuff to take care of. Anyway, I deeply appreciate all your thoughts and suggestions. You have all been very generous with your time and thoughts. However, as a telescope idiot, I find that all these comments have raised as many questions in my mind as they have answered.

 

I have, however, arrived at a few conclusions:

 

1. I am going to be a 75 year old star gazer, not a star hunter. But, having said that, I am not particularly inclined to fully automated scopes - feels a bit like going to the shooting range and then paying someone else to clean your gun. I don't mind doing a bit of work, but I don't want to be frustrated to the point of giving up either.  Therefore, I am inclined toward StarSense technology, though I am not sure I want to pay for ity if there are good alternatives.

 

2. I will use my scope for planetary viewing. Of course, the more I can see, the better. But, I am not looking for Hubble-type views of deep space.

 

3. Portability and ease of set-up is a big factor. I will always have to drive to a viewing spot. At age 75, and counting, my strength and flexibility is not what is used to be and is not getting any better as the days pass.  And, I will primarily be doing my viewing alone. 

 

4. I am not going to be doing any photography. 

 

I spent some time a couple of days ago looking into refractors. I understand the FOV is narrower, but I also understand that images are clearer and crisper - with a good refractor. But, the weight of a 3.5 or 4 inch refractor concerns me some, and set-up (especially by myself) seems like it might be awkward. Also, it appears that by the time you purchase good eyepieces, a mount , and good tripod, you are going to spend maybe $2,000 to $2,500. The cost does not scare me if it is money well spent, but I try not to be stupid with money either.  If I were to buy a refractor, it would be something along the lines of a SkyWatcher Evostar 100 mm. But, any comments you have regarding a refractor versus a dob or sct would be appreciated. Remember, this is probably the only telescope I will ever buy.

 

I have also decided, if a dob is my decision, to go with a 6" scope.  As I age, it will fit me better, and I will be able to handle it longer. One of the posters here talked about his 6" tabletop dob with a collapsible tube. I understand how that makes storage and transport a lot easer. Any comments you may have about collapsible tube dobs would also be appreciated.

 

So, I guess I now have the following questions:

 

1. Good refractor versus dob or sct.

2. Tabletop dob versus traditional dob setup for transporting and using in the field.

3. Is the StarSense technology really worth paying for?

 

Thanks again for your patience and willingness to share with me.

1) larger aperture means you see more on moon planets, fainter stuff.  Refractors are typically 60-120mm, rarely 150mm.  Newtonian reflectors are typically 130mm-elephant size.  SCT's run from 125mm to 356mm, but sizes larger than 200mm are very heavy.

So the choice really boils down to newtonian versus SCT.  SCTs are smaller in size, lighter, and easier to transport, just more expensive.

2) table top dobs hard to use unless set up on a barrel so you can scoot around to see in different directions.  On a table, they're just not easy to use in multiple directions.

3) Well, this combines Push-To technology for pointing with a fully manual scope which can, by the way, be used for star hopping without the technology at all, if you want to.

The pointing accuracy is not quite up to the level of a PiFinder or DSC, but with a wide angle low power eyepiece, you'll find most things OK.

[Notdarkenough]

Well, refractors that provide quality planetary views cost several thousands of dollars and are very heavy. The scopes being recommended are reflectors. Reflectors are not as heavy as refractors. Refractors have numerous glass elements to an image. Reflectors use mirrors. Mirrors are cheaper, much less weight, and are easier to mass produce. As mentioned, most reflectors include Newtonians and Catadioptrics. 

 

Newtonian telescopes can be mounted on equatorial mounts, where they are big and heavy, or on Dobsion mounts, which are very efficient ground based mounts. They are called Dobs or Newts for short, even though both are Newtonians.

 

The Catadioptic telescopes use multiple mirrors to provide long focal lengths in short tubes. Common Cats are SCT, RC, and Maks. As Cats are less weight and short, them often come with GoTo mounts. SCTs are very good planetary observation tools, with the Celestron 8" as probably the most common telescope. RC OTAs often have longer focal lengths than SCTs, but are primarily used by imagers. Maksutov telescopes are similar in size to SCTs, but they have longer focal lengths, have thicker corrector plates (think heavier), and are less prone to mirror alignment occurrences (collimation).

