$200k scope for Ha / $3k scope for RGB!

[dylan_odonnell (Dylan)]

I got bored enough in the inclement weather to activate my trial account with iTelescope.

Not knowing anything I blew $45 on 2 x 10minute Ha subs using a $200k planewave CDK700 (0.7m aperture) at Siding Springs. That was an expensive mistake! I'll stick to my backyard and save for astro gear instead from now on.

Not wanting to waste the money completely I blended the 20mins Ha with my lesser quality but natural One-shot-colour RGB Helix 9 x 10m subs taken earlier this year with my trusty 9.25 Celestron Edge HD and QHY12 CCD. Turned out ok! Not a bad technique really, do the hard yards yourself for colour but "cheat" with some Lum from the big boys toys

d

[mostschaedel (Gerald)]

Hi d!
Didnt get the point. Why was it a mistake ?
Is there a quality issue with the CDK700 or the mount?

[dylan_odonnell (Dylan)]

Originally Posted by mostschaedel

Hi d!
Didnt get the point. Why was it a mistake ?
Is there a quality issue with the CDK700 or the mount?

Oh no, I'd never used iTelescope before. Bought $20/20 credits.. picked a telescope and took 2 photos.. bam! - I'm -25 credits. I didn't realise the scope I was using was $268 per hour That "trial plan" didn't go far.

[Atmos (Colin)]

If you use it over the full moon it can be considerably cheaper too.

[gregbradley]

Hard to see a $200K scope's worth of data. Mind you its only 20 minutes but its not showing anything a 10 inch F4 Newt wouldn't have gotten.

I personally like the idea of combining luminance from a larger scope with colour from a faster smaller scope to get an image quickly. Seeing as Peter Ward had difficulty with the geometry of different sizes it make sense to be careful of the pixel scales of each setup. I find my Honders with the Sony 694 4.54micron pixels matches the 16803 with 9 micron pixels (exactly double the size pixel) on a CDK17 matches up perfectly or at least so far!

Greg.