NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #20/NN_1992_20.iso/spool/sci/astro/9538

Text File | 1992-09-08 | 1.6 KB | 36 lines

Newsgroups: sci.astro
Path: sparky!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnewsm!cbnewsl!att-out!cbfsb!cbnewsg.cb.att.com!mrtim
From: [e-mail] (t.ihde)
Subject: Telescope mount question: SP?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 14:06:24 GMT
Lines: 24

What with all the information on telescopes flying around lately, I
thought I would bring up another potentially explosive questions: mounts.
Hoping that this is not another religious issue, here goes.

I've been thinking about an 8" SCT lately, with a mind to minimizing cost
but maximizing portability.  I'm finding myself leaning towards the Celestron
super polaris with no drive, thinking that I can get a good drive later
when I need one rather than buying all kinds of extra hardware up front
when I'm not sure what I'll want to do with it.  Plus, I could potentially
use the same mount later for a Genesis or maybe a good size newtonian.

So, thinking that the 8" SCT optical tubes are pretty much alike, I'm
wondering what people think of the Super Polaris mount with respect
to a comparable fork (say the Mead 2080 or Celestron Classic) or other
GEMs.  How stable is it, compared with other options? Could I buy a drive
for it later that would be functional as PEC or the "smart drive" for
photography, or is a fork a must for camera work?

Thanks for any input!

    tim
--
Tim J. Ihde                                   | UNIX(R) System Laboratories
[e-mail]                    [phone] | Systems Engineering Department