Pier height

[Willarnold]

Hi all,

I'm going to start going down the Astrophotography route, so I'm starting to think about a more studier base.

I currently have my mount and tripod on the my decking. This is perfect for visual, but the vibrations of me walking about would cause issues with any long exposures. The current rubbish weather means that I can't put my kit on the grass, as I fear it will sink never to be seen again!

I would love a proper obsy, but I've only got a small garden. So a pier, next to my deck, is the next best option.

I'm going to make my own (concrete filled pipe with plates on top), so the question is how heigh?

Is there a set height that I should aim for, or do I just make it up as I'm going along?

Your thoughts as always are much appreciated.

Cheers

[pete_l]

The shorter the pier, the more stable it will be (and the easier to build - less concrete ). The other thing you want to work out is what obstructions come between your telescope at its working height and low altitude objects you'll want to target.

On the whole, anything else notwithstanding, most people seem to favour a height that is also comfortable for visual use. For that, the best starting point is the height that your tripod is set to (by you) at the moment.

p.s. for grass use, have you thought about laying 4 paving slabs and having the tripod on that. Come the winter, or whenever you decide to go for something more permanent you can returf the area. Sods (wonder what the language sensor makes of that?) probably won't cost more than a tenner.

[JamesF]

If you're never going to use it for visual then as long as you can get down to the eyepiece of the polar scope to get a rough polar alignment (and even that may not be required) and it's high enough to keep things out of the way of feet and knees you can probably go as short as you like.

Obviously if it's higher then you may get a better view of the sky or over nearby obstructions.

When it really matters is if you might in the future want to put, say, a newt, or a long-ish refractor on it. Then you need to have it and a height to make that work, especially if visual is a requirement.

Personally I'd probably arrange for the top of the pier to be a bit under waist high to leave the business end of the mount around elbow height which would hopefully be a comfortable height for twiddling with when trying to mount up the scopes.

James

[Willarnold]

Good advice, thanks guys

[Bizibilder]

I would suggest taking your time and using your tripod set-up to find both the best position and height for your set-up - try several. Then, when you are sure that you have the best compromise you can build your pier to those dimensions and position.

Remember that the apparently "best" position may not be the one you first assume! As the skies seem to "rotate" things move into and out of view - you may prefer to set up for the best planetary/Lunar views or to have either a good East or West view etc. Take your time - the pier will be permanent.

[laser_jock99]

Depends what your main imaging scope is going to be? If a refractor then a pier at shoulder height is right, especially if you do visual. You'll never use a big Newt on this without step ladders though! Despite having a pier I still use the Newt on the EQ6 tripod- almost at the shortest leg setting. There really is that much difference in comfortable working heights.

[dmahon]

Why will you walk around it when it's imaging?

The only time you need to get near it is when focusing or polar aligning. Everything else you can do from metres (or indeed, miles) away on the computer. If you spend a few hundred more, you can focus from it too.

[Gina]

I built a remote electric focussing system but mostly use the manual slo-mo knob on the scope. I have to go to the scope to put the Bahtinov mask on anyway and I watch the monitor through the window in the dividing wall door. However, this gives me an idea... I could attach the Bahtinov mask to an arm on a servo motor attached to the dew shield and operate it from the warm room