the refractor craze??

Bigger may be better for
seeing more stars in a cluster and more structure in a nebula or galaxy,
but.. how ridiculously big do you want to get?

You know, this thread is ridiculous. What people who bash certain kinds of
telescopes don't understand is that the scope that gets used is the one that
people keep. If it's a refractor or reflector, who cares? Some people like
motorcycles, others like trucks. Depends on your personal need. No one is
right or wrong here.

Mark
The Catman
^..^

www.geocities.com/mark_rosengarten
Owner/Coordinator of the Neko Ultraportable Solar Observatory
Fun WITH The Sun for Everyone!

On 23 Nov 2004 13:35:31 GMT, (Jon Isaacs) wrote:


There are a lot of designs out there for hyper-portable Newtonians,
but the one issue is that you have to collimate each time you assemble
the scope in the field and I think that probably turns some people
off.

I agree, I like the tube design simply because there is no assembly and with a
good primary and secondary cell the scope holds collimation quite nicely.

Still, I spend a fair amount of my creative dream time considering various ways
to knock another 10 lbs off the scope but it just ain't going to happen...

jon

I think the more weight you remove is porportional to the amount of
tinkering needed to get the scope up and running when on site.
Good example of this would be a big refractor I saw that someone had
at my last observing session. It was broken down into at least 10
parts, which obviously made it easy to handle from a weight
standpoint, but it took 30 minutes to assemble.
-Rich

"Howard Lester" wrote in message
...

"Mark Rosengarten" wrote

Bigger may be better for
seeing more stars in a cluster and more structure in a nebula or
galaxy,
but.. how ridiculously big do you want to get?

You know, this thread is ridiculous. What people who bash certain
kinds
of
telescopes don't understand is that the scope that gets used is the
one
that
people keep. If it's a refractor or reflector, who cares? Some
people
like
motorcycles, others like trucks. Depends on your personal need. No
one
is
right or wrong here.

Thank you, Mark. You said it better than I. It's the arrogance of some
that
offends me.


Arrogance?

Here???

On SAA???

Surely you GEST!!!

--
Jan Owen

To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address...
Latitude: 33.662
Longitude: -112.3272

"Jan Owen" wrote in message
news:aXQod.127423$cJ3.102102@fed1read06...
"Howard Lester" wrote in message
...

"Mark Rosengarten" wrote

Bigger may be better for
seeing more stars in a cluster and more structure in a nebula or
galaxy,
but.. how ridiculously big do you want to get?

You know, this thread is ridiculous. What people who bash certain
kinds
of
telescopes don't understand is that the scope that gets used is the
one
that
people keep. If it's a refractor or reflector, who cares? Some
people
like
motorcycles, others like trucks. Depends on your personal need. No
one
is
right or wrong here.

Thank you, Mark. You said it better than I. It's the arrogance of some
that
offends me.


Arrogance?

Here???

On SAA???

Surely you GEST!!!

Or at LEAST jest!!!

What are these spell checkers coming to, anyway????????


--
Jan Owen

To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail
address...
Latitude: 33.662
Longitude: -112.3272

"Jan Owen" wrote in message
news:aXQod.127423$cJ3.102102@fed1read06...
"Howard Lester" wrote in message
...

"Mark Rosengarten" wrote

Bigger may be better for
seeing more stars in a cluster and more structure in a nebula or
galaxy,
but.. how ridiculously big do you want to get?

You know, this thread is ridiculous. What people who bash certain
kinds
of
telescopes don't understand is that the scope that gets used is the
one
that
people keep. If it's a refractor or reflector, who cares? Some
people
like
motorcycles, others like trucks. Depends on your personal need. No
one
is
right or wrong here.

Thank you, Mark. You said it better than I. It's the arrogance of some
that
offends me.


Arrogance?

Here???

On SAA???

Surely you GEST!!!

--
Jan Owen

To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address...
Latitude: 33.662
Longitude: -112.3272


I do so ingest. lol

Best regards,
Bill

"Bill Becker" wrote in message
...

"Jan Owen" wrote in message
news:aXQod.127423$cJ3.102102@fed1read06...
"Howard Lester" wrote in message
...
Thank you, Mark. You said it better than I. It's the arrogance of
some
that
offends me.


Arrogance?

Here???

On SAA???

Surely you GEST!!!

--
Jan Owen

I do so ingest. lol

Best regards,
Bill

Not to mention censor...

--
Jan Owen

To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address...
Latitude: 33.662
Longitude: -112.3272

"John Savard" wrote in message
...
If we view this as an argument about telescopes, there is no "right"
answer, just endless arguing.

But if we view this as an argument about which constraints are more
important, it becomes more obvious that people who take different sides
may be correct about their own circumstances.

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html

After almost 4 years in this hobby, I finally caved in and bought a used
Celestron/Vixen C102 F9 ED on GP mount off of Astromart today. Take delivery
Friday.

There are two primary factors that drive this choice:

The "justification factor" for buying this scope is that planet observing
around here seldom supports more than 200x, and often all you are going to
see, can be seen at 160x, regardless of the aperture. Also, the Moon looks
good at 100x in an F5 achromat, so it makes sense that it is going to look
even better in an F9 ED doublet of the same aperture. Almach will certainly
look better, as will Albireo, and I like it when globs look like fuzzy stars
against a 2 degree backdrop with a small exit pupil that is free of the
astigmatism brought on by my observing eye in larger exit pupils. And, a 100
F9 scope with a 2" focuser is still capable of over 2.5 degrees of field,
which is absolutely huge compared to what you can get out of a 60" focal
length Dob. And last but not least, an apo refractor seldom, if ever, needs
optical maintenance aside from possibly a lens cleaning.

The "motivation factor" for buying this scope is the same regardless of
whether it is an inexpensive 100 F5 achro, or a thrice more expensive 100 F9
ED. That being that it takes _hours_ for the 12.5" diameter, 1.75" thick
piece of Pyrex in the bottom of my Dob to cool 20 degrees, down to the point
that those 160x images of Saturn and Jupiter are free of mirror based
thermal issues.

To expound on the personal subjectivity in the motivation factor, after a
day at the office, I want to be able to put the scope out, and have it
cooled in 15 minutes or so, and at the ready. Two reasons. One, I don't want
to invest the effort into the big Dob because sometimes I _am_ lazy (or more
accurately, tired). Two, here in Massachusetts, the weather can change from
overcast, to clear, or vice versa, in less than a half hour. It's nice to
not be invested in the 12.5" Dob, when a clear night suddenly goes cloudy,
and it's nice to have a scope that can be put out and ready to go in 10
minutes (especially on a cold night) when the sky suddenly goes from cloudy
to clear, especially at 9 or 10PM with bedtime not to far off.

That said, it is completely nobody elses business why us refractor buyers
buy refractors, despite their exhorbitant cost per inch of aperture. Not one
of us needs to justify any purchase to anyone other then their financial
advisor, whether that be themselves, their spouse, or a professional
financial service.

Stephen Paul

oh well.

"Jan Owen" wrote in message
news:KFSod.127430$cJ3.71861@fed1read06...

"Bill Becker" wrote in message
...

"Jan Owen" wrote in message
news:aXQod.127423$cJ3.102102@fed1read06...
"Howard Lester" wrote in message
...
Thank you, Mark. You said it better than I. It's the arrogance of
some
that
offends me.


Arrogance?

Here???

On SAA???

Surely you GEST!!!

--
Jan Owen

I do so ingest. lol

Best regards,
Bill

Not to mention censor...

--
Jan Owen

To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address...
Latitude: 33.662
Longitude: -112.3272

"Jan Owen" wrote

Arrogance?

Here???

On SAA???

Surely you GEST!!!

Or at LEAST jest!!!

What are these spell checkers coming to, anyway????????

That's what you have ME for!!

"Jan Owen" wrote

I do so ingest. lol

Best regards,
Bill

Not to mention censor...

Jan, be nice to our friend Mr. Becker.