 

I like SCTs for their versatility. I think Maks provide better views of planets. I think Dobs are cheapest or size, and appropriate for many larger objects, like nebulea.

 

If you want a versatile Cat where you can have several different focal lengths for looking at galaxies or comets, in addition to planets, go with the  Celestron 6SE. That setup is a few different pieces, all very light, with a GoTo mount and enough aperture to be wowed! If you want to get better views of planets, but sacrificing some versatility, a Mak is for you. They are heavier than SCTs, but not much. If you want Push-To mount with a cheaper tube, maybe a Dob is best.

 

I don't own a Mak, and my experience is with the Celestron 150, which I think may be too heavy. Maybe a Celestron 127?

 

I don't recommend Dobs for older folks as the observation positions are not as comfortable as with an SCT or Mak. Give me a cushioned bar stool and I can enjoy, not endure.  These are all unbiased opinions, except the last bit about viewing positions! In short: look at the 6SE, Evo 6, or Mak 127.

[dmgriff]

I apologize for my absence in replying to all your posts over the past few days - had a lot of stuff to take care of. Anyway, I deeply appreciate all your thoughts and suggestions. You have all been very generous with your time and thoughts. However, as a telescope idiot, I find that all these comments have raised as many questions in my mind as they have answered.

 

I have, however, arrived at a few conclusions:

 

1. I am going to be a 75 year old star gazer, not a star hunter. But, having said that, I am not particularly inclined to fully automated scopes - feels a bit like going to the shooting range and then paying someone else to clean your gun. I don't mind doing a bit of work, but I don't want to be frustrated to the point of giving up either.  Therefore, I am inclined toward StarSense technology, though I am not sure I want to pay for ity if there are good alternatives.

 

2. I will use my scope for planetary viewing. Of course, the more I can see, the better. But, I am not looking for Hubble-type views of deep space.

 

3. Portability and ease of set-up is a big factor. I will always have to drive to a viewing spot. At age 75, and counting, my strength and flexibility is not what is used to be and is not getting any better as the days pass.  And, I will primarily be doing my viewing alone. 

 

4. I am not going to be doing any photography. 

 

I spent some time a couple of days ago looking into refractors. I understand the FOV is narrower, but I also understand that images are clearer and crisper - with a good refractor. But, the weight of a 3.5 or 4 inch refractor concerns me some, and set-up (especially by myself) seems like it might be awkward. Also, it appears that by the time you purchase good eyepieces, a mount , and good tripod, you are going to spend maybe $2,000 to $2,500. The cost does not scare me if it is money well spent, but I try not to be stupid with money either.  If I were to buy a refractor, it would be something along the lines of a SkyWatcher Evostar 100 mm. But, any comments you have regarding a refractor versus a dob or sct would be appreciated. Remember, this is probably the only telescope I will ever buy.

 

I have also decided, if a dob is my decision, to go with a 6" scope.  As I age, it will fit me better, and I will be able to handle it longer. One of the posters here talked about his 6" tabletop dob with a collapsible tube. I understand how that makes storage and transport a lot easer. Any comments you may have about collapsible tube dobs would also be appreciated.

 

So, I guess I now have the following questions:

 

1. Good refractor versus dob or sct.

2. Tabletop dob versus traditional dob setup for transporting and using in the field.

3. Is the StarSense technology really worth paying for?

 

Thanks again for your patience and willingness to share with me.

