Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_annual.thumb.jpg.3fc34f695a81b16210333189a3162ac7.jpg

Recommended Posts

Hi everybody,

i'd like to share with you the design, making and progress of a project my astro club endeavoring to. I'll post here relevant info in a run-up  to where we got to so far.

 

Here is the mission: 800mm in diameter. That's it. A lot of inspiration out there but it needs to be able to do science. So it's a relatively fast Newtonian capable of tracking for tens of minutes.
So we realized that we were facing 2 projects in one. The mirror on one side and the mount on the other. Shall we start with the mount? What's the best compromise in terms of ease to build and cheap components and the chance to have a stiff yet light structure. An alt-az, like the biggest telescope! - or rather a glorified dobsonian in this case.

 

Ambitious? Definitely

Any comment/suggestion is welcome!

image.png.bca21ad10baef2ec200522cda946e398.png

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 212
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Here is a quick and dirt first assembly of the UTA - this is more to have a glimpse of the assembly method and whether everythign was falling in place. Pretty happy witht the weight as it's in li

Hi everybody, i'd like to share with you the design, making and progress of a project my astro club endeavoring to. I'll post here relevant info in a run-up  to where we got to so far.  

None of us needs to justify our telescopes or projects IMHO- this looks like a fantastic telescope in the making.

Posted Images

I would say without question, sort the mirror first. The sheer challenge of making and fitting one of those in a cell would keep anyone busy for years. Its going to weigh an absolute ton. And probably cost several thousand pounds to construct.

I've seen people make parabolic mirrors from those silver emergency blankets on inflatable jigs; but I've never seen one work. And they'd never be much use for visual. What are you planning on using as a blank? Are you going to grind it yourself?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dr_Ju_ju said:

An 800mm diameter mirror is going to weigh a LOT (simple calculation based on 800mm x 25mm = 125 Kg) [https://www.glass-ts.com/glass-weight-calculator] so I'd forget timber laminates & instead go for Aluminium.... 

Ummm.  I did: volume = r * r * pi * thickness = 40 * 40 * 3.14159 * 2.5 (in cubic centimetres) = 12566 cm^3.  Borosilicate glass is about 2.23g/cm^3, so 12566 * 2.23 = 28022g, or 28kg.

Am I being dim?

James

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dr_Ju_ju said:

An 800mm diameter mirror is going to weigh a LOT (simple calculation based on 800mm x 25mm = 125 Kg) [https://www.glass-ts.com/glass-weight-calculator] so I'd forget timber laminates & instead go for Aluminium.... 

The overall weight target is 130kg mirror included. Don't mix r with D in your calculations :)

Edited by Michele Scotti
Link to post
Share on other sites

Any reason for 6 truss poles? Fast optics need stiffness to hold collimation. Do you have the blank? Some people make “dummy mirrors” out of concrete to help them in making the structure before the mirror is ready. GOOD LUCK!!!!!

 

Peter

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a similar project, currently "on hold" due to problems caused by being ring fenced by wind turbines that create bad seeing turbulence. The scheme was initiated before the turbines were erected or we would not have started the project in the first place. A first priority, if you don't already have one is to source a mirror blank.  An 800mm diameter thin blank and fast focal ratio would be a challenge for a top professional and would probably need to be a slumped meniscus configuration to provide adequate stiffness. Our mirror blank is 1070mm diameter and 76mm thick fused ceramic, pre-generated to curve and a 76mm bored core, weight is 160k.

An alt-az mount would be relatively easier and cheaper to make than most other mounts  and best made of metal for long term stability. I went ahead at the time and built the all aluminium tube assembly once the mirror blank was secured, as mentioned in an earlier post, a concrete dummy mirror was used for handling experimentation. Despite heavier weight, I think a traditional 8 component truss would be needed for stiffness if longish exposure imaging is planned.  😀 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Peter Drew said:

We have a similar project, currently "on hold" due to problems caused by being ring fenced by wind turbines that create bad seeing turbulence. The scheme was initiated before the turbines were erected or we would not have started the project in the first place. A first priority, if you don't already have one is to source a mirror blank.  An 800mm diameter thin blank and fast focal ratio would be a challenge for a top professional and would probably need to be a slumped meniscus configuration to provide adequate stiffness. Our mirror blank is 1070mm diameter and 76mm thick fused ceramic, pre-generated to curve and a 76mm bored core, weight is 160k.

