Sunday, October 13, 2013

Sizing The Secondary Mirror

Gary Seronik:
… In fact, the most effective means of keeping the secondary small is to use a low-profile focuser. For a given telescope, no other design parameter will have as great an influence on secondary size as focuser height.
[Update] Of course a low-profile focuser makes baffling the focuser tube impossible. (via)

Trade-offs, trade-offs…

Quick Update

So the new 150/750 Newton makes quite wonderful images of the Moon – seeing was clearly the limiting factor. I started looking while there was still blue sky and the red filter was quite helpful.

Should make a comparison of the 150/750 with the 114/500 Newton (actually 100/450 Newton), with respect to seeing and such – but not tonight. Some of my eyepieces were keeping fogging over – I need an eyepiece heater! :-) So I stopped.

I bought two low-magnification eyepieces: a PL30mm and a PL40mm eyepiece from Orbinar. They are quite OK (considering the price) but suffer from some kidney-beaning (especially the 40mm) and don't have a eye-cup. Furthermore I bought from Orbinar a PL15mm. Now I have Plössls (or Super-Plössls) in all sizes I need: 40mm, 30mm, 25mm, 20mm, 15mm, 12.5mm, 10mm and 6.5mm. Next up some wide-angle planetary eyepieces – but that has to wait for now.

With my fast scopes the PL6.5mm is distinctly better than the SR6mm and K4mm I have – the later two suffer from visible chromatic aberration in my fast scopes. I wanted to do more tests tonight on the Moon, but alas, the eyepieces kept fogging over.

I tried to get a look at the Pleiades from inside (with the 70/300 refractor and my new PL30mm and PL40mm) – but there might have been some haze and the Moon washed out everything. I have seen the main stars of the Pleiades (doh!), but tonight not the "tail" (TYC 1800-1567-1, HD23632, HD23609, TYC 1800-1630-1 and TYC 1800-1729-1) – which for me was very nice the first time I saw the Pleiades.

And now my muscles hurt…

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Diagonal Sizes for Newton Telescopes

I found a good source for information sizing the secondary mirror:
Table of Secondary Mirror Sizes for Visual Newtonian Telescopes by Michael E. Lockwood

Unfortunately this goes only down to 6 inch apertures…

Saturday, October 5, 2013

Quick Look at the "Bresser Pluto" 114/500 Newton

I must admit it, I'm a scopeaholic. With the weather usually bad here, my interest in optics, and anyway my health not a friend of the cold, I'm inclined to stay insides and play around with scopes. So I got another used scope today…

I had bought it two weeks ago and I told myself that it will be the last (for now) – then I bought the 150/750 Newton, as it was soooo cheap… So the Bresser Pluto 114/500 was late and arrived only today, but I swear it will be the last scope for months to come. I'm going to play around with the scopes, keep the scopes I like, sell the rest ASAP.

The scope came with:
  • Newton OTA (Art.-Nr. 45-42000) D=114mm and F=500mm (f/4.4)
  • 1.25" focuser on the OTA
  • EQ-1 mount with aluminium legs and plastic leg joints
  • One counterweight with about 2.3 kg
  • Two mounting rings
  • 5x13 finderscope
I knew when I bought it that some things were missing, but what I didn't knew was in what horrible condition the mirrors were: both of them were covered with goo, some mix of dust and cooking(?) oil turned into some sort of resin. Serves me well, as I could have guessed the condition: the main cover was missing – doh.

"In order to protect your mirrors from dust, an layer of goo has been applied."

But that gave me another chance to learn how to clean mirrors. If I would have failed, then nothing was lost – but if I would succeed, then well, I succeed! And here's what I did:
  • I ran hot tap-water across the surface – this took care of most of the goo and dust. This was quite amazing how easily the stuff came off!
  • Then immediately after that I ran de-mineralized water across the surface to avoid water-stains.
  • After that I used an old (and freshly washed) T-shirt and "breath-mist" to take care of the the remaining residue: I wiped from center to edge, always taking a fresh spot on the T-shirt – this almost cleared both mirrors.
  • There were two blobs of goo (1mm by 2mm) that the water didn't remove. The T-shirt removed both blobs, but a streak of goo remained. For these streaks I used a lens-pen and "breath-mist". This took care of the last remaining goo.
And what can I say? Success! The mirrors now look quite usable. Sure, one can see that these are not new mirrors, but there are no striking issues with the surfaces (unlike my 76/700 scope).

