Best Planetary Scope??
GGK893
visual observing. I need something fairly portable with quick setup/takedown
times. I have a total budget of $6500 not including EPs My current
consideratons are: 5" APO w/G11 mount, 7"Mak-newt w/G-11 mount, 8-9" Mak-Cass
w/ G-11 mount, 10-12.5 truss dob w/ Zambutto mirrors and Equatorial platform.
What would you purchase? Thanks, George
Wolf359
Although I am partial to refractors, I have seen, first hand, images coming
from Mak-Newts, and for the money they will provide you, in my opinion, a better
view than a refractor. With a mak-cass I would be a bit worried about the larger
central obstruction given its not a huge increase in apreture over what you could
get in a mak-newt with as good as no central obstruction.
In other words, I'll cast my vote for the mak-newt!
Whichever one you get... Enjoy,
John W.
ed_an...@my-deja.com
fg1.aol.com>,
ggk...@aol.com (GGK893) wrote:
> Hi, Im looking for a very high quality scope for primarly planetary/lunar
> visual observing. I need something fairly portable with quick setup/takedown
>
Hi George,
the only one telescope on a market was designed strictly for
planetary and lunar work and fits your requirement in price,
quality and portability - TEC 8" f/20
The 8" f/20 is 34" long (without front baffle),weights 22 lb
perfectly fits on G11, has long focal length 4000mm,
central obstruction - less than 22%.
The last one that we have delivered to the customer a week
ago - blow away his 10" Mewlon Takahachi ( in the image
quality, contrast ect...). All Mak-Cass. that we deliver
are better than 1/8 PV, and about 1/50 RMS,
interferometry included with each telescope.
For more information take a look at «Photo pages» on our
web:
http://www.telescopengineering.com
Yuri.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Excelsior Optics
Allow me to recommend an Excelsior Optics E-256, which is a 10" f/6
planetary Newtonian. With a G-11, which will hold it very nicely, you will be
well within your budget, probably with enough left over to buy a few goodies to
go with it. Go to www.excelsioroptics.com for a sample image taken through the
E-258, it's f/8 cousin.
Best,
Maurizio Di Sciullo
Excelsior Optics
lude...@my-deja.com
> Hi George,
> the only one telescope on a market was designed strictly for
> planetary and lunar work and fits your requirement in price,
> quality and portability - TEC 8" f/20
Hi Yuri,
your forgot the Shiefspieglers, made by Lichtenknecker Optics and AOK
Swiss.
A 6" or 7" Schiefspiegler, well made is still fully transportable,
works on G11 and cost even less, than your combo
crazy Markus
BTW: The seeing must have been worse for the bigger size of the Mewlon
or the mewlon must have been missaligned, otherwise the result would
have been diffrent to what you described.
ed_an...@my-deja.com
lude...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Hi Yuri,
> your forgot the Shiefspieglers, made by Lichtenknecker Optics and AOK Swiss.
> A 6" or 7" Schiefspiegler, well made is still fully transportable,
> works on G11 and cost even less, than your combo
> crazy Markus.
Open tube, broken shape, very complex aligning, big off-
axis aberrations... make the Shiefspieglers attractive mostly
for you Markus. Myself I do not count the Shiefspieglers
as presicion telescopes. And when comparing cost - do this
for same aperture (8" Shiefspiegler vs. 8" TEC) and do not
forget about delivery cost from Europe and no service after
telescope was sold.
> BTW: The seeing must have been worse for the bigger size of the Mewlon
> or the mewlon must have been missaligned, otherwise the result would
> have been diffrent to what you described.
Seeing is always an excuse for some telescopes.
Missaligning?.. of Mewlon... - it is not a case. This
customer is pretty familiar with telescopes and has a
collection of them including 10" APO refractor.
Also it is not a first case when our telescopes outperforms
TAKs. Myself I like TAK's mount, eyepieces, but telescope
optics... some of US brands could be better and much
better. We have tested a couple of refractors recently:
TAK128 f/8.0 and AP130 f/6.3. The second one has much
better (1/10) wave front and perfect color correction. TAK
was only 1/6.2 wave front and had 0.8L for a blue
line!!!
BTW: is a missaligning a common to Mewlons? Do you
have Markus any data about optical quality (PV and RMS)
of Mewlons and Shiefspiegler?
Yuri
DBogan3220
If you want something compact there is that russian 9 inch Mak, Earth and
Sky sells them. Mated to a G11 mount I think this combo would work nicely. This
should give you the opportunity to purchase some really decent eyepieces for
planetary viewing as well.
Clear Skies
Dwight L Bogan
Larry Spann
ggk...@aol.com (GGK893) wrote:
> Hi, Im looking for a very high quality scope for primarly
planetary/lunar
> visual observing. I need something fairly portable with quick
setup/takedown
> consideratons are: 5" APO w/G11 mount, 7"Mak-newt w/G-11 mount, 8-9"
Mak-Cass
> w/ G-11 mount, 10-12.5 truss dob w/ Zambutto mirrors and Equatorial
platform.
> What would you purchase? Thanks, George
>
Hi George,
Check out Rick Singmaster's StarMaster dobs. They now come standard
with Zambuto optics up to 20", the 14.5" sells for $3195, and Rick
sells an excellent dob drive for around $2000. Todd Gross rates the
16" and 18" StarMasters (the "old" ones with Pegasus optics)as the best
of all scopes he's tested for planetary performance. Besides that, you
can't beat Rick's customer service. I have an 18" with Pegasus optics
that is fantastic on planets - and is very fast and easy to set
up/take down.
Larry Spann
Larry Spann
lude...@my-deja.com
> Open tube, broken shape, very complex aligning, big off-
> axis aberrations... make the Shiefspieglers attractive mostly
> for you Markus.
Some of the best drawings and images of planets have been made with
Schiefspieglers up to 12". Dont worry about off axis errors, Planets
are not such large, dont worry about complex alignment, it is most
simple than in an Mak
Myself I do not count the Shiefspieglers
> as presicion telescopes.
A few years ago I have had a 125 Schiefpsiegler at WSP and everybody
confirmed, no diffrence to any high quality 5" Apo or HD145 MN, you are
maybe just a little unexperienced with this classical Planetary
telescope.
And when comparing cost - do this
> for same aperture (8" Shiefspiegler vs. 8" TEC)
To eat a 8" MCT you dont need a 8" Schiefspiegler, a 6" will be enough,
take the old formular 8"=203 mm minus 23% (=47 mm) secondary is 156 mm
unobstructed scope with same contrast. This formular works perfect.
and do not
> forget about delivery cost from Europe
As I told you, it is cheaper than a 8" MCT and the shipping will be not
so much as the diffrence of the price.
and no service after
> telescope was sold.
who say that ?You?
> >
> Seeing is always an excuse for some telescopes.
I bet with you, that a 4" Apo eat at most nights the best in the world
8" MCT, due seeing. In perfect nights, the aperature winns, in less
good nights, as smaller the aperature as better the image, I am shure
you know about it very well.
> Missaligning?.. of Mewlon... - it is not a case. This
> customer is pretty familiar with telescopes and has a
> collection of them including 10" APO refractor.
What does it tell to me ? I know many people who own lots of
telescopes, it does not means that all his telescopes any time in
perfect condition, or does it ?
> Also it is not a first case when our telescopes outperforms
> TAKs.
In your opinion of course, but not in the opinion of the Tak owners, i
am very shure.
Myself I like TAK's mount, eyepieces, but telescope
> optics... some of US brands could be better and much
> better.
Tell me one sample, but please don't say TEC now, it would be an self
advertisement. I see you handling now in your add the magic numbers 1/8
wave and 1/50 RMS, you dont wont to advertiese worser than your
competitors, yes ?
We have tested a couple of refractors recently:
> TAK128 f/8.0 and AP130 f/6.3. The second one has much
> better (1/10) wave front and perfect color correction. TAK
> was only 1/6.2 wave front and had 0.8L for a blue
> line!!!
With your testmethods, of course, yes ? I am not wondering.
>
> BTW: is a missaligning a common to Mewlons?
yes it is. As an optical engineer you know very well how ultrasentitve
the dall Kirkham system against even the smallest missalignment, but
oho, if it is perfect aligned, than and only than it shows its power.
Do you
> have Markus any data about optical quality (PV and RMS)
> of Mewlons and Shiefspiegler?
Betterb than diffraction limited,but not such magic numbers as you are
using now since a short time. You believe you do each system so ? So
TEC will be the best Telescopeoptics manufactor in the world, yes ?
I am sorry to answere your next mail, since I must go sleep now to go
early morning to the airport, but I am shure you will find good
answeres for me.
anyway
merry christmas and a happy new year to you too. Such threads make the
newsgroup interested
Markus
>
> Yuri
lude...@my-deja.com
mauri...@aol.com (Excelsior Optics) wrote:
next sample, that not only TEC produce Planetary telescopes
congratulations on your nice scopes Maurizio
Markus
Matthew Ota
It has the highest contrast when viewing extended objects.
Mike Barrs
news:19991219022416...@ng-fg1.aol.com...
> Hi, Im looking for a very high quality scope for primarly planetary/lunar
> visual observing. I need something fairly portable with quick
setup/takedown
> times. I have a total budget of $6500 not including EPs My current
> consideratons are: 5" APO w/G11 mount, 7"Mak-newt w/G-11 mount, 8-9"
Mak-Cass
> w/ G-11 mount, 10-12.5 truss dob w/ Zambutto mirrors and Equatorial
platform.
