Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Equipment Discussions >> Mounts

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)
jrcrillyAdministrator
Refractor wienie no more
*****

Reged: 04/30/03

Loc: NE Ohio
Re: Question for Losmandy Imagers new [Re: alanon]
      #2955822 - 02/28/09 10:45 PM

Quote:

Hi John,
Please excuse me if this is beginning to sound like a circular discussion, but where do you get a laptop that still has such a connection?




I don't see how that relates to a 32 bit/64 bit driver issue. The mounts intentionally use an interface that avoids the issue entirely. My imaging computers all have serial ports but for those using computers not so equipped there are plenty of ways to add them. It's up to the folks offering RS-232 addons to provide compatible drivers; that's not up to Losmandy (or any other mount manufacturer).


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Gardner
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 01/19/04

Loc: New Hampshire
Re: Question for Losmandy Imagers new [Re: alanon]
      #2955842 - 02/28/09 10:59 PM

Astronomics has the Gemini to serial cable here

Add a USB to serial adapter to complete the connection.

I'm not going to get into the 32 bit vs. 64 bit discussion other than to say in my own opinion it's a non-issue when talking to a Gemini mount.

I think the drivers are through the ASCOM platform.

Edited by Gardner (02/28/09 11:01 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
blueman
Vendor Blue Sky Accessories
*****

Reged: 07/20/07

Loc: California
Re: Question for Losmandy Imagers new [Re: alanon]
      #2956023 - 03/01/09 01:44 AM

What exactly are you talking about?
Blueman


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
alanon
Nobody tells me anything
*****

Reged: 06/29/07

Loc: Las Vegas
Re: Question for Losmandy Imagers new [Re: Gardner]
      #2956024 - 03/01/09 01:46 AM

This is very good news, Gardner, and John. I was always under the impression that no matter what the device be it a mount, mouse, printer, Monitor, or whatever an appropriate driver was needed to get the computer to recognize the periferal hardware.

Things like the Orion Autoguider, for instance, will work with a vista 32bit system, but specifically state that they will not work with a Vista 64 OS. I just assumed that this was a driver oriented problem since the connection to the computer is virtually the same (USB2).

I appreciate you guys helping me out. This is good to know that I can use the laptop I have and run the GM-8 remotely with only the addition of a cable. Many thanks.

Edited by alanon (03/01/09 01:50 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
blueman
Vendor Blue Sky Accessories
*****

Reged: 07/20/07

Loc: California
Re: Question for Losmandy Imagers new [Re: alanon]
      #2956026 - 03/01/09 01:48 AM

You use a USB to serial port adapter. Are you really such a computer geek, but are completely unaware of these things?
Blueman


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
alanon
Nobody tells me anything
*****

Reged: 06/29/07

Loc: Las Vegas
Re: Question for Losmandy Imagers new [Re: blueman]
      #2956046 - 03/01/09 02:14 AM

Quote:

You use a USB to serial port adapter. Are you really such a computer geek, but are completely unaware of these things?
Blueman



No I never claimed to be a computer geek. In fact I am quite the opposite, blueman. I just brought up the question because when looking for guide cameras, I was told that many will not work with Vista64. If you have something constructive to say that would help then I would shurely appreciate it. If I am wrong(which I am the first to say happens often) then please correct me. Please guys... I am not trying to be rude. If I come off that way, then I apologize. It is truly unintentional. I am trying to make sure because the CCD and guide camera buffs tell me that without the correct drivers most of them will not operate on these computers that I own. They say that I need to go with an older OS system as the "drivers" for the 64 bit OS do not exist.

If you guys are saying that this is a non issue for the GM-8 I believe you. Thanks for your help!

