Grab & Go Mount Issues

[Dragons Egg]

For the past few years I've been using a Skytee mount & tripod as a 'grab'n'go' for my ES Mak-Newt Hunter Seeker. The mount itself - while it does have its ways - is a fine and solid enough platform, one plenty capable of bearing the weight of the ES scope (10 kg plus). The Skytee, though, is no lightweight. Massing slightly in excess of 10 kg, it's become more grab & grunt than grab & go. . . especially as I've got older. Also it's worth pointing out that as a 'field astronomer' (the light pollution where I live is like Disneyland, believe me) I'm having to carry both the scope and mount, plus assorted optics, often some distance from wherever I've parked the van.

I can live with that far as this setup applies to the Comet Hunter. . . though, if only for the present. Meanwhile I've recently come into possession of a TeleVue NP 101is. Probably this will be the Hunter Seeker's successor: having two seriously fast wide-field scopes is a bit of an overkill, and anyway use - or lack of use - will finally determine the fate of the Hunter, marvellous scope though it is.  

This being so, and assuming the NP 101 becomes my sole telescope, questions are already being asked about the mount itself. What can be said about it in this respect is that it's a hulking piece of work - the head alone weighs in at a respectable 6.5 kg. True, the 101 is no flyweight either: 4.9 kg in its bare-bones format. . . and one can add to that at least another two-and-a-bit kilos when you throw in all its vestments, including some heavy-duty TV glassware to boot. So, say it masses out at 7.3 kg in full rig, and I'm starting to wonder if I can get away with a lighter mount. The trouble is that there seems to be a fair-sized gap between true grab & go mounts and their weightier brethren, which are also routinely described as 'grab & go'. . . but only as far as the patio/back-garden perhaps? Of course, calling the 101 a grab & go scope might be considered by some to be pushing the boat out a tad. But I am reasonably strong for my age. . . I work out, keep fit etc. And I do like the darker skies and the photons that come with them - as many of 'em as I can get.

So a 4" aperture is a minimum requirement for me. Another minimum requirement is slow-motion controls. That rules out the SkyWatcher AZ4 Alt Az mount, which is a shame. Likewise the Vixen Porta 2 is ruled out by dint of its load capacity being restricted - as far as it concerns refractors - to 80mm scopes, which is also a shame. So all this has resulted in some thinking outside the box. One upshot has me wondering if it would be possible to mix'n'match, that's to say, combine a mount head sturdy enough to confidently take a NP 101 with a tripod sporting identical load-bearing characteristics. What in fact has appeared on my radar screen of late is a wooden tripod. One in particular: the Berebach wooden tripod (Report 703) seems a distinct possibility. According to the stats offered by Astroshop, they appear to be strong enough to take a 101, pack up to a conveniently small size (always a big plus for us hiking stargazers), and that they weigh just a paltry 1.9 kg apiece. Indeed, I'm willing to take a flyer on a Berebach, but it still leaves unanswered the outstanding issue/headache about finding a suitable mount head. 

So to wrap things up, I'm looking for a 4" refractor-capable mount (head+tripod) that totals out to around between 6.5 - 7 kilos. A difference of just three kilos (when set against the Skytee behemeth) might not seem much to a sedentary back-garden or (heaven's above) observatory-blessed astronomer. But that same weight-saving can mean a heck of a lot to a star struck urbanite like me trudging across muddy fields in the dark.

Therefore I would be extremely grateful if some kind soul can point the way forwards, if possible. Thanks in advance for reading this long-winded bleat.   

 

 

 

Edited September 19, 2019 by GrahamKnott
typo

[heliumstar]

This one is going to be hard.

Maybe something like this : http://www.desertskyastro.com/DSV-2.html

It's 4kg with balancing system but much less without it. It has slow-mo controls. Now the issue becomes the tripod. It gets expensive with Gitzo. I guess SS 1.75" could potentially handle it but not sure about the weight. Might be slightly above than what you are looking for all together. 

[Dragons Egg]

Thanks for the input, heliumstar. Well, I'll certainly give it a detailed look. . . 4Kg is pretty good, actually, esp in the grab-and-go department. Price and availability could be stumbling blocks, however - the latter especially if this US-based outfit doesn't export to the UK. But it's food for thought, I'm bound to say. Berebach also do a carbon-fibre mount now, which if modern 'cobweb' racing bikes are anything to go by, this mount should be light enough to take off in a mild breeze. The asking price for it, though, is a bit of a stinger, but maybe that's the only option left, as things stand at present.  

[Louis D]

On 18/09/2019 at 10:54, heliumstar said:

This one is going to be hard.

Maybe something like this : http://www.desertskyastro.com/DSV-2.html

It's 4kg with balancing system but much less without it. It has slow-mo controls. Now the issue becomes the tripod. It gets expensive with Gitzo. I guess SS 1.75" could potentially handle it but not sure about the weight. Might be slightly above than what you are looking for all together. 

I use a DSV-2B mount for my grab-and-go mount.  However, Raul is very difficult to contact and has a very long back order list.  I ended up locating a used mount.  It's a nice mount and easily handles my AT72ED and 127mm Mak side-by-side with heavy two inch eyepieces as seen below.  However, on a sturdy tripod, it's still a heavy rig.  A carbon-fiber mount might be an option if money is no object.

[cletrac1922]

Graham

I have an EQ5pro mount, with SynScan control

The load weight is 10KG, and I have a SW ED80 on that

I also use the mount with my Solarmax11

I now have the WiFI adapter, and use the SynScan App

With the WiFi adapter, takes the guess work out of setting up the SynScan controller, as detects GPS, Date/Time from your mobile device

The EQ5Pro mount is also fairly light to transport as well

 

[Dragons Egg]

Thanks for all the helpful responses. I think part of the issue is having a refractor that's not really all that grab-and-go friendly. Saying that, I can (just about) get by with my current Skytee mount. At least it's sturdy enough not to worry about ever having the shakes. It's fairly rock-like in that respect. And that applies to the ES 6" Mak-Newt, as well as the considerably less weighty TV 4".  As for a carbon fibre mount, assuming a suitable one can be found, the wallet will need some serious consulting. So the adventure continues. . . 

A closing thought: if funds were forthcoming and I were living in a big open country like Australia, say, one idea would be to buy a 4x4 and turn it into a mobile observatory. But, hey, dream on! 

PS. I'm now actively seeking out a possible carbon-fibre mount/tripod, such as are those used for terrestrial camera work. I'm aware of the different requirements that exist between a camera and a telescope. . . how the length of a given scope can create balancing issues. . . the moment arm, etc. Even so, I'm impressed both by the fantastical lightness of these c/f mounts (2-3kg) plus their equally fantastical load-bearing capabilities. The Benro GoPlus Travel Tripod, for instance, is claimed to have a 14kg - I'll restate that: a FOURTEEN kilogram - capability. Hell, this is almost three times more than the weight of my 101 OTA! In fact it's so extraordinary that I'm sure I'm missing out on something fundamental. What it is exactly, I know not, at least not yet. Therefore, I'd be very interested to know if anyone else has pursued this c/f line of enquiry, and all being well, can offer some sage advice on the subject. 

 

 

Edited September 25, 2019 by GrahamKnott
Additional information supplied