|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |