>>4042240I'm pretty sure every dob is designed for the Optical Tube Assembly to be removed from its base, and for the base itself to break down into smaller parts. But you're still dealing with a chonky beast that doubles in weight every two-inch increase in aperture.
>>4042291I've only ever dealt with software specifically tailored towards various astronomy workflows (DSS for starfields, AS!3, RegiStaxx for planetary and lunar). In theory, you wouldn't have to use any specialist stacking software since land doesn't move at all relative to the camera. And depending on how illuminated your landscapes are, and how wide your FoV is, you may not need to do anything.
Worst case scenario, you stack your land exposures and Photoshop a stacked star field onto it. But I've personally never done a night shit so this is all theoretical to me.
