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 | 6 | 7 | (show all)
frolinmod
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 08/06/10

Loc: Southern California
Re: Do direct drive mounts really not require guiding? new [Re: neptun2]
      #5711844 - 03/04/13 01:20 AM

Quote:

i read that people get 40 minute exposures at over 2000mm focal length so i don't think that it is usable only with short focal lengths.



I consider 2000mm to be a short focal length. Also, I didn't say it was "usable only at short focal lengths." I'm certain it can be at least somewhat helpful at almost any focal length.


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

Reged: 04/13/09

Loc: Scranton, PA
Re: Do direct drive mounts really not require guiding? new [Re: neptun2]
      #5711845 - 03/04/13 01:21 AM

Quote:

Well about the ASA MLPT - i read that people get 40 minute exposures at over 2000mm focal length so i don't think that it is usable only with short focal lengths. Another idea of the MLPT is that you don't need to create big pointing model when you use it. You make basic pointing model with several points so that you can make your polar alignment and goto accuracy is good but after that the MLPT creates local pointing model for the object that you will image. I always have laptop with me on the field so that is not a problem.




How long does the MLPT take? And is it fully automated?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
neptun2
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 03/04/07

Loc: Bulgaria
Re: Do direct drive mounts really not require guiding? new [Re: Footbag]
      #5711887 - 03/04/13 02:36 AM

Well the information from ASA is that the mount software commands the camera (you should have ascm compatible camera for that) and it takes around 10 exposure alongside the path where the object will pass and plate solve them to make the pointing model. It looks like automatic process and it should not take so much time to take 10 exposures which can be plate solved.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Waldemar
member


Reged: 08/02/08

Loc: Netherlands
Re: Do direct drive mounts really not require guiding? new [Re: neptun2]
      #5712158 - 03/04/13 09:41 AM

Maybe it is a smart move to go to the ASA site and download their manuals... that will give at least a bit of insight.
I find my ASA DDM60Pro to be an incredible piece of technique with far more outstanding features than just the possibility for unguided tracking. No guider camera can compensate for windgust for the simple reason guiding with a camera is far too slow, compensation is always after the fact. ASA corrects while it is happening... not after the fact, but realtime! I know of no other mount that can do that. It can also compensate for flexures like is said before, although I personally think that the set-up should be as rigid as possible to prevent flexing, but nevertheless.
Everything is so easy to do: balancing with electronic help from the AutoSlew program from Philip Keller, Setting the PID settings is automated as well, so is making pointing files. Still the software is different enough from others to challenge your intellect. Well... for me anyway...
Goto speeds and accuracy are simply beyond and silent!
My MicroTouch focusser makes alot more noise then my mount!
Now that I finally understand how I can make things happen, I need better weather and TIME!

just my 2c
Clear Skies for all and myself!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pak
super member
*****

Reged: 09/15/12

Loc: The Great Arc
Re: Do direct drive mounts really not require guiding? new [Re: neptun2]
      #5712391 - 03/04/13 12:08 PM

I can't believe I am saying this out loud but...

It sounds like you should consider the LX850.



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
GIR
super member


Reged: 01/02/10

Loc: Finland
Re: Do direct drive mounts really not require guiding? new [Re: Waldemar]
      #5713801 - 03/05/13 02:53 AM

Have to agree with Waldemar, ASA is simply an astonishing mount ...very fast, unbelievably accurate and silent. The only noise comes from the camera fans. I used to have G11 before and you can't really compare those two mounts.

Making a pointing model is easy and fast, especially if you plate solve using bin 3x3 to speed up the download time. Building a very accurate 50 point model takes about 15-20 minutes, depending on what kind of camera and computer you have.A 10 point MLPT takes couple of minutes.

However, you can actually use an old model even in the field because there is a special feature just to adjust the polar alignment with 3 points. Haven't tested it myself yet because I have a permanent set up. Anyway, you don't necessarily need a large pointing model if you're using the MLPT feature; 20 points should more than enough.

Making the ASA mount work properly requires some tuning, however most of it is very simple to do and has to be done only once.

