Was just browsing and I saw the Celestron. I have the S50 and I've had it for about a year now I think? Any advice is appreciated.

Opening and shutting the S50 case had a squeak so I found a silicone grease made by NETLEA in China on Amazon. Near the hinges on the case corners rubbing on a light coat of grease solved my cringe feeling when the case would open a close late at night. In Hawaii nearly all the neighbors sleep with the windows open so now I don't have to worry about them waking up thinking it's that guy again.

Once the dew heater slider is on does the Seestar operate the heater straight away or does it wait until you are imaging? if you execute a plan does it come on straight away or when the plan commences?

M51 pinwheel galaxy.

i think its time that ZWO releases a bigger smart telescope. What additional features and upgrades are needed in such a release? From my prospective I think of the following: 1. Bigger battery. 2. Bigger camera senser frame. 3. Bigger aperture. 4. More memory. 5. Better tracking. let me know your thoughts

During live stacking — called “Enhancing” in the Seestar app — the app already gives some basic information about rejected frames, at least while the session is running.If one watches the app screen continuously, it is possible to see individual rejection messages such as, for example, “overexposed”, “star trails”, or “no stars”. After the message disappears, one can still tap on the total exposure time and see a basic summary of how many frames were accepted and how many were rejected.My suggestion is to make this information available also after the session, for example the next morning, or whenever the user decides to review or post-process the data.This would be useful not only out of curiosity, but also for learning and planning better future sessions. Knowing when frames were rejected, how many were rejected, and for what reason can help the user understand whether the problem was caused by dawn, clouds, obstacles, poor tracking, wind, field rotation, low altitude, or other factors.A very simple implementation could be just a log file, accessible through USB from a desktop computer. The log could list all acquired frames with a timestamp and a status, for example:acceptedrejected: star trailsrejected: overexposedrejected: no starsUsers who want to analyse the information could then process the log themselves.A more advanced and user-friendly implementation could be a graphical summary in the app: for example, a time histogram with 30-minute bins, showing the percentage of accepted and rejected frames, with different colours for the rejection reasons. For example:green: acceptedred: star trailswhite: overexposedgrey: no starsother colours for other rejection causesI understand that the Seestar was originally designed as a very simple “one-click” imaging telescope. However, many users are now using it in a much more advanced way, with manual post-processing, external software, mosaics, equatorial wedges, long sessions, and careful target planning.For this reason, I think that making more acquisition diagnostics available — especially in the existing “expert” context — would be very useful, without making the basic user experience more complicated for beginners.

How do I fix the Bortle level? The app makes it 5 when it should be 9.

Does Seestar have Hα SII OIII UHC filters? Would the photos be better with them on?

Sorry for bombarding you with questions again, but I’m still in the learning phase and getting to know the Seestar.Why is it that even after what I consider a very good polar alignment (0.1°–0.3°), about half of the 60-second frames are rejected (due to star trails)? I mean: if the alignment isn’t good, they should all—or almost all—be rejected, but while watching during the exposure, I saw that on average 50% (or more) were discarded. There weren’t “good” phases followed by “bad” phases: the distribution of rejects was fairly uniform over time.Speaking of rejects: is there a way to know how many images were rejected afterwards, once processing is complete? And for what reasons (star trails, no stars, ...)?Thanks a lot for your patience!

I'm slightly confused about the difference between the “enhanced” image that is saved at the end of an observation plan (or a sequence of captures), and the one you can obtain by applying Deep Sky Stack afterward (I've read the tutorial, but I'm still unsure).I mean: even though Seestar says “Enhancing”... isn’t what it’s actually doing during stargazing real-time stacking, or am I wrong?Sure, in Deep Sky Stack I can choose which frames to include, but are the ones made available to me actually the same ones that were used for the enhanced image?Can someone help me understand?Attached: the image with 107 minutes is the result of "Deep Sky Stack" having not used a few subframes that in my opinion were bad enough. The image with 119 minutes is what was left after the complete plan execution, let's say the "default" enhanced image. Both have been cropped, AI denoised and saturated, all in Seestar App, no external processing. To my eyes, surprisingly enough, the Deep Sky Stack is much worse...