Your Ideas Wanted !

[pizwiz]

Here is the Scenario:
I am a member of an Astronomy Club which has just built a new Observatory with a 12' Clamshell Dome.
It has a 3' 25 ton pier anchored to bedrock and is equipped with warm room and all the computer control and imaging equipment needed and has room for more.
It temporarily houses a 12" Meade LX200 until the committee decides on a permanent Instrument.
The instrument should be capable of first class imaging and some research work.
We believe that the Dome could house an instrument of up to 20" max aperture.
However aperture is not the only concern, capabilities as described above are more important than sheer aperture.
What type of Telescope would you choose to install in such a facility?
Let your imagination go wild if you want, we have a clean slate here. Finances are not a problem.
One thing nice about being in Rochester NY is that with companies like Kodak, Bausch&Lomb, Xerox and IBM located in the area, Imaging expertise is not a problem.
Any and all suggestions are very welcome.

Adolph

[Spoonsize]

A real Richey-Cretian....20 to 24"....

[szareh]

Adolph,

The choice of the equipment not only depends on the use, but on the budget as well. What is the budget for this project?

With budget less than $25k, a Paramount ME with an 12.5" RC from RC optical would be my choice. If the budget is $25 - $50k, then I would go with Paramount ME and a 16" or 20" RC. If you can exceed $50k, then there are a number of professional quality fork mounts available which could be adapted to 16" to 20" RC telescopes.

Shahin

[pizwiz]

Thank You Fellows.
It seems that the Ritchie-Cretien type of Telescope is the first choice of most folks for this purpose.
From the data we have so far, it looks like the Dome could hold a 20"RC with no problem.
Luckily it seems that finances are not a problem, funds will be available for whatever Equipment we decide on.
Now we need to decide on a Mount.

Adolph

[Spoonsize]

A mount? That is an easier decision....

http://www.bttechnologies.com/bisque_me.htm

[pizwiz]

You would think so, wouldn't you !
But sorry to say, NOT Quite.
Despite what you read, the 20" RC Optical tube when equipped for imaging exceeds the load rating of the ME by quite a few Pounds.
If you read the warranty of the mount, it is void if you exceed the load rating.
The optical Tube with only the mounting plate and Tube rings checks in at exactly 150 Lbs. (Wanna bet ?? )
By the time you add a finder scope, camera and filters etc. not to mention dew heaters and a spectroscope or two and your easily 50 Lbs over.
We have found that once you get into the 20" range proprietary mounts are just about the only choices.
The funny thing is that RC optical's web site describes the Pramount as being suitable for their 16&20" RC tubes. But when you really dig into the data, that statement does not wash.

Adolph

[KenMiller]

Russel Crowman seems to get pretty good results with a 20" RC Optical tube on a Bisque mount (http://www.rc-astro.com/).

Have you talked with RC Optical? I've found them to be very responsive.

If money isn't an issue then why not have RC Optical configure the entire system for you? They have fork mounts of their own design that will easily handle that 20" if you're worried about the Bisque mount.

[pizwiz]

This gets a bit confusing for a simple Amateur like me.
I find many references to the Paramount being used with the 20"RC, even RC optical refers to it as suitable.
The confusion arises when you read the specs of the Paramount and it's warranty.
I think I will leave this to the mechanical experts in the club.
I know that they have considered the RC proprietary mount also.
I'll just have to wait and see. But it's still interesting to look into some of this stuff. You find all kinds of interesting things.

Adolph

[KenMiller]

I empathize with you wholeheartedly Adolph.

I just got started in this hobby. All I really want to do is take some good photos.

But in order to do that, I find myself part way into books on Optics, Telescope Design, and Spherical Astronomy because I can't find quantitative information on the available equipment.

Does an Astrophysics refractor perform better than a Takahashi? What is the maximum periodic error of a particular mount?

Over the years I've been involved in a number of hobbies and this one easily wins the award for the least amount of useful publicly available technical information.

By way of comparison, Amateur Radio manufacturers publish detailed specifications (far more than the overwhelming majority of buyers are capable of understanding) and independant labs keep them honest. Aircraft manufacturers publish detailed performance specifications and procedures.

Whether its ham radio, flying, bicycling, camping, photography, shooting, or any other hobby, I can't think of another where those engaged in the endeaver must operate with so little quantitative information.

Why is there such a lack of detail on telescopes and related systems?

[pizwiz]

Because traditionally people in this Hobby didn't really care. Certain manufacturers had the reputation for producing outstanding optics and in the small circle of this hobby everyone knew who they were.
But things are rapidly changing with the intro of all the digital equipment now available. That's a very simplistic statement, but basically true.
The single biggest problem that remains, is the lack of a universally accepted measurement system for optical performance.
I recently built a Truss Dob and tried to get a handle on the optical Quality of various mirrors from different manufacturers. Each had his own way of measuring the quality of it's mirrors and spent a lot of time and effort explaining why theirs was the only proper way to do it and that the other guys really did not know what they were talking about. You can get some common criteria of a good mirror, but you cannot get an agreement on how to measure the criteria.
Now mind you, this is digging a lot deeper into optics than what is commonly published in any specs.
For most of the detailed performance specs of telescopes and mounts we have to rely mostly on reviews published on various web sites. But again, you have no idea how the person measured the performance or if that is the proper way to do it.

Adolph