Hi Dick,Jim,

Thanks for the comments. And Jim I think you hit the nail on the head. Initial testing that I have done tends to indicate that even with extended guidestar exposures which should remove some of the advantages of an AO unit, the guiding still seems to be better. On the sub exposures I gathered for this image the general corrections were on the order of .1 to .2 pixel as opposed to ~.5 to .6 when guided conventionally. So I came to the same conclusion Jim, that for the most part - moving the adaptive unit is quicker and easier than moving the mass of the telescope.

As for time, sigh, of course you both are correct. More time would help. Or darker skies. The darker skies allow for a much stronger stretch which reveals the faint outer arms better without revealing the gradients that are present from my backyard.

One other note ... calibrating the AO seems to be much quicker than calibrating the mount.

Best Regards

Bill