Edited by alanon (03/01/09 02:23 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
alanon
Nobody tells me anything
*****

Reged: 06/29/07

Loc: Las Vegas
Re: Question for Losmandy Imagers new [Re: alanon]
      #2956070 - 03/01/09 02:46 AM

Perhaps I am asking the wrong question then. Is there software out there that is compatible with my Vista 64 bit OS that is also compatible to remotely run the GM-8 mount? Is this what I need to ask? I am so totally lost with this issue. Please somebody set me straight!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
alanon
Nobody tells me anything
*****

Reged: 06/29/07

Loc: Las Vegas
Re: Question for Losmandy Imagers new [Re: alanon]
      #2956086 - 03/01/09 03:04 AM

I apologise guys I have gone as off topic with this issue as the focuser for a Cat was. Perhaps I should start another thread. My quick question due to my lack of knowledge has turned this into a complete hijack. Sorry folks!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Carl M
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 02/21/07

Loc: Vermont, USA
Re: Question for Losmandy Imagers new [Re: alanon]
      #2956331 - 03/01/09 09:00 AM

Quote:

Perhaps I am asking the wrong question then. Is there software out there that is compatible with my Vista 64 bit OS that is also compatible to remotely run the GM-8 mount? Is this what I need to ask? I am so totally lost with this issue. Please somebody set me straight!




Alanon - this question comes up a lot so I thought I'd take the time and really try and explain what's up with a 64bit OS...
I am a Software Engineer by trade and also oversee the IT infrastructure for the facility I am based out of. I’ve done some development for a couple of ASCOM applications ( a fairly common astronomy standard used today) and to answer, I’ll put those hats on for a second….
Answer - MS 64 bit Operating Systems do not do well with 32 bit drivers for serial I/O. This is not limited to astronomy related stuff…
Why?
When you create a project in say, Visual Studio, which is a common development platform for .NET applications, it assumes you will be creating both 32-bit and 64-bit code for maximum compatibility. The default architecture is set to "Any CPU" by default. Most of the time this is OK, but for most drivers that exist out there, this causes a compatibility problem. You see, most of the I/O components, like the ASCOM platforms out there, were generated with tools that are much older than 64-bit CPUs and therefore, contain only 32-bit code. Presently,.Net Framework does not easily allow 64-bit applications to call into 32-bit COM objects. So, things compiled will run fine on 32-bit systems, but when they are run on a 64-bit system they run as native 64-bit application and will go belly-up when it tries to bind to a 32-bit object. Now there are some work arounds, but everything I’m talking about requires some sort of new development. In essence, there isn’t any physical way for backwards compatibility in regard to existing code.

In summary, a 64 bit OS is wonderful at Enterprise level server applications where non-serial I/O is utilized. It's great for virtual hosting and allows access of much more memory for Terminal Services and Virtual Hosting operations. On the reverse side, it’s weakest point is utilizing any I/O interface drivers (there’s also a separate subject on VPN stuff I won’t get into…). In the enterprise world, this isn’t too much of an issue – you don’t find many folks plugging things into a blade server, but for most desktop and portable applications, a 64 bit OS is more of a hindrance then advantage as serial I/O becomes more prevalent. Lots of folks plug things into their laptops or home PCs. I’ve stress tested applications running on both 32 and 64 bit machines and for what the average person does with a laptop or PC, there isn’t really an advantage with a 64 bit OS – that’s not where most ‘bottlenecks’ occur…
What do I do?
If hardware serial I/O is in the cards for your computer equipment, load a 32 bit operating system. You can also wait for the world to completely cut over to 64 bit I/O, but that’s not as practical as 32 bit architecture is very much main stream still. If you do this now, you’ll regain the compatibility with many kinds of drivers, including those used for astronomy-related programs.

I hope this helps…..


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
blueman
Vendor Blue Sky Accessories
*****

Reged: 07/20/07

Loc: California
Re: Question for Losmandy Imagers new [Re: alanon]
      #2956901 - 03/01/09 01:39 PM

Sorry Alanon,
The way you were talking, I was assuming that you were a computer geek. But I did add something constructive, I told you to use a USB to serial port adapter. That is what you do.
Blueman


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
alanon
Nobody tells me anything
*****

Reged: 06/29/07

Loc: Las Vegas
Re: Question for Losmandy Imagers new [Re: blueman]
      #2958475 - 03/02/09 09:09 AM

Carl, Thanks for the succinct and to the point answer!