Next I tried to collimate the scope by eye, without any aiding tools. I think I managed to somewhat collimate the scope, but only after I lengthened the three M3 adjustment screws of the secondary, so I can put the secondary further in. The secondary still sits not quite right – I suspect I still don't have enough travel to adjust the offset for secondary – but collimation is now "close enough for rock'n'roll"!

Some of the things worthy of notice:
  • Primary mirror is probably spherical (there are supposedly versions of this scope with a parabolic mirror floating about, but nobody knows for sure).
  • The scope is compact and relative light.
  • The secondary has an diameter of about 40mm, central obstruction is about 43mm (38% aperture diameter). The mirror is larger than that of my 150/750! The distance between primary and secondary is about 280mm (I measured it three times). The distance from the secondary to the focal point is about 170mm. So the actual focal length is more likely to be about 450mm. And due to the size and position of the secondary the scope is probably stopped down to about 100mm diameter. Including the obstruction the effective aperture is about 90mm. (Again: one can recover some of the lost aperture by using a Barlow).
  • The secondary is held by a three vane spider (3.5mm rods, threaded at the ends). 
  • The collimation screws for the secondary have a burr.  The burr of the screws eats into the metal (on the back of the secondary's holder) during collimation. This leaves a trench in the metal and little metal fillings in the OTA… 
  • The collimation for the primary is done via three very nice knurled nuts that can be used without tools. Only the screws for fixing the primary's position need a screwdriver.
  • Taking out the primary mirror (and putting it back in) is a bit of a hassle: you have to reach into the OTA, dismount the primary cell, and pull the cell out through the OTA – more below.
  • The 5x13 finder is the usual fare: cheap plastic housing, non-achromatic singlet lens stopped down to 13mm – what a joke, these things should be outlawed.
  • The focuser is a horrible mess. There was some thought put into it: It had three "rails" put into it. However the placement was not good (90° apart) and there was still too much play. Putting the right amount of felt into this focuser was really difficult, as the tube is rather narrow at the eyepiece end and widens up towards the secondary. And the two screws from the rack and pinion do not allow for much adjustment. (Funny how no two cheap scopes are alike, even so they all probably come from the same factory…)
  • Otherwise there is on the focuser a nice stable eyepiece retaining ring with two(!) setscrews. The focuser's drawtube protrudes somewhat into the OTA when fully retracted (as always with cheap scopes), but as the position of the secondary is "too short" you usually need to rack it out anyway. The drawtube is made of plastic. The travel of the focuser seems enough (but not much).
  • The mounting rings can easily be opened, so a dovetail-plate is not necessary (but I added one nonetheless, to mount it to my EQ-3-1).
  • There is one 1/4"-20 screw on one mounting ring, allowing to piggy-back a camera or somesuch.
  • [Update 2013-10-19] After testing on an almost full Moon: The 114/500 has awful straylight problems. It depends a bit on where the Moon is in the FOV, and at what angle one looks into the eyepiece. I then looked into the focuser's tube without an eyepiece: The body of the secondary is made from shiny plastic – what could possibly go wrong with such an design??? Well for one thing: the light passing the plastic obstruction before hitting the primary is glaring, which is visible through the focuser tube (when viewed without an eyepiece). And secondly the area around the secondary is visibly shiny when viewed through the focuser.
With the focal length and the size of secondary: What a weird scope. It is probably the corrector-less version of the catadioptric Bird-Jones 114/1000, where the dimension and position of the secondary would make sense. Who knows. Probably no one.

I am going to play around with the scope, test it a bit on the night sky – but I will probably sell it again.

    [Update 2013-10-06] Taking out (and putting in) the primary is a bit of a hassle, as you have to reach into the OTA and pull out the cell through the OTA.
    Here's what I did:
  • First I removed the secondary (with spider vanes and all).
  • Next it is advisable to remove the OTA's front ring, as the fit between the primary cell and the front ring is rather tight. Though it is not necessary to remove the front ring, it makes the removal of the cell a bit easier.
  • Now I find it helpful to put the OTA on a mount that allow you to rotate the OTA so that it points directly up to zenith (mirror at the bottom, the open end up) and directly down to nadir (mirror at the top, open end at the bottom).
  • Drive out the focuser tube so that it does not protrude into the OTA.
  • Point the OTA up to zenith and remove the three large knurled nuts. The cell now sits loosely on on the OTA's back ring.
  • WARNING: the cell would fall down if you now rotate the OTA to point down !!!
  • With the scope still pointing up, reach with one hand into the OTA. Slide with your fingers along the OTA. At the end of the OTA carefully touch the cell, best at two or all three points where the cell holds the primary. If you can't avoid touching the primary itself, try to touch it only at the edge of the mirror. Take your time, this is a bit tricky, but possible with patience.
  • Now, while holding the primary with one hand, rotate the OTA to point down. Again, this is tricky but possible.
  • With the OTA pointing down, carefully lower the cell with your hand. Be advised that there are three springs sitting (and one piece of cardboard) on the back of the cell.
  • If you have removed the OTA's front ring, you can simply slide the cell out of the OTA.
  • If you have not removed the OTA's front ring, then you need to carefully tilt the cell. This enables you to slide the cell through the front ring (you might need a little bit of force – but not much – for this).
  • Once you have the cell out remove the springs (and cardboard) and put the cell down – done!
    Before you reassemble: I found it helpful to use a black marker and put some black on the three highly reflective chrome plated screws.
    To reassemble you basically need to follow this in reverse order. Take care to put all three springs on the back of the cell (and the cardboard if you are so inclined). Once you reach the OTA's rear ring with the cell, slide one screw of the cell through the rear ring, and put on one knurled nut to keep the cell (with the springs) from falling down. Now you can (without sweat) put on the other two knurled nuts (and continue your reassembly). [/Update 2013-10-06]
[Update 2013-10-27] I think I will try to lengthen the tube by adding another tube segment (a stretch-scope! ha!) – that should be the simplest solution. I will see if I can get some large enough metal-can that I can cut a piece out of. I will have to check how much to add to be able to reach focus with my eyepieces. Let's see.

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

Common 150mm (6 Inch) Aperture Telescopes

I was interested to look at what is commonly available in the 150mm aperture range. A list comparing telescopes that cost the same would probably be more practical for anybody interested in Cheap Astronomy, (as it would allow to judge what offers the best "bang for the buck"), but is a bit more difficult to compile – maybe one day…

Of course I looked at the cheapest ways to get a scope from each category – this is Cheap Astronomy after all! – so don't bother me with Takahashi-Astro-Physics-Something Super-APOs :-).

The prices are roughly what these cost here:
  • "new"  are list-prices (more or less)
  • "used" are typical prices I have seen, maybe a bit at the lower end
(With both: lower and higher prices are possible – go hunt for a bargain!)


Advantage Disadvantage
150/750
Newton/Spherical
EQ-3-1

~230€ new
~100€ used
- Cheapest 6-inch scope*
(Cheapest to manufacture)

- Compact and light (OTA ~3kg)

- Relative fast (f/5)

- Small obstruction (25% diameter)
- Secondary mirror is too small (vignetting leads to scope being somewhat stopped down and image degraded off-axis)

- Fast spherical mirror (spherical aberration)

- Mount is a bit undersized

- Three vane spider

- Second most quirks
150/1400
Newton/Catadioptric
EQ-3-1

~200€ new
~120€ used
- Second cheapest 6-inch scope*

- Compact and light (OTA ~3kg)

- Small obstruction
- Corrector lens ("Bird-Jones") can degrade image if not manufactured/assembled properly

- Image will degrade if not properly collimated
AND
- Difficult to collimate (Cheshire and laser needed)

- Mount is a bit undersized

- Three vane spider

- Most quirks*
150/750
Newton/Parabolic
EQ-3-2

~370€ new
rarely seen used
- Compact telescope

- Good mount
- Heavier (OTA ~6kg)

- Heavy mount
150/1200
Dobson/Parabolic

~260€ new
~170€ used (rare)
- Best 6-inch optics* (probably)

- Easy to use

- Dobson mount (cheap, stable, intuitive, easy)
- Needs expensive wide angle eyepieces

- An 200/1200 Dobson might offer slightly better bang for the buck

- Heavier (OTA ~6kg)

- No astrophotography
150/1200
Newton/Parabolic
EQ-3-2

~380€ new
rarely seen used
- Best 6-inch optics* (probably) - Mount may or may not be undersized

- Somewhat long and unwieldy

- Heavier (OTA ~6kg)

- Heavy mount
150/1800
Maksutov
OTA only

~600€ new
~300€ used (rare)
- 6-inch scope with longest focal length*

- Compact
- Not well suited for wide-field

- Heavier (5.6kg)

- Needs stable mount

- A 127/1500 Maksutov might be a better bargain
150/1500
Schmidt-Cassegrain
OTA only

~600€ new
rarely seen used
(at least here)
- Compact and light (3.7kg) - Not well suited for wide-field
150/750
Refractor/FH
OTA only

~600€ new
rarely seen used
- No obstruction

- Best suited 6-inch scope for wide-field*

- Compact
- Chromatic aberration

- Somewhat heavy (7kg)

