The Ranger and the Pronto Are No More

Robert Cook wrote:
That's the name of the product line (like Telestar), but Meade doesn't
hide the fact that they're selling these telescopes. In fact, many
retailers bank on the company's name. Not that it makes a difference
to me personally--if they want to be like Tasco, it's up to them. As
a result, however, I would not recommend Meade (or Celestron) by name.

I will recommend specific products by name, though. My reasoning is as
follows: These companies do not make a ton of money on their higher
quality scopes--low volume and small margin. They keep them on their
roster to maintain prestige. Retailers can bank on the Celestron or
Meade name because they continue to make *some* quality products. But
they do count on some volume, and if not enough people buy them, we may
end up seeing a gap in the mid-level product offerings.

I had already lambasted Celestron in another thread, so I thought it
was only fair to pick on Meade this time. :-)

Uhh...OK.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

Dan McShane wrote:
So in other words any discussion of high quality scopes must exclude
OA-Newts, and specifically must exclude Mike's, or any other OA users
opinions?

I don't think anyone has actually suggested this. I also think the
obvious irritation with Mike Fitterman's posts have a number of factors
underlying it.

First of all, the claims that Mike has made regarding the OA-6.5 are
startling enough to require more substantiation than he has given. That
is especially so regarding the comparison between the OA-6.5 and the
10-inch Zambuto. Yes, he has agreed that on most details, the Zambuto
wins. But the win by the OA-6.5 as described by Mike is still surprising
enough to ask questions. Perhaps the Zambuto is not exactly well-figured;
after all, stuff happens. But no: Mike insists that the Zambuto is
perfectly fine. The only conclusion left to draw is that the OA is doing
something amazing. Which it might, I suppose--but I think you can see
why this sort of statement seems self-serving.

Suppose I told you that my 1993 Saturn SL2 beat a 1989 Mustang 5.0 to 60
mph in a heads-up test. Wouldn't you wonder if something might be wrong
with the Mustang? But I insist that the Mustang has been tested and
nothing has been found amiss. You might conclude that I've gone bonkers.
No, I say, the extra weight of the Mustang hampers it more than one might
expect from Newtonian mechanics.

I think that in such a situation, you have a perfect right to ask, what
is wrong with Newtonian mechanics that it doesn't predict the actual
observed outcome? It's not as though Newtonian mechanics isn't a well
understood theory. Although it is an approximation to the truth, at the
speeds and masses we're talking about, it is as close an approximation
as anyone could want. Isn't it possible the observation itself is at
fault? Has the test been conducted properly: Have the drivers been
trained properly? Have they been instructed in how best to drive each
car?

For the same reason, I take claims that diffraction from the central
obstruction hampers the Newtonian more than one might expect from optical
theory with a *very* large grain of salt. What's wrong with optical
theory that it doesn't predict the actual observed outcome? It's not as
though optical theory isn't well understood. Although it is an
approximation to the truth, at the mirror speeds and sizes we're talking
about, it is as close an approximation as anyone could want. Isn't it
possible the observation itself is at fault? Has the test been conducted
properly: Have the observers been trained properly? Have they been
instructed in how best to use each telescope?

As a matter of fact, these observers may be perfectly well trained. But
there's nothing in these reports that would tells us one way or the
other. We don't normally ask for such details. But as I mentioned when
someone reported seeing Phobos in a 4-inch refractor (I think it was a
4-inch refractor), just because things are possible doesn't mean they
are all on an equal footing. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence, and I think the claim that a 6-1/2-inch whatever beats a 10-inch
reflector of unimpeachable quality on anything is extraordinary. It's
*possible*, but based just on the observer's say-so (and let's remember
the observer is an *owner*), I'm going to toss it in the discard pile.

From a scientific perspective, I find *stunning* the lack of curiosity
as to just *why* the 6-1/2-inch OA wins on anything at all. If what is
claimed is true, something very funny and unexpected is going on. Don't
people care about what that is beyond just, wow, we have a very good
telescope?

And I think that the perception certainly is that Mike puts in his two
cents about the OA in too many instances when the thread is just passing
by. To be honest, I think there's some truth to that. It sure seems
like an awful lot from just one person.

