Reddit mentions of Orion FunScope Astro Dazzle 4.5 Inch Reflector Telescope

Hello :-)

For the milkyway: Naked eye. Even binoculars are a bit much (but of course it's fun to pan across the vast amount of stars!) :-)

If it's not already too large, and you can handle the low format, check out the AWB Onesky (needs something to put it on, or sit on the ground with a seat-pad). Lightbridge Mini 130 is avl. through Amazon and cheaper, but not collapsible. You'd get around the same performance as your XT4.5, but with a much shorter telescope.

IIRC, the original box was 40x50x50cm = slightly under 16x20x20 inches.

AWB Oneksy (==Heritage 130p) with human youngling for scale

The 5" aperture already shows quite a bit regarding deep-sky. I use mine with a fishing stool or foam seatpad; Considering a collapsible box I saw the other day.

 

> Skyscanner

> size is stretching it a bit

Also check out the Dazzle- https://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B00QAB4BFS/ref=sr_1_1_olp?ie=UTF8&qid=1522769559&sr=8-1&keywords=dazzle+4.5&condition=new

Same price basically, but instead of 100mm aperture, 114mm.

For wide-field, these table tops are quite nice. The f/4 aperture ratio and other factors limit it for planetary use, but since this isn't your goal, it's a great budget alternative. 80m vs 114mm wil be noticeable


->
Post with links comparing the table tops

 

A refractor can of course be fun, as it's also nice during the day (reflector turns the image upside-down).

You could also consider a Maksutov, as they are verry compact! (Tripod aside). Their long focal length will result in a smaller maximum field of view, which is a bit limiting regarding larger DSO (open clusters or large nebulae such as NGC7000).

https://explorescientificusa.com/search?q=127mm+mak

Weight wise, they should fit your requirements too. The smaller 102mm Mak even works on a regular camera tripod quite nicely if you have some tolerance regarding stability/mount movement.

 

> 80

Have you checked the size of the 102mm Meade "shorty"? (Link)

Personally, for something portable, if you'd go with 80mm, nice 70mm binoculars instead (plus tripod) might be better for wide-field. (25x70, 25x100 - but of course binoculars set you to a fixed magnification, so they don't work for things like small planetary nebulae and double stars that well)

Just some random thoughts,

Clear skies! :-)

https://www.amazon.com/Orion-FunScope-Dazzle-Reflector-Telescope/dp/B00QAB4BFS

This might be a better deal than the Meade 114, but someone else will chime in I'm sure. I'd be outside right now if it weren't cloudy. :)

I'd pick up an Orion Funscope Dazzle. It's still a toy scope, which means you're not going to be able to use it to see many deep sky objects, but it should be enough to let them look at the moon (always amazing) and Saturn's Rings (very tiny) and Jupiter's moons (dots) without breaking the bank if they lose interest.

If you're looking for a scope that the adults in your household can use as well as the children, then you need something a bit more serious. The lowest cost "real" telescope (as in one that can show you some deep sky objects) is probably the AWB OneSky. But it's a bit more than is necessary for just amusing the kids.