Search:

Before I start explaining, this is what ImgBurn says while checking the disc, again:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ASUS SBW-06D5H-U E101 (USB)
Current Profile: BD-R

Disc Information:
Status: Complete
State of Last Session: Complete
Erasable: No

Just to clarify: in my case I removed the eyepiece and only used the camera (ASI120MC). I also tried removing the diagonal (90º) to generate an image and did not see any difference. And the store says the Maksutov is F/14.

About this guy (using a 254 telescope), I noticed he posted this observation in one of his pages. He is also using the ASI120MC camera:

************
SkyWatcher 10" Collapsible Dobsonian (No tracking)

Camera: ASI120MC

Positive projection through 10mm eyepiece Sky-Watcher Plossl.

The reason I am asking is because this guy claims to have captured these objects using a 254mm telescope without even the GO-TO feature:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/93257060@N04/sets/72157635199644635/

And at least in the Wikipedia article it is saying things like:

**************
Altazimuth mount: An equatorial telescope mount with clock drive was left out of the design. Equatorial mounts tend to be massive (less portable), expensive, complicated, and have the characteristics of putting the eyepiece of Newtonian telescopes in very hard to access positions. Altazimuth mounts cut the size, weight and cost of the total telescope and keep the eyepiece in a relatively easy to access position on the side of the telescope. The altazimuth mount design used in Dobsonian designs also add to simplicity and portability; there is no added mass or need to transport counter weights, drive components, or tripods/pedestals. Setting up for hard tube dobs simply involves placing the mount on the ground, and setting the tube on top of it. The weight of the Dobsonian style altazimuth mount is distributed over large simple bearing surfaces so the telescope can move smoothly under finger pressure with minimal backlash.

The altazimuth mount does have its own limitations. Un-driven altazimuth mounted telescopes need to be "nudged" every few minutes along both axes to compensate for the rotation of the Earth to keep an object in view (as opposed to one axis for un-driven equatorial mounts), an exercise that becomes more difficult with higher magnifications. The altazimuth mount does not allow for the use of conventional setting circles to help in aiming the telescope at the coordinates of known objects. They are known for being difficult to point at objects near the zenith, mainly because a large movement of the azimuth axis is needed to move the telescope pointing by even a small amount. Altazimuth mounts are also not well suited for astrophotography.
**************

Let me ask you guys something:

If I happen to just insert the correct values and then use the red-dot finder from a telescope with no tracking to point right above an object... Let's say Mars.

Then seconds later Mars will go upwards because it is "moving".

Can I hit START CAPTURE from Sharpcap or whatever software I am using and in the exact moment the object can be seen in the telescope (if I was using an eyepiece I would see it), will a perfect image (perfect is a way of saying, I mean any image that can be different from a black screen of nothing) form?

Nevermind it will last less than 10 seconds.

Guys, I have purchased a telescope and a camera (ASI120MC) and discussed this in other places but people don't seem to understand exactly what is my problem.

I tried (with no tracking and the proper mount) to point the telescope to a planet and no image could be seen in the preview (Sharpcap, Firecapture...)

They claim you need to track the object. However the telescope was pointed manually to where the object would appear. I also have doubts if 1) the sky could have influenced the results, we always get bad weather, 2) the telescope was a Maksutov 90, not good enough or 3) the settings I used for Sharpcap were correct (exposure, gain, etc.)

Let's assume for a second I failed to point to the exact spot where the object was. Better yet, let's say the telescope formed an image from the Moon, an obvious object with too much light in the sky.

However I didn't buy the camera hoping to capture one object, then adjust things for another.