Re: RAPAS on Mach2
Using the traditional drift alignment method with an illuminated reticle eyepiece, I get round stars near the zenith with my first generation 1600GTO with a five minute unguided exposure, PEC on. This is with a Planewave CDK 17, 2940mm fl, image scale .63"/pixel, permanent observatory setup. Never had much use for or luck with software assisted polar alignment, although some people do. Many years ago I had one of the red robotic mounts from "the other guys" and used their polar alignment program built into their pointing program. Never seemed to give the same answers though. The drift does take a bit though but as it is something I check about once a year, not that big of a deal.
Mike J. Shade
Mike J. Shade Photography:
In War: Resolution
In Defeat: Defiance
In Victory: Magnanimity
In Peace: Goodwill
Sir Winston Churchill
Already, in the gathering dusk, a few of the stars are turning on their lights.
Vega, the brightest one, is now dropping towards the west. Can it be half
a year since I watched her April rising in the east? Low in the southwest
Antares blinks a sad farwell to fall...
Leslie Peltier, Starlight Nights
International Dark Sky Association: www.darksky.org
email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of W
Honestly, I’ve never measured my polar alignment error.
Beyond that, I don’t even know how to measure it in a way that would be useful in conversation. I don’t know if you follow Cloudy Nights or not, but there is a near obsession over there with polar alignment. I’ve seen people making polar alignment error claims that border on the ridiculous (like people claiming to be within 5” of the pole, etc.) The drift from a 5” polar alignment error would be so small that I don’t know how you could detect it with a single exposure. I would think that looking at the total field rotation for an entire night would be a better way to try and see a very small error. I am pretty sure that people are just running some tool like a PoleMaster or SharpCap and just repeating what the software claims. The thing is, that the software claims are not repeatable, even in the same session. It’s made even more confusing because I am pretty sure that different software packages calculate the polar alignment error differently.
Even with PEMPro, which is the gold standard for software aided drift alignments, I can watch the calculated error bounce around by some number of arc seconds with each exposure, just due to seeing effects.
I take a more pragmatic view. If I don’t get any noticeable drift in a single sub, and if I don’t get any field rotation over a night of imaging the same object, then I’ll call the polar alignment “good enough”. If your goal is to do longish exposures unguided, especially at a longer focal length, then I would probably do it one of two ways: If you take the time to run APCC, an APPM model will compensate for any polar misalignment, as well as drift from other factors (as long as they are repeatable). That would be my preferred method. If I didn’t want to do an APPM run for some reason, then I would do the RA Drift Alignment that’s described on the Astro-Physics site at the below link. To do it, I would run PHD2 with my main imaging camera and guide corrections disabled. This would give me a graph of the guide star during tracking that I could use to know which corrections to make:
The other option, that is new to the keypad firmware that will be available for the Mach2, will be that you can get tracking compensation right from the keypad (and it will also be available for the CP4). I don’t believe that any of us have that keypad firmware yet, so I don’t know of anyone outside of the Astro-Physics folks that have first hand experience with it. If I understand what I’ve heard correctly, it will work by calibrating on a couple of stars in the path of your object and building custom tracking rates for your specific target. I’m guessing that it will be pretty effective.
At the end of the day, I believe that it’s important to understand a few methods to do an effective polar alignment and also to not obsess over it.
In the meantime, how do you know that your polar alignment is causing problematic drift? If the Mach2 ships with PEMPro, I would suggest that you start its polar alignment wizard and let it track for a while. It will clearly show you any drift (and offer the change to make an adjustment to correct it). If you don’t have PEMPro, then you can do a similar thing with PHD2 (as I described above, using it to facilitate a drift alignment).
And finally, I want to close the loop on a comment that I made earlier about my personal workflow at field sites. I mentioned that I do both a daytime polar alignment and also use the RAPAS to tweak it. The purpose of the daytime polar alignment is to get the mount reasonably close to polar aligned before it starts to get dark. That way, when it gets to be dusk, you are pretty much guaranteed that Polaris will be both inside the view of the RAPAS and also obvious. If you wait until after dark and start with the RAPAS, it can be tricky to find Polaris correct, especially if it lands outside of the RAPAS field of view. In that case, it takes longer than 30 seconds (and I’ve seen more than one person polar align to Kochab in that scenario).
Hope that you find this information useful,
From: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org> On Behalf Of Terri Zittritsch
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: [ap-gto] RAPAS on Mach2
Thanks W Hilmo,