Blueman, I know, but that wasn't the question. I first asked about the OS compatibility. I used the lack of a RS232 port as an example of the change in the computer industry and the slowed pace of the Astronomy equipments lag behind. I am aslo not the best typist, so it is probably my fault that I did not make myself clearer. Thanks for your help.

Edited by alanon (03/02/09 09:14 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Tom Picciani
newbie


Reged: 03/24/06

Loc: Lancaster, Pa.
Re: Question for Losmandy Imagers new [Re: alanon]
      #2966405 - 03/05/09 09:13 PM Attachment (17 downloads)

Hi, Alanon. I haven't posted on CN in a couple years and just got back to this site. I've been a G11/Gemini user since '06. My PE is roughly +/- 6" or 12" p-p. I don't see much evidence of the 76 second error.
First, about the 32/64 bit issues. While I won't go into the details, I think compatibilty is the key here. If you're going to need a pc that works with all the software and drivers, then the applications needs dictate the OS. Not that it's an easy decision, but you have to go with either XP or Vista 32. I use XP since Vista is annoying and slow. I run a technology Help Desk at a university.

As to the GM8 or EQ6/Atlas. There's no doubt that I've seen some great Atlas mounts. But I've never seen these poeple do more than 5 minute exposures, and that was pushing it. If you want to image, get the 8 or 11.

You haven't posted the type of optics you plan to mount nor how dark the area is. That will dictate the quality of the mount too. If you're going to use a 90 mm refractor, yea, a GM8 or Atlas will be fine. But if you want to mount a medium to large SCT and want to track accurately without getting frustrated, then you need the G11! I run a C9.25 with a Stellarvue 80. I have an ST7.

Remember, if you can spring for it, the G11 is a lifetime mount, especially if you buy new. Unless you want to buy some really big optics it will last you a lifetime.

Tom P.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
alanon
Nobody tells me anything
*****

Reged: 06/29/07

Loc: Las Vegas
Re: Question for Losmandy Imagers new [Re: Tom Picciani]
      #2966777 - 03/06/09 01:04 AM

Thanks for the info, Tom.

My loads on the mount are as follows...

WO 98mm FLT (aluminum)
WO ZS66 Guide scope
Canon 450D
Auto guider cam
Mounting hardware,Field flatner, etc.

This is a load of 20-25 lbs.

I am interested in the GM8 if I go Losmandy. It is a major chunk outside the budget I had set at $1500 anyway, so the G11 is out of the question. I just can not afford $3K. My question was mainly about the GM-8. would it make a reliably good AP mount under those load conditions? Will it still out perform a mount (the Atlas) that is touted as handling that much weight with ease? For a Gemini version the extra expenditure is a 66% increase in cost.

Yes I am interested in the GM-8, but for the extra cash is it 66% more capable? Or is it even somewhat more capable for a 25lb rig? People do astounding work with the autoguided Atlas. So I think that the question of How much better the GM-8 will do in comparison. Would I be getting a step up in performance with my load requirements?

I would certainly love to own a G-11 or for that matter an AP mount. If Money were not the issue then I would be all over the G-11. The GM-8 is a very big stretch as well for my retired income. I'm just asking that if I can swing that much more, what do I get for the money, over the Synta offerings? This is a reasonable question right? Since my expendable cash is limited, It is only reasonable to get the biggest bang for that amount.

Some here have made a couple of fair cases for the losmandy GM-8, but just as many have brought up issues of load capacity. I can't spend more to fix it with an upgrade to a G-11. The GM-8 has to compete for my dollars without its illustrious big brother. Specially since I have to buy an OS now.

