Thoughts on why companies can't or won't produce a reasonable priced telescope?

On 23 Feb., 12:24, wrote:
On Feb 21, 3:29*am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

This reminds me of how Bush turned a $100 billion surplus that he got
from Clinton into a 1.3 trillion deficit that he gave to Obama along
with a crashed economy.

Obama spent $700 billion on "stimulus" that intelligent people (ie,
conservatives) knew would fail.

Two compulsive-obsessives arguing about their anti-heroes
misdemeanours? Surely not?

I can play that game:

I see the geriatric "king" of Saudi Arabia read my last post and has
increased social security benefits. It must be a desperate bid to
stave off unrest on his return after months of medical treatment and
convalescence elsewhere.

What a truly generous man! What a damned shame there is no hell for
his kind to enjoy, for an eternity, after putting their own people
through hell on this earth for what seems like eternity.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 03:09:22 -0800 (PST), wrote:

By NOT following the advice of the "elitists" you became an amateur
astronomer who will now spend money on telescopes, accessories,
magazines, books, astronomy club dues, astronomy-related travel, etc.,
and possibly spend time helping with astronomy outreach programs.

The travel related bits are out but as I learn I may be able to pass
some of that knowledge on.

The elitist who wish that beginners spend at least a minimum amount on
a first telescope, had better reconsider what that are wishing for.

That's really why I made my post in the first place, a cheap scope can
lead to better things if the interest is there.


--
Regards - Rodney Pont
The from address exists but is mostly dumped,
please send any emails to the address below
e-mail rpont (at) gmail (dot) com

On 23/02/2011 11:01, wrote:
On Feb 20, 9:15 am, Martin
wrote:
On 19/02/2011 11:55, wrote:

On Feb 19, 4:46 am, Martin
wrote:

There are a couple of get what you pay for scopes there under $200.

Almost every product in the world is "[you] get what you pay for."

Only if you consider that some designer brand name tat is really worth
the extra x10 factor for a $1 cotton badge sewn onto it. Materials cost
bears no relationship to end user price in high end brandname fashion.

From my experience, more expensive clothes last longer and look better
than cheaper versions.

But there is a limit to how much extra it is worth paying before the law
of diminishing returns sets in. You can pay through the nose for a Nike
or Addidas logo on what are otherwise pretty much ordinary grade goods.
Most people cannot tell the better fakes from the real McCoy.

Or to take a much more extreme example of really paying through the nose
fashion (for bespoke haute couture) try:

http://mireilledagher.com/

It is also a wonderful example of how not to design a website. It takes
aeons to load and update even on fast broadband.

Here is a $100 scope with excellent reviews:

http://www.telescope.com/control/tel...elescopes/orio...

It is an upgraded version of one of my first scopes. It has better
eyepieces and focuser than mine did, yet costs about half as much
after adjusting for inflation.

Costs about as much as my first scope (Japanese 75mm kit refractor - the
eyepieces were rubbish but the main optics were not bad). And it was
bought secondhand but in mint condition.

The $100 scope I mentioned comes with 1.25-inch eyepeices with a 50
degree AFOV, 3 to 4 elements and lens coatings.

That really is quite impressive then and shows TMT to be out of touch
with the US market. I can point to similar kit in the UK ~£200 coming
from China and Russia but don't know if it is available over there.

It really depends on the child if this is meant to be a Christmas
present which was the original suggestion. I still think buying one for
someone who is interested in the sky is best done after Xmas and taking
advantage of the bored new owners, or distressed sellers in Autumn.

Buying a used 'anything' is often a good deal, but that general advice
depends on someone buying a new one in the first place.

But if money is a problem and you want the best price performance point
it makes sense to buy second hand and avoid the 30% new box premium.

It isn't like telescopes wear out significantly with normal use...

The buyer of a used scope would still need to know a good deal when he
saw one, which we cannot assume he will.

But if they join an astro club there is usually someone who will be only
too happy to look over kit for them. And as I have pointed out many
times here the clubs I know have a surplus of donated scopes that are
available for members to borrow and a shortage of keen observers!

That translates to having the use of a scope plus weekly or monthly
speaker meetings for $30 or £20 per annum (£10 for students).

Regards,
Martin Brown

On 23/02/2011 11:01, wrote:
On Feb 20, 9:15 am, Martin
wrote:
On 19/02/2011 11:55, wrote:

On Feb 19, 4:46 am, Martin
wrote:

There are a couple of get what you pay for scopes there under $200.

Almost every product in the world is "[you] get what you pay for."

Only if you consider that some designer brand name tat is really worth
the extra x10 factor for a $1 cotton badge sewn onto it. Materials cost
bears no relationship to end user price in high end brandname fashion.

From my experience, more expensive clothes last longer and look better
than cheaper versions.

But there is a limit to how much extra it is worth paying before the law
of diminishing returns sets in. You can pay through the nose for a Nike
or Addidas logo on what are otherwise pretty much ordinary grade goods.
Most people cannot tell the better fakes from the real McCoy.

Or to take a much more extreme example of really paying through the nose
fashion (for bespoke haute couture) try:

http://mireilledagher.com/

It is also a wonderful example of how not to design a website. It takes
aeons to load and update even on fast broadband.

Here is a $100 scope with excellent reviews:

http://www.telescope.com/control/tel...elescopes/orio...

It is an upgraded version of one of my first scopes. It has better
eyepieces and focuser than mine did, yet costs about half as much
after adjusting for inflation.

Costs about as much as my first scope (Japanese 75mm kit refractor - the
eyepieces were rubbish but the main optics were not bad). And it was
bought secondhand but in mint condition.

The $100 scope I mentioned comes with 1.25-inch eyepeices with a 50
degree AFOV, 3 to 4 elements and lens coatings.

That really is quite impressive then and shows TMT to be out of touch
with the US market. I can point to similar kit in the UK ~£200 coming
from China and Russia but don't know if it is available over there.

It really depends on the child if this is meant to be a Christmas
present which was the original suggestion. I still think buying one for
someone who is interested in the sky is best done after Xmas and taking
advantage of the bored new owners, or distressed sellers in Autumn.

Buying a used 'anything' is often a good deal, but that general advice
depends on someone buying a new one in the first place.

But if money is a problem and you want the best price performance point
it makes sense to buy second hand and avoid the 30% new box premium.

It isn't like telescopes wear out significantly with normal use...

The buyer of a used scope would still need to know a good deal when he
saw one, which we cannot assume he will.

But if they join an astro club there is usually someone who will be only
too happy to look over kit for them. And as I have pointed out many
times here the clubs I know have a surplus of donated scopes that are
available for members to borrow and a shortage of keen observers!

That translates to having the use of a scope plus weekly or monthly
speaker meetings for $30 or £20 per annum (£10 for students).

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Feb 23, 9:13*am, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 23/02/2011 11:01, wrote:





On Feb 20, 9:15 am, Martin
wrote:
On 19/02/2011 11:55, wrote:

On Feb 19, 4:46 am, Martin
wrote:

There are a couple of get what you pay for scopes there under $200.

Almost every product in the world is "[you] get what you pay for."

Only if you consider that some designer brand name tat is really worth
the extra x10 factor for a $1 cotton badge sewn onto it. Materials cost
bears no relationship to end user price in high end brandname fashion.

*From my experience, more expensive clothes last longer and look better
than cheaper versions.

But there is a limit to how much extra it is worth paying before the law
of diminishing returns sets in. You can pay through the nose for a Nike
or Addidas logo on what are otherwise pretty much ordinary grade goods.
Most people cannot tell the better fakes from the real McCoy.

I find that clothes costing 2x-3x as much last 10x as long and repel
stains much better. The more expensive shoes last longer and are more
comfortable.

Or to take a much more extreme example of really paying through the nose
fashion (for bespoke haute couture) try:

http://mireilledagher.com/

It is also a wonderful example of how not to design a website. It takes
aeons to load and update even on fast broadband.

Is it a corporation's "vanity" site?

Here is a $100 scope with excellent reviews:

http://www.telescope.com/control/tel...elescopes/orio....

It is an upgraded version of one of my first scopes. *It has better
eyepieces and focuser than mine did, yet costs about half as much
after adjusting for inflation.

Costs about as much as my first scope (Japanese 75mm kit refractor - the
eyepieces were rubbish but the main optics were not bad). And it was
bought secondhand but in mint condition.

