Recent Articles
Categories See All →
 CN Reports
 User Reviews

Articles
 How to . . .
 Observing Skills
 Astronomical History
 Beginners
 Optical Theory
 Binoculars
 Kids
 Vision and Related Experiments
 How to Gain the Support of your Family for your Astronomical Pursuits
 Evaluation Tips
 Travels
 Special Events
 Humour
 The Elements
 Astrophotography
 New Articles in [!monthname!]
 Telescope Articles
 Submit a Review / Article
 Monthly Guides
 Observatories
 Eyepieces
 Behind the Scenes
 Accessories
 About Us
 Copyright ©
 Terms & Conditions
 Tiny Eyes on the Skies
 From the Editor's Desk
 What's Up . . .
 The Light Cup Journals
 Who is this Super Light Cup?
 Privacy Policy
 Cloudy Nights TShirts
 Imaging Contest
 Small Wonders
 Previous Imaging Contest Winners
 This Month's Skies
 Mike's Corner
 The Cloudy Nights Friends and Family Discount
 Uncle Rod's Astro Blog
 Fishing for Photons
 Binocular Universe
Search Articles
ATM: My Classical Cassegrain
Voice your opinion about this subject in our forums
By: Jeffrey D. Beish
The first and last Classical Cassegrain telescope I made was a 12.5inch f/4 – f/16 system that had a 3.5inch secondary. Before I learned to do the calculations my optician figured the parameters out and he made some errors that rendered the secondary mirror too large for me. He chose a back focus that was too far back and missed an important variable in the equations for sizing the secondary mirror. The secondary mirror will be a little larger if the back focus distance is too long and the final linear image diameter will be very large as well. Later the system was redesigned as an f/4 – f/30 system with an effective focal length of 375 inches. This design provided a high performance and produced high contrast images that I desired for observing planets.
The first tube
was a heavy fiberglass tube but proved to hold heat and tube currents rendered
the telescope useless for hours. I replaced it with a 16inch I.D. by 53"
long thin wall (0.060) aluminum tube that was rolled and welded by a local
business. To support the secondary end of the tube a local aircraft salvage
yard supplied the precisionmachined titanium ring. This ring also helps
conform the tube and make centering of the spider and mirror cell very
easy. Purchased at a local hardware store a sheet of 3/16thinch cork was
glued inside the entire tube then painted flat black. This also provides
a rough finish to reduce light scatter.
Figure 1. 12.5inch f/30 Classical Cassegrain LEFT: heavy fiberglass tube and RIGHT: with corklined, black aluminum tube.
With the
telescope pointed straight up the focuser stands 3.5 feet (42 inches) from
the ground and required a regular chair to observe with. The Park’s German
equatorial mount, purchased back in the late 1970’s, had 1.5inch chromium
steel shafts with two bearing each axis to provide stability. It weighed
approximately 150 pounds [Beish, 1999 and Beish,
2000]. The center of gravity is about 13 inches from the primary end. The
18" long saddle completely a wooden system reinforced by aluminum bands.
The rack & pinion focuser, primary cell, secondary holder, spider,
and tube counterweight set were purchased from Kenneth F. Novak & Co.
A local optician made the optics.
Basic Design Criteria
I chose the Classical Cassegrain design with the parabaloid primary and convex hyperboloid secondary. Reading material on hand, such as Kenneth F. Novak’s Cassegrain Notes and Richard Berry’s first ever issue of Telescope Making Magazine (ATM) I learned the important mathematics of Cassegrain design. The first article in Fall Issue, 1978 of ATM was "Cassegrain Optical Systems," by: Dr. Richard A. Buchroeder and was all that was needed to get started (Novak, Berry and Buchroeder 1978).
So, with the requirements and mechanical design our local optician set out to make the mirrors and the parts were ordered or made. From the available documents the following mathematical treatment was found and calculation began:
Cassegrain Equations: p = (F + / (X + 1), p' = pX , B = p' – b, c = Dp / F + Bi/ FX
p' = secondary to Cassegrain focus, B = mirror separation, c = secondary diameter, D = primary diameter and
i = final image size, [Buchroeder, 1978]. If the secondary mirror is already made the final image can be determined
by: i = X(c F – Dp) / B
55% further apart (+B) is tolerated; if in centimeters then (B) = 0.063 FR^{4}
p = (F + / (X + 1) = (50 + 10) / (7.5 + 1) = 7.0588"
p' = pX = 7.0588 x 7.5 = 52.9412"
B = p' – b = 52.9412 – 10 = 42.9412" (+0.3942 or 0.2857),
where 0.55 x 0.00248 (4)^{4} = 0.3942"
and 0.45 x 0.00248 (4)^{4} = 0.2857"
The first iteration for the final linear image diameter was set at 0.5" and then the secondary mirror diameter was calculated to be:
c = Dp / F + Bi/ FX = (12.5 x 7.0588) / 50 + (42.9412 x 0.5) / (50 x 7.5) = 1.7647 + 0.0573 = 1.822"
A manufactured secondary mirror closest to the calculated diameter is 1.83 inches, so the image diameter would work out to be:
i = X(c F – Dp) / B = 7.5 (1.83 x 50 – 12.5 x 7.0588) / 42.9412 = 0.57"
The effective focal length (efl) will be: f/30 x D or 30 x 12.5 = 375" that will produce an angular image of:
secondary mirror delivering 0.57inch linear image field (313.6 arcsec) with a contrast factor (CF) of 3.93 : 1,
whereas a CF of 5.25 : 1 is an unobstructed system.
Baffle tubes can be made from ordinary household plumbing fixtures, such as brass and PVC sink traps, that come in several sizes from 1.25inch to 2inches in diameter and lengths of 6 to 18 inches. While these make perfect Cassegrain baffles I found 1" aluminum tubing at a large hardware store and that worked out better for the baffle system. Ray tracing various tube diameters and lengths the positions for each glare stop can be determined so to prevent light reflecting from baffle wall down the tube to the focal plane. To calculate the length of the primary baffle tube:
Cassegrain Baffle and Glare Stop Equations: L = (WB + Wb – c b –Bi) / (c  i) and G = (Bi + Zi + c b  c Z ) / (B +
i = final image size, c = secondary diameter and then G = diameter of glare stop, Z = behind primary face
[Novak, 1978] [Buchroeder, 1978].
L = (WB + Wb – c b –Bi) / (c  i)
= (1 x 42.9412 + 1 x 10 – 1.83 x 10  42.9412 x 0.57) / (1.83 – 0.57)
= 8.0672"
There are various materials to make glare stops. The author found that brass is an excellent choice. Aluminum is another excellent choice. Once a baffle tube has been selected it is a matter of machining the stop to fit inside the tube with the correct inside diameter opening or aperture. When they are properly positioned within the tube a light coating of flat black paint will help secure the stops in place within the tube. Another glare stop can be positioned near the entry aperture of the focuser and up away from the eyepiece barrels. Some eyepieces have stops and some don’t so it is wise to add this final glare stop near the eyepiece entrance and Cassegrain focus.
G = (Bi + Zi + c b  c Z ) / (B +
= (42.9412 x 0.57 + 5 x 0.57 + 1.83 x 10 – 1.84 x
5) / (42.9412 + 10)
= 0.6890"
In the glare stop equation listed below the sign to the ‘Z’ term can be manipulated to calculate the diameter of each glare stop within the baffle tube. Term ‘Z’ is the distance from behind the primary face to the position of the stop and usually presented in literature to calculate the rear glare stop. Changing the sign to minus () would put the stop in front of the primary face or somewhere along the baffle tube towards the secondary.
And the glare stop half way up the baffle tube:
G_{1} = (42.9412 x 0.57 + (4) x 0.57 + 1.83 x 10 – 1.84 x (4)) / (42.9412 + 10) = 0.9032"
While not everyone
has such machines available at home many ATMs or other hobbyists may help
you with these simple projects or you may wish to take the job to a professional
machinist. The holes should be cut or milled as smoothly as possible to
avoid diffraction streaks or reflections.
Figure 3. Cut away diagram of typical Cassegrain baffle and glare stop system. Term ‘Z’ is the distance from the primary mirror face to the glare stop with in the baffle tube. See equations below for calculating the Cassegrain optical system and baffles.
STRENGTH
AND STIFFNESS OF TELESCOPE TUBES
While aluminum is 39% heavier than fiberglass it is 2.86 times stronger. Therefore aluminum requires less material (Albrecht, 1989). The weight per inch of a 0.0625" thick, 16" I.D. aluminum tube is; p (r^{2 }OD  r^{2 }ID), where p is 3.14159, and r is the radius of the tube I.D., so:
p(8.0625^{2} – 8^{2 }) = 3.15386 square inches
With a density of 0.097 lb/in^{3 }the weight per inch that is 0.097 x = 3.15386 or 0.3059 pounds per running inch. A 53inch aluminum tube would then weigh 53" x 0.3059 or 16.2 pounds.
For a fiberglass tube to be as strong as aluminum it must be 2.86 times thicker or 0.179". Therefore, the weight per running inch of a 0.179" thick, 18" I.D. fiberglass tube is:
p(8.17875^{2 }– 8^{2 }) = 9.08533 square inches
With a density of 0.07 lb/in^{3 }the weight per inch is 0.07 x 9.08533 or 0.636 pounds per inch and the tube would then weigh 33.7 pounds. We can see that the fiberglass tube weighs twice as much as the aluminum tube does plus aluminum is nearly twice as stiff as fiberglass.
Fiberglass, plastic, Formica, and other insulating materials store heat and are slow to radiate this energy to the outside air. Metals, such as steel and aluminum, radiate and loose heat faster. Also, fiberglass tends to pass more Infrared Radiation (Sunlight) though to the glass and metal components and that tends prolong cooling.
REFERENCES
Albrecht, Richard E. (1989), "The Design of Telescope Structures  I," Sky and Telescope, Vol. 77, No. 1, pp. 97101, January.
Beish, J.D. (1999), "Design a German Equatorial Mount for the Planetary Telescope," Amateur Astronomy, pp. 52., No. 21, Spring.
Beish, J.D. (2000), "Tubes for Reflecting Telescopes," Amateur Astronomy, pp. 2627 , No. 25, Spring
Cox, Robert and R.W. Sinnott (1976), "On Focusing a Cassegrain," (REF: Roger N. Clark, Applied Optics, 1,266, May 1976), Sky and Telescope, Vol. 54, No. 4, pp. 293, October.
Buchroeder, Richard A., Dr. (1978), "Cassegrain Optical systems," Telescope Making, Vol. #1, Fall.
Novak, Kenneth (1978), Cassegrain
Notes, Kenneth Novak & Co..
0 Comments