I love the sexy look of the GM-8. In my mind there is an asthetic value to the mount. I just want to be certain before I pull the trigger that I will get the extra value for my load requirments out of that extra $1000.

Correct me if I am wrong but the issue boils down to something like this.

GM-8
Pros. Better build, tighter tolerances.
cons. weight capacity is not so good. Cost is high, need to purchase extras seperately.

Atlas
Pros. Holds a heavier load, cheaper, comes with most of the accessories like polar scope, and more counter balance weight
cons. Not as tight tolerances. PE not as good.

To me a sports car is very cool and sexy, but if you need to haul lumber it isn't the right tool for the job. Similarly at some point that great PE is not going to look so good if the load I place on it is too much. Is 25lbs that proverbiale straw that broke the camels back, or would I still be better off with the GM-8?

I am really interested to hear from all of you guys as to how you would choose under these circumstances? I really do appreciate all of the time you guys spend in helping this old newby to AP. I want to buy once, and want this to be a good experience. As always thanks for the help.


EDIT: Tom, that is one great looking rig you have there.

Edited by alanon (03/06/09 01:08 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Charlie HeinAdministrator
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 11/02/03

Loc: 26.06.08N, +80.23.08W
Re: Question for Losmandy Imagers new [Re: alanon]
      #2967011 - 03/06/09 07:26 AM

Hi Dan - I've got a couple of comments...

Remember, you will be autoguiding. The amount of your mount's PE is a complete non-issue as long as that PE ramps up and down smoothly enough for your autoguider to correct it out.

I think that the GM-8 would pretty much be pushing the limit of its load capacity for imaging with your scopes, but it would *probably* be okay. I cannot say this from first hand experience but even so I believe it to be true just based on the rated capacity of the mount and it's quality.

The Atlas would definitely handle that load - it falls right in the "sweet spot" for the mount actually. There are a number of guys in my club that own the Atlas mount. I was one of them until last week when I sold my Atlas (I now have a G-11).

As for exposure times, remember that if you can autoguide sucessfully through an entire rotation of the worm gear you can expose for as long as you need to barring any other factors like wind, cable interference or someone bumping the scope. The worm period for the Atlas is around 8 minutes or so. Pretty much every Atlas owner in our club exposes for at least that long. I personally would routinely do 10 minute exposures on the Atlas and have even gone as long as 30 minutes with good results.

Bottom line - either mount will definitely please you in some fashion. I don't envy your decision.

Charlie


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Tom Picciani
newbie


Reged: 03/24/06

Loc: Lancaster, Pa.
Re: Question for Losmandy Imagers new [Re: Charlie Hein]
      #2967347 - 03/06/09 10:58 AM

Charlie,

In my experience, PE is much more important than you make it out to be. Remember, autoguiding corrects after the error occurs. If the error is not periodic and predictable, as in lesser quality mounts, then the error must be guided after the fact. It will show on the image prior to it being moved back to the correct position. This can reduce the sharpness of the image. This is the reason that a 20 arc second average mount is not nearly as desirable as a 10 arc second mount.

Perhaps the best thing to do is go to an EQ6/Atlas group and ask what sort of guiding times these people can manage. I think you'll find the Atlas, while a good, solid scope, isn't up to the standards of Losmandy, either the GM8 or the G11. But that's my opinion. For the most part, the error of the Losmandy 8 can be predictable and mapped iwth PemPro. And the Gemini can be purchased separately, although that will cost a few hundred more to go that route.
And finally, don't underestimate the quality of the new Ovision worm that can be purchased from France at a later date.

That raises another point. If someone were to purchase an ovision GM8 worm assembly, is it the same as the G11? I could see someone upgrading a GM8 with the expensive worm then putting the original back when they upgrade to a G11. If that's possible.

Tom P.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Tom Picciani
newbie


Reged: 03/24/06

Loc: Lancaster, Pa.
Re: Question for Losmandy Imagers new [Re: Tom Picciani]
      #2967581 - 03/06/09 12:39 PM

Just to clarify my last post. It is certainly possible to guide out error, whether periodic or not. But doing it after the fact often leaves evidence of the error. If you can see it in guiding, you can see it in the image.

Theoretically and in practice, using PEC can guide out the periodic elements of the error as the error occurs. It's advantageous to do it this way rather than just having PEC turned off and correcting the problem after the fact.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rsbfoto
sage


Reged: 06/10/06

Re: Question for Losmandy Imagers new [Re: Tom Picciani]
      #2967611 - 03/06/09 12:55 PM

Hi Dan,

If you are able to get a G11 tripod instead of the flimsy GM-8 tripod your GM-8 will instantly improve.

If you keep the GM-8 well adjusted 20-25 pounds are no problem for it.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Charlie HeinAdministrator
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 11/02/03

Loc: 26.06.08N, +80.23.08W
Re: Question for Losmandy Imagers new [Re: Tom Picciani]
      #2967701 - 03/06/09 01:27 PM

Quote:

In my experience, PE is much more important than you make it out to be. Remember, autoguiding corrects after the error occurs. If the error is not periodic and predictable, as in lesser quality mounts, then the error must be guided after the fact. It will show on the image prior to it being moved back to the correct position. This can reduce the sharpness of the image. This is the reason that a 20 arc second average mount is not nearly as desirable as a 10 arc second mount.




I'll certainly agree that my statement is a pretty simplistic viewpoint, and deliberately so. It's true that guiding corrects an error only after the error has occurred. However this is true of any mount that is being autoguided. If you have corrections to make and you use autoguiding to correct them there will always be this "lag" regardless of the quality of the mount. It is a function of the process of autoguiding, not the mount itself.

If the mount is guiding correctly (as in gathering enough samples to react as quickly to changes as possible without overcorrecting and thereby "chasing the seeing") I stand by the statement that almost any amount of PE can be well corrected - unless the error is ramping up and down stronger and faster than the system (guider and mount) can accomodate for. If the mount has a "spike" that ramps up hard and fast no guiding solution (including adaptive optics and PEC) can react to the event quickly enough to be effective.

If the system is working correctly and the error ramps up and down in a controllable fashion then the only real difference between correcting a 5 arcsecond error and correcting a 30 arcsecond error would be the number of individual corrections required to keep the star centered. As you say this will definitely result in an image that is somewhat less sharp than it could be if you use adaptive optics guiding or PEC, but it's also safe to say that this is a phenomenon that is common to every autoguided mount regardless of build quality.

When it comes right down to it at a certain point the "desirability factor" of a 10 arcsecond peak to peak mount versus a 20 arcsecond peak to peak mount ends up being almost a philosophical question:

If you are going to be guiding with either mount (this is a given), and you can guide effectively with either mount (this will take some amount of work to achieve in either case but is certainly possible in both cases), then does it really make a difference to you if the error is successfully corrected in 10 steps or 20 when the outcome will be indistinguishable?

The real question (in my mind) is if the extra quality in build makes the work required to get good guiding easy enough to warrant a difference in price, or in Dan's case, a difference in carrying capacity.

Quote:

Perhaps the best thing to do is go to an EQ6/Atlas group and ask what sort of guiding times these people can manage. I think you'll find the Atlas, while a good, solid scope, isn't up to the standards of Losmandy, either the GM8 or the G11. But that's my opinion. For the most part, the error of the Losmandy 8 can be predictable and mapped iwth PemPro. And the Gemini can be purchased separately, although that will cost a few hundred more to go that route.