If you are mainly lunar/planetary and globular clusters, doubles, etc. a 6in f/8 newtonian can be a lifetime scope. A Apertura AD6 f/8 has a 2in crayford focuser. The F~1200mm focal length and f/8 ratio is excellent for planets and all around use.

https://www.highpoin...ABoCLCoQAvD_BwE

 

With a dob mount you can add push to setting circles, paper laminated azimuth degree circles on the dob base and a digital inclinometer on the ota, 

 

https://www.cloudyni...es/#entry813804

https://www.cloudyni...ve/#entry818616

 

With a 11 inch tablet (old eyes like large screens!) running Sky Safari you can get your real time altitude/azimuth coordinates to set. At a minimum a digital inclinometer, setting the altitude can make location so much easier. Sky Safari can be your night time viewing assistant and atlas with a hand held planisphere for the whole sky view.

 

At 76, as I get older, the 6in f/8 listed in my signature will become my main 'big' scope, although I have larger.

Edited by dmgriff, 17 June 2025 - 08:25 PM.

[maniack]

1) larger aperture means you see more on moon planets, fainter stuff.  Refractors are typically 60-120mm, rarely 150mm.  Newtonian reflectors are typically 130mm-elephant size.  SCT's run from 125mm to 356mm, but sizes larger than 200mm are very heavy.

So the choice really boils down to newtonian versus SCT.  SCTs are smaller in size, lighter, and easier to transport, just more expensive.

2) table top dobs hard to use unless set up on a barrel so you can scoot around to see in different directions.  On a table, they're just not easy to use in multiple directions.

3) Well, this combines Push-To technology for pointing with a fully manual scope which can, by the way, be used for star hopping without the technology at all, if you want to.

The pointing accuracy is not quite up to the level of a PiFinder or DSC, but with a wide angle low power eyepiece, you'll find most things OK.

Adding a few more thoughts:

 

1) The choice between SCTs and Dobsonians is largely between portability and cost, but there is some additional capability the each platform provides. The SCTs are often sold with tracking/GoTo mounts, and  the bare tubes can be added to different mount options easily. Dobs can provide a wider field of view due to their faster focal ratios. But that faster focal ratio means better (and more expensive) eyepieces are necessary to get the full benefit of those wide views.

2) The other issue with tables is that most of them are not very sturdy and you likely will end up with shaky views. And now you have to take a sturdy table where you go.

3) After using StarSense Explorer for a few days I will yes, it's worth it as long as you're not paying a lot more (for example this open box unit with warranty). Otherwise you can just buy a used StarSense system (~$165 on Amazon, often cheaper on eBay or a thrift shop) and rig the dock to your main scope. And like Don said the accuracy is not at the level of more expensive solutions but you do tend to be able to find things OK with wide low power eyepieces.

[Dave Mitsky]

2. I will use my scope for planetary viewing. Of course, the more I can see, the better. But, I am not looking for Hubble-type views of deep space.

The planets, even Jupiter and Venus at their largest, are very small in angular size.  This means that a considerable amount of magnification is necessary to make them look reasonably large in the eyepiece.  This favors telescopes with long focal lengths and larger apertures.

 

 

The Astronomical League's graphic at https://www.astrolea...copes85x-11.pdf illustrates just how small the bright planets are in angular size compared to the Moon.

 

Go-to or push-to are not really necessary for typical planetary observing.  Having a mount that tracks is a plus, however.

 

I own a 101mm Tele Vue refractor but even with its excellent optics I prefer observing the planets with at least 8 inches of aperture.
 

I spent some time a couple of days ago looking into refractors. I understand the FOV is narrower, but I also understand that images are clearer and crisper - with a good refractor. But, the weight of a 3.5 or 4 inch refractor concerns me some, and set-up (especially by myself) seems like it might be awkward.

Field of view depends upon focuser size (1.25" versus 2"), the focal length of the telescope, and, of course, the focal length and apparent field of view of the eyepiece being employed. 

https://www.telescop...eld-of-view.htm

Most refractors on the market nowadays have short focal lengths and provide wide fields of view.

A 4" refractor isn't terribly heavy and is not all that difficult to set up on a good alt-azimuth mount.  It's a different story with larger apertures, however.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Jay_Reynolds_Freeman]

1. Good refractor versus dob or sct.

2. Tabletop dob versus traditional dob setup for transporting and using in the field.

3. Is the StarSense technology really worth paying for?

(1) Don't get a telescope you can't easily store, transport and set up, but do be aware that for essentially any kind of viewing, aperture wins: Thus, e.g., I am pretty sure that a six-inch Schmidt-Cassegrain would be approximately the same level of difficulty as a medium focal-ratio four-inch refractor (considering the bulk both of the optical tube assembly and of the rest of the mount), but would outperform the refractor in almost every circumstance. A six-inch Dobson would likely do just as well or even a tad better, but at the expense of being more bulky.

 

(2) Both about the same, since with the table-top unit you will likely have to transport the equivalent of a table when you take it out.  :-)  I am sure the collapsible type will be fussier to set up. By the way, I suspect you will want an adjustable-height observing chair no matter what kind of telescope you choose.

 

(3) I have not used StarSense; I have used PiFinder -- which is more expensive and possibly works better -- and find it very useful. I do appreciate your analogy with the rifle range.

 

 

Clear sky ...
 

[dnrmilspec]

Hello fellow star-geezer.  We are the same age.  

 

You said: 

 But, having said that, I am not particularly inclined to fully automated scopes - feels a bit like going to the shooting range and then paying someone else to clean your gun. I don't mind doing a bit of work, but I don't want to be frustrated to the point of giving up either.  Therefore, I am inclined toward StarSense technology, though I am not sure I want to pay for ity if there are good alternatives. 

 Forgive the long post.

 

I don't know what your tolerance for searching is and frankly neither do you.  Many of us have touted the virtues of goto scopes and those of us who are in your age group likely started their journey without goto of any kind.  We could quibble about goto, push to, hire  somebody to push to, whatever, until the cows come home.  One fact remains.  The tracking which all goto scopes have is a really big deal if you are going to want to view planets, galaxes and the moon under high magnifications.  And you most certainly will want to do that.  Being able to sit at your eyepiece without pushing the tube to try and keep something in the very narrow, high power eyepiece, is a very big deal.  All the more important if you are going to take others viewing with you.  What has not been discussed is the fact that planetary observation greatly rewards patient time at the eyepiece.  Because of seeing and other factors the more time you can spend at the eyepiece the more likely you are to enjoy some moments of great seeing.  Pushing a dob (and remember I am a Dob owner too) is not ideal for high power planetary.  The only advantage that a Dob has for planetary is that it is cheaper to get very large apertures in them.  And they are fiddly.  You have to collimate them frequently.  Far more frequently than an SCT.    So remember the tracking and don't downplay it.  

 

There is much talk here about weight.  For we age challenged folks the weight of the scope, assuming we can easily lift it component parts, is not nearly as important as the ability to view from a comfortable position.  Point goes to SCTs for this as their eyepieces are almost always at a comfortable position.  And with goto you do not need to crane your head and neck around to find stuff.  This is a big deal.  Ask your fellow geezers.  Sore necks are far more common that sore backs.  But since we quibble by nature consider this.  A gallon of milk weighs about 9 pounds.  That is the weight of an 8SE tripod.  Add two pounds to your gallon of milk and you have the weight of the Optical Tube Assembly.  And they are all moveable without bending or stooping much.  Add one more pound for the mount head and you can see that moving this scope is something you will be able to do for many years to come.  And this is an 8", not a compromise 6".  Moving and setting up the scope, viewing position and ease of finding stuff all goes to the SCT.  But it costs more.  

 

Yes you can get a 6" but why compromise for no reason?  Unless you are talking about price, there are no real advantages to a 6" Dob as compared to an 8" SCT.  Except money.    By the way, I know people who like tabletop Dobs but I found them beyond frustrating.  And for your remote viewing you are going to have to carry a table  And a simple card table will wiggle far too much.  If you are seriously ok with a 6" scope then a 6" SCT is about the easiest scope that there is to use.  But for my money I would go for the 8". 

 

You mentioned a refractor.  As much as I love them (and own several) they do not tick all of your boxes.  And refractor mounts (with a couple of possible exceptions) for decent size refractors are not going to be as easy as either a Dob or an SCT.

 

At the end of the day though, an 8" SCT with a nice viewing chair is about the most capable easily portable scope out there.  And one you can use for hours without hurting yourself/

 

Full disclosure.  Among my scopes I own and use a 12.5" Truss tube Dobsonian.  I just bought my second one and it is a work of art done by a very knowledgeable person who participates here on CN.  It is a beautifully constructed  labor of love and I am honored to have it.  But setting it up is a real thing.  The rocker box is heavy and bulky.  It takes time to carefully assemble it.   But 12.5" of nearly 1/20th wave magic is nothing short of mesmerizing.  It is a different thing.  As beautiful as it is I would not recommend it for you.  As much as I like my 130 Triplet APO, I wouldn't recommend it either.  The C9.25 is a great scope but you won't like the mount or the weight.  But among all of these a good 8" aperture SCT is not leaving much on the table.  I can can set mine up and be viewing in 10 minutes.  It is a piece of cake to move.  In general it will out-perform the refractor by a fair bit. 

 

The most important thing is that you strike while the iron is hot. Get something and get out there capturing photons.  Whatever you choose, will show you some really amazing stuff.

[SeattleScott]

Ironically, a tabletop Dob really isn’t particularly portable. The scope is. But you have to add a table or barrel or bucket or something for it to sit on. And then typically a chair for you to sit on to get down to its level. So the scope itself takes up maybe just 20% of the total space needed for the scope, table and chair. They are popular budget options because they are cheap, and people typically have a table and chair of some sort.

[vintageair]

It's hard to determine what you're paying for Starsense. I compared the10 inch Celestron and Apertura Dobs and Celestron really does cheap out on the focuser and accessories while charging about $300 more. As I said I have used Astro Hopper a bit but I have mostly enjoyed tracking these objects down with a Planisphere and a Telrad. You may find that enjoying this hobby might include getting familiar with the celestial map just as much as viewing the objects when you find them. 

[JOEinCO]

....I am going to be a 75 year old star gazer, not a star hunter. But, having said that, I am not particularly inclined to fully automated scopes.... 

 

Just because a mount has GoTo doesn't mean you can't starhop with it. 

 

I do it all the time. Eye at eyepiece, hand control in hand, slewing speed set low, bada bing bada boom. In fact, I starhop more with my SE mount, AVX mount, and CGEM mount than I use the GoTo. As I said in my earlier Post #35 and as dnrmilspec points out in his first paragraph in Post #62, the key benefit over the Star Sense choices is TRACKING.

[SparkyMike2010]

OP, whatever you decide, I hope you update your thread with what you ultimately went with and how first light with it went!

While I know you’re primarily interested in planetary viewing, don’t discount some of the low hanging fruit of nebula, clusters, doubles, etc! There are several that are very easy to find and don’t require dark skies to get a good view!

[rgoode57]

Any thoughts on collapsible tubes, other than the fact that they are easier to store? Do they affect performance in any way?

[vintageair]

Any thoughts on collapsible tubes, other than the fact that they are easier to store? Do they affect performance in any way?

From what I've seen they don't affect performance however they actually weigh more than their solid tube counterparts so the only advantage is space saving for transport or storage. They also cost more so if those space saving attributes are not needed there's not much point in getting one. I bought a 10 inch solid tube and it fits on the back seat of a Honda Civic.

[Starman1]

Any thoughts on collapsible tubes, other than the fact that they are easier to store? Do they affect performance in any way?

Yes, they are a bit too flexible and do not hold collimation well.

[Adun]

1. I am going to be a 75 year old star gazer, not a star hunter. But, having said that, I am not particularly inclined to fully automated scopes.
2. I will use my scope for planetary viewing. ... I am not looking for Hubble-type views of deep space
...ease of set-up is a big factor...

 
Planets are easy to spot "naked eye" and very easy to point a telescope to, using a basic "red dot finder" (or green laser for ergonomics if you can use one), so you don't need "push-to" nor "go to" for planetary observing.
 
