Marc Castel wrote (among other things):
> But is it really worth trying to improve
> further on what I have by tampering with polar alignment (ideally yes but a
> pointing run is an all-nighter not to mention a lot of work to redo polar
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> alignments.)?

> What other strategies are people using to get reliable pointing accuracy
> (without actually being there)?

I use automation to direct the the camera to take a picture, do a
plate-solve on it using GSC or SA2 and an "expanded" area to account
for pointing errors, sync the scope on the actual coordinates, slew
again to the object, take the real exposure. No pointing run, no
TPoint, etc. Can be used with a portable scope. On my 8: LX-200 at
f/6.3 and KAF0400 chip it puts the object right in the middle every
time.

The downside is that it costs 60-120 sec. per image for the extra
exposure, processing and aiming. As I said in my talk at IAPPP, "Time
is money" -- If you want to spend more money (permanent pier,
enclosure, remoting, mini-dome, more expensive mount, bigger scope,
more sensitive camera, etc.) you can save time and get more observing
done. But my technology allows a most modest setup to do 100%
automated runs.

-- Bob

PS: Both PinPoint 1.0 (the astrometric engine used in the above) and
ACP 1.2 are going into beta within a week or two. I'll post short
notes here.

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: Re: [M]: Confused in Connecticut, Email address hidden
Next message: Re: [M]: LX200 Pointing Accuracy corrected, Richard Seavey
Next message in thread: Re: [M]: LX200 Pointing Accuracy corrected, Richard Seavey
Previous message in thread: [M]: LX200 Pointing Accuracy corrected, Marc Castel