Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephane
Great to hear you’ve been able to fine tune it so nicely. I’m still fine tuning and finding it more challenging that I expected. I still have a circular artefact which I suspect could be due to the coma corrector rather than the tube itself - something you suggested a while back. Cosmetic correction during processing seems to deal with it ok, but it definitely needs eliminating. Carbon fiber has greatly reduced weight and stabilized focus due to less thermal contraction, however my guiding is actually worse than it used to be. Not sure why: could be the mount playing up, or it could be that my new guide camera on the OAG is more sensitive and is giving a more accurate reading? Who knows.
For the level of detail you get at 2 hours under dark skies, how long do you think it would take to get that sane level from Sydney? I’m asking as I’ve been toying with the idea of traveling to dark skies for a while now, but will need to fix my equipment issues first.
|
It was suggested to me a while back to go f4 , but I weighed up the benefits and risks and decided to stay at f5 , glad I did
My new 8” Carbon fibre is guiding better than my old 6” metal tube Newt so I’m stoked
In regard to reflections and artifacts just make sure your TS GPU CC isn’t protruding into your tube and for that matter the focuser tube as well, that can cause issues
Yes an OAG can be the culprit so more testing, why don’t you pop your guide scope back on and try guiding with it ??
As far as comparing capture hours under dark skies and LP skies it’s hard to put a figure on it as it’s a moving target in both Broadband and Narrowband but I’d say as a guess my Sydney LP sky needs at least 50% to 75% more data than my dark sky location. We’re talking Cooled OSC cameras here, Mono is a totally different scenario
Cheers
Martin