Orion Starblast

Does anyone have any experience with the Orion Starblast 114mm scope? I'm
not looking for opionions (educated or otherwise) on what this scope "must
be" or "probably is" like... but rather someone who has actual experience
using one.

You might wish to check the Sky and Telescope review of this exact scope
that was published a few months back.

As I recall, it reviewed favorably.

Ed L.

"Kilolani" wrote in message
ink.net...
Does anyone have any experience with the Orion Starblast 114mm scope? I'm
not looking for opionions (educated or otherwise) on what this scope "must
be" or "probably is" like... but rather someone who has actual experience
using one.

Kilolani wrote:

Does anyone have any experience with the Orion Starblast 114mm scope? I'm
not looking for opionions (educated or otherwise) on what this scope "must
be" or "probably is" like... but rather someone who has actual experience
using one.

Hello,

You may check this page: it contains first-hand impressions of the
scope from an experienced observer:

http://ephemeris.sjaa.net/0308/b.html

- Alex

Thanks... Jane Houston Jones' is an opinion I value highly.

"Alexander Avtanski" wrote in message
...
Kilolani wrote:

Does anyone have any experience with the Orion Starblast 114mm scope?
I'm
not looking for opionions (educated or otherwise) on what this scope
"must
be" or "probably is" like... but rather someone who has actual
experience
using one.

Hello,

You may check this page: it contains first-hand impressions of the
scope from an experienced observer:

http://ephemeris.sjaa.net/0308/b.html

- Alex

Thanks Ed,

I was kind of looking for something more personal and objective... somehow I
just can't quite bring myself to think of magazines who accept advertising
as truly objective when it comes to Meade, Celestron, Orion, etc.

"Ed L" wrote in message
news:Pbaub.174001$9E1.897177@attbi_s52...
You might wish to check the Sky and Telescope review of this exact scope
that was published a few months back.

As I recall, it reviewed favorably.

Ed L.

"Kilolani" wrote in message link.net...
Does anyone have any experience with the Orion Starblast 114mm scope? I'm
not looking for opionions (educated or otherwise) on what this scope "must
be" or "probably is" like... but rather someone who has actual experience
using one.

I've had one eleven months, it's a great scope for the money. Good
optics, fast cool down. Go to talking telescopes group Ron M. listed
above, type Starblast in the search archives. Other reviews have
stated good to not so good optics "scopereviews.com" but thats what's
so good about Orions 30 day return return policy. It has a paraboid
mirror, star collimation is easy, you look thru the eyepiece as you
adjust.

DL Smallen

I bought a Starblast on a whim (who could resist the May $119 sale??) to use
as a widefield scope. With a 450mm focal length you only get to 90x with a
5mm eyepiece so understand that for starters. It's only going to be a
widefield. I use mine mostly with a 24mm Panoptic, 13, 7 and (rarely) 5mm
Type 6 Naglers. Certainly not the eyepiece profile of a first time scope
user but these are the eyepieces I use with my larger scope so why not?

I like the Starblast for what it is: widefield. It holds collimation well.
The mount is stable. I sit it on the front porch stoop and sit next to it to
view. It's lightweight and easy to move around. I've also used it on top of
a 5 gallon bucket and a little stool. Worked fine that way too if a little
less stable.

have fun

jtm



"Kilolani" wrote in message
ink.net...
Does anyone have any experience with the Orion Starblast 114mm scope? I'm
not looking for opionions (educated or otherwise) on what this scope "must
be" or "probably is" like... but rather someone who has actual experience
using one.

As an StarBlast owner, I have to say that the
Sky and Telescope article is pretty accurate.
But... here goes.

Those on this list who haven't plonked me already
are likely tired of my posts on the StarBlast. I'm a fan
of this telescope, but much of that is personal taste.
My prejudices:

1) I like wide-field low power views;

2) I like small, casual telescopes;

3) I get a thrill out of seeing stuff in cheap hardware.
(I get a thrill out of seeing stuff in expensive
hardware too, but of the two thrills, cheap
hardware is cheaper.)

Not everybody shares those characteristics. Just cuz I
like it doesn't mean it's for you.

Of the three toy 4.5" f4 newtonian scopes, the StarBlast
is the best, IMHO. (And I should know. I have all three.)
Unlike the Bushnell, it has a parabolic mirror. Unlike the
Asian AstroScans, the mirror functions. That said, it's
far from perfect edge to edge. You *will* have coma.
There *is* a sweet spot. The sweet spot in mine is more
than adequately large. As with all telescopes, YMMV.

The StarBlast is inherently easier to aim than ball scopes
because there's no ball. The red dot finder works well
when you can see your target or its guide stars through it.
It has a tinted glass on the end, but it's not extremely tinted.
(Personally, I use a green laser pointer, centering the beam
in the low power field of view, and directing it to what I
want to see. Acquisition is easy that way.)

