Re: [ap-gto] Re: 600 or 900 mount? any help appreciated...


Apr 28, 2001

 


----------------------------

#2345 Apr 28, 2001

Hello there,



I hope you might be able to help me. I am interested in purchasing

either the 600 or 900 mount. I will be using it with a Questar 7

inch maksutov.



I am sure the 600 is enough mount for this + accessories. My only

thought though is that, relatively speaking, the price difference

from the 600 to the 900 is small but the 900 looks like a much more

substantial mount. I am working with someone on seeing if a ATA case

is possible that would hold both the RA and DA axes in the same box

which would minimize my concerns on travelling with the 900 (the 600

could easily get into a single road case being its main advantage).

I also think the 900 might be more convenient given the controller

box is permanently mounted vs being an attachment on the 600 (there

are no pictures so i not sure how the 600 looks in the end and

whether there is any disadvantage of having a non permanent contol

box mounted vs a permanent one).



Any opinions on these two mounts, esp with respect to the above,

would be greatly appreciated.



Thanks in advance for you time and consideration.



----------------------------

#2346 Apr 28, 2001

----- Original Message -----

From: yellowwducky@...>

> Hello there,

> I hope you might be able to help me. I am interested in purchasing

> either the 600 or 900 mount. I will be using it with a Questar 7

> inch maksutov.



Dear Yellow W. Ducky, :)



Though this won't be much help, I've decided that AP mounts and telescopes

are like baseball bubble gum cards. You should collect the entire set. g>

(Bet that warms Marj's heart to hearg>. AP trading cards??)



Okay something more helpful. As was pointed out to me just a day or so

ago... If both mounts suit you... If you intended to buy them new... And if

you'll have to wait for both... You might as well sign up for both and take

the first one you can get. You can always sell the 600EGTO for almost (if

not exactly) what you paid for it once the 900 becomes available, or keep

the 900GTO and cancel the 600 if that comes first. Or like me, keep them all

and collect the entire set. :)



----------------------------

#2347 Apr 28, 2001

I would go for the 900 for this situation. I've used several 600s, and for

the price difference the 900 delivers much more capacity. Its just my

opinion, of course, but I felt that the 600 could carry weight, but that the

900 was much better if you have either a long lever arm (slow refractors) or

a long focal length (like the Questar 7").



Ron Wodaski

The New CCD Astronomy

www.newastro.com



-----Original Message-----

From: yellowwducky@... [mailto:yellowwducky@...]

Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 8:07 AM

To: ap-gto@yahoogroups.com

Subject: [ap-gto] 600 or 900 mount? any help appreciated...





Hello there,



I hope you might be able to help me. I am interested in purchasing

either the 600 or 900 mount. I will be using it with a Questar 7

inch maksutov.



I am sure the 600 is enough mount for this + accessories. My only

thought though is that, relatively speaking, the price difference

from the 600 to the 900 is small but the 900 looks like a much more

substantial mount. I am working with someone on seeing if a ATA case

is possible that would hold both the RA and DA axes in the same box

which would minimize my concerns on travelling with the 900 (the 600

could easily get into a single road case being its main advantage).

I also think the 900 might be more convenient given the controller

box is permanently mounted vs being an attachment on the 600 (there

are no pictures so i not sure how the 600 looks in the end and

whether there is any disadvantage of having a non permanent contol

box mounted vs a permanent one).



Any opinions on these two mounts, esp with respect to the above,

would be greatly appreciated.



Thanks in advance for you time and consideration.







To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list

see groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gto



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



----------------------------

#2348 Apr 28, 2001

I have to agree with Jeff 100% on this one. However, the 900 goto will

offer the better stability and load carrying ability if you want to go to

larger aperture in the future.



jg



> [Original Message]

> From: Jeffrey D. Gortatowsky mrrockets@...>

> To: ap-gto@yahoogroups.com>

> Date: 4/28/01 10:37:09 AM

> Subject: Re: [ap-gto] 600 or 900 mount? any help appreciated...

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: yellowwducky@...>

> > Hello there,

> > I hope you might be able to help me. I am interested in purchasing

> > either the 600 or 900 mount. I will be using it with a Questar 7

> > inch maksutov.

>

> Dear Yellow W. Ducky, :)

>

> Though this won't be much help, I've decided that AP mounts and telescopes

> are like baseball bubble gum cards. You should collect the entire set. g>

> (Bet that warms Marj's heart to hearg>. AP trading cards??)