Bear in mind that it is these quick "spikes" in PE that can't be guided out well that are the real issue here. Although statistically speaking you are going to see more errors of this type on a mount like the Atlas, these quick PE "spikes" can certainly be a problem in the GM-8 and G-11 too. The now legendary "dreaded 76 second error" on the G-11 is a perfect example of this. A worm bearing block that is out of square with the worm causes a predictable "spike" in the PE at 76 second intervals. The amplitude of this "spike" can easily be large enough to wreck your guiding - even when using PEC to correct the errors. In fact, the Ovision worm was developed specifically to correct this problem with the Losmandy mount.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that even with mounts of the class of the Losmandy you may still need to do some serious tweaking to get things just right. My G-11 definitely has the 76 second error. However, I've been able to adjust the worm block so that the error is brought down to an amplitude that as far as I can tell doesn't even trigger a response from the autoguider and doesn't seem to affect my images even at just over 1 arcsecond per pixel resolution. These problems can be remedied, even in the Atlas mount. A quick read of the Losmandy_users and EQ6 Yahoo! groups will show that many people in both groups are doing so and getting better performance out of their mounts for the effort. Again, you have to ask yourself if the amount of work that may be required would be worth it, although no matter what there is going to be some level of effort required in rder to achieve good results - there is no such thing as a totally "plug-n-play" guiding system.

Quote:

And finally, don't underestimate the quality of the new Ovision worm that can be purchased from France at a later date.




The Ovision worm is a really good option if you're having problems getting rid of the 76 second error on your mount. In the majority of cases it also improves the peak to peak PE figure of the mount over the stock worm and block(s).

Quote:

That raises another point. If someone were to purchase an ovision GM8 worm assembly, is it the same as the G11? I could see someone upgrading a GM8 with the expensive worm then putting the original back when they upgrade to a G11. If that's possible.




I believe that the worm is interchangable between the GM-8 and G-11 but I can't say so with 100% certainty.

Charlie


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Charlie HeinAdministrator
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 11/02/03

Loc: 26.06.08N, +80.23.08W
Re: Question for Losmandy Imagers new [Re: Tom Picciani]
      #2967706 - 03/06/09 01:30 PM

Quote:

Just to clarify my last post. It is certainly possible to guide out error, whether periodic or not. But doing it after the fact often leaves evidence of the error. If you can see it in guiding, you can see it in the image.

Theoretically and in practice, using PEC can guide out the periodic elements of the error as the error occurs. It's advantageous to do it this way rather than just having PEC turned off and correcting the problem after the fact.




Yes, I completely agree - and PEC is an option for either the GM-8 or the Atlas.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Patrick
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 05/16/03

Loc: Franklin, Ohio
Re: Question for Losmandy Imagers new [Re: Tom Picciani]
      #2968086 - 03/06/09 04:40 PM

Quote:

In my experience, PE is much more important than you make it out to be. Remember, autoguiding corrects after the error occurs. If the error is not periodic and predictable, as in lesser quality mounts, then the error must be guided after the fact. It will show on the image prior to it being moved back to the correct position. This can reduce the sharpness of the image.




The amount of PE that can be 'handled' is more a factor of the imaging scope's focal length and the pixel size of the imaging device than the lag time of the autoguiding process. At the short focal lengths Alanon is currently showing in his sig line and with his current DSLR he should not have any problems autoguiding his way out of the Atlas's periodic error...without recording those errors. That's simply because the light sources will not cross over from one pixel to the next before the autoguider corrects the error. The autoguider uses sub-pixel correction algorithms.

I know this is a 'Losmandy' thread, but with his scopes and cameras, the lowly CG5-GT would be capable of doing a good job. Alanon has said on more than one occassion that budget is a big consideration. A GM-8 would also be more than enough to do the job very well, but is it worth the extra cost? I don't think so, UNLESS the plan is to image unguided. Then the mount's native PE would be a deciding factor.

If Alanon wants to upgrade his scopes in the future to longer f/l and heavier instruments and doesn't want to upgrade his mount as well, then the Atlas is the clear choice because it already has the capacity to handle those loads, whereas the GM8 does not.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

Patrick


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | (show all)


Extra information
28 registered and 42 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Bowmoreman, bilgebay, iceblaze 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 2418

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics