Im considering buying the lowest level Ioptron 5000 object data base to carry an ETX 90 and or a 102 ST. Good or bad idea?
Ioptron
Started by Stenstrom, 06/29/2009 02:00PM
Posted 06/29/2009 02:00PM
Opening Post
Posted 06/29/2009 03:01PM
#1
If you're gong to have a database the usual de minimis requirement, in my view, is the NGC and IC, which is 12,000 objects. If you are using in alt-az mode you will have a devil of a time finding objects by RA and Dec, even if there is a readout option, unless there is a special algorithm which converts RA and Dec into a go-to coordinate. Really. Even if you know what you are doing, moving an alt-az mounted scope with RA/Dec coordinates and an RA/Dec readout is as much trouble as star hopping.
So my general thought would be, this is going too far to save a few bucks.
On the other hand, with an ETX 90 or 102mm scope your reach isn't going to be as deep so you might get along fine with a small database. Certainly some of these 100k databases I've seen are pretty much overkill.
The Sky Atlas 2000 has about 3,000 objects, but the problem with it is that it misses a lot of fairly bright objects. I'm often surprised to see that something is not listed on the SA2000.
On balance, if you're going to stay in the 3.5 to 4 inch aperture, you'll probably be OK. But there was an NGC "mini-max" and I observed with a friend who had that and he was constantly not finding things in his small database (about 5k objects). But at that time he used a GEM, so flipping into RA Dec wasn't hard. And he had an 11 inch scope.
One of the reasons I'm cautious is that Sue French's work and the refractor revolution generally has shown you can see an awful lot with a four inch aperture. If you're prepared to star hop you can go anywhere anyone else can, and often, you'll find that where you're going is near something else that IS in your database, so as I say, it can work out. "This idea is OK, but is approved without great enthusiasm."
My 2c, anyhow.
regards
Greg N
regards
Greg N
So my general thought would be, this is going too far to save a few bucks.
On the other hand, with an ETX 90 or 102mm scope your reach isn't going to be as deep so you might get along fine with a small database. Certainly some of these 100k databases I've seen are pretty much overkill.
The Sky Atlas 2000 has about 3,000 objects, but the problem with it is that it misses a lot of fairly bright objects. I'm often surprised to see that something is not listed on the SA2000.
On balance, if you're going to stay in the 3.5 to 4 inch aperture, you'll probably be OK. But there was an NGC "mini-max" and I observed with a friend who had that and he was constantly not finding things in his small database (about 5k objects). But at that time he used a GEM, so flipping into RA Dec wasn't hard. And he had an 11 inch scope.
One of the reasons I'm cautious is that Sue French's work and the refractor revolution generally has shown you can see an awful lot with a four inch aperture. If you're prepared to star hop you can go anywhere anyone else can, and often, you'll find that where you're going is near something else that IS in your database, so as I say, it can work out. "This idea is OK, but is approved without great enthusiasm."
My 2c, anyhow.
regards
Greg N
regards
Greg N
"Scope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no scope." --Freewheelin' Franklin
Funding Member
