I hope this post is not diverging too much from your question. An alternative solution to buying a GSO RC16 and tweaking it to make it work reliably could be placing a GSO mirror in a mechanically sturdier body. I know that CFF offers such option for those wishing to save some $, but such hybrid would still probably cost 2x the GSO landed.
David (DJT on IIS) recently upgraded his 10" GSO to 10" CFF so he might be able to provide his first hand impressions on build quality.
I found this website with images taken with CFF RC16 and a 35mm chip:
I hope this post is not diverging too much from your question. An alternative solution to buying a GSO RC16 and tweaking it to make it work reliably could be placing a GSO mirror in a mechanically sturdier body. I know that CFF offers such option for those wishing to save some $, but such hybrid would still probably cost 2x the GSO landed.
David (DJT on IIS) recently upgraded his 10" GSO to 10" CFF so he might be able to provide his first hand impressions on build quality.
I found this website with images taken with CFF RC16 and a 35mm chip:
Apologies David, I didn't want to step on anyone's toes. I thought it won't hurt mentioning this option since there appears to be little info on what Peter is after.
Hi Suave
I will update the CFF thread I have in equipment and keep this clear. Suspect theres a reason why Peter wants to see GSO images with the 16.
Also wondering if the success they have with mirrors on the 8 and 10" has been replicated on the larger ones
I have used both the GSO RC8 and RC10 telescopes, liked the 8, but found the mechanicals of the 10 to be under engineered.
Scaling up to a RC16 is not a trivial exercise...hence was looking for examples of how well GSO have executed this, given their exceptional pricing...and to be frank..did the old addage of "you get what you pay for" still apply?
Putting GSO optics into a CFF (or any third party OTA) gives no insight at all to the OEM product's performance....but if doing so can deliver good performance at an affordable price point, then kudos to those that took that approach
All that is however a little moot unless you use a mount can move the considerable payload that comes with a 0.4 metre aperture, with a good deal of accuracy and rigidity.
All that said...there seem to be very few GSO RC16 images on the web, thus leaving myself and I'm sure other interested punters none the wiser.
I have not bought one because I have had other priorities, though I should have bought one and been well ahead by now. I did not have to do much to get my 12" scope working well. I did change it from a tube to a truss and I have used it with several focusers and rotators. I was going to change the mirror cell over to the new one but did not in the end. The scope holds the heavy payload I am asking it to hold well and it never flexes (the scope is holding an Moonlite Nitecrawler 30, AOX, STXL11002 with integrated filter wheel). Focus is always within a few hundred steps on my Moonlite Nitecrawler 30. It is a very affordable alternative to the more expensive scopes. The scopes are not like your scope but they do produce good results generally.
Why are you searching? I am most interested in your reason.
Why are you searching? I am most interested in your reason.
I've had a few calls recently for robotic observatory systems, but the client's budgets have been limited.
The (virtually non-negotiable) use of a PMEII or AP1600 makes their budget even tighter, so I'm looking for off-the-shelf optics in the 0.5 metre aperture class that won't cause any grief.
Institutions simply don't have the staff that can "tinker".
The product has to work out of the box...hence my search.
I've had a few calls recently for robotic observatory systems, but the client's budgets have been limited.
The (virtually non-negotiable) use of a PMEII or AP1600 makes their budget even tighter, so I'm looking for off-the-shelf optics in the 0.5 metre aperture class that won't cause any grief.
Institutions simply don't have the staff that can "tinker".
The product has to work out of the box...hence my search.
Well, all it needs is collimation and a focuser, shroud and a dew heater installed. Not that much tinkering. The scopes are now mature. All the large scopes have good mirror cells, sensor centering adjustment rings, plenty of back focus, good baffling, but you will need to find a good flattener that does not cost the earth. That is the only catch. Still searching myself. I think TS have one but it might mean not using my AOX (89mm+ or - 2mm). It they are using a small sensor, then there is no issue as the correct field covers easily.
Well, all it needs is collimation and a focuser, shroud and a dew heater installed. Not that much tinkering. The scopes are now mature. All the large scopes have good mirror cells, sensor centering adjustment rings, plenty of back focus, good baffling, but you will need to find a good flattener that does not cost the earth. That is the only catch. Still searching myself. I think TS have one but it might mean not using my AOX (89mm+ or - 2mm). It they are using a small sensor, then there is no issue as the correct field covers easily.
Sure, while the 12" scopes look like they can be well tamed, the lack of a
usable focuser, rotator, dedicated flattener, reducer, robotic dust cover is not trivial.....they do add significantly to the cost.
An Optec Gemini rotator/focuser is around $A6k landed alone....making the
telescope itself, at $A7.5k look positively cheap.
Running the numbers, PMEII, GSO16, Optec Gemini = $38.5k
The mass increase from 12" to 16" is basically double...which begs the question how good are the horizon to horizon collimation/bending moments?
The design being functional at 12" could be a world of hurt at 16" if all GSO do is scale components up.
Perhaps the above gives original question more clarity....as, if you paid near enough $40K for the "telescope" bits (we haven't factored in the cost of a Dome yet) and you received no optical certification data....
......but the images have Hubble-Mark-I haloes...it would be hard to swallow and explain to the funding authorities.
If I may...and possibly saying the obvious, but with a limited budget of $40k (cough cough), perhaps a better quality 14" on a MX+ is a much less risky solution?