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

Early Fall sky & Tasco 20TE

  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#26 mikey cee

mikey cee

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,589
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2007
  • Loc: springfield ne.

Posted 03 October 2014 - 10:41 AM

Next pic please. I'd say this is likely your scope. Now whether Star Flite had a store front or not I wouldn't know. But the likelihood there were two Tascos like this customed configuration seems highly improbable. :confused:  Mike

Attached Thumbnails

  • Starflite 007 (533x800).jpg

Edited by mikey cee, 03 October 2014 - 10:48 AM.

  • albert1 and TMSP like this

#27 nightpilot

nightpilot

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 183
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Southern Suburbs, Chicago

Posted 03 October 2014 - 10:56 AM

Wow ... those scopes are beautiful. Congratulations Albert on the restoration Albert.

 

Bob



#28 albert1

albert1

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,653
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2007
  • Loc: New Jersey

Posted 03 October 2014 - 04:54 PM

Next pic please. I'd say this is likely your scope. Now whether Star Flite had a store front or not I wouldn't know. But the likelihood there were two Tascos like this customed configuration seems highly improbable. :confused:  Mike

Wow, Mike. That's incredible you have this photo.

 

Are you saying your photo could be an image of this actual scope or proof that Tasco did indeed offer this model and there were more than two? After completely disassembling the OTA I was left with the impression, that maybe of the three counterweight assemblies, two should be at top and one on the bottom like your photo indicates as opposed to all three at the top. The counterweight rod mounting brackets fit perfectly well in the mounting holes where the solar rod is currently mounted.  I use that solar rod to steer the scope into position, it also holds my little custom bracket that supports the Dec adjusting rods in place. Unfortunately, all those nice finderscopes are missing.

 

This is very interesting. Thanks, Mike.


Edited by albert1, 04 October 2014 - 08:38 PM.


#29 albert1

albert1

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,653
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2007
  • Loc: New Jersey

Posted 03 October 2014 - 05:23 PM

I wonder if this article in a 1978 issue of the Village Voice about the Star Flite Instrument Company is referencing this telescope.

 

http://news.google.c...pg=5196,7082301


Edited by albert1, 05 October 2014 - 02:13 AM.


#30 mikey cee

mikey cee

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,589
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2007
  • Loc: springfield ne.

Posted 03 October 2014 - 05:53 PM

That guy in the pictures sure looks like an Albert Miccio "type" of nationality. The girl is studying that 3D sculptured Moon model too!  Also this whole scope set up deal smells of end user "customizing" a polite term here. The original 25x50 guide scope has been replaced by an oversized finder and same can be said of the shorter 6x30 finder....which with it's extra high stalk is partially seen immediately behind the girl's head  Also the original 12x40 finder has been replaced by an all brass scope. None of this makes any sense. Why all the little scopes? Why are they all changed out? What is the 25x50's replacement accomplishing? To me the rings on the 76x1200 look out of place with Tasco's theme. The adjustment knobs and the x bracing....nothing matches. The dealer himself could have done the first customizing buy securing sliding tube weights and rods of different lengths and guidescope brackets from Japan because Optica b/c sold that stuff separate if I recall the old catalogues. Or it could have been a consignment piece or a trade in. Then a second or third party started in on the finders. Who knows? But I don't get this type of "Heinz 57" being ordered custom made like this especially two of them. My money is on these two scopes being one in the same considering the extremely close proximities. :crazy:  :smirk:  Mike


Edited by mikey cee, 03 October 2014 - 06:02 PM.


#31 Chassetter

Chassetter

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 629
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2009
  • Loc: New Brunswick, Canada

Posted 03 October 2014 - 06:06 PM

That guy in the pictures sure looks like an Albert Miccio "type" of nationality.

 

 

I think you're right, he does look Canadian!  :grin:



#32 mikey cee

mikey cee

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,589
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2007
  • Loc: springfield ne.

Posted 03 October 2014 - 06:25 PM

OK Albert #1 here goes. :lol: The leveler rods are 5/8" O.D. They could be considered not coarse and not fine either but look like a standard and definitely not an Acme thread. Most likely metric. The counterweight rod is also 5/8" O.D. with an Acme thread. Counter weights are just mild steel and are 1-1/16" thick by 7" diameter. They weigh whatever steel in that dimension gives you. Probably between 5-10 lbs each. They have a slightly raised 1-1/4" diameter anti locking hub on one side. ;)  Mike


Edited by mikey cee, 03 October 2014 - 06:31 PM.


#33 albert1

albert1

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,653
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2007
  • Loc: New Jersey

Posted 03 October 2014 - 07:10 PM

The original 25x50 guide scope has been replaced by an oversized finder and same can be said of the shorter 6x30 finder....which with it's extra high stalk is partially seen immediately behind the girl's head  Also the original 12x40 finder has been replaced by an all brass scope.

