A 42" DOB

[Daniel-K]

:eek:http://www.cruxis.com/scope/scope1070.htm

the mirrior weigh's a wopping 97Kg!! and its nearly as tall as his house:eek:

[John]

What a scope !

I had a look through a 20" dob last year and that seemed about as big as a car - the views were stunning though

The views with a 42" must be stupendous

[Superewza]

Was a dob really the best mount for this, though?

[nightfisher]

way too big!

[Simms]

Blimey, I can only imagine what one could observe visually with that beast - do you think that you could observe lots of structure in something like M101? I`ve never had the chance to look through anything bigger than my 8" newt - must get myself along to a star party and try out some big Dobs.

[Daniel-K]

at liverpool astronomical society were i go on a wed for the weekly meet a member there has a 30 inch dob http://datscope.wikispaces.com/30+inch+TROK+Dobsonian+Telescope

im yet to look through it as ive not been a memeber that long but get told its like looking at a picture on the computer screen

[Moonshane]

I have seen the 42" dob a few times online and it makes me giggle every time. a 22" scope is really too much for me personally and I cannot imagine what a 42" scope would do. incredible.

[acey]

A 48" dob. (Well, alt-az with built-in viewing platform and shed). It cost a fortune and Herschel hardly used it.

[Multi-Coated]

We're gona need a bigger boat !!

[John]

Blimey, I can only imagine what one could observe visually with that beast - do you think that you could observe lots of structure in something like M101?...

I observed M51 and M13 through the 20" I mentioned above. They both looked like the photographs do - the spiral structure of M51 and it's link the the satellite galaxy were fully resolved with direct vision - the galaxy more or less filled the field of view.

Pretty stunning but it did make the views through my 10" newtonian seem a little "Puny" for a while

[fatwoul]

We were looking at that site at work a while back. My favourite photo is this one:

I can understand needing 42" of aperture to observe something as faint as the Sun.

We did wonder what would happen if a bird flew into that solar film. Presumably there would be two holes in the back of Dr Erhard's head with light coming out of them.

[asteria]

This puts my aspiration to build an ultra-lightweight 10" dobsonian into perspective. Perhaps I'm suffering from a lack of ATM ambition!

Ed

[Moonshane]

No Ed, you are spot on. Learn with the 10" and then go for it!

[nitram100]

I think 18" is a sweet spot.

[Moonshane]

for a truss, I agree. I can vouch though that a 16" solid tube f4 takes some manhandling and I use a sack truck to save my back.

bigger than an 18" and it's banished to outside storage, I feel as it won't get through most doorways.

[asteria]

This is my inspiration at the moment. I need something to pack away small, but I would like to try a bigger aperture. This guy has built at 12", 18" and 20" in the same design.

A homemade 12 inch dob lightweight telescope, DS-3

I think I could adapt this for a 10". At least I wouldn't need to tow it behind a car, or need a step ladder to look through the eyepiece!

[twotter]

With these really big dobs it must be quite a pain to have to use a ladder. Perhaps some sort of small scaffolding arrangement might be a better solution?

Speedy 80 3T Mobile Access Tower Base Unit 0.95m | Screwfix.com

[foundaplanet]

We did wonder what would happen if a bird flew into that solar film. Presumably there would be two holes in the back of Dr Erhard's head with light coming out of them.

[IvyMike]

I was thinking the same as twotter. What does he do when the eyepiece gets too far away, which must happen quite quickly (~5min?)

From the looks of it, he has to climb down the ladder, move it a couple of inches, climb back up, take a look and then do the same thing all over again...

Not something i'd like to do during a 2h observation.

[spaceboy]

8" secondary mirror

[JamesM]

I hope it comes with a first aid kit, especially if someone forgets to hang on to that stepladder! Does the owner still suffer from aperture fever I wonder or is just altitude sickness?

James

[Stinky_Pete]

they do a goto version?

[umadog]

I've saw M51 with the super nova through a 32" at a dark, high altitude, site. That was pretty special. That 32" was pretty damn big, to be honest. 42" is just insane! Here's food for thought: a 42" gathers 76% more light than a 32". That's like going from an 8" to a 10.5".

I wouldn't have the balls to observe the sun through that thing. With a filter that size, there's too much chance of a **** up. Remember that the image is no brighter in a larger scope. So if the exit pupils are the same, the consequences of a filter coming off that 42" would be identical to a filter coming off a 6": holes blasted out of back of head in both cases.

[Ewok]

We were looking at that site at work a while back. My favourite photo is this one:

I can understand needing 42" of aperture to observe something as faint as the Sun.

We did wonder what would happen if a bird flew into that solar film. Presumably there would be two holes in the back of Dr Erhard's head with light coming out of them.

I have just sprayed coffee all over my keyboard, thanks. That is way too funny

[Rob1961]

Speechless and priceless - amazing