> What would you purchase? Thanks, George
Boy, are you going to get a lot of different opinions on this one! :-)
My $.02... for strictly visual observing, I'd go for the 12.5" Dob/Zambuto
on the EQ platform, unless you live in an area with consistently poor seeing
where a smaller aperture might outperform it. In that case, I'd go for the
APO refractor, on the theory that if the seeing conditions aren't good
enough for a 10"-12.5" Dob mirror to perform at its best, then it might not
be good enough for the 7"-9" compound scopes either. With the APO refractor,
at least you know you'll get outstanding quality without some of the optical
compromises in the compound scopes.
But if you've got decent seeing, go for the Dob. Aperture always wins, if
the seeing is good enough and the mirror is good enough.
<running and ducking the incoming arrows from Mak/Cass and refractor fans>
Mike Barrs
Mike Barrs
news:385CE30B...@loop.com...
> Go with a refractor for the best results in planetary astronomy.
> It has the highest contrast when viewing extended objects.
Unless your local seeing permits larger aperture, in which case a Newtonian
wins. You get high contrast with zero obstruction on a refractor, but you
get even higher contrast and more resolution by increasing the aperture.
Mike Barrs
WHALEN44
First off, where do you live? What are your local "seeing" conditions like?
What about average temperature drop? Are you in the city or a rural community?
I can tell you what I "did" purchase, a TEC 8" f 15.5 MCT on a G-11. Just
recieved it this month. However that was my choice based on the above
mentioned factors along with a few others. Yours might need to be different
based on YOUR situation.
First off l would stay at 10" of aperture or below for at least three reasons,
portability, seeing, and cooldown unless you live in an area of extrodinary
seeing. Or if you are going to be doing more CCD work than visual.
Second, how do you like to observe? Standing or sitting? I myself like to sit
comfortably, so my choice was limited to the MCT or refractor. You can sit
behind a small MNT, but you can end up in some fairly awkward positions at
times. Rotating tube rings can be a great help however. Depending on how far
north you are will determine if you do much sitting with a dob or Newtonian.
My set up time is about 15 minutes. This is with the G11 broken down into three
pieces, the tripod, the Eq. head, and the weights. This includes balancing the
scope, getting ot level, and getting it polar aligned with all electronics
hooked up. I have a bad back and don't want to lift more than 30 pounds at one
time.
The scope I replaced was a Ceravolo HD145 MNT, also a excellent planetary
scope. I just wanted a bit more aperture, 5.7" was not enough as I also like to
do a bit of deep space observing also.
If you are leaning towards a newtonian, I would definitly be giving Maurizio a
call. If you are looking at APO's, I can recommend AP and TMB, for MNT I would
recommend Ceravolo or TEC, and for MCT I would recommend TEC and AP.
Steady Skies,
>Hi, Im looking for a very high quality scope for primarly planetary/lunar
visual observing. I need something fairly portable with quick setup/takedown
times. I have a total budget of $6500 not including EPs My current
consideratons are: 5" APO w/G11 mount, 7"Mak-newt w/G-11 mount, 8-9" Mak-Cass
w/ G-11 mount, 10-12.5 truss dob w/ Zambutto mirrors and Equatorial platform.
What would you purchase?Thanks, George >
Richard Whalen
whal...@aol.com
"Time spent observing the heavens is not deducted from your lifespan"
Vahe Sahakian
> visual observing. I need something fairly portable with quick setup/takedown
> times. I have a total budget of $6500 not including EPs My current
> consideratons are: 5" APO w/G11 mount, 7"Mak-newt w/G-11 mount, 8-9" Mak-Cass
> w/ G-11 mount, 10-12.5 truss dob w/ Zambutto mirrors and Equatorial platform.
> What would you purchase?
Hello,
If you are interested in something primarily for lunar/planetary visual
observing my recommendation would be 8" f/20 TEC Mak Cass (@ about
$3300.00) and the G11 (@ about $2000.00).
I have the 10" version of the above Mak Cass and with 22% obstruction,
the contrast rivals that of my 155mm f/9 EDT refractor.
The 8" version is an extremely compact system given its performance
potential, my guess is that the 8" f/20 TEC would outperform a high
quality 6" apo on planetary performance.
Thanks,
Vahe
Vahe Sahakian
Chuck Gulker
likely, you would enjoy using any of them. If your primary observing goal,
however, is to see the maximum amount of information (aka 'detail') on
planets/lunar, I definitely go with the Starmaster/Zambuto 12.5 EL on an
equatorial platform. This telescope should consistently outperform the
others listed. If you then decide to go 'deep sky' observing, you will have
the perfect scope and be the envy of many. The 12.5 EL/platform would be
very easy to transport/setup/break down.
Best of luck in whatever you decide.
Chuck
GGK893 wrote in message <19991219022416...@ng-fg1.aol.com>...
>Hi, Im looking for a very high quality scope for primarly planetary/lunar
>visual observing. I need something fairly portable with quick
setup/takedown
>times. I have a total budget of $6500 not including EPs My current
>consideratons are: 5" APO w/G11 mount, 7"Mak-newt w/G-11 mount, 8-9"
Mak-Cass
>w/ G-11 mount, 10-12.5 truss dob w/ Zambutto mirrors and Equatorial
platform.
>What would you purchase? Thanks, George
Starvick
>visual observing. I need something fairly portable with quick setup/takedown
>times. I have a total budget of $6500 not including EPs My current
>consideratons are: 5" APO w/G11 mount, 7"Mak-newt w/G-11 mount, 8-9" Mak-Cass
>w/ G-11 mount, 10-12.5 truss dob w/ Zambutto mirrors and Equatorial platform.
>
>What would you purchase? Thanks, George
Hello George, so far you have gotten excellent advise from all who have
responded. I would like to share my 2 cents as well. I have found that as busy
as I am (and unorganized to) I often go observe with little notice, therefore
it is a high priority that packing/unpacking and set up/tear down can be done
quickly and simply. Also, cool down time must be as short as possible on week
nights because I have to go to work the next morning. If I feel that the
preparing to view is a hassle than I stay home instead of observing. My world
is always changing, I find it hard to keep up with at times so resale of an
astronomical instrument is important to me as well as the ability to easily
move up or down in size if my interest changes. Lastly when I am not viewing
the planets from my deck I am viewing with others from the club and most of
them do take the time and trouble to unload and set up large heavy Dobs often I
halp them with set up. As with most clubs everyone shares and compares views so
I always get to see plenty of deep sky views with large Dobs. Because of all of
these "real circumstances" that we have to live with I bought a 4" FS102 Tak,
put it on an AP 400QMD eq. mount and waited for AP to finaly ship their 5"
AP130 f6 to me.When the AP130 arrived I sold the Tak for nearly what I paid for
it and I am sure the same will be true for the AP if I ever need to sell it. My
set up time is under 5 min's. and it doesn't matter what kind of car/suv/truck
etc. I haul it in. After three years with a quality refractor I am still
satisfied with my decision FWIW. Also the Dob users are just as eager to view
through my refractor as I their Dobs, makes for good conversation and good
viewing.
Regards Jeff
e-mail, remove QQQ
Sue_and_Alan
If an 8" scope with a 22% obstruction is "blowing away" a 10" scope with 28%
central obstruction something is seriously amiss. Either something is wrong
with the larger scope (poor optics, bad collimation, poor cooling,...), or
someone is seeing what they want to see.
When comparing quality products, the use of "blows away" always makes me
wonder about the veracity of the claim.
Clear skies, Alan
ed_an...@my-deja.com wrote in message <83iun8$alr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
[SNIP]
>the only one telescope on a market was designed strictly for
>planetary and lunar work and fits your requirement in price,
>quality and portability - TEC 8" f/20
>The 8" f/20 is 34" long (without front baffle),weights 22 lb
>perfectly fits on G11, has long focal length 4000mm,
>central obstruction - less than 22%.
>The last one that we have delivered to the customer a week
>ago - blow away his 10" Mewlon Takahachi ( in the image
>quality, contrast ect...). [SNIP]
Chuck Gulker
route, your out-of-pocket cost will only be: $ 4,200......I even through in
the $ 495.00 digital setting circle option (Sky Commander). This total cost
includes shipping from Starmaster and shipping on the equatorial platform.
Again, you would have a darn nice package for both solar system AND deep
sky. You will not have a big equatorial mount/counter weights to mess with
and your total elapsed setup time should be thus reduced. Again, best of
luck. Chuck
Chuck Gulker wrote in message
<_1974.6529$Ld6....@typhoon.columbus.rr.com>...
WHALEN44
Why don't you give us some more details of your requirements and where and how
you observe (or like to).
Of all the scopes mentioned, the only one I would not consider for serious
planetary work is the dob for several reasons such as:
1. Eyepiece position
2. Truss design = less contrast (tougher to baffle)
3. Collimation tends to drift in some dobs over the coarse of an evening
observing.
4. Lower quality optics in many cases
5. Spider glare & scatter
6. Accurate tracking
7. They tend to blow around or viberate more in a
light breeze than a shorter tube scope with less sail area. Does that
upper cage ever remind anyone of a chinese kite?
Chuck Gulker
poor seeing where a smaller aperture might outperform it. In that case, I'd
go for the
APO refractor, on the theory that if the seeing conditions aren't good
enough for a 10"-12.5" Dob mirror to perform at its best, then it might not
be good enough for the 7"-9" compound scopes either. With the APO refractor,
at least you know you'll get outstanding quality without some of the optical
compromises in the compound scopes. But if you've got decent seeing, go for
the Dob. Aperture always wins, if the seeing is good enough and the mirror
Hi Mike, don't forget you can always stop down the larger apertures, but you
can't stop up the smaller telescopes. In reality, I rarely see anyone even
bother stopping down......a lot of times there are moments of at least
decent seeing when you want to use full aperture. On nights when the seeing
is flat out terrible, often times it's not worth being out with any
telescope. But on those at least decent to better seeing nights, the larger
telescopes with excellent optics really begin to shine and pull
away..........with detail popping out left and right.
Chuck
GGK893
>
>First off, where do you live? What are your local "seeing" conditions like?
>What about average temperature drop? Are you in the city or a rural
>community?
>
Hi, thanks for all the great response. I live in a northern suburb of NYC
(aout 50 miles north). Seeing conditions are pretty good but not great. So
cooldown is a factor. Thanks, George
WHALEN44
With your conditions I would probably lean toward a 5" APO (or a used 6" if you
can find one). Check out the offerings from Astrophysics and TMB Optical. If
you feel you need more aperture but don't mind waiting for a scope to cooldown,
The TEC 7" MNTfor $2,700 or 8" MCT for $3,300 might be a good choice along
with a G11 mount. I don't know what the 7" weighs, it may work on a GM8 mount
also (for visual use only). Yuri can address this I'm sure.
Also I have heard that TEC is into the APO market also on a custom order basis.
They offer achromats and apochromats up to 20" diameter I believe. I don't know
if they make a 5" though.
Astrophysics should be coming out with their quick cooldown 8" MCT pretty soon
I would hope, it is a very nice high quality scope also.
If you want to go even smaller, in the 4" size the TMB optical f 8 is hard to
beat, and is available off the shelf according to Markus.
You have lots of choices depending on what you want to achieve, and what your
priorities are.
I agonized over what type of scope to replace my HD145 with for two years. Best
to make a list of your expectations, wants, and don't wants. Then make a list
with each scope you are interested in with it's strong and weak points.
Try to compromise as little as possible on your wants and observing style. Your
choice of scope should be dictated by this, and not the other way around where
the scope dictates how you observe.
Chuck Gulker
serious planetary work is the dob for several reasons such as: >>
1. Eyepiece position
2. Truss design = less contrast (tougher to baffle)
3. Collimation tends to drift in some dobs over the coarse of an evening
observing.
4. Lower quality optics in many cases
5. Spider glare & scatter
6. Accurate tracking
7. They tend to blow around or viberate more in a
light breeze than a shorter tube scope with less sail area. Does
that
upper cage ever remind anyone of a chinese kite?
Richard Whalen >>
Hi Richard, we are indeed lucky to have several fine companies offering high
performance telescopes. As you know, everything boils down to pros-cons.
In the end, one needs to make a personal decision. Hopefully, these threads
spur some thought and help folks spend money wisely. It is not always
necessary to spend huge sums of cash on very complex telescope designs to
get really stupendous views. Often times, it is the 'KISS' (aka- 'keep it
simple stupid' philosophy which ultimately wins out in the end. Just a few
points to bring to the table for more discussion:
1. The Starmaster eyepiece height at zenith is only 65 inches. If you
check out this link: http://www.icstars.com/starmaster/StarmasterEL12.html
you'll see Carl Zambuto peering through the eyepiece with the scope near
zenith. Obviously if a person wants to sit down, this might not be the best
telescope. But if a sitting position is not a priority, then you can see
the 12.5 EL will work well standing. In the picture, it appears Carl has a
small concrete pad. This would add about the same height as a tracking
platform.
2. A light shroud is standard. In extra baffling is needed, it would not
be terribly difficult to add some extra shrouding in front of the cage
(possibly a kydex piece- velcro attached).
3. If this happens, it is very easily and simply addressed with the proper
collimation tools or laser unit.
4. Could happen with any size/type/manufacturer of scope. Luckily, Zambuto
optics have proven consistently excellent, with many nice mirrors in the
field.
5. Only one piece of the larger optical equation. It would seem a person
would have to weigh this factor against others....one of them being the
larger aperture the 12.5 brings to the table.
6. This should not be an issue with a nice platform. The Tom Osypowski
equatorial tracking platforms provide very consistent and reliable tracking
for visual observing. Only an occasional minor nudging would be needed.
They do work great.
http://astronomy-mall.com/regular/products/eq_platforms/
7. For 95% of observing, this will never be a problem. The Starmaster
units I've used do not 'sail' like some almost too easy to move Obsessions.
Chuck
Mike Barrs
news:pZ974.6543$Ld6....@typhoon.columbus.rr.com...
> Hi Mike, don't forget you can always stop down the larger apertures, but
you
> can't stop up the smaller telescopes. In reality, I rarely see anyone
even
> bother stopping down......a lot of times there are moments of at least
> decent seeing when you want to use full aperture. On nights when the
seeing
> is flat out terrible, often times it's not worth being out with any
> telescope. But on those at least decent to better seeing nights, the
larger
> telescopes with excellent optics really begin to shine and pull
> away..........with detail popping out left and right.
That's an excellent point. I'd rather have a scope that performs at 80% most
of the time with a 20% "reserve performance" that kicks in under unusual
conditions, than a scope that will only ever reach that 80% level.
I buy my cars that way too. A little extra horsepower never hurts as a
reserve, even if you can't use it all the time. :-)
Mike Barrs
teletex
I guess everybody has different opinions so her is my two
cents worth, I own a Tak Mewlon 250, ota can be had for about
$ 6K.
Now I know that is a lot of money for a ota but once you use one
you will appreciate what you bought!
A 10" apature that is very portable...27lbs, 3 vane spider,
electric secondary focusing for absolute zero image shift,
and last but not least killer optics.
I sold my 8" Mak-Newt & 10" Mak-Newt not that they were not
killer also but because the Tak 250 offers the same basic
views but is much more portable and tends to cool down much
faster!
IF portability is not of major concern than a high quality
long focus newt will do the job.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Chris Marriott
Larry Spann wrote in message <83jetl$lc5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Hi George,
>
>Check out Rick Singmaster's StarMaster dobs. They now come standard
>with Zambuto optics up to 20", the 14.5" sells for $3195, and Rick
>sells an excellent dob drive for around $2000. Todd Gross rates the
>16" and 18" StarMasters (the "old" ones with Pegasus optics)as the best
>of all scopes he's tested for planetary performance. Besides that, you
>can't beat Rick's customer service. I have an 18" with Pegasus optics
>that is fantastic on planets - and is very fast and easy to set
>up/take down.
I certainly wouldn't recommend a Dob to a person who wants a scope
specifically for planetary observing - this is an field where a "tracking"
telescope is almost manadatory! Planets are one of the few areas of
astronomy where very high magnifications can usefully be employed, and
having to reposition the telescope every few seconds, as you would with a
dob, is a real pain.
By all means go for an equatorially-mounted Newt but PLEASE not a Dob!
Chris
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marriott, SkyMap Software, UK (ch...@skymap.com)
Visit our web site at http://www.skymap.com
Astronomy software written by astronomers, for astronomers
Paul S. Walsh
system as well as the Dob - a combination which, it has been reported, would
make a very decent planetary observing system.
-Paul S. Walsh
http://www.seanet.com/~filmdos/m111
Chris Marriott <ch...@NOSPAM.skymap.com> wrote in message
news:945638646.12238.1...@news.demon.co.uk...
Mike Barrs
news:945638646.12238.1...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> Larry Spann wrote in message <83jetl$lc5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >Hi George,
> >
> >Check out Rick Singmaster's StarMaster dobs. They now come standard
> >with Zambuto optics up to 20", the 14.5" sells for $3195, and Rick
> >sells an excellent dob drive for around $2000. Todd Gross rates the
> >16" and 18" StarMasters (the "old" ones with Pegasus optics)as the best
> >of all scopes he's tested for planetary performance. Besides that, you
> >can't beat Rick's customer service. I have an 18" with Pegasus optics
> >that is fantastic on planets - and is very fast and easy to set
> >up/take down.
>
> I certainly wouldn't recommend a Dob to a person who wants a scope
> specifically for planetary observing - this is an field where a "tracking"
> telescope is almost manadatory! Planets are one of the few areas of
> astronomy where very high magnifications can usefully be employed, and
> having to reposition the telescope every few seconds, as you would with a
> dob, is a real pain.
>
> By all means go for an equatorially-mounted Newt but PLEASE not a Dob!
Why not a Dob on an equatorial platform drive? I've used scopes like that
for years. If you set them up correctly they can track at high power for
significant lengths of time. I think all the threads here recommending a Dob
did so on the assumption that it would include an EQ platform.
Dobs have such a lousy repution with some people, probably due to all the
low-end scopes out there. At any rate, if you've never seen a tracking Dob
with high-end optics, believe me... it's a different animal.
Mike Barrs
Mike Barrs
Mike Barrs <mba...@NOSPAM.mangonet.com> wrote in message
news:L4d74.12937$o97....@news3.mia...
> I think all the threads here recommending a Dob
> did so on the assumption that it would include an EQ platform.
>
Correction: the StarMaster mentioned in the thread above is a computerized
alt-az drive, sorry. That type of drive is another way to go, but I'd only
recommend it on a StarMaster where it's a factory option... unless you like
endless tinkering with your scope. :-) Those things aren't easy to install
yourself. By contrast, an EQ platform is very simple and easy to run.
Mike Barrs
Jeffrey S. Setzer
> visual observing. I need something fairly portable with quick
setup/takedown
> times. I have a total budget of $6500 not including EPs My current
> consideratons are: 5" APO w/G11 mount, 7"Mak-newt w/G-11 mount, 8-9"
Mak-Cass
> w/ G-11 mount, 10-12.5 truss dob w/ Zambutto mirrors and Equatorial
platform.
