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

24" Maksutov

  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1 Steve Dodds

Steve Dodds

    Owner - Nova Optical

  • *****
  • Vendors
  • topic starter
  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2007
  • Loc: Utah

Posted 11 October 2019 - 03:56 PM

There are the blanks for a 24" maksutov over in the classifieds, corrector is slumped but still 2" thick, primary is 4" thick.  How long would this monster take to cool down?

Which one of you is insane to take this on?

 



#2 Augustus

Augustus

    Fly Me To The Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,256
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2015
  • Loc: Stamford, Connecticut

Posted 11 October 2019 - 03:59 PM

If finished, it would be among if not the largest ever built. The largest one I know of is the 22" Stamford Observatory Mak which had similar thickness optics.

 

8000th post


Edited by Augustus, 11 October 2019 - 04:54 PM.


#3 fcathell

fcathell

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,292
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2017
  • Loc: Tucson, AZ

Posted 11 October 2019 - 04:42 PM

I think a monster like this would have be kept in an air conditioned/refrigerated room prior to use or it would never reach equilibrium in a reasonable amount of time. At 24 inches, I suspect there could also be some corrector "sag" when pointed at the zenith.

 

Frank


  • tim53 and Augustus like this

#4 JohnH

JohnH

    Gemini

  • ****-
  • Posts: 3,216
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Squamish BC Moved!!!!!

Posted 12 October 2019 - 08:35 PM

The largest in the world is a 600mm one in Crimea.

Edited by JohnH, 12 October 2019 - 08:36 PM.

  • tim53 likes this

#5 Augustus

Augustus

    Fly Me To The Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 9,256
  • Joined: 26 Dec 2015
  • Loc: Stamford, Connecticut

Posted 12 October 2019 - 08:59 PM

The largest in the world is a 600mm one in Crimea.

Is that the corrector diameter or the primary? The Stamford one has a 25" primary and 22" corrector; this has a 24" primary and 23.25" corrector.



#6 JohnH

JohnH

    Gemini

  • ****-
  • Posts: 3,216
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Squamish BC Moved!!!!!

Posted 12 October 2019 - 09:02 PM

Is that the corrector diameter or the primary? The Stamford one has a 25" primary and 22" corrector; this has a 24" primary and 23.25" corrector.


With the maksutov, while having zero power has considerable influence on spherical aberration needs a primary that is somewhat larger and the corrector to fully take advantage of the corrections available to it. I have no idea though with these really large ones what they actually measure the primary over the corrector

Edited by JohnH, 12 October 2019 - 09:04 PM.

  • Augustus likes this

#7 BGRE

BGRE

    Mercury-Atlas

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,859
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2016
  • Loc: New Zealand

Posted 12 October 2019 - 09:14 PM

Strictly the aperture is determined by the diameter of the stop which is usually located much closer to and in front of the meniscus corrector than the primary mirror.
  • Dave O likes this

#8 Mike I. Jones

Mike I. Jones

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,532
  • Joined: 02 Jul 2006
  • Loc: Fort Worth TX

Posted 12 October 2019 - 09:54 PM

I'd be wary about the glass homogeneity and strain in a piece that big.  Also, there's no mention of melt data, or what the glass even is.  It's likely something like BSC-2 or BK7, but without melt data and other characterization the project just poses too much risk.


  • PrestonE, Dave O and Augustus like this

#9 luxo II

luxo II

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1,844
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2017
  • Loc: Sydney, Australia

Posted 13 October 2019 - 12:48 AM

If finished, it would be among if not the largest ever built

Maksutov completed a 70cm example which is in the Crimea.

It would be a heroic effort if you’ve never made one before. There’s also the mechanical challenge of the OTA and a suitable mount plus observatory and suitable location,

As a cassegrain it is somewhat pointless - the seeing will never be good enough to reach its resolution limit or make use of such a long focal length. Better to put a camera at the prime focus (with a flattener).

Edited by luxo II, 13 October 2019 - 12:57 AM.


#10 LarsMalmgren

LarsMalmgren

    Ranger 4

  • *****
  • Posts: 350
  • Joined: 22 Jan 2010
  • Loc: Denmark

Posted 13 October 2019 - 04:52 AM

As a cassegrain it is somewhat pointless - the seeing will never be good enough to reach its resolution limit or make use of such a long focal length. Better to put a camera at the prime focus (with a flattener).

 

That statement is IMO just plain wrong today with modern cameras doing lucky imaging !

Such a large telescope would catch even more light to push exposure times further down and thus being able to catch those fleeting moments with excellent seeing.

A 600 mm aperture telescope have a Dawe's Limit of ~0.2 arc-sec.

 

Measure on the best planetary photographers images, ex. D. Peach's from Barbados.

He gets well below sub-arc-sec resolution with an 14" SCT.

And when he uses the 1 meter telescope in Chile it gets even better.

 

Even deep-sky uses shorter and shorter exposures.

Now 1-2 minute has replaced 10-20 minutes.

 

Sure, there are limits.  They're just not where they used to be because of the extremely good cameras we have today.

No, that statement cannot just be used as a blanket-statement shooting down big aperture anymore.

 

Just my 2 cents flowerred.gif



#11 totvos

totvos

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 628
  • Joined: 09 Sep 2015
  • Loc: Mississauga, ON, Canada

Posted 13 October 2019 - 08:52 AM

The subject of Maks came up in another conversation I was having, so this is timely. I don't know much (ok, anything) about the optics involved, but does the corrector need to be that thick? Can it be a thin meniscus (sub-1"), and if the primary is also a thin, fast, meniscus, this could be a cool project. What are the glass requirements for the corrector? I saw Bk7 mentioned above, but can it be made of, say, pyrex or even (gasp) plate glass?

 

And I was also thinking about the Maksutov camera concept in conjunction with this. In place of a field flattener, can a flexible image sensor be used? I know that they *exist* but am not sure if they are commercially available, or affordable.

 

https://www.telescop.../Mak-camera.htm



#12 JohnH

JohnH

    Gemini

  • ****-
  • Posts: 3,216
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Squamish BC Moved!!!!!

Posted 13 October 2019 - 09:49 AM

Totvos, maksutov correctors work better the thicker they get but at a certain point you get a series of diminishing returns. The general rule of thumb is the thickness of the corrector is optimized at about one-tenth thickness in relation to its diameter so a 10-inch maksutov would normally have a 1 inch thick corrector

Edited by JohnH, 13 October 2019 - 09:50 AM.

  • Augustus likes this

#13 tim53

tim53

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 14,829
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Highland Park, CA

Posted 13 October 2019 - 01:34 PM

My 16" Mak Cass optical set has a 2" thick meniscus.  I do plan to air condition the observatory when I build it.  I can't imagine it reaching equillibrium during the night otherwise.

 

-Tim.


  • Augustus likes this

#14 kur3tking

kur3tking

    Lift Off

  • *****
  • Posts: 20
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2010
  • Loc: Austin, Tx.

Posted 13 October 2019 - 03:23 PM

I would be very careful about  a SLUMPED corrector. Although my company can slump glass from 9" R to 1000.00" R, and I am a huge Mak fan, I have never slumped a Mak corrector. Here is why.

 

In a conversation with Roland C. of Astro-Physics about Mak correctors, He said NOT to try and make a corrector from slumped glass. The corrector will not produce good star images and I understood that to mean regardless of how well it is slumped and annealed.  He is certainly more knowledgeable and experienced than I, so buyer beware!  This conversation was 10+ yrs. ago but I never bothered to slump a corrector despite the available time, oven access, glass availability, machine time, and desire.  My intent is NOT to open a can of worms but to pass on what I believe to be trustworthy information from a reliable source. That is the purpose of this forum?  Thanks to all for your time and attention.



#15 totvos

totvos

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 628
  • Joined: 09 Sep 2015
  • Loc: Mississauga, ON, Canada

Posted 13 October 2019 - 03:37 PM

I would be very careful about  a SLUMPED corrector. Although my company can slump glass from 9" R to 1000.00" R, and I am a huge Mak fan, I have never slumped a Mak corrector. Here is why.

 

In a conversation with Roland C. of Astro-Physics about Mak correctors, He said NOT to try and make a corrector from slumped glass. The corrector will not produce good star images and I understood that to mean regardless of how well it is slumped and annealed.  He is certainly more knowledgeable and experienced than I, so buyer beware!  This conversation was 10+ yrs. ago but I never bothered to slump a corrector despite the available time, oven access, glass availability, machine time, and desire.  My intent is NOT to open a can of worms but to pass on what I believe to be trustworthy information from a reliable source. That is the purpose of this forum?  Thanks to all for your time and attention.

Not a can of worms, but I would be interested to know *why*, not just because "he said so". Let's say it was perfectly annealed, with no strain. Would it still not work?


  • Mike I. Jones and Augustus like this

#16 JohnH

JohnH

    Gemini

  • ****-
  • Posts: 3,216
  • Joined: 04 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Squamish BC Moved!!!!!

Posted 13 October 2019 - 03:38 PM

I would be very careful about a SLUMPED corrector. Although my company can slump glass from 9" R to 1000.00" R, and I am a huge Mak fan, I have never slumped a Mak corrector. Here is why.

In a conversation with Roland C. of Astro-Physics about Mak correctors, He said NOT to try and make a corrector from slumped glass. The corrector will not produce good star images and I understood that to mean regardless of how well it is slumped and annealed. He is certainly more knowledgeable and experienced than I, so buyer beware! This conversation was 10+ yrs. ago but I never bothered to slump a corrector despite the available time, oven access, glass availability, machine time, and desire. My intent is NOT to open a can of worms but to pass on what I believe to be trustworthy information from a reliable source. That is the purpose of this forum? Thanks to all for your time and attention.


Generating lens elements from slumped or pressed Glass has been industry standard for over a hundred years.


You think someone would have noticed that by now if this was the case that they produced inferior lens elements.
  • mark cowan, gnabgib, Mike I. Jones and 4 others like this

#17 Star Shooter

Star Shooter

    Lift Off

  • *****
  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2019

Posted 18 October 2019 - 11:04 PM

I might be the insane one. The idea of having a 24" Maksutov is awful tempting. And I like wild and crazy projects. The problem is where do I put it, and how much time and money will it take. Here are the numbers as I see it.

 

The blank set $1200 plus roughly $500 for crating and freight. This is the cheapest part. The glass weight is about 250 lbs.

Generating three optical surfaces, I am guessing at $4000 per surface for a total of $12K. Its probably more. I need to get quotes.

Optical and Mechanical engineering fee $1000/day for as many days as you need.

The OTA construction and alignment. $6000 plus $2000 for freight. And you will need a fork truck to move the OTA as it will weigh 400 to 500 lbs. 

Estimated cost of $26K with 4 days of engineering. 

Next is the equatorial mount. 

Two weeks of mechanical design for $10K plus two weeks of shop time to cut metal and assemble the mount for another $10K plus material cost.

Shipping is another $2000 and Installation is lets say $2000. For a estimate of $24K for a EQ mount.

Or you can go buy a mount for about $50K. That's $100 per pound of payload capacity.

The closest suitable mount that I found is the Plane Wave L-600 Direct Drive. It costs $29K and has max payload of 300 lbs. It is not big enough.

 

The estimated total is $50K. now double that to cover the forgotten items and the lowball estimates and you now have a realistic total of $100K that should cover everything that you want. 

 

I suppose I could it if I sell the house and move in with the dog. "Hey, Pluto! Move over. I am sleeping here tonight." Talk about being in the doghouse.


  • tim53 likes this

#18 Star Shooter

Star Shooter

    Lift Off

  • *****
  • Posts: 15
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2019

Posted 18 October 2019 - 11:10 PM

It would be interesting to see if there is any performance differences between a ground corrector plate and a slumped corrector plate.



#19 Mike I. Jones

Mike I. Jones

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,532
  • Joined: 02 Jul 2006
  • Loc: Fort Worth TX

Posted 19 October 2019 - 08:11 PM

Hard to believe Vla hadn't already jumped on this one.  I know this will never be built, but I though it would be interesting to see what could be done with such massive Maksutov optics.  I have no idea about the corrector other than its diameter, so I guessed at the center thickness and radii.  Got this nice f/7 design to cover a 36mm square CCD/CMOS sensor.  The corrector R1 is a weak 8th order aspheric, with the maximum departure from sphericity being about 4 waves at HeNe wavelength.  The primary and secondary are both spherical, as are the L1 and L2 corrector lenses.  OSLO file attached.

 

Attached File  23in f7.len   1.63KB   5 downloads

 

23 f7 prescription.jpg

 

23 f7 layout.jpg

 

 


  • tim53, PrestonE and 555aaa like this

#20 Mike I. Jones

Mike I. Jones

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,532
  • Joined: 02 Jul 2006
  • Loc: Fort Worth TX

Posted 19 October 2019 - 08:12 PM

and the spots.  All energy is well within the Airy ring at 0.5461µm.

 

23 f7 spots.jpg

 


  • tim53, PrestonE and LarsMalmgren like this

#21 Mark Harry

Mark Harry

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,609
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2005
  • Loc: Northeast USA

Posted 20 October 2019 - 11:32 AM

Wha---? You ain't goin' from 400-900nm???? What's wrong with you??!!
*******
(nice design, Indie!)


  • Mike I. Jones likes this

#22 Vla

Vla

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 611
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2014

Posted 20 October 2019 - 04:21 PM

Hard to believe Vla hadn't already jumped on this one.

Just putting that meniscus in raytrace feels like too much work lol.gif


  • tim53, Mike I. Jones and Dave O like this

#23 Mike I. Jones

Mike I. Jones

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,532
  • Joined: 02 Jul 2006
  • Loc: Fort Worth TX

Posted 20 October 2019 - 04:37 PM

funnypost.gif grin.gif grin.gif laugh.gif


  • Dave O likes this

#24 tim53

tim53

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 14,829
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2004
  • Loc: Highland Park, CA

Posted 20 October 2019 - 05:31 PM

Somebody do it!

 

and tell me how it goes before I start working on my 16”

 

grin.gif



#25 Mike I. Jones

Mike I. Jones

    Aurora

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,532
  • Joined: 02 Jul 2006
  • Loc: Fort Worth TX

Posted 20 October 2019 - 06:51 PM

I wrote the seller and asked if he could measure the corrector radii and thickness, and if there was any indication of the glass type.  No response yet.  After looking at the rest of the stuff for sale, it looks like Vaughan Parsons might be dumping inventory.




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