Ad Astra Observatory

Art Morton wrote:
> I do not have data to forward, but what I remember is +- 0.00 to

> 0.04~0.15 on each axis.
I’m averaging more in the 0.2-0.8 range (I’m in arcsec as well), with
the occasional blip above 1.0.
> What I found causing that was causing the flip flop is the setting for
> correction is to high.
I have played with aggro settings a little, but haven’t really dialed

them in; I’m still working a lot of new variables right now, but that’s
on the list as a culprit.
> I can do better if the setting for Aggr are < 3.0.
wow, Ok. I’m usually around 5.
> When I do get, what I call a “Perfect North”, the Aggr setting is 0.1

> and the graph is basically flat line, with a sample time of < 0.5
> sec. and yes there are bright stars in on the guide chip.
This is something to shoot for. knowing how large of an FOV I’m working
with on the ST-4 (you saw the pic of M42), I need brighter stars to
guide on, which is a problem all around. I’d rather not add more weight
to the guider, so I might Barlow the ST-4 and see if that helps or not.

> The other thing at occurs is that the calibration of the “guiding”
> leaves me with a perfect right angle calibration.
I don’t think that I’m having a problem with this.
> What I am working toward is not guiding at all, and going to AO.
That would be pretty cool. I am nowhere near there, for several reasons,
not the least of which is that the 2” AO (the AO8) is like way expensive.

> I think I can get very very sharp detail out of the 127 once I get
> the mount really tamed.
I think that you can achieve better resolution than the Rayleigh/Airy
calculations suggest — long integrations and stacking should give you
subpixel accuracy if your stacking (and focusing) software is working right.
> I have see images from the 9.25, Vexen 8” Newts and the NP-127 riding

> a Paramount, and it is astounding.
Veronica is nothing like a Vixen 8”. I don’t expect Hubble quality out
of a $300 OTA. OTOH, Veronica does OK. (:

A funny side note, the guy who sold me the C9.25 is replacing it with a
VC200L.
> I think that once you get the mount settled down, and the focus, i

> think you will be astounded too. It is the mount.
I agree. I can see that the mount has the potential for greatness, it’s
the amount of work it takes to get there. I imagine that a Paramount or
AP would work awesome out of the box, but who has that kind of money?

I’m happy to figure out the ins and outs of this mount and get it to +/-
5”, maybe +/- 3”. if I can get there, and I can get it consistent, then

I think I’m fairly well going to just image and close my Astromart
account. (:
> (is there a MoonLite on the bake of the 9.25)
No, I have a Robofocus motor for the C-8, for which I just need a new
sprocket gear for the C9.25. My understanding is that the results
between a RF on the main scope vs a RF on a supplemental focuser are so
close as to be not worth the difference. It would be cool to be able to
use the scope for visual, but once I get my 1.5” parfocalizing extension

tube, I won’t have that to worry about, either.

J