> What would you purchase? Thanks, George
Given that you want "quick setup/takedown" times, I would go for the 12.5"
truss Dob with equatorial platform. Given that you want to see the most, I'd
also go with the 12.5" truss Dob with equatorial platform.
Specifically, I'd recommend the Starmaster EL 12.5" f/5 telescope, and a
table from Equatorial Platforms. The whole package will show you the most,
set up the fastest, and fit well within your budget.
--
-Jeffrey S. Setzer
Astro(v1.1):LD(Starmaster)A(22") r- l+++ c- OT+ OB++(++++)
DS+>+++ PL+ F+(++) M+(++) P+ T++ D+ U+(++) S++>+++ W+ E++
(see http://www.xmission.com/~dnash/astrodir/astrogeek.html for details)
Jeff
when the monumental task of collimating them are competed some of the
best views can be attained with them. A guy in Ohio makes them and
his are superb, easy for him to collimate, and apparent aberrations
not very obvious.
They are for ATMs to make and use, catalog astronomers need not
apply.
Jeff
On Sun, 19 Dec 1999 19:20:19 GMT, ed_an...@my-deja.com wrote:
>In article <83j4qn$eq1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> lude...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> Hi Yuri,
>> your forgot the Shiefspieglers, made by Lichtenknecker Optics and AOK Swiss.
>> A 6" or 7" Schiefspiegler, well made is still fully transportable,
>> works on G11 and cost even less, than your combo
>> crazy Markus.
>
>Open tube, broken shape, very complex aligning, big off-
>axis aberrations... make the Shiefspieglers attractive mostly
>for you Markus. Myself I do not count the Shiefspieglers
>as presicion telescopes. And when comparing cost - do this
>for same aperture (8" Shiefspiegler vs. 8" TEC) and do not
>forget about delivery cost from Europe and no service after
>telescope was sold.
>
>
>> BTW: The seeing must have been worse for the bigger size of the Mewlon
>> or the mewlon must have been missaligned, otherwise the result would
>> have been diffrent to what you described.
>
>Seeing is always an excuse for some telescopes.
>Missaligning?.. of Mewlon... - it is not a case. This
>customer is pretty familiar with telescopes and has a
>collection of them including 10" APO refractor.
>Also it is not a first case when our telescopes outperforms
>TAKs. Myself I like TAK's mount, eyepieces, but telescope
>optics... some of US brands could be better and much
>better. We have tested a couple of refractors recently:
>TAK128 f/8.0 and AP130 f/6.3. The second one has much
>better (1/10) wave front and perfect color correction. TAK
>was only 1/6.2 wave front and had 0.8L for a blue
>line!!!
>
>BTW: is a missaligning a common to Mewlons? Do you
>have Markus any data about optical quality (PV and RMS)
>of Mewlons and Shiefspiegler?
>
>Yuri
Jeff
aperture than my pocket book can afford in the APO line. However, I
have a nice 26-inch Clark that is almost the right size. Wow, a
26-inch APO from Roland! Such a deal :)
Jeff, yes the real Jeff
On Sun, 19 Dec 1999 19:02:45 GMT, "Chuck Gulker"
<cgu...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
><< My $.02... for strictly visual observing, I'd go for the 12.5"
>Dob/Zambuto on the EQ platform, unless you live in an area with consistently
>poor seeing where a smaller aperture might outperform it. In that case, I'd
>go for the
>APO refractor, on the theory that if the seeing conditions aren't good
>enough for a 10"-12.5" Dob mirror to perform at its best, then it might not
>be good enough for the 7"-9" compound scopes either. With the APO refractor,
>at least you know you'll get outstanding quality without some of the optical
>compromises in the compound scopes. But if you've got decent seeing, go for
>the Dob. Aperture always wins, if the seeing is good enough and the mirror
>is good enough. Mike Barrs >>
>
>Hi Mike, don't forget you can always stop down the larger apertures, but you
>can't stop up the smaller telescopes. In reality, I rarely see anyone even
>bother stopping down......a lot of times there are moments of at least
>decent seeing when you want to use full aperture. On nights when the seeing
>is flat out terrible, often times it's not worth being out with any
>telescope. But on those at least decent to better seeing nights, the larger
>telescopes with excellent optics really begin to shine and pull
>away..........with detail popping out left and right.
>
>Chuck
>
>
Rich N.
One question, will your observing site frequently
have sub arc second seeing?
A fine 5" APO will show a wealth of detail but you may
find on a night of very good seeing the image will be
a little dim if want to use 300x or 400x observing Jupiter
or Saturn. Then again Jupiter is so large that at 250x
you will see lots of detail. A 5" PA (f/8 or f/6) is very
portable and something you would want to keep even if you
later get a larger telescope. I very much enjoy using my
Aster-Physics 130 EDT (f/8).
A well made 10" Newt (f/6?) on an equatorial table can
show outstanding planetary detail. It will give a bright enough
image to easily see colors in Jupiter's belts.
I find there is a difference in the image through a refractor. A larger
Newt. can show more detail but some people may prefer the image
in the refractor. Some people just like using one type of telescope.
I suggest you buy or design your planetary telescope to handle
a binocular viewer. They make extended observing much more
comfortable. In my case they let me more easily see low contrast
planetary detail. Also, get a good observing chair. If you are comfortable
at the eyepiece you will see more planetary detail.
A good German equatorial mount it will let you use it with many
different Oats. I guess the same is true for some equatorial tables,
some can take different sizes of Newtonian. You don't necessarily
need to buy a new equatorial table. It isn't so bad buying a new scope
if you are only buying a new OAT.
Good luck,
Rich
GGK893 wrote in message <19991219022416...@ng-fg1.aol.com>...
Chuck Gulker
low-end scopes out there. At any rate, if you've never seen a tracking Dob
with high-end optics, believe me... it's a different animal. Mike Barrs >>
Couldn't agree with you more Mike. The hobby moves in cycles/what's hot and
being used/talked about/exciting new telescopes: late 1970's-1980's-
Coulter era- mass number of very, very inexpensive telescopes of poor to
average optics. Early 1990's to current- AP apos and a large number of
average optic quality inexpensive small (6 to 8) dobsonians (examples:
Meade, Celestron, Orion). We have also seen an improvement in the larger
dob mirrors (15 inches and up), but still many of them remain questionable.
For the early 2000's, I think we'll see a rapidly growing interest shift
over to affordable very high quality medium sized Newtonian reflectors
(10-14 inches). This area has not been tapped and nurtured. The primary
configuration will remain dobsonian, with more and more riding on easy to
use/operate tracking platforms. We might see several new platform
manufactures enter the market to help support the rapidly growing numbers of
these medium sized dobs.
As these optically fine cannons begin showing up in greater and greater
numbers at club/large regional-national star parties, we'll begin seeing
more and more folks 'eyes pop out' at the amount of detail shown. Quality
views, ease of use, affordability, availability, simplicity, and resale will
be the benefit topics of discussion.
The very expensive, limited production telescopes will still be there (Maks,
apos, etc)--- this is good, however, we'll see increasing numbers of your
primarily casual/visual-based backyard amateurs who might be pondering
taking out a second mortgage and risking their marriage asking themselves
"are these telescopes really worth the much higher cost after what I have
recently seen in other less costly and simplier designs?". The good news in
the hobby is that we as customers will have more and more purchasing options
in our quest for the best possible views of the universe. If the answer to
the previous question is 'yes', then we have companies who will offer
products. If the answer to the question is 'no', then we also have options.
Chuck
Chuck Gulker
discuss the pros/cons in relation to exactly how you would use the
telescope. You might learn something that triggers a thought to helping
make the best decision. You will also learn something about their company
philosophy, servicing, availablity, etc. When you spend possibly up to $
6,200, you owe this to yourself.
Jeffrey D. Gortatowsky
give something more thought than I might have. Even if I keep a healthy
skepticism about me, I still learn something. If not perfect, TEC's prices
certainly would make one think about their scopes. Though I must admit I'd
still love to have one of Markus' APOs.
Thanks.
Ratboy99
suggestion of a 12.5" driven Dob would be out of the question where I live, if
the use is exclusively for lunar and planetary. Maybe it would be appropriate
in Florida, but here in the Rockies, half the time I can't get a decent image
in my 10", let alone a larger scope.
rat
~( );>
Larry Spann
"Paul S. Walsh" <fil...@seanet.com> wrote:
> Hello, Chris... I believe Mr. Spann was suggesting Starmaster's
GOTO/Drive
> system as well as the Dob - a combination which, it has been
reported, would
> make a very decent planetary observing system.
>
Right on! The StarMaster drive system is absolutely superb. And there
have been several reports of observing detail on Ganymede at 1100X with
one of Rick's 18-inchers during nights of excellent seeing. I've had
mine up to 700X on Jupiter with great results, but since I don't have
the drive (yet!), it is a bit of a hassle keeping it in the fov.
Larry Spann
WHALEN44
By your comments it is obvious you are not a dedicated planetary observer, or
if you are, you are a glutton for punishment :-)
Sitting down is almost a necessity for the planetary observer. Unlike the deep
sky observer who is moving the scope around every few minutes to a new object,
the planetary observer might spend 8 hours on the same object.
I find that to pick out the finest detail, you have to be able to keep your
head relatively still for long periods of time, this is impossible to do
standing up.
This by itself precludes a dob in most cases.
Now if you are just a casual planetary observer, or a serious planetary imager,
the dob or Newtonian is probably your best choice.
Plus look at where George observers from. A location with huge temperature drop
and so - so seeing conditions. Not really the best situation for a large
mirror, would you agree? Sure it's great to have that 15" mirror on that once a
year night, but having to lug a scope with the extra mass a larger mirror
brings to the table in and out every night, is a real pain. Efficiency
sometimes has it's own rewards.