In terms of mount, you need a mount that either tracks, or is easy (comfortable for you) to move in the very small amounts needed to follow a planet as it drifts over time. Tracking would require either an equatorial mount (too much weight for you perhaps) or an electronic "must perform 3 star alignment" goto mount like nexstar or Evo, but both of those can run counter to the  "ease of setup" that you mention. I advise that you also want to consider a manual alt az mount with slow motion controls. 

 

3. Portability and ease of set-up is a big factor. I will always have to drive to a viewing spot. At age 75, and counting, my strength and flexibility is not what is used to be and is not getting any better as the days pass.  And, I will primarily be doing my viewing alone.

...looking into refractors. ... images are clearer and crisper - with a good refractor. But...

 
Planetary observing, crisp, portable, lightweight and easy to setup has a name: Maksutov. They have the aperture+resolution of a refractor at lower weight / smaller volume. They have the fewer optical aberrations than reflectors and SCTs, and for "ease of setup" can have the benefit of not needing frequent collimation. Even 90mm (3.5") Maksutovs are called "mighty maks" for a reason, there's a thread here devoted to C90 lovers.
 
5" to 6" is a great size to reach your portability goals.

At planetary magnifications, atmospheric seeing conditions can often render the difference between a 5" and a 6" scope to be very subtle or even moot.
 

1. Good refractor versus dob or sct.

 
I recommend a 5" Mak or SCT on a good manual mount with slow motion "geared" controls.
 
The simplest way to get that would be a Celestron StarSense Explorer DX 5" SCT is under $700. You could still get a bunch of great eyepieces, binoculars, moon maps, and even filters, without breaking $1k. You'd be using the Starsense thing for clusters and bright deep space, and the red dot finder to aim at planets. You'd track the planets using the slow motion controls, which for a beginner can be easier than with a Dobsonian.
 
There are other ways though by picking a $300 alt az mount (twilight, GSO/AT Voyager, others) and a suitable optical tube (Skywatcher Skymax 127mm, Celestron C6, etc) and many more options I'm not up to date about.

 

2. Tabletop dob versus traditional dob setup for transporting and using in the field.

I have a short tabletop (Zhumell Z114) and a traditional (but collapsible) 10" dob. Collapsibility means collimation is required every time you set up. While portable, doesn't alight with the "ease of setup" you mentioned. Short non collapsible tabletops can be very easy to transport around the house/neighborhood and in the car, but that also makes them worse on planets than the traditional dob. Tabletop dobs are excellent wide field telescopes, but worse at high powers. Check for the "F ratio" of the collapsible tabletop. If it's lower than F6, it might not be the best idea for primarily observing planets.

 

 

3. Is the StarSense technology really worth paying for?
Thanks again for your patience and willingness to share with me.

Around 5 years ago I spent quite a bit of time trying to create an Arduino device that would do what it does: use compass, inclinometer and gyroscope to calculate position to provide it to an app (Skysafari in my case). Lots of hours and effort. It provided me "assisted star hopping", which was nice for a while but overtime I grew dissatisfied and started working on more precise solutions.

I'd say it can be useful for a casual observer who wants some of the joy of seeking targets, but not all of it. Then again, it can reduce frustration, but not all of it. For me it'd be worth up to $50, but not more.

 

I hope I've not muddled the waters for you. I was a beginner a few years ago, and I know all this can feel like it's impossible to make a choice.

Edited by Adun, 18 June 2025 - 01:31 PM.

[JOEinCO]

 
....Tracking would require either an equatorial mount....or an electronic "must perform 3 star alignment" goto mount like nexstar or Evo....

 

Not true.

 

Have you actually used an SE mount?  (It's not called a Nexstar mount BTW; Nexstar is the computer and Celestron has several kinds of mounts that are "Nexstar".) 

 

I do a "Solar System Align" all the time. Takes 30 seconds and ONE object.

[maniack]

Not true.

