Jump to content


Photo

AT16RC Coming this summer

  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 Astronomics

Astronomics

    Vendor: Astronomics

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 4824
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2004
  • Loc: Right Here

Posted 29 April 2013 - 04:15 PM

As long as everything goes as planned the 16" Truss System RC should be available this summer. $6995 is a steal for a scope of this size and quality.

#2 guyroch

guyroch

    Vendor (BackyardEOS)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 2971
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2008
  • Loc: Under the clouds!

Posted 29 April 2013 - 05:13 PM

Pictures?

#3 Astronomics

Astronomics

    Vendor: Astronomics

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 4824
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2004
  • Loc: Right Here

Posted 29 April 2013 - 05:22 PM

No pictures. The drawings that are out have been around for about a year or so.

#4 zerro1

zerro1

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5879
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2009
  • Loc: Smokey Point , 48.12°N 122.25°W Elevation:512 ft

Posted 29 April 2013 - 08:54 PM

What ever happened to the other QUAD scopes? :question:

#5 Astronomics

Astronomics

    Vendor: Astronomics

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 4824
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2004
  • Loc: Right Here

Posted 29 April 2013 - 10:09 PM

The 110 double double didn't work as it should have. It just couldn't stay square for some odd reason. We passed on the 100mm model our current manufacturer of the 65 offered us in October and again in January. I just didn't feel, no matter how good it will be, the retail price point of around $4000 was a place I wanted to go. It also seemed like a large leap over the current price of the 65. We have thought about an 85 Quad, but that price point may not be a wise choice from our initial conversations. My current thought is to take the TMB 92 design we own, as we paid a large sum of money for it, and talk to Roger Ceragioli about adding a built flattener and calling in an AT92EDQ. This would be an easy design to do as we already paid for the master blanks on the telescope and it is a proven performer. I would hope this would keep the cost lower as we would go to a 90mm tube and a 2.5" Feathertouch focuser. Reducing cost and losing some weight. The money saved could be placed in the flattener and help keep the cost around the current $2000 price point fingers crossed.

#6 guyroch

guyroch

    Vendor (BackyardEOS)

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • Posts: 2971
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2008
  • Loc: Under the clouds!

Posted 29 April 2013 - 10:28 PM

An AT92EDQ... oh my...

My two AT65EDQ may not be orphans forever then :)

Guylain

#7 Astronomics

Astronomics

    Vendor: Astronomics

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 4824
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2004
  • Loc: Right Here

Posted 30 April 2013 - 08:48 AM

We will see how it comes together. It is easier to say it can be done then possibly make it. It seems like the logical direction since proof of concept on the lens has been done already.

#8 bilgebay

bilgebay

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 4283
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • Loc: Turkiye - Istanbul and Marmaris

Posted 30 April 2013 - 11:32 AM

Mike, I am extremely happy with the 92SS i have purchased from you 2 years ago. What you are planning to do is a very good move indeed. My TMB92SS easily competes with my FSQ106 on color correction and snapping to focus etc. If you develop a flattener for this scope it will be a killer setup i am sure.

Sorry to hear that 110EDQ didn't make it to the market. Appreciated your help re this scope.

#9 Astronomics

Astronomics

    Vendor: Astronomics

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 4824
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2004
  • Loc: Right Here

Posted 30 April 2013 - 12:30 PM

No problem. Thank you for your patience with the scope. Sometimes things don't work out as well as one would hope.

#10 seryddwr

seryddwr

    Innocent Bystander

  • *****
  • Posts: 3392
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2010
  • Loc: La-la land.

Posted 30 April 2013 - 05:38 PM

Any links to said drawings?

#11 gmartin02

gmartin02

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 869
  • Joined: 11 Apr 2005
  • Loc: Santa Clarita, CA

Posted 30 April 2013 - 05:39 PM

Speaking of refractors, I noticed that the Astro-Tech AT106 & AT90EDT FPL-53 triplets are no longer listed for sale on the Astronomics web site, but are still listed on the Astro-Tech web site as well as on several dealers web sites (such as OPT).

Are these scopes being discontinued? I have been saving my pennies for any FPL-53 triplet with at least a 600mm f/l for a price less than $2000, and these two scopes were really the only options I could find. The TMB-92 is to short a focal length for me, and the AT130 and TMB130 (and the Tak TSA-102) are out of my present budget range.

#12 Astronomics

Astronomics

    Vendor: Astronomics

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 4824
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2004
  • Loc: Right Here

Posted 30 April 2013 - 05:47 PM

Drawings are simply CADs and we want the real thing.

We have a 106 here that was a return as they wanted something smaller. The 90EDT is currently on hiatus.

#13 fetoma

fetoma

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2425
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2006
  • Loc: Southern NJ

Posted 30 April 2013 - 05:55 PM

Mike,

How about an AT130EDQ?