And who wants to collimate a scope more than once a night?
I have used several scopes with Zambuto mirrors, and agree he makes nice
mirrors.
deljo...@my-deja.com
with Dobsonians, which I agree is often underestimated. The Dobsonian
always offers a horizontal view; it is just a matter of the height of
the chair.
I also think that deep sky objects are worthy of lengthy views and
really dislike the "Messier Marathon" mentality.
Del Johnson
In article <19991220010025...@ng-da1.aol.com>,
whal...@aol.com (WHALEN44) wrote:
> Hi Chuck,
>
> By your comments it is obvious you are not a dedicated planetary
observer, or
> if you are, you are a glutton for punishment :-)
>
> Sitting down is almost a necessity for the planetary observer. Unlike
the deep
> sky observer who is moving the scope around every few minutes to a
new object,
> the planetary observer might spend 8 hours on the same object.
>
>
> Richard Whalen
> whal...@aol.com
>
> "Time spent observing the heavens is not deducted from your lifespan"
>
deljo...@my-deja.com
1. What's wrong with a horizontal eyepiece position? You just need an
adjustable chair. Several models are avaialble.
2. A truss does not have much in the way of internal reflections, and
thus has much less need for baffles than a solid tube. Having said
that, there is nothing stopping you from attaching baffles to the truss
structure. I have added baffles to mine.
3. I have checked collimation drift from zenith to horizon (and over
time) with a laser, and there is none. This is simply a design issue.
My mirror is not on a springy substrate.
4. Any telescope can have good or bad optics. Good mirrors are easily
obtainable, much more easier than obtaining good refractive optics (how
long is the AP waiting list?).
5. A valid point, but not a big deal. I only see spikes on the very
brightest objects like Jupiter and the brightest stars. Not an issue
with Saturn.
6. My equatorial platform tracks better than any conventioanl mount
that I have tried. I have the astrophotos to prove it.
7. That is a matter of telescope size rather than type. A refractor
has even more sail area than a reflector of equal aperture.
Del Johnson
In article <19991219135919...@ng-cc1.aol.com>,
whal...@aol.com (WHALEN44) wrote:
>
> Of all the scopes mentioned, the only one I would not consider for
serious
> planetary work is the dob for several reasons such as:
>
> 1. Eyepiece position
> 2. Truss design = less contrast (tougher to baffle)
> 3. Collimation tends to drift in some dobs over the coarse of an
evening
> observing.
> 4. Lower quality optics in many cases
> 5. Spider glare & scatter
> 6. Accurate tracking
> 7. They tend to blow around or viberate more in a
> light breeze than a shorter tube scope with less sail area.
Does that
> upper cage ever remind anyone of a chinese kite?
>
deljo...@my-deja.com
are Newtonian reflectors, don't you think that you should offer one as
a viable candidate? They all beat the 6" AP refractor.
Del Johnson
In article <19991219151726...@ng-cc1.aol.com>,
Todd Gross
>Matthew Ota <otak...@loop.com> wrote in message
>news:385CE30B...@loop.com...
>> Go with a refractor for the best results in planetary astronomy.
>> It has the highest contrast when viewing extended objects.
>
>Unless your local seeing permits larger aperture, in which case a Newtonian
>wins. You get high contrast with zero obstruction on a refractor, but you
>get even higher contrast and more resolution by increasing the aperture.
>
>Mike Barrs
>
>
very well put!
I have judged some scopes in terms of relative planetary performance as best I
could (hard to wait for great seeing conditions) at
http://www.weatherman.com/scope.htm
Todd Gross
it only takes a Newtonian, you know...
one doesn't have to resort to a complex design necessarily
Todd Gross
>Go with a refractor for the best results in planetary astronomy.
>It has the highest contrast when viewing extended objects.
depends on seeing conditions.. urban myth
Todd Gross
>GGK893 <ggk...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:19991219022416...@ng-fg1.aol.com...
>> visual observing. I need something fairly portable with quick
>setup/takedown
>> times. I have a total budget of $6500 not including EPs My current
>> consideratons are: 5" APO w/G11 mount, 7"Mak-newt w/G-11 mount, 8-9"
>Mak-Cass
>> w/ G-11 mount, 10-12.5 truss dob w/ Zambutto mirrors and Equatorial
>platform.
>> What would you purchase? Thanks, George
>
>
>My $.02... for strictly visual observing, I'd go for the 12.5" Dob/Zambuto
>on the EQ platform, unless you live in an area with consistently poor seeing
>where a smaller aperture might outperform it. In that case, I'd go for the
>APO refractor, on the theory that if the seeing conditions aren't good
>enough for a 10"-12.5" Dob mirror to perform at its best, then it might not
>be good enough for the 7"-9" compound scopes either. With the APO refractor,
>at least you know you'll get outstanding quality without some of the optical
>compromises in the compound scopes.
>
>But if you've got decent seeing, go for the Dob. Aperture always wins, if
>the seeing is good enough and the mirror is good enough.
>
>
>Mike Barrs
No, don't duck.. you are making a good point. The diffraction spikes from the
spider veins are the only problem with the Dobnewt. It can be distracting to a
small degree. Also.. I have had great success stopping down my 18" dob to 6.7"
(and earlier 6.2" on the 16" dob) at times of not-so-great seeing conditions..
works like a charm SOMETIMES in certain kinds of seeing conditions.
See the January issue of Sky and Tel. for at least a hint at how to determine
when seeing MIGHT be okay
Todd
Todd Gross
>Hi Chuck,
>
>By your comments it is obvious you are not a dedicated planetary observer, or
>if you are, you are a glutton for punishment :-)
>
>Sitting down is almost a necessity for the planetary observer. Unlike the deep
>sky observer who is moving the scope around every few minutes to a new object,
>the planetary observer might spend 8 hours on the same object.
>
>head relatively still for long periods of time, this is impossible to do
>standing up.
>
>This by itself precludes a dob in most cases.
not all cases. . good reason to pick out a high quality - low f/ratio scope. I
agree with you on this, sitting IS better
The 7" starmaster and 10" teleport, the 8" portaball, and I think a couple of
other smaller dobs I have tried were all sitting down
Todd Gross
>>Hi George,
>>
>>First off, where do you live? What are your local "seeing" conditions like?
>>What about average temperature drop? Are you in the city or a rural
>>community?
>>
>
>Hi, thanks for all the great response. I live in a northern suburb of NYC
>(aout 50 miles north). Seeing conditions are pretty good but not great. So
>cooldown is a factor. Thanks, George
no, seeing conditions are bad in NYC northern suburbs.
Todd Gross
Richard, I am greatly enjoying your advice, it is well thought out. I would
like to comment on below:
>Why don't you give us some more details of your requirements and where and how
>you observe (or like to).
>
>Of all the scopes mentioned, the only one I would not consider for serious
>planetary work is the dob for several reasons such as:
>
>1. Eyepiece position
Certain dobs such as the 10" Teleport are used sitting down
>2. Truss design = less contrast (tougher to baffle)
probably true
>3. Collimation tends to drift in some dobs over the coarse of an evening
>observing.
I have not had that problem in many of the dobs I have tried. I did have that
problem on some...
>4. Lower quality optics in many cases
not the ones mentioned here
>5. Spider glare & scatter
yup, although smaller dobs can be built with a curved spider partially
resolving that problem
>6. Accurate tracking
the starmaster tracking is fairly accurate, but not yet perfect0
>7. They tend to blow around or viberate more in a
> light breeze than a shorter tube scope with less sail area. Does that
>upper cage ever remind anyone of a chinese kite?
yup
The reason that one should consider a dob, as pointed out by others is simply
you can get larger optics (ie better performance givin good seeing) and well
figured optics (like zambuto/swayze/pegasus/excelsior/more...) at a reasonable
cost, and easily transportable package. Your lifestyle really will have a lot
to do with your final choice, and as Richard points out, also your local
weather circumstances.
I also like dobs because some can set up so quickly. The 10" Teleport for
instance, sets up in hardly any time at all.
Todd
Todd Gross
>
>Check out Rick Singmaster's StarMaster dobs. They now come standard
>with Zambuto optics up to 20", the 14.5" sells for $3195, and Rick
>sells an excellent dob drive for around $2000. Todd Gross rates the
>16" and 18" StarMasters (the "old" ones with Pegasus optics)as the best
>of all scopes he's tested for planetary performance. Besides that, you
>can't beat Rick's customer service. I have an 18" with Pegasus optics
>that is fantastic on planets - and is very fast and easy to set
>up/take down.
>
>Larry Spann
>
The aperture is making the difference there at times of great seeing. As I
have mentioned, the 5" apo, also mentioned in this thread, performed
wonderfully, but comparing it directly to a 12.5" Portaball on a night with
exceptional seeing (rare at my location) there was absolutely no mistaking
that the 12.5" was showing far more detail. Most of the time, however, this
was not the case. It's as Chuck, Mike and others have pointed out previously
in the thread.. it may be nice to know you have the extra aperture, just in
case it's needed. I have to admit, at my location, I have often thought the
extra aperture has been more or less "waisted"
Todd Gross
>specifically for planetary observing - this is an field where a "tracking"
>telescope is almost manadatory! Planets are one of the few areas of
>astronomy where very high magnifications can usefully be employed, and
>having to reposition the telescope every few seconds, as you would with a
>dob, is a real pain.
>
>By all means go for an equatorially-mounted Newt but PLEASE not a Dob!
>
>Chris
Chris.. remember, some of those dobs are TRACKING
Chris Marriott
Todd Gross wrote in message ...
>Chris.. remember, some of those dobs are TRACKING
If they track, are they still Dobs? Would John Dobson approve? :-)
deljo...@my-deja.com
one while looing through binoculars. The point being that the Dob
simply sits on the platform, and is still the same Dob. No redesign is
required, and the platform can be purchased later on. The Dob retains
the classical Dobsonian alt-az movement, so it is still a Dob.
Del Johnson
In article <945697851.7554.0...@news.demon.co.uk>,
Andy Wallace
Tom Noe now has a 14.5" Zambuto Teleport--it is a beauty.
Andy
Jeff
false impression that aesthetics defines telescopic image quality.
When one begins to seriously investigate objects in telescopes they
will not pay much attention to diffraction spikes.
Jeff
On Mon, 20 Dec 1999 11:19:23 GMT, to...@weatherman.com (Todd Gross)
wrote:
Mike Barrs
news:945697851.7554.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> Todd Gross wrote in message ...
> >Chris.. remember, some of those dobs are TRACKING
>
>
> If they track, are they still Dobs? Would John Dobson approve? :-)
>
> Chris
Well, here's a story about that... :-)
When I bought my first Dob, it was a 15" truss model with an integrated EQ
platform. The builder (Andy Johnson of now-defunct Jupiter Telescopes) made
both the scope and the platform to work together, and he wouldn't sell
either one separately. Andy maintained that it was an equatorial Newtonian,
and he said John Dobson would pitch a fit if we called this a Dob. To my eye
it sure looked like a Dob once you got past the platform, but I understand
why Andy was trying to make that distinction. He was trying to sell to
higher-end buyers, and he thought there was a cheapness stigma associated
with the word "Dob."
Several years later, I met John Dobson at a star party. He's a great guy...
a little wacky with the cosmology stuff, but otherwise a very interesting
person. He spent about 30 minutes hanging out at my scope with a bunch of
other people, and I remember we spent some time looking at the Rosette
Nebula. The tracking table was running and the view was nicely centered. The
only thing we talked about was astrophysics (he corrected a bad explanation
I was giving some bystanders about the reason for the dark area in the
center of the nebula). He never mentioned the tracking, and we never talked
about telescope hardware at all. I'd take that as a tacit approval of
tracking applied to the Dobsonian design, because he had plenty of
opportunity to complain about it. :-)
Dobson isn't all that much into hardware anyway. He'd probably consider all
this talk about name distinctions, tracking vs. no tracking, and planetary
telescopes to be a foolish waste of time. He would tell us to get off our
computers and start dragging people over to look through our telescopes.
Mike Barrs
Brad
>
>
>Richard Whalen
>whal...@aol.com
>
Eight hours on the same object????? Now that is observing. :-)
Brad
Shoot for the moon, for if you miss, you will be among the stars.....
Chris Marriott
Mike Barrs wrote in message ...
<snipped>
Great story, Mike! Thanks for sharing it.
Chris
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
WHALEN44
Glad to see you weigh in here. Welcome to the fray!
I agree you can sit with smaller dobs, but what do you do about that big heater
near the end of the tube screwing up the "very local" seeing? I always have had
a problem with this with small dobs I have owned or used.
I live in an area with excellent seeing in the summer months, very good seeing
in spring & fall, and less than desirable seeing in the winter. In fact, in the
winter it sucks most of the time. Last night never got better than 1.5 arc
second.
Still I would bet it is much better than where George lives. And having owned
and used dozens of scopes over the last 30 + years for planetary observing from
60mm up to 400mm +, I find that day in, and day out the most useful apertures
are from 7" to 9" 70% of the time. Another 25% of the time 5" is the upper
limit for usable aperture, with the remaining 5% allowing for use of 10"+
aperture scopes. And this is from a "very good" location seeing wise. Where
George lives it's likely to be worse, much worse.
Sure it's nice to have that 10"+ aperture scope for those magic 5% moments, but
I find that the extra time it takes to cooldown (or warm up) a larger
mirror, plus the added weight, is just not worth it to me to deal with on a
nightly basis.
And I tried the aperture mask route for years, I don't think they always work
as well as some would have you believe. And you still have the mass of a large
mirror to cool down, and to move around.
As far as the Teleport, neat scope. I used one a bit at the last WSP north.
However I don't think it is optimized for nightly use in the back yard, but
more for transport in or on a small vehicle like a motorcycle etc. Not that it
can't be used in this way, but a solid tube 10" dob with Zambuto optic's would
work just as well (and perhaps better) at 1/2 the cost, don't you think?
Anyways, I waiting to hear more about your 225 Tak SCT. My 8" f 15.5 TEC
arrived over a week ago now, still evaluating it. The weather of coarse has
sucked since it's arrival after a month of clear, transparent, and steady
skies. The Jet Stream has moved south for the winter I fear.......
Steady Skies,
Richard Whalen
WHALEN44
And it's not as boring as you may think on certain planets like Jupiter were
you are being treated to a different view as it rotates and the dance of it's
moons. I have been know to do a bit of sketching from time to time, and
sometimes wish Jupiter would rotate even slower or just stop on demand :-)
Richard
Jeff
have had a wooden Budda with him :)
Jeff
MHarveyWW1
I'll be placing an order this week!!!!!
The 10" Teleport has won the title as "All-Time Most-Used" scope ever!
It is just soooo easy that its hard to find a reason NOT to take it out at
night. BUT...I've had 'easy-to-use' scopes before that did NOT generate this
much usage and enjoyment (last title-holder was the TeleVue 140) simply because
they were considerably smaller in aperture (and hence -performance).
That Zambuto mirror is nothing short of a marvel and planetary performance is
superb.
Mike Harvey
Jan Owen
Actually, you may be surprised to find that some deep sky observers also
spend long periods observing one object. My wife sometimes joins me
periodically for a look, but is often surprised to find I'm still looking at
M42 or the Double Cluster (sometimes with two or three telescopes focused on
the same object) when she comes back several hours later for another look.
She finds this difficult to understand... Ahhh, well...
In general, I agree with your comments. Although, with appropriate
observing chairs, seated observing with Dobs up to about 14" is relatively
doable, depending on focal lengths. I do all my observing with all five of
my current scopes while seated.
Because I, too, have back problems, standing at the eyepiece for hours on
end, or bending over a scope like the grinning individual on Orion's catalog
covers (think what eight hours in THAT position will feel like tomorrow...),
is not an option for me. So observing chairs are a must for me. I've
actually gone as far, in one case, as fabricating my own Dobsonian so the
entire eyepiece arc is accessible from a seated position).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------
WHALEN44 wrote in message <19991220010025...@ng-da1.aol.com>...
>Hi Chuck,
>
>By your comments it is obvious you are not a dedicated planetary observer,
or
>if you are, you are a glutton for punishment :-)
>
>Sitting down is almost a necessity for the planetary observer. Unlike the
deep
>sky observer who is moving the scope around every few minutes to a new
object,
>the planetary observer might spend 8 hours on the same object.
>
>I find that to pick out the finest detail, you have to be able to keep your
>head relatively still for long periods of time, this is impossible to do
>standing up.
>
>This by itself precludes a dob in most cases.
>
>Now if you are just a casual planetary observer, or a serious planetary
imager,
>the dob or Newtonian is probably your best choice.
>
>Plus look at where George observers from. A location with huge temperature
drop
>and so - so seeing conditions. Not really the best situation for a large
>mirror, would you agree? Sure it's great to have that 15" mirror on that
once a
>year night, but having to lug a scope with the extra mass a larger mirror
>brings to the table in and out every night, is a real pain. Efficiency
>sometimes has it's own rewards.
>
>And who wants to collimate a scope more than once a night?
>
>I have used several scopes with Zambuto mirrors, and agree he makes nice
>mirrors.
>
>
>
Chris Marriott
Jan Owen wrote in message ...
>In general, I agree with your comments. Although, with appropriate
>observing chairs, seated observing with Dobs up to about 14" is relatively
>doable, depending on focal lengths. I do all my observing with all five of
>my current scopes while seated.
What I've often wondered is how people with these huge 20"+ telescopes
actually use them. I can't imagine there's ANY comfortable way to view for
long hours whilst precariously perched 3 metres up a ladder in the dark!
That's why I've always liked refractors and fork-mounted SCTs - they offer
comfortable seated observing positions.
Would any user of a large telescope like to comment on how they go about
actually using it comfortably?
WHALEN44
Nope, not at all. Ask Todd how often those 18" scopes at full aperture
outperform his 6" APO? Or which gives the more pleasing view 95% of the time.
How often does Todd set up those larger scopes? I get the distinct impression
(I may be wrong) that Todd is more of an all around observer, not a dedicated
planetary observer. Todd can address this.
Planetary observing is not about one great view every month or two, but about
very good views as often as possible. I think Todd's list is probably more
about that once a month view, when the seeing is great, the temps fairly steady
etc.
By that critera perhaps a 36" Newtonian would be the way to go. I heard a
group recently saw some unreal ring detail on Saturn using Tom Clarks new 36"
Dob.
Rockett Crawford
deljo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I have successfully addressed most of these issues:
>
> 1. What's wrong with a horizontal eyepiece position? You just need an
> adjustable chair. Several models are avaialble.
>
> 2. A truss does not have much in the way of internal reflections, and
> thus has much less need for baffles than a solid tube. Having said
> that, there is nothing stopping you from attaching baffles to the truss
> structure. I have added baffles to mine.
Good point. Many people use a black cloth which works very
well on open tubes.
> 3. I have checked collimation drift from zenith to horizon (and over
> time) with a laser, and there is none. This is simply a design issue.
> My mirror is not on a springy substrate.
>
> 4. Any telescope can have good or bad optics. Good mirrors are easily
> obtainable, much more easier than obtaining good refractive optics (how
> long is the AP waiting list?).
>
> 5. A valid point, but not a big deal. I only see spikes on the very
> brightest objects like Jupiter and the brightest stars. Not an issue
> with Saturn.
That has been my experience with reflectors also. Photographically
you might occasionally see spikes on stars, but some feel that this is a
plus
rather than a negative effect.
> 6. My equatorial platform tracks better than any conventioanl mount
> that I have tried. I have the astrophotos to prove it.
>
> 7. That is a matter of telescope size rather than type. A refractor
> has even more sail area than a reflector of equal aperture.
Good point. The exception might be a refractor with a built in
telecompressor, but on the whole refractors are much longer
per aperture inch because they typically have high f/ratios.
Some mounts made for larger refractors have to stand much
taller because of this.
take care,
Rockett Crawford
Rockett Crawford
WHALEN44 wrote:
> Hi Del,
>
> Nope, not at all. Ask Todd how often those 18" scopes at full aperture
> outperform his 6" APO? Or which gives the more pleasing view 95% of the time.
Todd has mentioned that his 18 inch seems to work well stopped down to
a small 6 inch aperture during poorer seeing. Please correct me if I'm
misstating you Todd.
The best view I have ever had of Jupiter by far came with it a couple of
months ago in exceptionally steady seeing using it's full aperture.
Rockett Crawford
Dave & Frani Pisak
WHALEN44 <whal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991220143652...@ng-cb1.aol.com...
> Hi Del,
>
> Nope, not at all. Ask Todd how often those 18" scopes at full aperture
> outperform his 6" APO? Or which gives the more pleasing view 95% of the
time.
Funny you should mention those two scopes, over the past 2 months I've been
doing comparisons between a recently acquired 18" Starmaster with the GOTO
and my 6" Takahashi refractor on planetary. At first I was skeptical the
dob
would be in the same league as the refractor, but I must admit to being
pleasantly
surprised. On Saturn, there is no question the 18" outperforms the 6". If
the
seeing is anywhere decent, Saturn eats power like candy and 6" is not enough
aperture if you want to resolve any ring divisions besides Cassini. Jupiter
many
times is a different animal. The vast majority of the time the 6" provides
at least
more detail, (or at worst equal) to the 18". Seeing plays a role of course,
so it
is possible it just hasn't been good enough to exploit the 18" in the past 2
months
here in NE PA. I've tried aperture masks but never really liked them, in my
experience they just reduce the amount of detail and color saturation. just
for
the record, both scopes are stored in an unheated garage so cool down is
achieved in two hours or less with the dob and almost instantly with the
Tak.
Collimation is something I take great care in doing so the scopes (I
collimated
the refractor as well) perform to their full potential.
Just my not so humble opinion,
Dave
WHALEN44
I think you are missing my point. You want to lug around and set up a 18" dob
that can only be used to good effect on the planets stopped down to 6" aperture
on most nights? You want to wait for a large mirror to cool every night?
My expericence with stopping down large aperture scopes in average seeing
conditions is a bit different than Todds. Roland showed me the error of my ways
at WSP several years ago when we compared his 5.1" EDF to my 12.5" f 6 dob
stopped down to 5.25". The EDF won. I was shocked at the difference. And yes
the 12.5" was collimated and had a good mirror. And it was operating at f
14.28!
>Todd has mentioned that his 18 inch seems to work well stopped down to
>a small 6 inch aperture during poorer seeing. Please correct me if I'm
>misstating you Todd.
>
>The best view I have ever had of Jupiter by far came with it a couple of
>months ago in exceptionally steady seeing using it's full aperture.
>
>Rockett Crawford
Richard Whalen
Chuck Gulker
it.....maybe someday. Best of luck.
Chuck
MHarveyWW1 wrote in message
<19991220135755...@ng-bh1.aol.com>...
Andy Wallace
appear to be more to observe in deep space :) Here, the 18"--or larger--
dob rules! :)
WHALEN44
Of coarse, that's why god made globulars! And your right, for deepsky there is
nothing like quality aperture. I think my favorite aperture in this regard is
16" to 20" for my own scope and of coarse 42" plus of someone elses :-).
Problem is to take full advantage of these scopes you need dark skies, and
where I live that means at least a 2.25 hour drive.
So I figure I want the best scope for planetary observing from my home, and for
deep sky, I go up to CAV, home of the new 36" Yard Scope and beg for views from
Tom. Or if Mike Harvey is there I can steal views through his wonderful large
scopes.
I just wish someone up there would build a 60".
>Do you ever get tired of looking at Saturn and Jupiter? There would appear to
be more to observe in deep space :) Here, the 18"--or larger-- dob rules! :)>
Rockett Crawford
WHALEN44 wrote:
> Hi Rockett,
>
> I think you are missing my point. You want to lug around and set up a 18" dob
> that can only be used to good effect on the planets stopped down to 6" aperture
> on most nights? You want to wait for a large mirror to cool every night?
>
A 6 inch refractor on a decent EQ mount isn't exactly "grab and run" either. :^)
take care,
Rockett
Chuck Gulker
<< By your comments it is obvious you are not a dedicated planetary
observer, or if you are, you are a glutton for punishment :-) >>
Not sure what 'dedicated' means to you, but I can tell you I am not Percival
Lowell <g>. I do, however, spend a fair amount of time observing the
planets throughout the year. This Fall, I was out virtually every clear
evening. I'm lucky in that I just open open my den door, walk 20 feet,
setup in 4 or 5 minutes, and I'm all set. Perfect, unobstructed view of the
ecliptic......this by design when we built our house. With respects to 'a
glutton for punishment', often times I would agree this as being a fair
assessment of me.
<< Sitting down is almost a necessity for the planetary observer. Unlike the
deep sky observer who is moving the scope around every few minutes to a new
object, the planetary observer might spend 8 hours on the same object. I
find that to pick out the finest detail, you have to be able to keep your
head relatively still for long periods of time, this is impossible to do
standing up. >>
I too find it useful to sit down while observing. In fact, when observing
in my backyard, I almost always observe sitting. I have a really neat solid
maple observing chair which adjusts as high as 32 inches. Even with my 10
inch F6 with the planets at their highest altitude, I can observe sitting
with the eyepiece as high as 62 inches off the ground. The Starmaster 12.5
EL I was recommending has the exact same overall height dimensions as my 10
inch F6 tube design. I thus would see no real problem using a chair with
the Starmaster 12.5 EL.
<< This by itself precludes a dob in most cases. >>
Only true when the eyepiece height exceeds about 62 inches.
<< Plus look at where George observers from. A location with huge
temperature drop and so - so seeing conditions. Not really the best
situation for a large mirror, would you agree? Sure it's great to have that
15" mirror on that once a year night, but having to lug a scope with the
extra mass a larger mirror brings to the table in and out every night, is a
real pain. Efficiency sometimes has it's own rewards. >>
George's location is not all that much different than much of America. In
fact, Columbus, Ohio where I live has big temperature drops. Luckily with
the trend to thinner mirrors, open mirror cells, and use of inexpensive
fans, this problem is becoming less of an issue. I would think George would
get more than 'that once a year night' when a larger aperture would be of
tremendous benefit. With respects to lugging around, luckily there are new
dobsonian designs coming out that really break down the weights and allow
for very, very transport and setup. Even at 12.5 inches, the new Starmaster
EL only has the following weights:
Mirror box including the mirror and cell: 44 lbs.
Truss assembly and secondary cage: 14 lbs.
Rocker Box: 21 lbs.
This makes setup a piece of cake and surely not tougher than setting up a
medium sized equatorial mount (example G11) and tube assembly.
<< And who wants to collimate a scope more than once a night? >>
No one. Luckily, companies are building better and better primary mirror
cells which will not need more than one collimation per night. In my own
case, I have never collimated more than once per night.
<< I have used several scopes with Zambuto mirrors, and agree he makes nice
mirrors. >>
I really think he is doing us amateurs a big service. He is providing
consistently high quality optics at very reasonable prices. His efforts
will allow greater and greater numbers of individuals to experience truly
fine astronomical views. I think we would agree, this is a good thing and
will only help our hobby grow.
Chuck
David Smith
>
> Todd Gross wrote in message ...
> >Chris.. remember, some of those dobs are TRACKING
>
> If they track, are they still Dobs? Would John Dobson approve? :-)
John would not call them Dobsonians, because he doesn't use the word.
He calls them sidewalk telescopes.
David Smith
Rich N.
Dave & Frani Pisak wrote in message ...
-snip
>surprised. On Saturn, there is no question the 18" outperforms the 6". If
>the
>seeing is anywhere decent, Saturn eats power like candy and 6" is not
enough
>aperture if you want to resolve any ring divisions besides Cassini.
Jupiter
>many
-snip
Hi Dave,
Which other divisions? Enckes?
Rich
Rich N.
deljo...@my-deja.com wrote in message <83ltco$a0e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Since the first four "best planetary" telescopes on Todd Gross' list
>are Newtonian reflectors, don't you think that you should offer one as
>a viable candidate? They all beat the 6" AP refractor.
>
>Del Johnson
The Ceravolo HD-216 and Astro-Physics 180 EDT are
two fine but recently discontinued planetary telescopes.