An alt-az mount would be relatively easier and cheaper to make than most other mounts  and best made of metal for long term stability. I went ahead at the time and built the all aluminium tube assembly once the mirror blank was secured, as mentioned in an earlier post, a concrete dummy mirror was used for handling experimentation. Despite heavier weight, I think a traditional 8 component truss would be needed for stiffness if longish exposure imaging is planned.  😀 

Holy cow - that's a monster telescope right there! What focal ratio are you planning? Keep it up - I'm sure there are some other places you can home your telescope.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, check your calculations.

No way such a large mirror can be 25mm thick - most of that thickness is going to be ground away if mirror is to be fast, and it ought to be. F/3 800mm scope is going to have 2400mm FL - or be almost two and a half meters long. Anything slower than that is going to be as tall as a house :D

Next thing to worry about is impact of mirror thickness on ability to maintain figure. When you have a chunk of glass that thin it is going to bend by its own weight and that will produce astigmatism in virtually any part of the sky apart when looking straight up at zenith.

I know that newtonian seems like easiest thing to do, but you might consider two mirror system instead? Instruments of that size are probably best made in Nasmyth configuration. Here is schematic:

image.png.1c9e8cfbc729de45541382ba0f267a67.png

Such telescope does not need central hole in the back and hence no hole in primary, but uses two curved mirrors and one flat. It can be mounted on dob type motorized mount - alt/az, with addition of camera rotation device if you need to counter field rotation (not needed for visual, but probably needed for imaging and science stuff). Flat mirror and "focuser" are mounted on alt rotation axis, so it is pretty much stationary. It is actually fixed in place if you have your scope on large platform where observer is rotated with the scope. In any case it is easily accessible - no need for ladders or anything.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

You could try asking Mike Lockwood how much he charges for such a pre-formed, 800mm F3 mirror.
Think of the savings in time, weight, OTA size and money in getting it right the first time.

Lockwood Custom Optics - In Stock & Standard Sizes

Difficulty of support, handling and figuring rises as the square of aperture.
Thermal issues alone make a thin & shaped mirror essential.

8 strut Dobsonian with all the latest and best US practices in primary and secondary cell design and altazimuth OTA structures/support/bearing systems.
Mr Lockwood is a global resource and discusses all of these factors on his commercial website with constant updates.
Successful telescope designers and builders run in parallel with his optical work.
Note that the mechanical and optical frontiers move constantly forwards.
As some of the brightest minds apply themselves to fast, large aperture telescope, PRACTICAL designs for those who can afford them.
The compact instrument would be mounted on a well proven, commercial, equatorial platform.

At a site where the average seeing and average cloud cover and security are actually worth investing in such a large and expensive project.

Or you could spend years/decades building a white elephant at enormous cost in wasted time and resources like everybody else. :wink2:

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, focal length? What camera are you planning? Pixel scale? Have you got an image rotator planned? They tend to be pricey.

I would agree with Vlaiv that a Nasmyth focus would be best for mounting equipment. It also gives the possibility of, for instance having an imaging camera on one side and a spectrograph on the other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, DaveS said:

OK, focal length? What camera are you planning? Pixel scale? Have you got an image rotator planned? They tend to be pricey.

I would agree with Vlaiv that a Nasmyth focus would be best for mounting equipment. It also gives the possibility of, for instance having an imaging camera on one side and a spectrograph on the other.

I have been through all the ramifications of such a project, believe me!. The Nasmyth configuration looks good on paper but the convex secondary imparts an amplification to the focal length as with traditional Cassegrains, increasing the already long focal length of a  large primary mirror, not ideal for imaging. The extra weight  (and expense) of the additional optics and their support  requires an even more robust construction. I've been looking into the possibility of re-imaging via a Mersenne arrangement or a flat circular secondary and transfer system directing the focus through the primary as a relatively non amplified focal length, again expensive.  😀

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Peter Drew said:

I have been through all the ramifications of such a project, believe me!. The Nasmyth configuration looks good on paper but the convex secondary imparts an amplification to the focal length as with traditional Cassegrains, increasing the already long focal length of a  large primary mirror, not ideal for imaging. The extra weight  (and expense) of the additional optics and their support  requires an even more robust construction. I've been looking into the possibility of re-imaging via a Mersenne arrangement or a flat circular secondary and transfer system directing the focus through the primary as a relatively non amplified focal length, again expensive.  😀

Good point Peter - although a basic Newtonian set-up is a stretch for such diameter and ration I reckon it's the only way for ATMs. We have some experience with parabolic mirrors - an;t got no clue about all other convex secondary mirrors.

I'd prefer to spend some money on a Wynne and go through a careful design of the mount

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all thanks everybody for your warm welcome! Lots of hints and suggestions. I actually thought to be roasted!
 
