A 42" DOB

[Daniel-K 4,608]

: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 35,335]

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 10]

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

[nightfisher 7,481]

way too big!

[Simms 157]

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 4,608]

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 12,147]

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 1,260]

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

[Multi-Coated 10]

We're gona need a bigger boat !!

[John 35,335]

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 104]

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.

Edited August 7, 2011 by fatwoul

[asteria 15]

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 12,147]

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

[nitram100 53]

I think 18" is a sweet spot.

[Moonshane 12,147]

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 15]

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 222]

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 952]

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 10]

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 1,583]

8" secondary mirror

[JamesM 1,661]

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 90]

they do a goto version?

[umadog 364]

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.

Edited August 8, 2011 by umadog

[Ewok 11]

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 12]

Speechless and priceless - amazing