A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Stupid Question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 11th 03, 09:16 PM
Paul Maskell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #2  
Old November 11th 03, 09:47 PM
Al
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stupid Question


"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.


The mount is not the prime question here. The real question should be what
kind of an OTA should I look at. As an example, let's look at a refractor
compared to an SCT...

A 6" refractor is quite big, diameter is usually about 8" and the length is
about 50". This is for an F8, but I've seen larger focal length refractors
that were nearly the length of a small car (slight over statement). In
contrast, an SCT of equal aperture (150mm) is about 8" in diameter and about
14" in length. Huge difference.

Al


  #3  
Old November 11th 03, 10:01 PM
Tom Hole
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stupid Question


"Al" wrote in message
...

"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.


The mount is not the prime question here. The real question should be

what
kind of an OTA should I look at. As an example, let's look at a refractor
compared to an SCT...

A 6" refractor is quite big, diameter is usually about 8" and the length

is
about 50". This is for an F8, but I've seen larger focal length

refractors
that were nearly the length of a small car (slight over statement). In
contrast, an SCT of equal aperture (150mm) is about 8" in diameter and

about
14" in length. Huge difference.

Al



And a 6" dob takes up less space than any of them. I think I may be guilty
of answering the wrong question though.

Sorry,

Tom


  #4  
Old November 11th 03, 11:33 PM
Roger Hamlett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stupid Question


"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


  #5  
Old November 12th 03, 12:09 AM
Starlord
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stupid Question

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


  #6  
Old November 12th 03, 05:24 AM
geek emeritus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stupid Question

I think that the EQ mount would take less space, since you can store the scope
with the OTA at the vertical position. I believe that most AltAz mounts do not
allow this, though I suppose you could just remove the OTA and stand it up by
the mount. As to pier vs. tripod, it is probably a wash, if you can collapse
the tripod to have the legs vertical or nearly so.

Clear, Dark, Steady Skies!
(And considerate neighbors!!!)


  #7  
Old November 12th 03, 05:26 AM
geek emeritus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stupid Question

Dobsonian.

I think this might seldom be used with a 6" refractor. But it definitely would
take less space if you could somehow raise the whole thing to place the
eyepiece at a reasonable height.
Clear, Dark, Steady Skies!
(And considerate neighbors!!!)


  #8  
Old November 12th 03, 05:28 AM
geek emeritus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stupid Question

Woops, I assumed refractor. A 6" Newtonian with a Dob mount is the correct
answer. For a refractor, I still think the EQ would be best though much more
costly and heavy.

Clear, Dark, Steady Skies!
(And considerate neighbors!!!)


  #9  
Old November 12th 03, 06:27 AM
P. Lawler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stupid Question

But he didn't say he was looking for a refractor... he just said he was
looking for a 6" aperture.

"geek emeritus" wrote in message
...
Dobsonian.


I think this might seldom be used with a 6" refractor. But it definitely

would
take less space if you could somehow raise the whole thing to place the
eyepiece at a reasonable height.
Clear, Dark, Steady Skies!
(And considerate neighbors!!!)




  #10  
Old November 12th 03, 05:12 PM
Judson McClendon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Stupid Question

"geek emeritus" wrote
I think that the EQ mount would take less space, since you can store the scope
with the OTA at the vertical position. I believe that most AltAz mounts do not
allow this, though I suppose you could just remove the OTA and stand it up by
the mount. As to pier vs. tripod, it is probably a wash, if you can collapse
the tripod to have the legs vertical or nearly so.


Both my Meade fork mount scopes, a 10" LX200GPS and an ETX-125AT,
certainly can be pointed vertically for storage. You have to do it to fit them
into the storage cases. You have to detach the electric focuser from the
LX200, which takes only a couple of seconds.

I would check out the portable cases available for the scopes you're
interested in, and see what the outside dimensions are. The ones I've
looked at do not hold the tripod.
--
Judson McClendon (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems
http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Instead of the parachute and bouncing balls, engineer a capsule that withstands the damage Archimedes Plutonium Astronomy Misc 31 January 8th 04 01:13 AM
Moon key to space future? James White Policy 90 January 6th 04 05:29 PM
ODDS AGAINST EVOLUTION (You listenin', t.o.?) Lord Blacklight Astronomy Misc 56 November 21st 03 03:45 PM
Stupid question about Hubble Explorer8939 Technology 6 September 3rd 03 01:58 PM
MAN AS OLD AS COAL -- Catastrophic Evidence Ed Conrad Amateur Astronomy 10 July 10th 03 01:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.