Posts Made By: Andrew Blatz

I would be grateful for opinions on the two telescopes noted in the subject line. Both are 10" reflectors and both, as far as I can gather use hyperbolic primary and secondaries. The price for both is similar ( the TAK is cheaper). I am looking for a scope in this price range for CCD imaging only (no visual) and maybe film. Virtually all of my observing is from a suburban back yard. I am mostly interested in deep sky wide field imaging. I have a suitable mount. Anybody willing and/or able to compare and contrast.

I bought a Newtonian OTA from the local Orion store about 3-4 years ago (see photo). At the time, I didn't know a Newtonian from a Telecaster. I never used it much because I bought a LX200 SCT soon after. The dimensions of the OTA are identical to the Vixen R200SS, an f-4 8" Newtonian as are the colors. However, the only lable on the scope is "Orion". It cost about $900 at the time. I cannot find it anywhere in the Orion website. The question is did Vixen make the R200SS for sale under the Orion badge or did Orion copy the scope and sell it? Any help would be appreciated

OK, OK, sounds like a dumb question, but, as I was looking up information about this kind of scope I repeadedly came across tidbits like:

REFLECTING TELESCOPE
A reflecting (or Newtonian) telescope uses two mirrors to magnify what is viewed. The reflecting telescope was first described by James Gregory in 1663.

So, if JG was the first to describe it, then where does Sir Isaac fit in? Was he the first to actually build one? Or does it just use some of Newton's principles?

thanks

(note: posted this in "Equipment", but not much interest, so am trying this forum--This topic may have been beaten to death like "maple vs. rosewood" over in FDP--if so, please let me know)

I need to mount my mount (Paramount ME + RC12.5" scope) several feet above the ground to clear a deck. I will pour a concrete footing, and I could use sonotube to make part or all of the pier itself out of cement. I will then either attach the mounting plate directly to the concrete or to the pier. Is there any consensus as to whether it would be better to use a taller steel pier and less cement, or a longer cement pier and less steel? Let's say that, for argument, that I need about 5' above ground for the mount. Thanks in advance,
Andy

I am building an observatory out of a HomeDome 6' (with the tall walls), a Paramount ME and and RC Optics 12.5" scope. Can someone point me to the steps that I need to go through to determine the "best" pier height for this combo? I will be doing no visual work, 100% CCD. Would you use the tallest pier that allows the scope to fit in the dome (I assume that would allow viewing closest to the horizon) or is there rationale for making the pier lower for more stability? Any help would be appreciated.

Dear All,

I have a 6' fiberglass dome bolted to a concrete slab. The dew here is horrible and I am getting soaked from dew collecting on the inside walls of the dome. It also drips down onto my mount and scope so I have to cover them with plastic. This kind of defeats one of the reasons to have an observatory--getting to leave things ready to go every night. Now I have to make sure that nothing valuable is going to get wet. This must happen a lot, so I am hoping that one of you has a reasonable solution for me. Some options might be putting in a space heater, glue a waterbed heater to the dome to heat it up? Help!

Thanks in advance,
Andy

Heather,

I sure hope you can because I plan on putting my 12.5" scope in my 6' dome. It would be in there now, but I slightly miscalculated the pier height. Absolutely nothing else will fit inside, of course, which is OK by me since I run my setup by wire. However, the setup process is a pain given that there is no room inside once the scope is in. I can envision myself pinned to the wall by the counterweight!

If you want to actually be inside the dome, I would go for 10'. In hindsight that is what I should have done.

--Andy