#14 Astronomics

Astronomics

    Vendor: Astronomics

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 4824
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2004
  • Loc: Right Here

Posted 30 April 2013 - 06:49 PM

To expensive. Hard to justify the yearly production. I would guess it would be at least $6000. The scope would need to be f/6 or faster and that is getting harder and harder to make.

#15 belgrade

belgrade

    Ranger 4

  • -----
  • Posts: 320
  • Joined: 05 Oct 2007
  • Loc: Far North San Antonio, TX

Posted 01 May 2013 - 08:07 AM

Can you tell us when can we expect to see AT130s (ED triplets) available again, i.e., in stock? Thanks!

#16 Astronomics

Astronomics

    Vendor: Astronomics

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 4824
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2004
  • Loc: Right Here

Posted 02 May 2013 - 05:29 PM

Not currently. We had an issue with a 2nd lens manufacturer. They couldn't deliver or meet the original spec. So off we go again.

#17 vpcirc

vpcirc

    Skylab

  • ***--
  • Posts: 4097
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2009
  • Loc: Merced CA

Posted 08 May 2013 - 10:25 PM

I'm excited! Hopefully this baby will be light enough to fit on an MX, but I'm probably dreaming. Can't afford a new mount and OTA :(.

#18 rflinn68

rflinn68

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 2980
  • Joined: 09 Mar 2012
  • Loc: Arkansas

Posted 10 May 2013 - 01:30 PM

To expensive. Hard to justify the yearly production. I would guess it would be at least $6000. The scope would need to be f/6 or faster and that is getting harder and harder to make.


Seriously? The AT130EDT f/6 is $2995. At least $3000 more to add a field flattener?

#19 Astronomics

Astronomics

    Vendor: Astronomics

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 4824
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2004
  • Loc: Right Here

Posted 10 May 2013 - 04:54 PM

It would as it requires a different tube, new focuser adds roughly $800 to the cost alone, plus you are talking about a 3.5" wide flattener of some unknown glass type. A scope of that size with the glass requirements would be extremely expensive to make and smaller batch runs means much higher cost.

#20 frebie

frebie

    Chief assistant to the assistant chief

  • -----
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 1233
  • Joined: 29 Apr 2008
  • Loc: Neither here nor there.

Posted 10 May 2013 - 05:10 PM

Plus you have to pay an optical designer to design a flattener specifically to match the existing optical formula of the triplet objective. That might require a doublet flattener rather than the singlet lens used in AT65EDQ. The 65EDQ was designed as a quad system from the git-go, a simpler task than designing and retrofitting an integral flattener to an existing lens.

#21 rflinn68

rflinn68

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 2980
  • Joined: 09 Mar 2012
  • Loc: Arkansas

Posted 12 May 2013 - 03:38 AM

Alrighty then, AT16RC it is!! :lol:

Yeah right! I'm just now getting my guiding lined out enough to get round stars on my C8 at 1260mm. I have been eyeing the AT8RC though. :cool:

#22 JoseBorrero

JoseBorrero

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3201
  • Joined: 04 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Puerto Rico Island

Posted 13 May 2013 - 08:57 PM

What's the weight on that one?

As long as everything goes as planned the 16" Truss System RC should be available this summer. $6995 is a steal for a scope of this size and quality.



#23 Astronomics

Astronomics

    Vendor: Astronomics

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 4824
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2004
  • Loc: Right Here

Posted 14 May 2013 - 06:40 AM

Not real sure. Gonna guess around 80 pounds.

#24 JoseBorrero

JoseBorrero

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3201
  • Joined: 04 Sep 2009
  • Loc: Puerto Rico Island

Posted 24 May 2013 - 01:53 PM

80 pounds is kinda cutting edge for current mounts; Losmandy, even paramount , and most AP mount.

#25 frebie

frebie

    Chief assistant to the assistant chief

  • -----
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 1233
  • Joined: 29 Apr 2008
  • Loc: Neither here nor there.

Posted 25 May 2013 - 12:32 PM

80 lbs for the AT16RC is a guesstimate. However, the RCOS carbon fiber truss R-C was/is specified as weighing ~95 to ~99 lbs.

The Software Bisque Paramount ME II shows a total instrument payload capacity of 240 lbs. The 95 lbs RCOS 16" is shown on their website as being mounted on the earlier 150 lb payload capacity Software Bisque Paramount ME, so the 240 lb capacity ME II should be able to hold the AT16RC easily.

The Losmandy HGM Titan mount lists a "photographic instrument payload capacity" of 100 lbs (presumably the total payload capacity is greater than that). The HGM Titan should be able to hold the AT16RC.

The Astro-Physics 1600GTO has a total payload capacity of 220 lbs, while the 3600GTO "el Capitan" has a capacity of 300 lbs. Surely both of these mounts should be able to hold the 16" AT R-C comfortably.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics