Recognizing that the Astroscan is not best suited for view planets,
what can I expect to get from one? ........snip.....an explanation of the
telescope's limitations, the design compromises that cause the
limitations and what happens when you push the design limits.

Thanks,
JP

OK
The ball mount is not that good for high power magnification and tracking. It
is not really that smooth.

The focuser is less than it should be. Particularly in cold weather.

If the scope is a "table top" type of scope, then it is only as stable as the
object it is sitting on. Higher magnification requires a stable mount. So you
need something sturdy to place it on. Which sorta defeats the compact, all in
one unit concept.

At f/4, it theoretically has a larger central obstruction then longer 4"+
newts. So theoretically a smidgen less contrast. Theoretically.

The RKE 2.5x barlow is optically good. But it is very heavy, due to it's
length. This is a problem on dewy nights, where heavy ep/barlow combinations
turn this scope in it's ball mount.

Yet all that aside, I've been able to easily identify where Mars' central
meridian lay, each time I've used it. Good views at 140x to 150x, on a heavy
homemade tripod. Within the expectations of an obstructed, 4" scope. Jerky
hand tracking, sticky focuser and all. YMMV.

A Klee 2.8x barlow is a good planetary viewing accessory for this scope.

john