>

> Okay something more helpful. As was pointed out to me just a day or so

> ago... If both mounts suit you... If you intended to buy them new... And

if > you'll have to wait for both... You might as well sign up for both and

take > the first one you can get. You can always sell the 600EGTO for almost (if

> not exactly) what you paid for it once the 900 becomes available, or keep

> the 900GTO and cancel the 600 if that comes first. Or like me, keep them

all > and collect the entire set. :)

>

>

>

>

> To UNSUBSCRIBE, or for general information on the ap-gto list

> see groups.yahoo.com/group/ap-gto

>

> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

>







--- John Gleason

--- dvj@...

--- www.celestialimage.com







----------------------------

#2349 Apr 28, 2001

From: yellowwducky@...

>

> Hello there,

>

> I hope you might be able to help me. I am interested in purchasing

> either the 600 or 900 mount. I will be using it with a Questar 7

> inch maksutov.



I've owned a 600EGTO for several years. I primarily use it with a Takahashi

TSC 225 and 130mm f/8.3 Astro-Physics refractor. The Tak is a 9" SCT with a

focal lenth of 2700mm. The 600 is very stable with either scope for visual

and CCD if the wind is not strong. The Tak has a 13" aluminum dew shield

that makes quite a sail.



I also have an Intes MK-67 6" Maksutov-Cassegrain. The 600 is extreme

overkill for it. If I wanted to observe in gale force winds, this would be

the way to go. Actually, I did do something like that once, but with a GM-8

and the MK-67. There was a MIRA star party at Chews Ridge and the wind was

literally blowing dobs away. I was the only one not having a stability

problem. The 600 is considerably more stable than a GM-8.



Although I have a 900 on order (for a 10" Maksutov-Cassegrain) I think the

600 would be more convenient for you. Yes it has a separate control box, but

that isn't much bigger than the keypad. It is not a problem. The 900 is a

two piece mount and should probably be transported in two pieces.



I don't know whether this is true for the 900, but I would assume that

similar forces apply. The manual for the Mountain Instruments MI-250 GOTO

says, "In order to maintain proper worm to gear mesh, remove the Dec

assembly from the RA for transportation or storage. Failure to do so will

reduce tracking accuracy."



Even if it is OK to transport the 900 in one piece, it is a 50 lb. lump to

lug. The 600 is 27 lbs.



Robin Casady

www.CarmelCoast.com



Casady & Greene, Inc.

www.casadyg.com



----------------------------

#2356 Apr 28, 2001

I am working with someone on seeing if a ATA case

> is possible that would hold both the RA and DA axes

> in the same box which would minimize my concerns on

> travelling with the 900



Good ATA cases are quite heavy. Both axes of the 900 in a good ATA case

would be WAY too heavy to carry.



Gus



----------------------------

#2358 Apr 29, 2001

--- In ap-gto@y..., "Paul Gustafson" laservet@h...> wrote: >

> > I am working with someone on seeing if a ATA case

> > is possible that would hold both the RA and DA axes

> > in the same box which would minimize my concerns on

> > travelling with the 900

>

> Good ATA cases are quite heavy. Both axes of the 900 in a good ATA

case > would be WAY too heavy to carry.

>

> Gus



I started thinking about it and I think you are probably right. My

amplifier weighs 125 pounds and its case is about 35-40 I would

approximate. Assuming that same kind of ratio, that would put a 900

in one box at probably 70 or so pounds if not more. Not carry on and

the total weight limit for a flight check in. One could always just

not bring any clothes on a trip but that would not win many friends!



The best solution, as mentioned earlier, would be to start a

collection. A 900 at the cottage and a 600 for travelling. My

fiancee would totally kill me so at the moment I think the 600 is

looking like the best route. Maybe I can get my Questar 7 made out

of graphite composite to bring its weight down making the 600 mount

more than solid enough - although based on a previous post I think it

probably is; the Q7 is only 18 pounds in astro version + eyepiece and

other accesories so it ought to 'suffice'. The website says it can

accomodate up to 10 inch SCT's so that is a good sign.



Hmm, glad I have a bit more time to figure things out regardless.



Thanks again for the feedback!



----------------------------

#2359 Apr 29, 2001

yellowwducky wrote:

> Maybe I can get my Questar 7 made out

> of graphite composite to bring its weight down making the 600

> mount more than solid enough - although based on a previous

> post I think it probably is; the Q7 is only 18 pounds in astro

> version + eyepiece and other accesories so it ought to 'suffice'.

> The website says it can accomodate up to 10 inch SCT's so that

> is a good sign.



My heaviest (and longest) scope is an f5.9, 203mm Mak-Newt, tipping

the scales at 42 pounds (without the T5 EP :o) and coming in at 61"

(with the baffled dew shield). While I normally plop it onto my 900

GTO mount when used at home, it gets tossed onto my 600 GTO for road

trips, public observing sessions, etc.



The 600 handles the load just fine (for visual use), so I'd suspect

the much lighter and shorter Q7 should present no problems.



Paul



----------------------------

#2364 Apr 29, 2001

--- In ap-gto@y..., pghyndman@y... wrote: > yellowwducky wrote:

>

> > Maybe I can get my Questar 7 made out

> > of graphite composite to bring its weight down making the 600

> > mount more than solid enough - although based on a previous

> > post I think it probably is; the Q7 is only 18 pounds in astro

> > version + eyepiece and other accesories so it ought to 'suffice'.

> > The website says it can accomodate up to 10 inch SCT's so that

> > is a good sign.

>

> My heaviest (and longest) scope is an f5.9, 203mm Mak-Newt, tipping

> the scales at 42 pounds (without the T5 EP :o) and coming in at 61"

> (with the baffled dew shield). While I normally plop it onto my 900

> GTO mount when used at home, it gets tossed onto my 600 GTO for

road > trips, public observing sessions, etc.

>

> The 600 handles the load just fine (for visual use), so I'd suspect

> the much lighter and shorter Q7 should present no problems.



Looks like I can save some money and not worry about a custom

configured Q7 to shed a few pounds - I would be WAY under your 42

pounds. I fully intend on using the scope/mount for astrophotography

(CCD based) but even loaded I can't see getting even near 25 pounds

let alone 42!



I still think though that the 900 just LOOKS like a much more

substantial mount than the 600. Sorry but it seems like a ferrari

relative to a corvette would be the best analogy I can think of. >

> Paul







----------------------------

#2367 Apr 29, 2001

From: yellowwducky@...

>

> Looks like I can save some money and not worry about a custom

> configured Q7 to shed a few pounds - I would be WAY under your 42

> pounds. I fully intend on using the scope/mount for astrophotography

> (CCD based) but even loaded I can't see getting even near 25 pounds

> let alone 42!



The Tak TSC 225 OTA I mentioned is 27 lbs. unloaded. Add aluminum dew

shield, cameras, etc.

> I still think though that the 900 just LOOKS like a much more

> substantial mount than the 600. Sorry but it seems like a ferrari

> relative to a corvette would be the best analogy I can think of.



I always thought Corvettes were much heavier than Ferraris. In race cars

that is NOT a good thing. Do your really want a six wheel pickup to carry

one bale of hay?



Robin Casady

www.CarmelCoast.com



Casady & Greene, Inc.

www.casadyg.com



----------------------------

#2368 Apr 29, 2001

Robin Casady wrote:

> > From yellowwducky:

> >

> > I still think though that the 900 just LOOKS like a much more

> > substantial mount than the 600. Sorry but it seems like a ferrari

> > relative to a corvette would be the best analogy I can think of.



I hope I didn't give you the wrong impression. The 900 IS a more

substantial mount, as is the 1200 more substantial than the 900 (and

each is not that much more of a $$$ jump than the other), but

portability and practicality can be real big issues if you don't have

a permanent pier and must schlep (love that word!) the stuff around.

> I always thought Corvettes were much heavier than Ferraris. In

> race cars that is NOT a good thing. Do your really want a six

> wheel pickup to carry one bale of hay?



Nah... this is what ya' need to make the hay bale/manure runs:



www.mbworld.org/upload/2001/Toys.JPG



(Never did like trucks, and NO, that is a pile of mulch)



Paul



PS: I had my 600 mount and 5" Tak' (can I say that here?) out last

night for one of our public observing sessions. I was going to start

with the moon and move on, but never left it.



I usually slow down the button rate, give the kids the keypad, and

let 'em roam the Lunar surface, a whole lot more interactive than

just walking 'em past the EP! They love it, but the line tends to

move kinda' slowwwwwwww :o) Some of 'em were trying to peek through

the finderscope until they had a chance at the EP... sorta'

like "coming attractions", but they went bonkers when they saw it at

the EP!



----------------------------

#2369 Apr 29, 2001

From: pghyndman@...

>

> ...but

> portability and practicality can be real big issues if you don't have

> a permanent pier and must schlep (love that word!) the stuff around.



The best mount is the one that gets used.

> Nah... this is what ya' need to make the hay bale/manure runs:

>

> www.mbworld.org/upload/2001/Toys.JPG



I see, you just shovel it in the back of the convertible. Makes sense.

> (Never did like trucks, and NO, that is a pile of mulch)



Especially when you are stuck behind them on the wonderful twisty roads of

Carmel Valley.



Robin Casady

www.CarmelCoast.com



Casady & Greene, Inc.

www.casadyg.com



Contact Us
This Site's Privacy Policy
Google's privacy policies

S
e
n
i
o
r
T
u
b
e
.
o
r
g