Problem here is that Mike's not the first person to express
opinions about OA-newts on this and other groups who has been largely
dismissed, or even ridculed.

He has not been ridiculed for posting in support of OA telescopes. He
has been ridiculed for making the same claim more than once without
sufficient substantiation. He might be right--but one can't tell for
sure with what's been presented and I'm sure he has been asked to give
more evidence to back it up. If he's given it, I haven't seen it. Or
he could say it's only happened on a few occasions, and maybe the
atmosphere has something to do with it.

In lieu of that, there's one easy way to avoid ridicule. Just say that
the OA is the best telescope of that size he's ever seen. That it's an
outstanding value. That it has many design benefits going for it that
even refractors don't have. I won't contest a single one of those claims.

Stephen Paul has posted in favor of the OA telescopes, and I haven't seen
him getting raked over the coals for it. There clearly is a good way to
do it. Conversely, if a 6-1/2-inch refractor owner comes up and he boasts
that his scope beats a 10-inch Zambuto on this and that with anything like
the frequency that Mike posts about his OA, I guarantee you that the same
people will come down on that owner like a ton of bricks. There isn't
any specific vendetta that I can see.

Aside from the three of you, I can't recall anyone posting about OA in
a general way and getting dismissed *for that alone*. I remember asking
you about doing a double blind test (which is possible and might very
well settle this question), and you said you hadn't done one. That's
all from my end.

(By the way, I notice that you habitually use open-single-quote-marks
(`) in place of apostrophes ('). Any particular reason you do that? I'm
just curious.)

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

"Jan Owen" wrote in message
news:ZPuSc.65263$sh.21603@fed1read06...

It's clear that Mike, as well as Stephen, like your scopes. And it
appears to be a sound design at a reasonable price. So why don't you,
Mike, Stephen, or a joint effort among you, launch a whole new thread
advocating your scopes, and pointing out to folks everything they ever
wanted to know, and more, about the design? I can't imagine anyone here
objecting to that; certainly not me. At least as long as it stays
factual...

Well, I'm going to stand by the innocence of my original post, and it's
relevance to the discussion of the ED100. To wit, a 4" F9 on a tripod mount
vs. a 4" F10.5 on a Dob mount.

That said, I'll bow out of any further discussions about 4" F9s of any
design, since they simply don't serve any purpose that I'm aware of, that
isn't better served by something else. In the other thread on the subject of
the ED100, I've not seen any responses to change my mind on that front.

- Stephen

Disclaimer:
Although my experience with OAs is good, I would rather have a 100mm F5 apo,
and a big Dob, because I believe that refractors should be short, Dobs
should be big, and everything in between is served well by an SCT. When my
100mm F5 achro grows up, it will be an apo, and my inventory, and my joy,
will be complete. Warm regards. g

"Mike Fitterman" wrote in message
news:iVlSc.4288$BS3.2218@trndny04...

I wasn't bad mouthing any more than what I've seen. People asked and I
explained. I think it's pretty clear that my opinon was based on one
viewing and that was it. This happens all the time (especially here!).
Alan has basically done the same thing with the OA. Looked through it
once,
wasn't really impressed, doesn't care really to look through them
again...maybe if he has time someday.....
[SNIP]

Mike,

No where did I saw I wasn't impressed - I have simply said I have not used
one long enough to form an opinion. I am not sure where you got the idea I
wasn't interested in looking through one again, either. I attend star
parties where there are scopes I would like to look through, or, scopes
someone wants me to check out, but between handling our stuff, talking to
people, answering questions, and the many other distraction common to star
parties, it often just doesn't happen. Even if I get free the scope in
question is often crowded, there are folks busy testing eyepieces in it, or
the scope is unattended.

Perhaps I could just offer reviews of telescopes I have not actually used.
Then I wouldn't have to worry about finding the time and opportunity to use
a particular scope for a reasonable length of time on a number of objects.

Clear skies, Alan

"Ratboy99" wrote in message
...

Which of course begs the question.....? g

It's GOT to be an AP.

10" Mak?

Careful, I'm going to want two more scopes g. Actually, it an AP155, and
I figure I'm getting there. I needed some incentive to keep me sane after I
passed on a chance to take an early retirement, but that's another story.

Clear skies, Alan

"Dan McShane" wrote in message
...

And dismissed by folks who have never even used one! Doesn`t that strike
you
as ludicrous?

And just where does someone saying a telescope he had never used would
outperform a telescope no one seen yet fit into this, in terms of
ludicrousness?

Clear skies, Alan

"Brian Tung" wrote in message
...
Dan McShane wrote:
So in other words any discussion of high quality scopes must exclude
OA-Newts, and specifically must exclude Mike's, or any other OA users
opinions?

I don't think anyone has actually suggested this. I also think the
obvious irritation with Mike Fitterman's posts have a number of factors
underlying it.

First of all, the claims that Mike has made regarding the OA-6.5 are
startling enough to require more substantiation than he has given. That
is especially so regarding the comparison between the OA-6.5 and the
10-inch Zambuto. Yes, he has agreed that on most details, the Zambuto
wins. But the win by the OA-6.5 as described by Mike is still surprising
enough to ask questions. Perhaps the Zambuto is not exactly well-figured;
after all, stuff happens. But no: Mike insists that the Zambuto is
perfectly fine. The only conclusion left to draw is that the OA is doing
something amazing. Which it might, I suppose--but I think you can see
why this sort of statement seems self-serving.

The big problem here Brian is people took my subject line vs. what I said in
the post as 2 different things. People should go back and reread the posts.
I believe a high quality 6.5" refractor would do *exactly* the same thing as
the OA had done during those times. If I had said my AP 6.5" APO had done
this, would I have been raked through the coals on it. No, probably not.
There are enough people who understand the value of a high quality
refractor. My claim is that the OA is just as good on those high powered
views. Nothing more.


From a scientific perspective, I find *stunning* the lack of curiosity
as to just *why* the 6-1/2-inch OA wins on anything at all. If what is
claimed is true, something very funny and unexpected is going on. Don't
people care about what that is beyond just, wow, we have a very good
telescope?

And I think that the perception certainly is that Mike puts in his two
cents about the OA in too many instances when the thread is just passing
by. To be honest, I think there's some truth to that. It sure seems
like an awful lot from just one person.

Because of the years of history on the subject, I think folks have been
frightened off. The only folks here on the list that have actually looked
through one, are near Dan. No one else has looked through one of these.


Problem here is that Mike's not the first person to express
opinions about OA-newts on this and other groups who has been largely
dismissed, or even ridculed.

He has not been ridiculed for posting in support of OA telescopes. He
has been ridiculed for making the same claim more than once without
sufficient substantiation. He might be right--but one can't tell for
sure with what's been presented and I'm sure he has been asked to give
more evidence to back it up. If he's given it, I haven't seen it. Or
he could say it's only happened on a few occasions, and maybe the
atmosphere has something to do with it.

And all I did in this thread was suggest that Dan's 4" would be a much
better buy price/performance wise than the ED100. People are bringing past
dialogs into current ones, ones that had been banged around enough (and
hence why I didn't let myself get dragged down in that fight again). Until
people can see for themselves, it wouldn't matter how much scientific
analysis I showed, people wouldn't believe me. I'm not a scientist. I'm a
guy who likes going out and looking at the deep sky objects and looking for
detail on the planets.


In lieu of that, there's one easy way to avoid ridicule. Just say that
the OA is the best telescope of that size he's ever seen. That it's an
outstanding value. That it has many design benefits going for it that
even refractors don't have. I won't contest a single one of those claims.

Stephen Paul has posted in favor of the OA telescopes, and I haven't seen
him getting raked over the coals for it. There clearly is a good way to
do it. Conversely, if a 6-1/2-inch refractor owner comes up and he boasts
that his scope beats a 10-inch Zambuto on this and that with anything like
the frequency that Mike posts about his OA, I guarantee you that the same
people will come down on that owner like a ton of bricks. There isn't
any specific vendetta that I can see.

You guys need to go back and look at how much I post. You are remembering
one to 2 things. OTher than that I don't bring this up or post until Steve
says something and I back him up. Check it out. You guys have selective
memory here!

Also, I've seen plenty of others do similar things with various types of
scopes/ideas.


Aside from the three of you, I can't recall anyone posting about OA in
a general way and getting dismissed *for that alone*. I remember asking
you about doing a double blind test (which is possible and might very
well settle this question), and you said you hadn't done one. That's
all from my end.

And I won't. It's too easy to tell which is the refractor and which is the
reflector by position of the eyepiece. It would be a waste. What you guys
don't get is I'd love to say the OA is a waste of time. I'd love to just go
out and get a nice expensive APO. But when I've found something equally as
good for the kind of viewing I would do at 1/3 to 1/4 the price I'm happy
not too. I see nothing wrong with this or stating this as my opinion.

Mike.

"Ratboy99" wrote in message
...
It was not mean spirited at all, but based on my own viewing. I'm not
interested in expensive refractors at this point and so I haven't done
any
more research than looking through one scope.

It was off topic and uncalled for, Mike. You obviously have some sort of a
problem with netiquette.

Oh and you've neve been off topic...ppplease......You were beating me for
something that was perfectly fine to talk about so I figured I'd do the
same. It's tough having to take that isn't it :-)


You may continue blather on as you see fit, but the fact remains that YOU
decided to start talking erroneous **** about TEC, when it was not the
topic of
discussion, (and neither were OA Newts, for that matter).

You have also failed to acknowledge the fact that no-one here talked ****
about
Dan McShane and his product, the opinions were simply voiced that we grow
weary
of your ongoing SAA infomercial, plugged in at random wherever you see
fit.

It was far from random and right after Steve suggested it. I just chimed in
with my agreement and showed what the price differentials were. BTW, what
did the ED100 have to do with the original topic?


You are free to do so of course but your nasty comments regarding TEC were
uncalled for, especially given your lack of available detail regarding
your
"impression", and by the fact that by your own admission you did not
properly
troubleshoot the aberration (fan shaped stars).

How can I trouble shoot someone elses scope at a star party. He was nice
enough to let me look at it. He was claiming how great it was so I went to
take a look. The image was terrible. I have 2 others that agreed. You've
got to stop taking it so hard Rat. I'm sure your scope will be fine. My
one chance at looking through a TEC was bad. I'm sure you'd be just as hard
on the OA if you saw the same thing!


What makes you think that it is acceptable to impugn the reputation of TEC
when
(again by your own admission), it may have been the diagonal?

Where did the diag come into this? It could have been 1 of a 100 things.

How do you justify the negative comment, reporting a specific problem with
a
TEC 140, both in context of the thread and considering that you honestly
have
no idea what the real problem was?

That's slander.


No just stating it how I saw it. I was clear on what happened when asked.

And what arrogance leads you to assume that you could not have asked the
owner
of the scope a simple question about it to perhaps better educate him (and
yourself)?

I've learned that it hurts to call your baby ugly, right? I didn't know the
guy, he was proud of his high priced purchase. I let him stay that way.

But when it comes to evaluating scopes, I listen. I listen to what
Roland,
Alan, Rod, Dan McShane and all the rest have to say.... Those guys know.

I've only done direct comparisons with scopes that I've claimed to. Dan has
been there for almost all of them. If you don't believe me ask him. OH,
but he's the maker of the scope, he can't be unbiased.

Mike.

"Stephen Paul" wrote in message
news

As I said originally, it looked to me like it was way out of collimation.
Star images were fanned out to one side upon approaching focus. The third
person in our group came to a similar conclusion independently. The one
thing we were unanimous on, was that for whatever reason, the "scope" was
a
dog.

Stephen,

A couple of thoughts. Most refractors are corrected for coma, so the
collimation would, I think, have to be fairly far off to reveal coma. Of
course, you provide no idea on the magnitude of the fanning was, nor how it
behaved as you went from one side of focus to the other. Do you remember
what the in-focus star images were like, or what happened just inside or
just outside of focus?

If folks want to evaluate refractors, and collimation might be an issue, a
Cheshire eyepiece should be part of their kit. Put a Cheshire in the
eyepiece holder, without a star diagonal, shine you red flashlight on the 45
degrees surface, and take a look at the reflections from the lens.

Clear skies, Alan