Adam Taylor
insignificant bystander
Reged: 11/11/10
Loc: Arizona
|
GoTo GEM Redesign?
#5302599 - 07/04/12 04:41 PM
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I recall reading somewhere that a long-time favorite GoTo EQ mount is currently being redesigned/manufactured. I don't remember which make/model - my memory of this is unclear. I searched here on CN, but couldn't find anything. Does anyone know, or can link to any info?
|
Starhawk
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/16/08
Loc: Tucson, Arizona
|
Re: GoTo GEM Redesign?
[Re: Adam Taylor]
#5302635 - 07/04/12 05:19 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
You're going to need to narrow that down.
Celestron just redesigned the CGE-pro
Meade just changed their entire lineup
Losmandy has been migrating to a new controller called gemini II
Astro Physics is replacing the AP1200 with the higher capacity AP1600, with encoders.
There are more.
-Rich
|
Adam Taylor
insignificant bystander
Reged: 11/11/10
Loc: Arizona
|
Re: GoTo GEM Redesign?
[Re: Starhawk]
#5302700 - 07/04/12 06:06 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
I seem to recall it was an intermediate mount, for example the CG-5GT. That would make sense actually. Isn't the CG-5 casting and internals quite dated? And, won't it now have to compete with the new LX80?
|
astro_baby
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 06/17/08
Loc: United Kingdom
|
Re: GoTo GEM Redesign?
[Re: Adam Taylor]
#5302717 - 07/04/12 06:15 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
The EQ6 has a dual mode GEM/altaz version scheduled...could that be it ?
|
rmollise
Postmaster
Reged: 07/06/07
|
Re: GoTo GEM Redesign?
[Re: astro_baby]
#5302722 - 07/04/12 06:20 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Probably you are thinking about the CG5...there was some discussion about that as it seems ripe for a change. Hasn't happened yet.
Atlas EQ6? Been done...they call it the "CGEM." 
There's the (supposedly) forthcoming alt-az EQ-6, but that's more of an offshoot than a redesign, I reckon.
|
simpleisbetter
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/18/11
|
Re: GoTo GEM Redesign?
[Re: rmollise]
#5302732 - 07/04/12 06:25 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Yeah, I've been hearing rumors of a CG-5 replacement for several years now, but I don't buy into any of the speculation myself, unless I see or hear something concrete from Celestron.
|
jrbarnett
Eyepiece Hooligan
Reged: 02/28/06
Loc: Petaluma, CA
|
Re: GoTo GEM Redesign?
[Re: Starhawk]
#5302740 - 07/04/12 06:27 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
When did Celestron re-design the CGE Pro? I recall that they discontinued the US made CGE and then brought out the China-made CGE Pro, but wasn't aware that the Pro had been redesigned.
The CG5-GT seems to be on hiatus, being on backorder, so I think that's the likely candidate for a pending redesign. Of course, Celestron might just kill it off in favor the the CGEM. Ya never know.
Regards,
Jim
|
rmollise
Postmaster
Reged: 07/06/07
|
Re: GoTo GEM Redesign?
[Re: simpleisbetter]
#5302742 - 07/04/12 06:29 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Frankly, the CG5 just works. Unless they are SURE they have something that is More Better Gooder and _also_ as reliable, they'd be well advised to leave the old girl alone.
|
oldstargazer
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 08/03/11
Loc: Western Oklahoma
|
Re: GoTo GEM Redesign?
[Re: rmollise]
#5302796 - 07/04/12 07:23 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
If they are even thinking about changing the current CG5-GTa that makes me want to buy a spare. I guess the old super polaris became the CG4 and then they started putting junk under their cheaper otas instead of something like the super polaris.
|
jrcrilly
Refractor wienie no more
Reged: 04/30/03
Loc: NE Ohio
|
Re: GoTo GEM Redesign?
[Re: oldstargazer]
#5302905 - 07/04/12 08:47 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
I guess the old super polaris became the CG4
Not quite. Celestron stopped buying the SP from Vixen and started buying the CG4 from Synta instead. Vixen quality has remained unchanged.
|
rmollise
Postmaster
Reged: 07/06/07
|
Re: GoTo GEM Redesign?
[Re: jrcrilly]
#5302920 - 07/04/12 09:10 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I guess the old super polaris became the CG4
Not quite. Celestron stopped buying the SP from Vixen and started buying the CG4 from Synta instead. Vixen quality has remained unchanged.
Well...maybe.
|
jrcrilly
Refractor wienie no more
Reged: 04/30/03
Loc: NE Ohio
|
Re: GoTo GEM Redesign?
[Re: rmollise]
#5302953 - 07/04/12 09:43 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Not quite. Celestron stopped buying the SP from Vixen and started buying the CG4 from Synta instead. Vixen quality has remained unchanged.
Well...maybe.
Hi, Rod. I'm among the many who never learned to love the current gamepad-ish control system but I think the mount quality is still up there.
|
rmollise
Postmaster
Reged: 07/06/07
|
Re: GoTo GEM Redesign?
[Re: jrcrilly]
#5303453 - 07/05/12 09:42 AM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
It is OK, but these days not as much better than Synta as it used to be--sometimes not as good as. Or maybe Synta has gotten better. It's not that I don't like the idea of the StarBook system, it's that they have yet to get the bugs out. And too many mounts exhibit things like sticky RA and Dec axes that would have been unheard of in the past. 
|
EFT
Vendor - Deep Space Products
Reged: 05/07/07
Loc: Phoenix, AZ
|
Re: GoTo GEM Redesign?
[Re: jrbarnett]
#5303558 - 07/05/12 10:57 AM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
When did Celestron re-design the CGE Pro? I recall that they discontinued the US made CGE and then brought out the China-made CGE Pro, but wasn't aware that the Pro had been redesigned.