ASA DDM60 Pro


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
psandelle
professor emeritus


Reged: 06/18/08

Loc: Los Angeles
Re: Do direct drive mounts really not require guiding? new [Re: GIR]
      #5714457 - 03/05/13 01:16 PM

Quick question to the ASA mount guys & girls - after really looking it over, I think the term "unguided" is a bit misleading, in that the ASA software, in a way, does predictive guiding based upon real pics taken by the CCD and mount (plate solves, errors accounted for, etc.) - but it internally checks where it should be against the encoders, where a guidescope/OAG CCD setup checks against the external value of the star displacement. So, it is kinda "guided" - just in a different manner (it's not like you point the mount at an object and let 'er run and it somehow "magically" stays on the target - it solves and predicts where to be).

Anyway, that being the case, have any of you figured which was more accurate, an external/OAG guided ASA mount versus the ASA software's "internal" method of guiding? I mean, both methods have error, I would think. If there were some numbers that said that the ASA software/plate solving method was more accurate than a guider, that'd be interesting. And, yes, I understand people are getting 20+ minute "unguided" subs on the ASA's, but was curious if those 20+ subs were better or worse, analytically, than the same mount/scope with a guidescope/OAG.

Thanks, just curious,

Paul


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
elbee
professor emeritus


Reged: 05/02/09

Loc: Arizona
Re: Do direct drive mounts really not require guiding? new [Re: psandelle]
      #5714491 - 03/05/13 01:30 PM

for those of you that have/use an ASA mount i have a question. i have seen MLPT work, and it works extremely well without guiding (10-15min subs and modest FL), BUT from what i have observed, the MLPT model can not handle a meridian flip. you build the MLPT model either before or after the meridian flip. so how do you run an automated session (i.e., ccdautopilot, acp, etc) without having to be there to rebuild an MLPT model following a meridian flip?

EDIT: one other "problem" i have seen with MLPT within an automated session. the MLPT model will not easily account for time taken out to do refocus runs. MLPT seems to rely very heavily on knowing where the object is in the sky within a time interval t(start) to t(finish). if it is not where it is supposed to be (because some time was taken to do a temperature dependent - unexpected - focus run), things don't go so smoothly.

thanks

Edited by elbee (03/05/13 02:10 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
blueman
Photon Catcher
*****

Reged: 07/20/07

Loc: California
Re: Do direct drive mounts really not require guiding? new [Re: neptun2]
      #5714494 - 03/05/13 01:31 PM

Guiding is not difficult and it is not that expensive either. If you are imaging, well you have everything but the guide camera and scope anyway. Most acquistion software will guide, so there is not that much extra effort to guide in my opinion.
Blueman


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
psandelle
professor emeritus


Reged: 06/18/08

Loc: Los Angeles
Re: Do direct drive mounts really not require guiding? new [Re: blueman]
      #5714511 - 03/05/13 01:37 PM

blueman - I don't think guiding's tough, either (or expensive, or whatever people say), but in looking closer, I realized that the ASA software is doing something akin to guiding anyway, but I don't know how accurate compared to "external" guiding methods. Was curious.

Also, if you're using the ASA method, would external guiding be superfluous if the ASA method were more accurate.

Paul


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
SL63 AMG
scholastic sledgehammer
*****

Reged: 12/21/09

Loc: Williamson, Arizona
Re: Do direct drive mounts really not require guiding? new [Re: psandelle]
      #5714581 - 03/05/13 02:24 PM

Being the owner of a DDM85, I will agree with everything said by the other owners of ASA DDM mounts.

I first owned a DDM60 prior to them putting fixed encoders on each axis and I didn't like the setup. I still don't like the tip tilt system of the base plate for polar adjustments.

The DDM85 offers a much better method where the base plate rotates for RA and the DEC axis is lifted by a hand wheel.

That being said, setting up the DDM85 for portable use isn't an issue. I set mine up in my driveway every month. I used a sharpie to mark the positions of the tripod feet and this gets my polar alignment to within a few arc minutes each setup.