Anyway let me give you a bit more of background on this project.
 
Over the years Charly -on the left-  had achieved a mastery in working mirrors such as three 500mm objectives. One of these mirrors is dedicated to his personal telescope.
The dream in the drawer was always to venture on higher diameters: 700mm, 800mm even 1 meter.
Perhaps the very structure of the telescope beyond is the burden. In fact, his 500mm equatorial mount had required various improvements over the years and the feeling is that there's a lot of unexplored potential in that mirror.

I hear many of you suggesting to sort the mirror out in first place. And that's a valid point. However the accent on this project is more on the mount that needs to be capable of tracking for several minutes. Don't get me wrong - a 800mm mirror is a huge challenge and we are not underestimating that.

Sometimes passion leads to focus on one aspect and to overlook others. Making a big mirror inevitably unbalances the whole telescope project. As a result mounts suffer. To me, the bigger the mirror the more important the mount.

From the beginning it was clear that the project was twofold. If on the one hand the mirror is in itself an exciting challenge -demanding and scary- it became clear that the telescope structure had to be in the same league.
Capture.JPG.6251b383eacd40a8ac3942095363da16.JPG

Cheers,

Michele

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you already have a suitable mirror blank. I really do advise that this is imperative before other considerations as it could significantly determine the mounting  design.   😀

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Peter Drew said:

Do you already have a suitable mirror blank. I really do advise that this is imperative before other considerations as it could significantly determine the mounting  design.   😀

Well we dont have that physically with us although we pre-checked the availability. In the design phase we are accounting for a 50mm thick mirror 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Michele Scotti said:

Well we dont have that physically with us although we pre-checked the availability. In the design phase we are accounting for a 50mm thick mirror 

Worth checking out is "honeycomb" cast of blank - it can save quite a bit of weight while still maintaining figure. Here is image of it:

image.png.c4bd09feba49935a77eb10b302a40981.png

It is pretty much same as regular blank with a difference that casting was done "over" honeycomb pattern so one side of blank is flat and used for figuring while other is sort of "hollow" with support structure that gives it enough rigidity to hold shape.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thickness increases not only weight but thermal mass. Hours spent waiting for the thick mirror to cool soon wears thin.
Forced air fans can help scrub surface thermal current but wont help the optical figure.
 It will still lag in a typically cooling regime where the blank is thick. As will a massive, metal, primary cell.

Does the blank vendor guarantee precision annealing? What is the LE substrate material of choice?
Can your optician work at or below f/4 in such apertures with guaranteed results to allow a practical sized instrument?

Fast mirrors have serious coma. For which they invented Paracorr SIPS and Starlight Instruments.

Search - paracorr

Support for a large mirror is critical to its figure and much more easily achieved, using modern methods, in an altazimuth.

Mirror cells by JP Astrocraft

A  well proven, tracking, equatorial platform is an off-the-shelf purchase. No need for a massive equatorial and crane hire to lift each separate component.

Equatorial Platforms: Home Page

Here is an example of a fast, modern Dobsonian. Just one of many in an expanding, global market, for mobile, large aperture telescopes.

Observing with Webster 28" f/2.7 | Astromart

Do an image search for Lockwood Dobsonian for more examples of large, fast, PRACTICAL telescopes. :wink2:

No personal commercial interest in any of the posted links.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point, I reckon I feel the need to clarify the vision.


This project is aimed at science not just visual - all inspirational big apertures out there are mostly visual. The French T1000 is actually achieving some sub-minute integration as far as I know: http://www.astrosurf.com/altaz/T1000.html

It needs to fill the gap between amateur and pro. Up to 500-600mm there are choices commercially available - then you jump almost directly into the meters-class from professional observatories.

Success looks like other people will build a better version of this scope. Hence this is an open-source exercise where this specific project is just the execution of a sort of pilot project. Its realization will be just a reassurance of its capabilities.

Affordable - being open source is not enough. The project is intended to utilize modern material in a smart way with a limitation to the use of fancy materials - rather we will develop new ad-hoc processes to extract the most from common materials.
Being transportable is a plus but in all fairness  not a must. As long as it can be put in a small van that's good enough before it finds its final home.

