The whole is greater than the sum of the parts

Isn't it fortunate that less than perfect eyepieces coupled with a less than
perfect telescope under less than perfect skies can still equal a perfectly
good time under the stars?

It cost more money than I will ever have to acquire the "best" in this
hobby/obsession but, in spite of that, I'm still having lots of fun and
continue to expand my astronomy horizons.

--
Martin
Remove "ilikestars" from email address to reply

It cost more money than I will ever have to acquire the "best" in this
hobby/obsession

Hi Martin:

Depends on what you consider the "best." IMHO, the BEST is very, very
reasonably price now. ;-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

It cost more money than I will ever have to acquire the "best" in this
hobby/obsession

Hi Martin:

Depends on what you consider the "best." IMHO, the BEST is very, very
reasonably price now. ;-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

"Starstuffed" wrote in message
link.net...
Isn't it fortunate that less than perfect eyepieces coupled with a less
than
perfect telescope under less than perfect skies can still equal a
perfectly
good time under the stars?

It cost more money than I will ever have to acquire the "best" in this
hobby/obsession but, in spite of that, I'm still having lots of fun and
continue to expand my astronomy horizons.

--
Martin

Didn't John Dobson say something to the effect that the "best" scope is the
one that more folks have looked through? A refreshing and healthy
perspective, as compared to the never-ending quests for optical perfection
and increased aperture.

Dennis

"Starstuffed" wrote in message
link.net...
Isn't it fortunate that less than perfect eyepieces coupled with a less
than
perfect telescope under less than perfect skies can still equal a
perfectly
good time under the stars?

It cost more money than I will ever have to acquire the "best" in this
hobby/obsession but, in spite of that, I'm still having lots of fun and
continue to expand my astronomy horizons.

--
Martin

Didn't John Dobson say something to the effect that the "best" scope is the
one that more folks have looked through? A refreshing and healthy
perspective, as compared to the never-ending quests for optical perfection
and increased aperture.

Dennis

Someday, some am.astronomer who knows all about scopes, the building of and the
use of and they are going to find me sitting at the corner ( after The Beast is
repaired ) and they will take a look at my job of building it and the alinement
of it and they'll go home and pour a good stiff drink and sit down and wonder
How in the H@LL I see anything!

I'm willing to bet that I have the only scop on earth that because it's so far
out of alinement that it's in it's own alinement.

Or as the old thing says ... An Arrow can't hit a running man.


--
"In this universe the night was falling,the shadows were lengthening
towards an east that would not know another dawn.
But elsewhere the stars were still young and the light of morning
lingered: and along the path he once had followed, man would one day go
again."

Arthur C. Clarke, The City & The Stars

SIAR
www.starlords.org
Freelance Writers Shop
http://www.freelancewrittersshop.netfirms.com
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Ad World
http://adworld.netfirms.com

"Starstuffed" wrote in message
link.net...
Isn't it fortunate that less than perfect eyepieces coupled with a less than
perfect telescope under less than perfect skies can still equal a perfectly
good time under the stars?

It cost more money than I will ever have to acquire the "best" in this
hobby/obsession but, in spite of that, I'm still having lots of fun and
continue to expand my astronomy horizons.

--
Martin
Remove "ilikestars" from email address to reply




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.554 / Virus Database: 346 - Release Date: 12/20/03

Someday, some am.astronomer who knows all about scopes, the building of and the
use of and they are going to find me sitting at the corner ( after The Beast is
repaired ) and they will take a look at my job of building it and the alinement
of it and they'll go home and pour a good stiff drink and sit down and wonder
How in the H@LL I see anything!

I'm willing to bet that I have the only scop on earth that because it's so far
out of alinement that it's in it's own alinement.

Or as the old thing says ... An Arrow can't hit a running man.


--
"In this universe the night was falling,the shadows were lengthening
towards an east that would not know another dawn.
But elsewhere the stars were still young and the light of morning
lingered: and along the path he once had followed, man would one day go
again."

Arthur C. Clarke, The City & The Stars

SIAR
www.starlords.org
Freelance Writers Shop
http://www.freelancewrittersshop.netfirms.com
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Ad World
http://adworld.netfirms.com

"Starstuffed" wrote in message
link.net...
Isn't it fortunate that less than perfect eyepieces coupled with a less than
perfect telescope under less than perfect skies can still equal a perfectly
good time under the stars?

It cost more money than I will ever have to acquire the "best" in this
hobby/obsession but, in spite of that, I'm still having lots of fun and
continue to expand my astronomy horizons.

--
Martin
Remove "ilikestars" from email address to reply




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.554 / Virus Database: 346 - Release Date: 12/20/03

"Starstuffed" wrote in message
link.net...
Isn't it fortunate that less than perfect eyepieces coupled with a less
than
perfect telescope under less than perfect skies can still equal a
perfectly
good time under the stars?

Why yes, yes it is.


It cost more money than I will ever have to acquire the "best" in this
hobby/obsession but, in spite of that, I'm still having lots of fun and
continue to expand my astronomy horizons.

Don't you have a 12.5" Starfinder Dob with DSCs? I think that qualifies as a
"best" of what's available on a cost/performance basis.

But, to your point, enjoying has to do with what you have, not what you
don't. I could be very happy with a mass produced 8" F6 Dob modified with
EbonyStar and virgin Teflon, the typical 25mm and 9mm Plossls that come with
it, and one of the lower cost wide field 6mm eyepieces.

But still, given the choice, I'd go for high fidelity at smaller apertures
and wider fields. There's nothing like a big honking Dob to make those faint
fuzzies stand out, and for making M42 look marvelous, just like there's no
substitute for wide field star sweeps of the Milky Way anf for framing the
brighter DSO's. Each has its place. Which one one prefers is purely
subjective. I'm just glad that scopes are cheap enough that you don't have
to give up wide field for high power large aperture viewing. You can do both
for right around $1000 (excluding S&H) with an 8" F6 XT8 IntelliScope Dob, a
Short Tube 80 on EQ-1, an Orion 24 - 8mm Zoom and 6mm Expanse eyepiece.
(Gee, maybe I should go to work at Orion ;-)).

For sure, the fidelity of the images will suffer a little with those
eyepieces, but it will cover a huge range of objects and viewing pleasures
given good sky conditions.

"Starstuffed" wrote in message
link.net...
Isn't it fortunate that less than perfect eyepieces coupled with a less
than
perfect telescope under less than perfect skies can still equal a
perfectly
good time under the stars?

Why yes, yes it is.


It cost more money than I will ever have to acquire the "best" in this
hobby/obsession but, in spite of that, I'm still having lots of fun and
continue to expand my astronomy horizons.

Don't you have a 12.5" Starfinder Dob with DSCs? I think that qualifies as a
"best" of what's available on a cost/performance basis.

But, to your point, enjoying has to do with what you have, not what you
don't. I could be very happy with a mass produced 8" F6 Dob modified with
EbonyStar and virgin Teflon, the typical 25mm and 9mm Plossls that come with
it, and one of the lower cost wide field 6mm eyepieces.

But still, given the choice, I'd go for high fidelity at smaller apertures
and wider fields. There's nothing like a big honking Dob to make those faint
fuzzies stand out, and for making M42 look marvelous, just like there's no
substitute for wide field star sweeps of the Milky Way anf for framing the
brighter DSO's. Each has its place. Which one one prefers is purely
subjective. I'm just glad that scopes are cheap enough that you don't have
to give up wide field for high power large aperture viewing. You can do both
for right around $1000 (excluding S&H) with an 8" F6 XT8 IntelliScope Dob, a
Short Tube 80 on EQ-1, an Orion 24 - 8mm Zoom and 6mm Expanse eyepiece.
(Gee, maybe I should go to work at Orion ;-)).

For sure, the fidelity of the images will suffer a little with those
eyepieces, but it will cover a huge range of objects and viewing pleasures
given good sky conditions.

Isn't it fortunate that less than perfect eyepieces coupled with a less than
perfect telescope under less than perfect skies can still equal a perfectly
good time under the stars?


RIght on. There never will be a perfect telescope, never will be a perfect
eyepiece and there is no doubt my eyes are far from perfection.

But so what.....

It cost more money than I will ever have to acquire the "best" in this
hobby/obsession but, in spite of that, I'm still having lots of fun and
continue to expand my astronomy horizons.

I like to think in terms of "decent quality" rather than in terms of "the
best." A decent eyepiece provides great views of the sky above. 40 years ago
todays "decent quality eyepiece" most likely would have been significantly
superior to anything in existence.

I can enjoy riding either a $500 bicycle or a $2500 bicycle, I can enjoy
viewing through either a $50 eyepiece or a $250 eyepiece. My hope is to use
the equipment, accept it for what it can do, aberations and all, observe and
enjoy.

I say you have once again hit the nail on the head.

Jon