 

Have you actually used an SE mount?  (It's not called a Nexstar mount BTW; Nexstar is the computer and Celestron has several kinds of mounts that are "Nexstar".) 

 

I do a "Solar System Align" all the time. Takes 30 seconds and ONE object.

Being pedantic here, it's called the Celestron NexStar SE mount. The NexStar range of single arm alt-az mounts has been around for a while, including the old plain "NexStar" series (NexStar 5, 8, 8i, etc.), GT, SLT, SE, and Evolution lines. Although the controllers have been updated over time they are mostly compatible with each other and have similar user interfaces (the NexStar+ controller is more significant upgrade from the old NexStar* controller, and the plus comes in versions that have RJ9 or mini-USB data ports). Celestron's other mount lines (fork arm and equitorial) do also use the NexStar controllers. 

 

But yes, solar system align is the easiest and fastest way to get up and running and do long observations of solar system objects. This alignment method is also available for the StarSense Auto-Align system that normally uses plate solving for alignment. It's also fairly easy to add a 2nd alignment point on the NexStar controller after that to get your normal 2 star alignment. There is only one procedure that requires 3 stars (or solar system objects) for setup, and it's intended for users who have no idea of what any objects are naked eye. It also only uses 2 of the points for alignment, the 3rd is only used to solve what the objects are. The normal procedures are 2 star only - Auto Two-Star for users who know at least one bright object and have relatively unobstructed skies, and Two Star for selecting the 2 specific alignment points.

[vtornado]

Any thoughts on collapsible tubes, other than the fact that they are easier to store? Do they affect performance in any way?

There are several different designs by collapsible.   I had the skywatcher 8 inch flex tube.  I used a barlowed laser to colimate and I did not see any drift of colimation between horizon and zenith.    The flex tube is actually heavier than a plain 8 because the collars and struts that replace 1 foot or so of thin steel tube are heavier.  You should use a shroud to keep stray light out of the optical tube and body heat if it is cold.

 

Because the tube is 12 inches shorter when collapsed, I thought it was actually slightly easier to carry.   If you have a standard compact car, an 8 inch fits across the back seat or can stand up in the passenger seat.  So no real savings there.

 

If by collapsible you mean a table top like the AWS one sky, than only has two struts.  I never really measured mine to test collimation from horizon to zenith.   The weak part of those is the focuser.   It is limited to 1.25 inch eyepieces and the helical focuser does not work well with zooms.  It is not well supported so a heavy eyepiece could make it sag.  But I don't use those.

Edited by vtornado, 18 June 2025 - 03:02 PM.

[rgoode57]

Well, I am nearing a decision. I believe I am going to buy either:

 

1. Apertura AD6 dobsonian;

2. Celestron StarSense Explorer 6" dobsonian; or

3. Celestron StarSense Explorer 130AZ (5" )

 

That's the choice.

 

I have somewhat backed off the 8" dobs simply for future considerations of my own aging. Maybe that's a mistake, but I believe the 6" may be more portable and manageable for me as time passes. Feel free to disagree with me because I understand the light gathering advantage of the 8" scope, and price difference between the two is not a consideration.

 

The 130AZ is on the final list simply because of a much appreciated comment by an older poster concerning physical comfort, ease of viewing, etc. Suffice it to say I am not a contortionist.

 

Between the two dobs, I have put the Celestron on the list because of the StarSense feature. However, the Apertura is clearly the better value, and I would probably go with that one if apps like SkySafari is a suitable substitute (though works differently).

 

I want to pull the trigger on one of these in the next few days. So, I await your final comments. And, I will add that some of the comments from viewers in my age group have been especially helpful since those folks understand what I am dealing with.

[Notdarkenough]

Contact your local astro club. You can see each type of device first-hand, including actual views of objects. Star Parties are very common in the summer. Not only can you see what they are actual like to use, you can see what observing positions are common for each type. This will also help you get some experience with different eyepieces, finders, etc. Most importantly, it will help center your expectations regarding possible performance. Many think they will see moon-sized images of Saturn!