are some astronomers immune to aperture fever?

[Ags]

https://my.vanderbilt.edu/keltsouth/telescope/

[Alien 13]

I am immune I want ultra low powers and wide field something that big scopes cant do.

Alan

[triton1]

It certainly looks like it,I hope that mount can take the weight.?

[Moonshane]

To a point, I am too. I do have a 16" but having seen a 22" f5 I have no intention of going bigger there's no point for me. Furthermore I think that all you do is chase increasingly obscure DSOs. There's more than enough NGCs to keep me going a lifetime and my key interests seem to be heading toward solar system objects for the time being at least. For this I mainly use my smaller scopes up to 6" aperture.

[Peter Drew]

Looks rather like "mount fever" to me!   

[Chris]

That's a cool link, Agnes, it goes to show that with imaging you don't need aperture unless you want 'speed' at a very long focal length, then you really do need mount fever to cope with that! 

I've never ever owned a scope bigger than 8", but I'm grinding an 8.75" mirror just to blow my previous 8" out the water....I estimate the mirror and scope will be ready by about 2020 

[BeerMe]

1 hour ago, Peter Drew said:

Looks rather like "mount fever" to me!   

Everything except the scope itself screams overkill to me.  Can that even really be called a scope?!  Just looks like a camera and lens.

[LukeSkywatcher]

Im now immune. I have my 8se and thats it for me. Works for me, others may want bigger.

[ronin]

Never been overly bothered by aperture, have nothing bigger then a 105 Mak, and I have 6 scopes. Decided that if I ever wanted to get something with aperture then it will be along the lines of Michael's Sumarian Optics scopes, and it looks like I may have to build it myself now.

Always remember a statement from some years ago: There is always someone with a bigger scope then yours and there is alwasy someone with a smaller scope then yours.

I also remember that I have known 3 people that went bigger and bigger and when they got to a 16" scope they gave it all up. I am not sure but I suspect it just became too much bother and trouble getting it all out and set up.

[laser_jock99]

The mount is overkill for the 26 degree by 26 degree FOV. Must have had some excess research budget to use up!!

[Stu]

If I had no other scope again then it would be a 4" apo refractor as it will do most of what I love doing. Widefield observing of objects like the Veil or North America Nebula has always been something I enjoy albeit on infrequent trips to dark sites.

At home, planetary observing plus solar Ha and White light are my main interests, all satisfied with a 4" giving excellent, and stable views under the variable seeing conditions I experience, plus they are quick to setup and cool down.

Off course I know what aperture has to offer. Having had a 16" Sumerian I'm aware of the amazing views on offer of many beautiful galaxies, but my location and lifestyle dictate that I just can't justify the time to get away to dark sites often enough to keep this type of scope.

My current largest aperture is an old C925 I resurrected from near death. It does give wonderful views under a dark sky as evidenced at the recent DIYPSP but honestly, any scope is pretty poor on DSOs at home so I focus on what is good.

[Mr Spock]

That mount is definitely OTT!

Nothing wrong with widefield though. There's not much that's more enjoyable than 'sky surfing'

[Paul73]

No stargazer is immune to aperture fever!!!

Speaking for myself :

- I am too lazy to set up a big scope for a quick session.

- I am too married to have an Obsy with all set up and ready; or to fill the house with scopes

- I am too poor to buy good big scopes.

- I am too weak to shift big scopes & mounts

So, I believe that all stargazers have Aperture Fever, but 'real life' can dampen the symptoms to manageable levels.?

Paul

[DaveS]

As primarily an imager I'm (Almost) immune to aperture fever, except as it is a corollary of FL fever and F-ratio.

My current 130 f/7 does me quite well ATM at 910mm, or 682 with the reducer. I'd like something longer for galaxies, but 'fracs get stupidly expensive very quickly as you gat beyond 5-6 inches.

[Ags]

I suppose the 4.2cm aperture of KELT means they can expose for longer before overexposing any star, so they get less issue with short-term atmospheric variations in brightness.

And I suppose they are using a Paramount ME because they could get all their automation etc "off the shelf". Also i imagine it's got good PEC, so they lose fewer subs that way?

 

[Ravenous]

14 hours ago, Ags said:

https://my.vanderbilt.edu/keltsouth/telescope/

That's a really interesting project.

But I almost laughed when I read the "About" page:

Quote

 It is a small, low-cost machine that does one thing very well – it monitors the brightness of hundreds of thousands of stars every night, month after month, for many years.

Low cost?! Yes it's a very nice small camera, but the mount is ridiculously serious!  Maybe they had it left over from an earlier project.

[Paul73]

26 minutes ago, Ravenous said:

 

Low cost?! Yes it's a very nice small camera, but the mount is ridiculously serious!  Maybe they had it left over from an earlier project.

I guess that in Astro Research terms, it is low(ish) cost.

The simple design of the building/Obsy interested me. The slide off arched roof would give great height while avoiding the need for fold down walls. The materials are as cheap as chips. Just google "pig arch" or "chicken arch" if you want a smaller obsey.

Paul

[barkis]

3 hours ago, Paul73 said:

No stargazer is immune to aperture fever!!!

Speaking for myself :

- I am too lazy to set up a big scope for a quick session.

- I am too married to have an Obsy with all set up and ready; or to fill the house with scopes

- I am too poor to buy good big scopes.

- I am too weak to shift big scopes & mounts

So, I believe that all stargazers have Aperture Fever, but 'real life' can dampen the symptoms to manageable levels.?

Paul

I think you just nailed it for many others too Paul . 

[spaceboy]

On 5/16/2017 at 21:57, Ags said:

https://my.vanderbilt.edu/keltsouth/telescope/

I'm no imager but as far as CCD imaging goes I'm guessing that is the equivalent to a larger visual scope

As noted I'm not into imaging so I do need a larger scope to visually benefit from the night sky. Do I suffer from aperture hunger because of it??? Nope!! Bigger is better in regards to what the eye can see but it is no better than a small scope if you don't use it. The largest aperture I have owned was 12" f/5 and I can honestly say I used it 3 times in the year I owned it. Too big to drag in and out between clouds and took too long to cool down when I did. Under dark skies it offered the depth we all crave but at the cost of fov. While I feel a 10" f/4.7 is a good compromise between aperture and manageability an 8" f/5 currently suits my astronomy needs and is more likely to see distant photons.

I personally feel the best scope is one your most likely to use not necessarily the one that offers the brighter views.

[Pondus]

Maybe its a 'Jack of all trades, master of none'  size and type Scope, but my 8"F6 dob is still fine by me.

I am however slightly affected by the current posts regarding high end, smallish aperture,  apos at SGL.

I am sometimes forgetting the extremely high and experienced observing Level among members here and

Expressions like 'blew me out of the water', 'blew my socks off' might very well be subtle improvements laymen like me really wouldnt notice that well?

 

[iPeace]

Great topic.

Maybe - for some - it's like those childhood diseases you get once - for a while - and then never again. You're completely (and in a sense - literally) engrossed, covered in itching spots for a while before it subsides, never to return, and you get on with life. Others experience it as a more permanent affliction - they are infected for life and learn to cope. All good.

I repeat: all good. It's a good disease to have. But we don't all have it for life. Unless there is no "we" and it's just me.

On 05/16/2017 at 23:06, Moonshane said:

Furthermore I think that all you do is chase increasingly obscure DSOs.

I've been pondering this as well, as I do enjoy searching for faint fuzzies, but once found they don't really hold my interest like the Moon, planets, double stars and open clusters do. So do I not enjoy fuzzies (that much) because I don't have aperture, or do I not have aperture because I don't enjoy fuzzies (enough)? Not that it matters.

On 05/17/2017 at 10:55, Paul73 said:

I believe that all stargazers have Aperture Fever, but 'real life' can dampen the symptoms to manageable levels.

There is profound truth to this, and many will be "making do" with less aperture than they would actually like to have available.

However, if this be literally true and if I am a true stargazer - who knows, perhaps I don't qualify - and if I do indeed still have aperture fever, then I must be fully, clinically and terminally in denial. I can live with that. I think.

I may be the only one ("freak!" they shout ), but for me, small scopes are just more fun.

Nah, I'm not the only one.

[scarp15]

I have increasingly become fixated with the pursuit towards observing Diffuse Nebulae, Dark Nebulae and Supernova Remnants, as a primary interest. Therefore my attention has focused on exit pupil size, image contrast / filter performance comparison, field of view. Underpinning this, is a quest to access dark sky locations and to measure sky brightness magnitude with my Unihendron SQM when transparency is favourable. For this, the three scopes and one pair of binoculars I currently use are capable and aperture fever (more than my 14" scope) is not a factor (thank goodness).

[Paul73]

Excluding a yearning for wide field views, money and logistics, how can bigger not be better???

Paul

[Alien 13]

Bigger is different but certainly not better...

Alan

[Chris]

20 minutes ago, Paul73 said:

Excluding a yearning for wide field views, money and logistics, how can bigger not be better???

Paul

I can't think of that many reasons, Paul, mainly seeing conditions, space, portability, and setup and cool down time.

or do some of those come under logistics?

I think smaller scopes just work well with poor skies and busy lives, although I confess I have occasional thoughts about a 10" scope