The CGE Pro was recently changed to decrease the PE to +/-3 arc sec according to Celestron. What the changes were, we don't know for sure. We do know that the RA worm assembly was changed to be spring loaded. Besides that, the most likely change to decrease the PE would be the production of higher precision worms and worm wheels and the use of matched sets.
|
dr.who
sage
Reged: 01/05/12
|
Re: GoTo GEM Redesign?
[Re: rmollise]
#5303656 - 07/05/12 11:55 AM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
Frankly, the CG5 just works. Unless they are SURE they have something that is More Better Gooder and _also_ as reliable, they'd be well advised to leave the old girl alone.
If I remember right, Ron, you are an Engineer as am I. When have Engineer's EVER left something alone when there is an opportunity to apply a "Wouldn't it be cool if we could make it..." type of "enhancement"? 
|
Adam Taylor
insignificant bystander
Reged: 11/11/10
Loc: Arizona
|
Re: GoTo GEM Redesign?
[Re: rmollise]
#5303747 - 07/05/12 01:08 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
Unless they are SURE they have something that is More Better Gooder ...
I can think of a few:
1) ball bearings on the DEC axis
2) improved drive integration (reduced motor/gear noise)
3) dual locking screws in the saddle
4) ergo altitude adjusters
5) a bit more mass in the head for stability
Sort of a smaller CGEM I suppose. Like what the HEQ5 is to the EQ6.
|
rmollise
Postmaster
Reged: 07/06/07
|
Re: GoTo GEM Redesign?
[Re: dr.who]
#5303897 - 07/05/12 02:41 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Frankly, the CG5 just works. Unless they are SURE they have something that is More Better Gooder and _also_ as reliable, they'd be well advised to leave the old girl alone.
If I remember right, Ron, you are an Engineer as am I. When have Engineer's EVER left something alone when there is an opportunity to apply a "Wouldn't it be cool if we could make it..." type of "enhancement"?
Well, it's a good thing I'm not working for Celestron...
|
Starhawk
Post Laureate
Reged: 09/16/08
Loc: Tucson, Arizona
|
Re: GoTo GEM Redesign?
[Re: rmollise]
#5304397 - 07/05/12 09:25 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
For Dr. Who's question- having people's lives in the balance is about the only thing to slow engineers down, and not aways, then.
The CG-5 really got an upgrade when it went to the CG-5GT, but you know, neither version really had loser DNA.
A mini-CGEM makes sense up to the point where you talk about redesigning to do it.
Maybe a bearing upgrade, but anything to threaten stability, reliability, or anything else, I'd have to side with Rod- it better have fought its way into the design for some really good reasons. Maybe a version with Sky Prodigy, but only then if the thing really works well.
-Rich
|
EFT
Vendor - Deep Space Products
Reged: 05/07/07
Loc: Phoenix, AZ
|
Re: GoTo GEM Redesign?
[Re: Adam Taylor]
#5305143 - 07/06/12 10:32 AM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
All you would have to do to significantly reduce the noise issue is get rid of the plastic, sound amplifying, drive enclosures. If you ever run a CG5 without the plastic enclosures you will find that it is not really that noisy. Many other mounts are more quiet simply because the motors are enclosed inside the relatively thick metal housing.
|
dr.who
sage
Reged: 01/05/12
|
Re: GoTo GEM Redesign?
[Re: Starhawk]
#5305541 - 07/06/12 02:50 PM
|
|
Edit
|
Reply
|
Quote |
Quick Reply
|
|
|
Quote:
For Dr. Who's question- having people's lives in the balance is about the only thing to slow engineers down, and not aways, then.
Sadly you are correct. I fight that fight almost daily. Sometimes with myself. I am constantly asking myself "Is this as simple as I can make it?" as in making sure I am not building in complexity that is not necessary just because I can do something "cool" or "neat" with the modification.
Quote:
The CG-5 really got an upgrade when it went to the CG-5GT, but you know, neither version really had loser DNA.
A mini-CGEM makes sense up to the point where you talk about redesigning to do it.
Maybe a bearing upgrade, but anything to threaten stability, reliability, or anything else, I'd have to side with Rod- it better have fought its way into the design for some really good reasons. Maybe a version with Sky Prodigy, but only then if the thing really works well.
-Rich
What scares me is they take a look at Meade's LX80 and go "<bad word deleted>! We need *THAT* in our lineup!" To me that would be a mistake.
The LX80 is a nice idea and so far has performed, for me, to published spec's (unfortunately the last two+ weeks have been June Gloom) but I have to ask myself what the need for it really is? I can kind of wrap my head around the whole it's an alt/az! Now it's and EQ! All for the low low price of $1,000! But other than the "cool engineering factor" of having a dual purpose mount... So what?
If I am going to take pictures I am going to most likely use my CGEM. If I am going to view it is about the same amount of work to setup the CGEM as it is to setup the LX80 in alt/az mode so there is no real utility gained there.
The best thing they could do is, as you mention, upgrade the parts a bit but other than that they should leave well enough alone in my opinion. Alt/Az is nice but if it takes me the same amount of time to balance the OTA in both axis, find North and point the mount that way, level it and the OTA, then do a two star alignment what have I gained by having an Alt/Az mount over an EQ mount since my setup will be exactly the same? Other than not having to put myself in odd positions to view certain things? Which I fix by simply loosening the diagonal screws and rotating it a bit by the way. And if that is the case what is wrong with the existing SE line or their fork mounts?
Just because one of the other cool kids has a new toy doesn't mean that *YOU* need to do it too Celestron! Would you jump off a bridge if Meade jumped off a bridge Celestron?!?
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
