6 replies to this topic

[gazpachosoup]

<p>Looking for some help on what the specs for the peripheral scopes for the Meade 1066.&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;</p>
<p>Mine came without when I bought them last year and I would like figure out if I should replace with comparable peripherals or upgrade. I&rsquo;ve attached an original advert for visual reference.&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;</p>
<p>I have two sets of ring brackets that came with. The smaller one has an inside diameter 2 7/16&rdquo;, while the larger one is 6 3/32&rdquo; however the adjustment screws reduce that to 5 2/3&rdquo;.&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;</p>
<p>I&rsquo;d love to know what the original equipment was if anyone knows.&nbsp;</p>

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 

Edited by gazpachosoup, 23 May 2022 - 05:53 PM.

[rob1986]

the guidescope is either an 80mm 1m fl or a 90mm 1m fl. (as far as I can see)

[photoracer18]

Guidescopes like that are not used anymore. they were the norm before auto-guiders were developed because you had to guide by eye and you needed the guidescope to have a long F.L. so your guiding adjustments were close to the same scale as the movements in the film camera. Nowadays with guide cameras the scale does not matter as software handles it so guidescopes can be much shorter. And if you are not imaging they are not that useful for anything else. If it did not have the small finder scope I would get one of those, something around 8x50. And/or a Telrad instead, a kind of LED sight with a big FOV and concentric rings of light.

[rob1986]

Guidescopes like that are not used anymore. they were the norm before auto-guiders were developed because you had to guide by eye and you needed the guidescope to have a long F.L. so your guiding adjustments were close to the same scale as the movements in the film camera. Nowadays with guide cameras the scale does not matter as software handles it so guidescopes can be much shorter. And if you are not imaging they are not that useful for anything else. If it did not have the small finder scope I would get one of those, something around 8x50. And/or a Telrad instead, a kind of LED sight with a big FOV and concentric rings of light.

I can see using it to point a scope that needed a ladder.

[siriusandthepup]

Hi, and grats on owning an RG 10".

 

I still have an RG 10" (one off f/4.5 from Meade that way). I have also owned several RG12.5 f/6's.

 

RG's are wonderful visual scopes and very user friendly as well.

 

I've seen all the adverts showing them with the cameras mounted. Let me say that's nostalgia at work there. Manually guiding with a guide scope and a film camera, using a mount that has a bit of slop to it (no ball bearing on this mount) is not what you want in this century.

 

Don't get me wrong - I LOVE RG scopes - for visual use. On wheels - roll it out of the garage to the driveway, plug in the extension cord - boom! you're observing in two minutes. Then it takes 2 minutes to roll the baby back into the garage - Sweet!

 

I would not want you to waste your time trying to "restore it to former glory" when the idea doesn't work in this century.

 

Spend your time collimating, using, enjoying your scope. And upgrading too. Lotsa work to do there. I upgrade my 12.5" RG with a new better diagonal, a better focuser, a Novak mirror cell, better primary, etc.

 

Check your mirror coatings. For sure CHECK your diagonal/spider!!!!! Originals were pot metal and prone to total failure. A new Astrosystems diagonal holder and spider assembly would be my 1st recommendation.

 

good luck and enjoy the RG.

[John Rogers]

Here is a page from the March 1985 Meade price list.  It identifies the RG scopes and optional accessories.  I hope this helps.

[KLWalsh]

Guidescopes like that are not used anymore. they were the norm before auto-guiders were developed because you had to guide by eye and you needed the guidescope to have a long F.L. so your guiding adjustments were close to the same scale as the movements in the film camera. Nowadays with guide cameras the scale does not matter as software handles it so guidescopes can be much shorter. And if you are not imaging they are not that useful for anything else. If it did not have the small finder scope I would get one of those, something around 8x50. And/or a Telrad instead, a kind of LED sight with a big FOV and concentric rings of light.

True…
Years ago I was a member of the MVAS, near Warren, OH.
I wanted to try photographing Pluto using the club’s 16 inch Cassegrain, using my Minolta and a roll of 103aO film. Unfortunately I discovered that there was too much periodic error to use the 16 inch scope, because I knew I couldn’t guide well enough using the 6 inch refractor guidescope to keep the image from smearing. So I ended up using the 6 inch refractor as the imaging scope and I guided using the 16 inch Cass. I had to keep my eyeball glued to the eyepiece for an hour each night and constantly feed corrections to counteract the periodic error.
That worked. Over the course of ten days I was able to get 3 good images of Pluto. I didn’t have enough images to calculate an orbit, but by carefully measuring Pluto and the stars around it, then consulting a Sky & Tel finder chart, I was able to use parallax to determine Pluto’s distance.

Thank goodness for autoguiders! (And thank goodness for digital cameras and image stacking, too!)

Side note: My Astronomy advisor back then was Dr Warren Young of Youngstown State University. Great guy, who sadly passed away recently. I was hoping to see him in 2024 for the Solar Eclipse that has its path of totality go across the farm where he lived! But I guess he’ll have an even better view from the great beyond. RIP

Edited by KLWalsh, 29 May 2022 - 11:47 AM.