- Needs stable mount
150/1200
Refractor/FH
OTA only

~600€ new
rarely seen used
- No obstruction

- Most expensive 6-inch scope* (including proper mount)
- Some chromatic aberration

- Most heavy 6-inch scope* (13kg)

- Somewhat unwieldy

- Needs good mount (expensive and heavy)
* Out of the scopes in this comparison 

(And yes, I know, 150mm are 5.9 inch)
(And yes, I know, some of these scopes have an effective aperture even less than 5.9 inch)


So, if you can live with the quirks (or even ameliorate some of the flaw with DIY): best bang for the buck is offered by the 150/750 spherical Newton, followed by the 150/1400 catadioptric (even if you include buying a Chesire and an laser for collimation of the catadioptric). With some investment in accessories you get a 6-inch scope for under 300€ (new) or even as low as 150€ (used) – a proper mount will set you back another 200€ (new) or 100€ (used). If you want more, you have to spend more…

Next in line in the 6-inch range: The 150/1200 Dobson is cheaper than the 150/750 parabolic Newton, but you'll need to buy some wide-angle eyepieces for the Dobson. The Dobson will (probably) offer the best views: the long focal length will minimize any aberrations, and only the diffraction spikes from the spider vanes are a problem for some people. For 400€ to 500€ (new, depending on accessories) or 250€ (used) you get an reasonably good 6-inch scope.

The 150/1200 on an EQ-mount is a bit obsolete when compared to the same sized Dobson. The scope is a bit long and unwieldly, and the mount could be a size larger. Will set you back about 450€ to 500€ (new) with accessories.

The 150/750 Refractor, the 150/1500 Schmidt-Cassegrain and the 150/1800 Maksutov are specialists depending on what you want: The refractor is at home as a wide-field scope, the others are better suited for higher magnification (planets and the like). But despite being more specialists, they retain some measure of being all-round scopes – and all three are somewhat compact. Together with an mount and accessories they will set you back about 900€ (new) or 500€ (used).

Together with an proper mount the 150/1200 Refractor is the most expensive and most heavy solution, while offering only small benefits (if any) over the other scopes – with accessories the long focal length refractor will set you back at least 1000€ (new).

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Indoor Astronomy

One thing you hear from time to time is: Astronomy can't be done indoors. Well, I say Bah Humbug! to that.

Well of course the quality of the images is better if you schlep yourself and your astronomical gear outside. First of all you don't have the window panes between your fine astronomical instrument and the astronomical object you want to observe. As you probably do not have windows made out of a multi-coated, λ/4 polished, BK7 glass (or better), the image will be somewhat degraded by the window panes. But even if you do open the window, the temperature difference between inside and outside will lead to thermal currents which can degrade the image. And of course the portion of sky one can see is limited.

Having said that, you can do astronomy from indoors. In summer I observed Saturn with its majestic rings from inside. I opened the windows half an hour before I started observing and I didn't notice any problems.

Then in the last month I observed through the closed window and got quite nice views of the Moon at around 60x magnification.

And on Sunday I saw the Pleiades just fine from inside at 12x magnification.

Of course, the fainter and the smaller something is, the less likely it is to be viewable from inside. Conversely the less difficult an object is, the more likely it is to be viewable from inside. If you can go outside to observe, than by all means do it! But sometimes there are reasons to stay inside (staying outside in the cold is not good my health) and then it is good to do astronomy from indoors.
    [Update 2013-10-23] I have to report that I tried yesterday to observe Jupiter from indoors, through the closed window and it was not good. The disc was not resolved sharply, and the two visible jovian moons were turned into smudges (the other two moons were transiting Jupiter, or close to the limb, I take it). So low magnification is OK from indoors (say for open star clusters, or the Moon), but trying to do any "serious" astronomy through a common window-pane is not the way to go :-D

Secondary Mirror Too Small: Regain Lost Aperture With An Barlow?

    [Update 2013-10-13] On second (third? fourth?) thought, I don't think this works like that. The Barlow lens would need to be before the secondary to recover lost aperture.
By now, I have two Newton telescopes with an "undersized" secondary mirror (won't illuminate full primary mirror), and I just realized:

If you use an Barlow with these scopes, then more of the primary becomes visible.

The closer the Barlow's lens is to the secondary, the more pronounced the effect is – so a "Shorty" Barlow is not as good as one with a long barrel. (Though the optimum for spherical mirrors would be a good "Bird-Jones" corrector.)

And one needs to make sure that the Barlow itself does not introduce vignetting itself…