I could image 5-10 minute subs easily with a polar misalginent under 5 arc minutes, but I am rather anal and won't accept anything less than 0.5' of error and I almost always achieve 0.3' (<= 18") or better.

In order to get this accurte of polar aligment usually requries me to shoot 3 autopoint files of 10-15 stars on one side of the mount, then go find a star on the southern meridian near my latitude, center it on my CCD chip, instruct Autoslew to make a polar correction and then manually dial the star back onto the center of the chip.

This used to take some time with my QSI583wsg because the camera download time is slow, but with my FLI ML8300 combined with connecting my mount to MAxim for telescope control, I can knock out polar adjustment in about 10 minutes, so chalk up about 30-40 minutes for a very accurate polar alignment.

Once my polar alignment is complete, I make a 50 star pointing model with 25 stars on each side of the mount. This takes about 15 minutes. The accurate pointing model corrects all left over polar alignment error, collimation error, mount angle error offset constant and applies a fourrier correction. About the only thing no corrected for is Hysterisis, which all telescope systems exhibit to some degree or another.

Once corrected, I go to my object, synch my plate solving program Sequence (also used for polar alignment and pointing model) and then I start MLPT.

MLPT is a unique tool. Basically, you tell it how long is your total exposure time for all subs, how long each sub is and then tell it to go. It shoots a sub at each point along the arc of the object and plate solves the image, then calculates where it is in the sky versus where it should be in the sky. MLPT then makes corrections during the entire image run keeping the system on track, corecting for all of the items I listed above.

I have discovered through much trial and error that it is best to keep your points small. In other words, if I am shooting 10 minutes subs for 100 minutes, instead of telling that to MLPT, I get better results telling it to run MLPT ar 100 minutes for 5 minutes usbs forcing it to shoot 20 points along the arc.

Anyway, it works as advertised. I have taken up to 30 minute unguided subs at 900mm FL F/3.6 and up to 15 minute subs at 2432mm FL at F/8.

As elbee stated, there are some drawbacks and I am now trying to leanr how to guide the mount for long narrowband exposures at 2432mm FL.

Two of the disadvantages of MLPT are that you cannot leave the MLPT run to go autofocus, such as during a temperature change, and you cannot image to the meridian, flip, then start again without executing another MLPT routine, which is a user intervened process.

The mount can be commanded for automatic meridian flips, but then you lose MLPT.

This is anothe reason I see autoguiding useful for long exposures.

A benefit of the ASA mount for autoguiding is the fact there is no periodic error and there is no backlash.

The optical encoders on the DDM85 are accurate to .02" which is quite incredible.

I could go on and on about the mount, but suffice it to say it is accurate, it does work as advertised and I wouldn't trade mine for any other mount. I might one day get another mount, like an AP or Paramount, mostly to learn something new, but I would not give up my ASA ot get one of these even with the MLPT issue.

I believe Dr. Keller will one day script MLPT so that it can be controlled by ACP and CCDAutoPilot. There is no reason not to as it takes only a few parameters.

Once MLPT can be scripted, one can script an MLPT run for any lenght of time, interrupt it, go focus, do a meridian flip, whatever, then come back and initial another MLPT and start imaging again.

By the way, the time it takes to do MLPT varies based upon the length of your total exposure time, number of exposures and the length of your plate solve exposure.

For most of my MLPT runs, setup is 5-8 minutes. Once can also increase the MLPT iterations for better accuracy, such as when shooting low in the southern sky.

I have to go take my friend to the airport. I may write more later if I can think of anything worth posting.



My physical setup time is about two hours, which I do during the day.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
psandelle
professor emeritus


Reged: 06/18/08

Loc: Los Angeles
Re: Do direct drive mounts really not require guiding? new [Re: SL63 AMG]
      #5714693 - 03/05/13 03:26 PM

Dave - great summation about everything. I now have a much better understanding of how it all fits together (MLPT, guiding, etc.). Very cool. As I move forward over the years, I'll keep this in mind on picking my next mount.