The scope comes with a 17mm eyepiece and a 6mm. The
17mm gives about 26X. It's a nice choice for M81/M82,
but it's a little bit high for finding things. The 6mm is a pinhole.
Tell you the truth, EP's and Barlow from the AstroScan work
very very well with it. I much prefer a barlowed 12mm to the
6mm. The 28mm gives very nice views of open clusters (if just
a little fish eyed), and it's good for finding things.

The mount is steady and smooth. It needs a base,
but that's why God made picnic tables. It holds three extra
EP's.

The StarBlast shows Jupiter (belts and moons), Saturn and
Venus nicely. Last summer, it showed the SPC and some shading
on Mars. It's not a planetary scope at all, but it'll do that much.

It shows all four standard stars of the Trapezium, and much
nebulosity in M42. Fits all of M45 at LP. Nice views of the
dumbbell. Globs are fuzzy just balls. I never split epsilon
Lyrae with it, but M57 can be very crisp. Open clusters are
glorious. M31 and friends are glorious. M81/82 are visible,
and glorious to those with the taste for faint fuzzies. The
Double Cluster is lovely, as are most open clusters.

Anything over ~120X is gets pretty soft, but that's
not what it's for. Tell you what it *is* good for. You
can take it along on a picnic and show the sky to
others. True, other scopes will show more, but when
you show the sky in serious hardware, it's *your* sky.
When you show it in inexpensive, approachable
hardware, the sky belongs to anybody. Makes it all that
more accessible.

So... It's not the best scope you can buy, but it's one of
the best you can buy for $169.00. It's informal. It's fun.
It's portable. It's embraceable.

I like it (though it's certainly not my only scope).
Maybe you will too.

Luck and Regards,
-Larry Curcio




Kilolani wrote:

Thanks Ed,

I was kind of looking for something more personal and objective... somehow I
just can't quite bring myself to think of magazines who accept advertising
as truly objective when it comes to Meade, Celestron, Orion, etc.

"Ed L" wrote in message
news:Pbaub.174001$9E1.897177@attbi_s52...
You might wish to check the Sky and Telescope review of this exact scope
that was published a few months back.

As I recall, it reviewed favorably.

Ed L.

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 03:06:27 GMT, "L.C." wrote:

snip
True, other scopes will show more, but when
you show the sky in serious hardware, it's *your* sky.
When you show it in inexpensive, approachable
hardware, the sky belongs to anybody. Makes it all that
more accessible.

And to think that you've actually been "plonked."

So... It's not the best scope you can buy, but it's one of
the best you can buy for $169.00. It's informal. It's fun.
It's portable. It's embraceable.

I like it (though it's certainly not my only scope).
Maybe you will too.

I think that it would make an excellent "porta-scope."
It's certainly more inviting, as you so eloquently related in
the above, than those standoff-ish, traditional long-focus
60mm refractors.

I'm this...close.

Alan

I bought this scope last week. I was going to buy a 6" or 8" dobsonian
but when I actually looked at them it instantly hit me: they were big
and heavy. and wasnt going to use them at whim. I hadnt seen the
Starblast but at GBP 145, 6kgs and decent reviews I thought it wasnt
too much of a risk for a first telescope. And surely it must show more
than my 16x50 Russian Binoculars. I also considered a Meade DS2114
GOTO telescope but chose the Starblast anyway.

When the scope arrived, I was pleased with the weight. The courier guy
carried it in one hand and I could carry it around the stairs etc
without breaking sweat at all. The scope requires no assembly. Its all
nicely packed. You have to roll the tube slightly to get the eyepiece
to a comfortable level but thats about it. The manual is well-written.
I spent some pleasant moments aligning the finder to the scope by
training on a TV aerial a few blocks away.

First light was on Alberio. It split it cleanly. Then M45, M42, M31,
M35, M39, M34 and double cluster in Perseus. All on low power 17mm
eyepiece. Saturn also looked beautiful on the 6mm eyepiece. I feel the
view is somewhat less imposing than my binoculars. I dont know why
this is. My guess is with binos you are getting light into both eyes
so stereoscopic effect kicks in but is this true? Anyway,
magnification works nicely with 6mm and definitely I can see more
detail on all the celestial objects mentioned than my binoculars.

The unit red dot finder is ok for broad location but it gets messy
when you want to find a dim object between two well known objects. Its
also hard to see the red dot when the object you want to view is at or
near the zenith. Some neck strain and soiled trousers It would be
nice to have a 7x50 finderscope which didnt invert the image.

What can I do to upgrade the accessories for this telescope? I was
planning a 2x Barlow but can somebody explain how to use one in a
telescope?

Thank you and hope this was useful.