 

The three finders on the left side of the scope in my photos were not included when I took possession, I added those. The finders pictured in your photo of Star Flite Instruments were missing accept for the one on the 76mm. The brackets holding the 76mm appear to be Royal Astro. They were used on some of their reflector models. I suppose Star Flite could have put this together as you have suggested - that's very possible. Never-the-less, the many finderscopes make it pretty easy to locate from any position while at the scope.

 

Thanks for the info and measurements, Mike. I especially needed the ones for the counterweight.

 

Any idea on production numbers?


Edited by albert1, 03 October 2014 - 07:12 PM.


#34 albert1

albert1

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,653
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2007
  • Loc: New Jersey

Posted 03 October 2014 - 07:35 PM

Here's a nice history of Tasco by John Siple, for those who haven't seen it.

 

http://www.rosecitya...003/2003_07.pdf (scroll down a little).


Edited by albert1, 04 October 2014 - 05:35 PM.


#35 mikey cee

mikey cee

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,589
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2007
  • Loc: springfield ne.

Posted 04 October 2014 - 06:23 PM

Albert I already know that one finder isn't nearly enough. My old 8" refractor had two finders approximately 180° apart. That way when the scope was upside down on the east side of the pier I had a finder handy for my right eye. I'm in the process now of doing the same for my 10" refractor now that I have acquired another matching set of old Jaegers rings. My serial number is 910806 I believe from memory. Now we know at least 6 were made in maybe 1969. My motor has 5/69 imprinted on it under the cover. Our's are later more improved models. I know one thing these scopes eat double stars for breakfast, lunch and dinner! :cool: Mike


  • Bomber Bob likes this

#36 mikey cee

mikey cee

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,589
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2007
  • Loc: springfield ne.

Posted 04 October 2014 - 08:26 PM

"two should be at top and one on the bottom as opposed to all three at the top, like your photo indicates"  They are on the bottom Albert. The scope is shown upside down.  :smirk:  Mike



#37 albert1

albert1

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,653
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2007
  • Loc: New Jersey

Posted 04 October 2014 - 08:50 PM

"two should be at top and one on the bottom as opposed to all three at the top, like your photo indicates"  They are on the bottom Albert. The scope is shown upside down.  :smirk:  Mike

Yes sir, I meant my scope may like to have one set of counterweights on the bottom like your posted photo indicates but actually, the scope responds pretty well as is :smirk: .  I misworded the earlier sentence - now edited.


Edited by albert1, 04 October 2014 - 08:57 PM.


#38 mikey cee

mikey cee

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,589
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2007
  • Loc: springfield ne.

Posted 04 October 2014 - 11:22 PM

I'm getting confused here. The scope in the picture has its sliding weights mounted in the same exact configuration as your scope. You just can't see the one on top because the scope is upside down and tilted slightly. They are one and the same exact telescope!!  :crazy:  Mike



#39 mikey cee

mikey cee

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,589
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2007
  • Loc: springfield ne.

Posted 04 October 2014 - 11:34 PM

Here are some more pics of my scope. Nothing like running this thread into the ground...huh? :lol:  Is it possible to see some more pics of your scope from different angles in the day light?? Mike

Attached Thumbnails

  • 20TE March 2013 001 (Medium).jpg

  • photiost, xavier, Chassetter and 2 others like this

#40 mikey cee

mikey cee

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,589
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2007
  • Loc: springfield ne.

Posted 04 October 2014 - 11:36 PM

Another pic set up in my observatory for viewing that night.

Attached Thumbnails

  • 20TE March 2013 010 (Medium).jpg

  • Chassetter, Stellarfire and mitsos68 like this

#41 mikey cee

mikey cee

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,589
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2007
  • Loc: springfield ne.

Posted 04 October 2014 - 11:38 PM

Pic of the scratch and clamshell free objective lens. It's absolutely amazing how a flash will show the slightest amount of dust!!

Attached Thumbnails

  • 20TE March 2013 012 (Medium).jpg

  • Chassetter, Stellarfire and mitsos68 like this

#42 albert1

albert1

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 2,653
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2007
  • Loc: New Jersey

Posted 05 October 2014 - 01:11 AM

I'm getting confused here. The scope in the picture has its sliding weights mounted in the same exact configuration as your scope. You just can't see the one on top because the scope is upside down and tilted slightly. They are one and the same exact telescope!!  :crazy:  Mike

 

I think I see where the confusion may have come in. When I say "top of the scope" I mean the lens end, and "bottom", the focuser end. I understand now what you mean by top and bottom of the scope. ;)

 

It could very well be the same telescope. My scope does not have the sliding weight near the focuser end. It may have been or indeed was moved to the objective end at some point. After studying the old photo you added (thanks again for that, Mike), the only other possible issue I've noticed as of now that "could" make it a different scope is the power cord from the motor appears different than the one on my scope unless that white line that extends up from the motor is the power cord wrapping around the mount. My power cord is a light color as well. Too bad the photo isn't a bit more clear. 

 

I'll add some daytime pics next setup.


Edited by albert1, 05 October 2014 - 01:35 AM.


#43 Bomber Bob

Bomber Bob

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 18,310
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2013
  • Loc: The Swamp, USA

Posted 05 October 2014 - 10:35 AM

I could look at pictures of the 20TE all day... thanks!!

 

The 20TE GEM looks similar to the Sears 6345 (90mm) GEM -- is the 20TE's a larger version?  Also, is the 20TE pedestal a wider pipe than my 6336's?



#44 Terra Nova

Terra Nova

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 23,490
  • Joined: 29 May 2012
  • Loc: Northern Kentucky

Posted 05 October 2014 - 02:11 PM

The pier on the 20TE looks to be the same diameter as the OTA housing a 108mm objective. How does that equate with your 6336?



#45 Terra Nova

Terra Nova

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 23,490
  • Joined: 29 May 2012
  • Loc: Northern Kentucky

Posted 05 October 2014 - 02:18 PM

The dia. of the pier on the 20TE looks to be approximately equal to the dia. of the OTA that houses the 108mm objective. I just looked at a picture in your gallery of your 76mm #6336. On it the pier and OTA again seem to approximate one another in size. I would therefore speculate that the pier on the 20TE must be at-least 25% to 33% larger. When you scale up, volume (and mass) increase to the cube of the scaling factor, supporting strength on the other hand increases with cross-sectional area of the supports and thus increases to the square of the scaling factor. For this reason, we will never have the giant ants, grasshoppers or tarantulas of the movies that were contemporary to these telescopes. When these telescopes become larger, the piers soon have to become even larger in diameter than the tubes themselves.


Edited by terraclarke, 05 October 2014 - 02:21 PM.

  • Chassetter likes this

#46 Bomber Bob

Bomber Bob

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 18,310
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2013
  • Loc: The Swamp, USA

Posted 05 October 2014 - 04:30 PM

The 6336 pedestal is a couple of mm larger than the OTA.

 

I see in Xavier's ad for a RAO LN6-E that the GEM appears to be the same model as the Tasco 20TE; harder to tell about the pedestal diameter.  I wonder how well that setup supports the 6" reflector...



#47 Terra Nova

Terra Nova

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 23,490
  • Joined: 29 May 2012
  • Loc: Northern Kentucky

Posted 05 October 2014 - 04:40 PM

And I would imagine the one to support the 20TE is several mm larger than the 20TE OTA which would put it 30mm or more larger in dia. than the 6336 pedestal.



#48 Bomber Bob

Bomber Bob

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 18,310
  • Joined: 09 Jul 2013
  • Loc: The Swamp, USA

Posted 05 October 2014 - 04:45 PM

That makes sense.  Hard to tell, but the cast iron feet look to be the same size as mine.  (Of course, if I had my own 20TE, I wouldn't have to speculate.)



#49 mikey cee

mikey cee

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,589
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2007
  • Loc: springfield ne.

Posted 05 October 2014 - 05:02 PM

Ah you guys are always barking up the wrong tree around here. OK here we go. OTA is 4-5/16" O.D. Pier is 4-9/16" O.D. RA casting from the center of the latitude bolt  is 10-1/2" long and 2-13/16" O.D. at the 4" O.D. gear. The DEC casting is 10-1/2" long from the cradle to the CW shaft and 2-5/8" O.D. As an added bonus the dew cap is 6-1/8" O.D. Now you folks with the 6345's and 6336's don't knock over the coffee tables and lamps racing to the other room. :smirk:  Mike



#50 Chassetter

Chassetter

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 629
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2009
  • Loc: New Brunswick, Canada

Posted 05 October 2014 - 05:17 PM

The dia. of the pier on the 20TE looks to be approximately equal to the dia. of the OTA that houses the 108mm objective. I just looked at a picture in your gallery of your 76mm #6336. On it the pier and OTA again seem to approximate one another in size. I would therefore speculate that the pier on the 20TE must be at-least 25% to 33% larger. When you scale up, volume (and mass) increase to the cube of the scaling factor, supporting strength on the other hand increases with cross-sectional area of the supports and thus increases to the square of the scaling factor. For this reason, we will never have the giant ants, grasshoppers or tarantulas of the movies that were contemporary to these telescopes. When these telescopes become larger, the piers soon have to become even larger in diameter than the tubes themselves.

 

Another reason no giant mutant movie bug-monsters terraclarke is that their exoskeltons would again cube-scale to the point the weight would crush them. Endoskeleton don't scale that weigh (linear i think) so biggest animals are vertebrates. I think, same idea as the internal steel framing of a modern skyscraper, vs. the exterior wall supports of adobe huts.  Sorry for the threadjack, I am OCD!  :p


  • Terra Nova and Bomber Bob like this


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