Paul


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Per Frejvall
sage


Reged: 09/28/12

Loc: Saltsjöbaden, Sweden
Re: Do direct drive mounts really not require guiding? new [Re: neptun2]
      #5719782 - 03/08/13 01:53 AM

I've test shot a 1-hour sub at M106 with a 190MN mounted on my 10Micron GM2000HPS - unguided. The mount keeps the pointing model in-mount, so once you have a model you actually don't need the PC per se.

I recently added a GM1000HPS as the GM2000HPS is going away to a remote site in Southern France, and that little bugger looks very promising.

If unguided is your aim, 10Micron mounts may be a good choice.

/per


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jjongmans
super member


Reged: 02/11/12

Loc: The Netherlands
Re: Do direct drive mounts really not require guiding? new [Re: Per Frejvall]
      #5719822 - 03/08/13 03:30 AM

I'm using an ASA DDM60 in a permanent setup. The performance is outstanding. I could achieve 30 min. unguided subs on the first night using it. I ran an automated three-star-polar-alignment-pointing-model, did an accurate polar alignment. I don't use MLPT, but I use an all-sky model with 50 points, also automatically created. After that I could take 30 min. subs with a focal length of 2000mm.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
TerraPassenger
member


Reged: 12/26/13

Re: Do direct drive mounts really not require guiding? [Re: jjongmans]
      #6303731 - 01/10/14 09:09 AM

I'm thinking about purchasing a ASA DDM60 Pro. However, I will need to use this mount in a portable configuration - setting it up and then tearing it down each night.

I'm wondering, how long does it take to set up the ASA DDM60 Pro in the field? Assume that the setup location is new - one that you've never visited before.

I'm interested in the DDM60 Pro but based on what I've read, field setup may be quite a bit longer than for other mounts.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Dave


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Waldemar
member


Reged: 08/02/08

Loc: Netherlands
Re: Do direct drive mounts really not require guiding? [Re: TerraPassenger]
      #6304487 - 01/10/14 03:32 PM

did you not read this thread?

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

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: Do direct drive mounts really not require guiding? [Re: Footbag]
      #6304563 - 01/10/14 04:25 PM

Quote:

Any mount that doesn't require guiding is going to require you to build up a pointing model.




Not really. a pointing model might or might not be required, but it has nothing to do with the mount's lack of periodic error or drive system. It has to do with the go-to alignment system used.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
TerraPassenger
member


Reged: 12/26/13

Re: Do direct drive mounts really not require guiding? [Re: rmollise]
      #6304692 - 01/10/14 05:39 PM

>> did you not read this thread?
Yes, I did.

For the user who pre-marked his DDM85 location on his driveway it sounded like 30-40 minutes for polar alignment, followed by 15 min for a 50 star point model followed by 5-8 min (times 2? if a meridian flip is needed) for a MLPT which is 30+15+2*10=65 min.

The reason I've restated the question is to confirm the above estimate.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jrcrillyAdministrator
Refractor wienie no more
*****

Reged: 04/30/03

Loc: NE Ohio
Re: Do direct drive mounts really not require guiding? [Re: rmollise]
      #6304759 - 01/10/14 06:19 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Any mount that doesn't require guiding is going to require you to build up a pointing model.




Not really. a pointing model might or might not be required, but it has nothing to do with the mount's lack of periodic error or drive system. It has to do with the go-to alignment system used.




For unguided imaging at most focal lengths a pointing model will, indeed, be required to compensate for things like declination drift, flexure, and atmospheric refraction. Without a closed loop from a guider, those can only be derived from a model.


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

Reged: 07/06/07

Re: Do direct drive mounts really not require guiding? [Re: jrcrilly]
      #6305039 - 01/10/14 09:26 PM

A pointing model won't do a thing for declination drift. A T-point assisted polar alignment will. The go-to alignment doesn't do squat for tracking.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | (show all)


Extra information
11 registered and 43 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Dave M, richard7, bilgebay 

Print Thread

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


Thread views: 6112

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics