Stupid Question

Hi,

I would like to get a telescope with a 150mm (6") aperture, but I have a question about
mounts.
What type of mount takes up less space when the telescope is being stored?
A fork mount or the one with the weights on a metal rod?

I know it's a stupid question, but I'm very limited on space where I can store a telescope.

"Paul Maskell" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I would like to get a telescope with a 150mm (6") aperture, but
I have a question about
mounts.
What type of mount takes up less space when the telescope is being
stored? A fork mount or the one with the weights on a metal rod?

I know it's a stupid question, but I'm very limited on space where
I can store a telescope.
As others have said, you are really asking the wrong question, especially
since the mount may/will be influenced by the choice of scope. However in
general, a GEM (this is the one with weights), takes up fractionally more
space, but the _components_ are smaller, so it may be possible to pack it
into a less convenient location. The fork mount, remains as a 'one piece'
assembly, making it larger than any of the GEM components, but the total
volume is smaller.
That having been said, other factors 'leap into play'. Generally, in 6", you
will be limited to a Newtonian design, or a refractor. At present none of
the 'mass production' companies, makes an SCT in this size, that I can think
of. A Newtonian will generally be longer than an equivalent aperture SCT
(the refractor will be massive, and relatively expensive), and 99% will only
come on a GEM.
In terms of a really compact package, you might want to look at something
like the Nexstar 5i. In terms of a really small package for the scope size
(5" aperture), it is about as small as it is possible to make, while still
being a very useable instrument. Many owners of much larger scopes, keep
something like this as their 'portable' scope.
If 'money is no object', many would say that the little Questar 3.5, is the
ultimate 'compact' scope.
Also remember that the tripod, will be the largest single component, and if
it is a reasonably solid design, can be very bulky indeed (90% of the
'standard' tripods, approach being inadequate...).

Best Wishes

Dobsonian.


--
"In this universe the night was falling,the shadows were lengthening
towards an east that would not know another dawn.
But elsewhere the stars were still young and the light of morning
lingered: and along the path he once had followed, man would one day go
again."

Arthur C. Clarke, The City & The Stars

SIAR
www.starlords.org
Freelance Writers Shop
http://www.freelancewrittersshop.netfirms.com
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Ad World
http://adworld.netfirms.com

"Paul Maskell" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I would like to get a telescope with a 150mm (6") aperture, but I have a
question about
mounts.
What type of mount takes up less space when the telescope is being stored?
A fork mount or the one with the weights on a metal rod?

I know it's a stupid question, but I'm very limited on space where I can store
a telescope.




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.535 / Virus Database: 330 - Release Date: 11/1/03

That having been said, other factors 'leap into play'. Generally, in 6", you
will be limited to a Newtonian design, or a refractor. At present none of
the 'mass production' companies, makes an SCT in this size, that I can think
of.

There's always a maksutov, very compact design and available in the
six inch / 150mm size.
- Mike