Backpacker's Telescope

A recent backpacking trip up Mt. Marcy in the Adirondacks has got me thinking about assembling a compact, lightweight observing outfit for these trips. Intended targets would be open clusters, bright doubles, the moon & planets as well as terrestrial wildlife & flora. For starters I felt the whole package must weigh less than 10lbs.

The first scopes that came to mind were the short tube refractors of 80mm or less. The TV Ranger would probably be the best in terms of size & weight (3lbs), but the Orion ST80, with its lower cost, would probably cause less heartache in the event of a mishap. Then I began to wonder about the new 90mm Chinese Maks, such as Orion's Apex. Would it be rugged enough?

As for a mount, Orion's compact TravelTech photo tripod at a little over 2lbs. seems made for the backpack, but will it support the ST80 or Apex 90?

At the ocular end of the scope I would probably try to include both a 1.25" star diagonal and an erect image amici diagonal. A single 24-8mm zoom eyepiece would probably be adequate for the Short Tube refractors, while an additional long f.l. eyepiece might be needed for a Mak.

A red dot finder, some type of padded case and a dew shield would round out the package.

Was wondering if anyone, who has tried to mix astronomy with backpacking, would care to relate their experiences or describe their equipment. Are these equipment choices logical or am I overlooking something? Can anyone comment on their suitability (or lack thereof) in the backpacking environment? Are there better choices? The Bushnell 10x50's I took on this trip didn't quite cut it for me.

When not on a trip this package might find use at the rifle range looking for .22cal bullet holes in targets at 100 to 200 yds.

Simple, small, light and rugged seem to be the criteria that overwhelm all others in backpacking. At age 57 I'm not about to try to lug a 6" Tak and a bunch of Naglers up the hill.

Thanks.
Bob Young

Robert, you are correct in the dilemma about price of scopes! A mishap with a Ranger ($400 or so) would be a bad day...but the TV's are also built like tanks... Just something to think of

I had the same thought several months ago. I bought a cheap 4.5 inch mirror that I was going to make a 'collapsible' mini-truss-dob out of. I have yet to finish the project, but I'll post any results as they come in.

I have an ST80 (from Apogee) that I have hiked with (no overnighters yet...) and really like the widefield view in the daytime. I haven't used the Apex, but imagine that the narrower view wouldn't be as usefull generally, but maybe better at finding those bullet holes. One note about eyepieces - during the day I often try to view with my sunglasses on, so long eye relief is important for me then. (I don't wear glasses at night, though.) At night, I don't usually use a finder with this scope - 32mm eyepiece gives 12.5x. Close enough most of the time. Also, I can go up to 120x with no problem, but don't think I would want to do that with the travel tripod. I'd guess the more expensive (TV) scopes would give better high magnification images, but then again, would you want to do that with that tripod.

Charlie

I too like the idea of a small simple scope and find I end up using it a lot more than my other "big" setups.

My "baby" scope is an Orion ST80 and a few choice (but fairly CHEAP) EPs and shorty Barlow, red dot finder, and a home brew balancing arm for an old 40 year old Hollywood tripod and it all fits into a 19x12x7 inch "wheely" style travel bag. I chose the rather large carry on bag as I wanted to put plenty of dense foam around the OTA as I leave it in my car and it tends to bump around a bit.

The whole thing (with the very solid all metal tripod included but not carried in the bag) is right about 15 lbs. When set up and balanced correctly it's great, as I can crank the photo head/OTA up and down so I can use a small folding chair for almost any object without having to adjust the tripod legs, and I can also and leave the head locks unlocked to pan around with ease.

The only ways this set up could be made better (for me at least) is if the dew-cap could be slid back to shorten the whole OTA length by about 4 inches when stored. Then the whole setup (except the tripod) could probably get into a medium size 35mm SLR bag or a small day pack. Also, there are probably plenty of good lighter high-tech tripods out these days but the old one I have works so well I still use it.

Oh, and the whole thing (bag, tripod, EPs bought here on AM, OTA and red-dot) probably ran me just over US$300 so if it gets ripped off or dropped (etc.) I would be sad but not as devastated as if it were a $2500 (or even $700) scope with $300 EPs. Also, if you look for the same OTA on the web (Telescope Warehouse) you can get it for less but it's painted black (not the Orion white).

Works for me - Good luck…

Tom Mengel

Robert,

I have a Ranger, an 8-24 zoom, and a lightweight photo tripod. The package is as good as it gets for backpacking, and I have done it once. To your package I would add a Barlow (or powermate). Don't worry about the extra diagonal. Do something to the quick-release attachment so the Ranger will not slip around. (THe 1/4-20 screw from a photo tripod will not hold tight enough to keep the Ranger from rotating, so you have to get another points to tie it down to the attachment.) Don't worry about the Ranger--it is tough. I imagine the ST-80 would do well, too, but the optics are not quite the same.

However, I think you should ask yourself a serious question. How good will your stargazing be on a backpacking trip. I reserve my moonless nights for stargazing, and go backpacking other nights. Of course, I have drive-in access to the mountains or desert year round. So, I do not have to combine trips. I do whatever I can to avoid weight on a backpacking trip. If you need to do something, take a good pair of binoculars. They are more useful during the day, and almost as useful at night.

Alex

Thanks, everyone, for the inputs. Some things I hadn't considered were brought to light. If I decide to go ahead with this, I'll post the results.

The question about how effective the astronomy will be on a trip of this nature is a valid one. Something that seems workable from the security of a comfortable chair in a cool carpeted room might be an expensive joke when mixed with mud, bugs and bad weather. But, then again, if bugs or an uncomfortable air mattress are keeping me awake half the night anyway, I might as well log some eyepiece time.

Thanks again.
Bob Young