Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Alt-Az vs. GEM mounts for SCT scope

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
34 replies to this topic

#26 Mike B

Mike B

    Starstruck

  • *****
  • Posts: 11002
  • Joined: 06 Apr 2005

Posted 06 October 2005 - 02:54 PM

John-
Well, it may be me, too... i'm guessing from memory's eye that they're 2". They could be 1-1/2"... but they are steel, not aluminum. I'll look again when i get home :smirk:
Bottom line is, sounds like it'll carry the 9.25" SCT fairly decently. However, the 11" SCT is offered only on the "Atlas"... so Orion is not falling egregiously to the temptation of seriously under-mounting this new line-up of SCT scopes :grin:
Maybe the "market" & the info-highway are doing their work! Thanks, again, to CN for it's part! ;)
:cool: mike b

#27 southmike

southmike

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2876
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2004

Posted 06 October 2005 - 03:05 PM

yep, I would agree, orion is much more practical with their offering then the original celestron deal..looks like they listened to some feedback from the astro community, especially with the I with the atlas was goto.

#28 snorkler

snorkler

    Aperture Aficionado

  • *****
  • Posts: 11579
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2004

Posted 06 October 2005 - 06:41 PM

Thinking outside the box, if Sander ever adds a second scope to his stable, a GEM miraculously gains a substantial advantage since it can accomodate that second OTA in place of the SCT. The fork mount devotee is going to be instantly SOL.

#29 jrcrilly

jrcrilly

    Refractor wienie no more

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 35468
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2003

Posted 06 October 2005 - 07:36 PM

Thinking outside the box, if Sander ever adds a second scope to his stable, a GEM miraculously gains a substantial advantage since it can accomodate that second OTA in place of the SCT. The fork mount devotee is going to be instantly SOL.


If the second telescope is the usual short focal length refractor (the most logical complement to an SCT) it won't be a problem; I have piggybacked a large variety of refractors onto a large variety of forkmounted SCT's. It's the third telescope that causes trouble! ;)

#30 snorkler

snorkler

    Aperture Aficionado

  • *****
  • Posts: 11579
  • Joined: 11 Oct 2004

Posted 06 October 2005 - 09:54 PM

If the second telescope is the usual short focal length refractor (the most logical complement to an SCT) it won't be a problem; I have piggybacked a large variety of refractors onto a large variety of forkmounted SCT's. It's the third telescope that causes trouble! ;)


Well, I was talking about scopes, not toys ;-)javascript:void(0)
:foreheadslap:

#31 NorthCoast

NorthCoast

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2308
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2004

Posted 08 October 2005 - 12:01 AM

If the second telescope is the usual short focal length refractor (the most logical complement to an SCT) it won't be a problem; I have piggybacked a large variety of refractors onto a large variety of forkmounted SCT's. It's the third telescope that causes trouble! ;)


Don't see too many "big" dobs mounted on SCTs... :question:

Later,
Mark

#32 southmike

southmike

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2876
  • Joined: 22 Nov 2004

Posted 08 October 2005 - 01:48 AM

I am working on that 3rd telescope theory.. :grin:
hopefully will post pics soon. waiting on a part.

#33 mplkn1

mplkn1

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 452
  • Joined: 28 Aug 2005

Posted 08 October 2005 - 07:44 AM

I thought the SVP legs were 2" when I saw them - they look beefy! Last night I measured the legs on my spankin' new SVP (the weather was good for little else) and can report: they're 1.75".

Not 2" but more than the 1.5" I'd read they were when researching the purchase. Maybe they were beefed up from 1.5" to 1.75"?

Damping time with my 8" SCT is about a second, on earth.

Well, I mean, *obviously* its on Earth, but I mean on the earthen surface of a field, not on a driveway or other paved surface...

Cheers!

#34 Nocturnal

Nocturnal

    Surveyor 1

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 1850
  • Joined: 14 Sep 2005

Posted 10 October 2005 - 02:46 PM

I was at the Orion store in Cupertino (CA) on Saturday. Eye-opening. They had some hulkin' GEM mounts there. One was a Celestron CGE (I think). $3K without a scope. It looked like military grade material. Mortar tube stuff. I'd have to hire an assistant to pack and unload that sucker when going to a star party :) Oh and I don't have $3K to spend on just a mount right now. Just plopped down $45K for a new car :)

Anyway, thanks for all your feedback. I understand the issues much better now. Well, that's what I like to think anyway.

#35 Mike B

Mike B

    Starstruck

  • *****
  • Posts: 11002
  • Joined: 06 Apr 2005

Posted 10 October 2005 - 06:29 PM

Thanks Michael-

I did finally remember to measure my new SVP's tripod legs... i, too, came up with 1-3/4". Chrome steel! Sweet! For comparison, my LX50's tripod legs are precicely 2.00" diameter chrome steel.

Now, i'd be curious to see/hear what dampening times are with vibe pads, as well as with the 9-1/4" SCT on board (my secret aspiration ;)). In fact, i'll add my :penny: :penny: re: dampening times next time iv'e got my 'Ladyscope' 6" F8 on it. The scope length is definitely an issue as well as the weight... that's maybe why these SCTs are doing so well- they've got so little length to add to the equation...

Regards,
:cool: mike b


CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics