6 ms·

About capturing a bit more fo that dim halo, I always wondered... Wouldn't a secondary scope (with similar characteristics) result in an increased light gatheri

About capturing a bit more fo that dim halo, I always wondered... Wouldn't a secondary scope (with similar characteristics) result in an increased light gathering potential? I've also tried to look into visible-light interferometry, but there aren't many accessible resources on the subject. My feeling is that there is a point in equipment in which you are simply better off getting a new rig (to work in paralell) than trying to get slightly bigger aperture (let's face it, 16" vs 14" is not as dramatic in light gathering and image quality as 8" vs 6"), but I'm not sure where that point lies.

aortega 10y ago
But you also need another camera and probably another mount too. The scope is actually the cheapest component in a astrophotography setup. Probably the 80% of the cost is the mount+the camera.
- dr_zoidberg 10y ago
  Absolutely. Then again, there are limits. I remember an old Meade model (no longer available) that was a 20", $36k monster. I was beautiful, and they sold it as an observatory-grade instrument. But the 16" models were priced close to $10k, so it sort of made sense (in that particular case) to duplicate the rig. My "napkin analysis" was: 20" diameter, ~315 squared inches of area[0], $36k 2x 16 inches diameter, ~402 squared inches of area, $20k This prices did include mounts, but back then (more than 10 years ago) I wasn't very knowledgeable and I honestly don't know if they were good mounts. So there was margin to increase the light gathering and having spare money for the new camera. Still, the most interesting use for multiple telescopes would be building and interferometer. I'll keep looking into that, with the procesing power available in todays machines it should be doable. [0] I know the secondary mirror obstructs the light gathering, but I don't have precise figures, so let's go with it the area of the main mirror.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

aortega 10y ago

But you also need another camera and probably another mount too. The scope is actually the cheapest component in a astrophotography setup. Probably the 80% of the cost is the mount+the camera.

dr_zoidberg 10y ago
Absolutely. Then again, there are limits. I remember an old Meade model (no longer available) that was a 20", $36k monster. I was beautiful, and they sold it as an observatory-grade instrument. But the 16" models were priced close to $10k, so it sort of made sense (in that particular case) to duplicate the rig. My "napkin analysis" was: 20" diameter, ~315 squared inches of area[0], $36k 2x 16 inches diameter, ~402 squared inches of area, $20k This prices did include mounts, but back then (more than 10 years ago) I wasn't very knowledgeable and I honestly don't know if they were good mounts. So there was margin to increase the light gathering and having spare money for the new camera. Still, the most interesting use for multiple telescopes would be building and interferometer. I'll keep looking into that, with the procesing power available in todays machines it should be doable. [0] I know the secondary mirror obstructs the light gathering, but I don't have precise figures, so let's go with it the area of the main mirror.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]