Again very ambitious but that's what motivates us. If we fail well we won't regret to have tried at least! It'll be painful though! :)

 

Attached is a strain energy analysis:

strain.jpg.17c947dd9d378c6d675a5e61edf2b023.jpg

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By deanchapman2705
      Hi guys, hoping you can help with the tracking problems I'm coming across with my astrophotography setup. I've been using it since August 2020 and have kind of put up with the problem until last night where I think it's getting worse...
      Specs below (let me know if you need anything else):
      William Optics Zenithstar 61 II (360mm F6.1) - Zenithstar 61Adjustable Field Flattener iOptron SkyGuider Pro Camera Mount Full Package K&F Concept Aluminium Tripod with 2kg weight Canon EOS 250d (cropped sensor 1.6x) The problem:
      I take roughly 40 pics with each being 1 minute long at 1600 ISO and stack them on DeepSkyStacker. From a few people I know on the internet, it seems as though, with a very similar setup and same focal length, they can get around 3 mins of exposure with no problem. And that's without a guide camera.
      With my 1 minute exposure, roughly 10 of 40 images are reasonable but the rest have star trailing or double stars (see attached downscaled, unedited pics of Orion nebula)
      What I think it could be:
      My first idea was the tripod, it's not the best but it's not cheap plastic, and it should be fine for a 1 min exposure. Then I thought it could be the iOptron tracker that could be faulty?
      Every screw has been tightened, there's no play in any of the adapters/mounts.
       
      I thought I'd post this here to see if anyone else has the same problem or has more experience/knowledge that could help. Also to see if there's an obvious problem before I spend hundreds on a new tripod or send the tracker back for a replacement.
      Any help would be much appreciated!
      Thanks,
      Dean
       









    • By lkimber
      I know it may be a bit of a long shot but I'm looking to buy a HEQ5 Pro mount or an NEQ6 Pro or something similar. Preferably belt driven but not necessary as can happily modify it. Please let me know if you have anything! Thanks.
    • By FranTeryda
      Hi! I'm Fran
      Not so long ago I took a picture of the ISS I never thought I was going to be able to get with the equipment I have. 
      After saving for a long time, I was able to buy my first scope, an OTA Skywatcher 200P. I adapted it to be used in a dobsonian base because it was the cheapest way I had to get it to work.
      One night, I thought it might be cool to try to aim and record with my phone an ISS pass overhead. During the first attempt, I messed up the focus extremely bad but you can't  imagine how happy I was to get a white blob in a frame that only I knew was the ISS. 
      The following afternoon I tried again. This time the flyby was almost exactly overhead and the night was crystal clear. So I manually tracked the station looking through the finder scope and recording it with my phone at 1080p 60fps. Without much expectations I downloaded the files into my computer to review them.  And was shocked with the results.
      The video was processed with PIPP, AutoStakkert and RegiStax. 

       
      If someone told me the image was taken with a phone and manually tracked with a shitty dobsonian base I would not believe him! I got really lucky that night, but I can not be happier with the results. I believe I got to the edge of what I can accomplish with the equipment that I was able to buy. I'm not sure if ext step up should be a real camera or a mount. Anyway, any of them are too expensive 😬
      If you want to see the frames before processing (and some nice shots of the moon that night), I'll leave a link to the video where I show them:
       
      Thank you so much for reading it all.
      Cheers,
      Fran
    • By StarGazingSiouxsie
      Hi  
      Tonight I was looking at Jupiter and got some nice views with a range of eyepeices. The best image detail wise and for clarity of image was a 15mm, which on my 8" Evolution gives me appx 135X 
      I tried using my Televue 2X Barlow which normally works fine. I can't remember exactly which eyepiece this happened with, maybe the 15mm or a 9mm, but when I used the barlow the planetary image would soon disappear out of the eyepiece. The mount seemed to otherwise be tracking OK although notice the planets seem to move out of the eyepiece view after a while. So did I have too much magnification with the Barlow? I think I did manage to get focus, the image just wouldn't stay put.
      Thanks for any insights or advice 
       
      Siouxsie 
    • By StarGazingSiouxsie
      Hi,
      I have a Celestron 8" Evolution with StarSense.
      Once I have enabled Auto Align, done the calibration stars, and enabled Auto Align again - after all that is done, will the telescope then automagically track the first object I choose to observe? 
      I have read all the manuals etc but I haven't used a telescope with tracking before, only manual ones. I feel I might be missing something very obvious here but such is the nature of learning! My learning curve is still very steep!! 
      My understanding is that the telescope will track automagically, I don't have to enable tracking as such. I can select 3 tracking modes - Sidereal, Lunar and Solar. I believe the tracking defaults to Sidereal. Do I have that right? IE I don't have to switch tracking on as such? 
      Note - I only have a StarSesne HC, it didn't come with a NexStar HC - will this be OK? 
      Does re-centering an object in the eyepiece while tracking damage or strain the motors? 
      Thanks for any advice, opinions or thoughts
       
      Siouxsie
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.