Rich
Rockett Crawford
Rockett Crawford wrote:
> Andy Wallace wrote:
>
> > Rockett--
> >
> > I can set my 18" up faster that John S. can set up his AP 155 on his 900
> > mount and pier :)
>
> I bet your right. :^)
>
Whoops...wouldn't want anyone to think I'm deliberately trying to
make their lives more difficult. :^) I meant:
I bet you're right.
take care,
Rockett Crawford
-----------------------------------
Capella's Observatory
http://web2.airmail.net/capella
Rockett Crawford
Andy Wallace wrote:
> Rockett--
>
> I can set my 18" up faster that John S. can set up his AP 155 on his 900
> mount and pier :)
I bet your right. :^)
Reid Williams
WHALEN44 wrote in message <19991220122952.25883.00000433@ng->Anyways, I
waiting to hear more about your 225 Tak SCT. My 8" f 15.5 TEC
>arrived over a week ago now, still evaluating it. The weather of coarse
has
>sucked since it's arrival after a month of clear, transparent, and steady
>skies. The Jet Stream has moved south for the winter I fear.......
>
>Steady Skies,
>
>Richard Whalen
>
Richard, did you (or anyone here) ever consider one of the DGM Off-Axis long
focus newts?
Thanks.
Reid Williams
Rich N.
Chuck Gulker wrote in message
<0VA74.6748$Ld6....@typhoon.columbus.rr.com>...
><< Nope, not at all. Ask Todd how often those 18" scopes at full aperture
>outperform his 6" APO? >>
>
>
>Chuck
But Todd, I believe, is making a business of looking through a number
of different telescopes. So his reason for using and getting rid of
any particular scope may not be the same as an amateur astronomer.
Rich
Peter Natscher
for
hours on end by leaning against a 5' step ladder while looking through the
eyepiece.
I'm 6'-3" tall and only need to step on the ladder's first rung for my eye to
be at that
scope's eyepiece. I am a visual observer and will be glued at a 4mm Zeiss Abbe
Ortho for hours to catch detail on Mars, Jupiter and Saturn as well as deep-sky
planetaries. I love bringing my scopes up to 500-600x if I can get away with
it. I find many observers afraid to go over 30X per inch. I guess it forces
them to acknowledge how good their optics really are.
I would wheel the whole 14.5" StarMaster dob out of my garage onto the backyard
lawn to cool down—in one hour. It was so easy to use, I've sold that scope and
have a 20" f/4.25 StarMaster with drives and Zambuto mirror coming to me in a
few months. In all the nights that I've rolled out that 14.5" scope, I was glad
to have had that larger aperture working for me. In at least half of those
evenings its 14.5" Pegasus mirror would perform reasonably well , still blowing
away my 8.5" Ceravolo Mak-Newt in contrast and image brightness. Some planets
and deep sky objects need aperture to get more brightness (i.e, Saturn and
planetaries).
The 14.5" StarMaster was driven by Rick Singmaster's built-in drive system
along the with GoTo system he installs. It's a great system and one I can't
wait to use in the upcoming 20"
scope. It tracks very well at 600+ power. You need tracking at high power for
observing planets and planetaries.
Peter Natscher
Jacksonville, Oregon
Chris Marriott wrote:
> Jan Owen wrote in message ...
>
David G. Fitzgerald
telescopes since 1958 of many different sizes and designs, and in different
lighting/seeing conditions. My own personal observation is that aperture wins,
even in suburban/ urban skies. A well collimated Newt or SCT of large aperture,
8-16, is always capable of showing more detail, contrast, and definition than any
smaller aperture instrument, regardless of design, with good optical components
of course. For planetary work, my experience is that a careful polar alignment
and the weather "seeing" condition has the most to do with imaging quality on any
given night, and this can be compensated by eyepiece selection, and filter
selection. I do use a 5 inch refractor, but I am not nieve enough to say that it
will give better resolution than my C11 or my homemade 16 Newt. I'll admit, I do
not have calibrated eyeballs as some seem to suggest, but from many years
experience, I will state that aperture wins, even in surburban and or urban
locations.
Todd Gross wrote:
> In article <385CE30B...@loop.com>, Matthew Ota <otak...@loop.com> wrote:
> >Go with a refractor for the best results in planetary astronomy.
> >It has the highest contrast when viewing extended objects.
>
> depends on seeing conditions.. urban myth
deljo...@my-deja.com
a standard.
Del Johnson
In article <19991220120719...@ng-fn1.aol.com>,
bjd...@aol.com (Brad) wrote:
> >the planetary observer might spend 8 hours on the same object.
> >
>
> >
> >Richard Whalen
> >whal...@aol.com
> >
>
> Eight hours on the same object????? Now that is observing. :-)
>
> Brad
> Shoot for the moon, for if you miss, you will be among the stars.....
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
ed_an...@my-deja.com
"Sue_and_Alan" <
Sue_and_A...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> Yuri,
>
> If an 8" scope with a 22% obstruction is "blowing away" a 10" scope with 28%
> central obstruction something is seriously amiss. Either something is wrong
> with the larger scope (poor optics, bad collimation, poor cooling,...), or
> someone is seeing what they want to see.
> Clear skies, Alan
hi Alen, I called this person today and asked more about
his 10" TAK Mewlon. In his opinion, it just do not shows
more details in Jupiter's belts and has less contrast
comparing to 8" f/20. I also asked if the problem with
collimation - no. Probably the problem is in optics, for
which Takahachi is not suppling any test data. Since
Mewlon has been sold - further comparisons are not
available... I wish I test it myself.
Yuri
Andy Wallace
And of course you are right too--I just don't have a friend with a 36"
Yard Scope :) Does your mostly excellent Florida seeing hold up in town
as well? To spend what it would take for a color free and sharp
planetary scope that would deliver significantly better views than my
dob--to look at two objects, for part of the year--is just not high on
my priority list :) I'll just set up my 18" in the front yard--takes
maybe 20 minutes--and take a look from time to time; maybe even mask it
(another 60 seconds). I am not, however, taking issue with your
opinions--to each his own :) And, I am sorry you have to drive so far
for dark skies--I do too :(
Steady skies, Andy
Andy Wallace
I can set my 18" up faster that John S. can set up his AP 155 on his 900
mount and pier :) John's big machined beast is a work of art, however.
Andy
Andy Wallace
publicizing it--which was great! Early ATMers had already come up with
the basic design although they were not grinding surplus portholes for
mirrors :)
Chuck Gulker
Jan Owen
reconsider.....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Rich N. wrote in message ...
Dave & Frani Pisak
Rich N. <rnapo*remove*@znet.com> wrote in message
news:s5ti9c...@corp.supernews.com...
Hi Rich,
Yes. I have heard reports of the Encke (or is it Keeler?) division being
seen in
scopes smaller than 10", but I bet they weren't in Pennsylvania when they
did it :>(
Dave
WHALEN44
I have better seeing conditions in my back yard overlooking the water than the
dark sky site by a long shot. However a 18" scope is a waste here as the seeing
never gets that good to take full advantage of an 18" but for a few night a
month, and it is so light polluted deep sky is all but washed out in any scope.
Tonight the seeing was only 6/10 or around .80 to 1.2 arc seconds. Transparency
was such that the only objects visible with the naked eye was the moon and
Saturn & Jupiter. Got a few decent views with my 3" & 8" scopes. Nothing to
write home about though except watching Io transit across the face of Jupiter
with it's small black shadow chasing it.
Jeffrey D. Gortatowsky
> it only takes a Newtonian, you know...
> one doesn't have to resort to a complex design necessarily
Understood and noted. As I said, I learn. I can't even spell sheef...um
scheif... umm sheefspeel.. umm.. you know, that unobstructed off-axis design,
much less buy one, build one, or whatever! 8) And I suppose thats true of a
Mak-Cas. If I had to guess, I'd say perhaps a MakCas is more portable than the
long newt? But if simplicity rules, then one of Roland's, Thomas', or Markus'
APOs is even simpler than the newtonian yes? 8)
Happy Holidays Todd,
Jeff
(PS. L.A. could use a decent weather guy. Problem is they get so little
practice! 8) ).
--
Jeff Gortatowsky
This message has been packed using modern automated machinery. Packed
by weight not volume, some settling of contents may have occurred during
shipment.
Email: mrro...@home.com or: http://members.aol.com/myhprcato
NAR: 70988 SR Ins. Level 2 TRA: 5678
RichardN22
a standard.
Del Johnson>>
My condolences. :-)
Richard Navarrete
Richa...@aol.com
Astrophotography Web Page - http://members.aol.com/richardn22
WHALEN44
That's great. But how much longer does it take your scope to equalize to get
good planetary views?
I bet that AP is getting great views almost right away in most seeing
conditions, while yours takes some real time to cool down and settle out. And
even then that 6" is probably giving better planetary views on most nights of
less than very good seeing.
Though I bet when you guys look at Globulars his scope feels like an orphan.
:-)
>I can set my 18" up faster that John S. can set up his AP 155 on his 900
>mount and pier :) John's big machined beast is a work of art, however.>
WHALEN44
Why? :-) Star testing? or waiting for a quick change in brightness? Or did you
get your eyelid frozen to the eyepiece :-)
>I spent five hours Saturday night looking at two stars. A variable and
>a standard.
Brad
>From: whal...@aol.com (WHALEN44)
>Date: Mon, 20 December 1999 12:53 PM EST
>Message-id: <19991220125312...@ng-fy1.aol.com>
>
>Hi Brad,
>
>And it's not as boring as you may think on certain planets like Jupiter were
>you are being treated to a different view as it rotates and the dance of it's
>moons. I have been know to do a bit of sketching from time to time, and
>sometimes wish Jupiter would rotate even slower or just stop on demand :-)
>
>Richard
>
Hello Richard,
No pause button for Jupiter huh? Maybe web tv will come up with one of those
like they did with network tv which by the way still amazes me. Is this done
via a recorder of some type or what?