The $100 scope I mentioned comes with 1.25-inch eyepeices with a 50
degree AFOV, 3 to 4 elements and lens coatings.

That really is quite impressive then and shows TMT to be out of touch
with the US market. I can point to similar kit in the UK ~ 200 coming
from China and Russia but don't know if it is available over there.

It really depends on the child if this is meant to be a Christmas
present which was the original suggestion. I still think buying one for
someone who is interested in the sky is best done after Xmas and taking
advantage of the bored new owners, or distressed sellers in Autumn.

Buying a used 'anything' is often a good deal, but that general advice
depends on someone buying a new one in the first place.

But if money is a problem and you want the best price performance point
it makes sense to buy second hand and avoid the 30% new box premium.

I had a friend who got a very good deal on an almost mint condition
scope. The seller let him pay in installments. I could have offered
the seller a lump sum + more $, had I known. But I didn't really need
the scope anyway.

It isn't like telescopes wear out significantly with normal use...

The buyer of a used scope would still need to know a good deal when he
saw one, which we cannot assume he will.

But if they join an astro club there is usually someone who will be only
too happy to look over kit for them. And as I have pointed out many
times here the clubs I know have a surplus of donated scopes that are
available for members to borrow and a shortage of keen observers!

You'd think there would be more demand. Maybe science education in
the UK isn't all that it is cracked up to be?

That translates to having the use of a scope plus weekly or monthly
speaker meetings for $30 or 20 per annum ( 10 for students).

If there are 183 clubs in the UK and each has ten loaner scopes, then
fewer than 2000 newbies can be accommodated on a regular basis. Then
too, there is the question of how much time club members really want
to spend showing the newbies the ropes. Even if you spend a great deal
of time helping a newbie, you can never really know ahead of time if
that person will stick with the club or the hobby. The novelty might
wear off for them.

On Feb 21, 10:29*pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 21, 4:47*pm, (Brian Tung) wrote:





Too_Many_Tools wrote:
It is not by accident that the Xbox is available for $200...it is the
result of assessing what families will pay and then providing a
product that they can purchase.

Telescope manufacturers could do the same.

Your argument would be compelling if it included some measurables of
telescope production. *Otherwise, it sounds like just one more person
complaining about telescope prices. *Explain to us where it is that
telescope manufacturers are gouging the consumer. *Show us where even
their marginal production costs are far less than the sale price. *It
is utterly unconvincing to say, "Electronics manufacturers [a totally
different kind of manufacturing] can do it, why can't the telescope
manufacturers?"

--
Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner athttp://www.astronomycorner.net/
*Unofficial C5+ Page athttp://www.astronomycorner.net/c5plus/
*My PleiadAtlas Page athttp://www.astronomycorner.net/pleiadatlas/
*My Own Personal FAQ athttp://www.astronomycorner.net/reference/faq.html

It is because other manufacturers CAN do it that tells us that
astronomy manufacturers SHOULD do it.

Ok, how about if the current manufacturers decide to stop making
telescopes at all? We'll just go back to grinding our own
mirrors...someone will get the idea of selling some of their
mirrors...others will get the idea of buying some of those mirrors and
building telescopes for sale to others...we'll have to make some
lenses for the eyepieces....

If they cannot, then the hobby will slowly die off.

I suspect it is already doing just that.

If any industry cannot supply a product that the public will buy, that
industry dies.

If a parent cannot readily buy a child a $200 telescope, why would
that child latter to be an adult buy a $2000 telescope?

The answer is that they will not.

Here is a discussion about first scopes:

http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbarchi...l/fpart/1/vc/1

As you can see, people get started in astronomy at all ages and mostly
with cheap telescopes. If the only thing they manage to find is the
Moon, then fine, they can look at the Moon. Those who are really
interested will be persistent enough to find other objects besides the
Moon and go on to buy fancier telescopes later.

On Feb 22, 12:33*am, (Brian Tung) wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
It is because other manufacturers CAN do it that tells us that
astronomy manufacturers SHOULD do it.

In a completely different kind of manufacture? *Not compelling.

I've not made a telescope myself, but a couple of good friends have.
It is an enormously time-consuming process. *Automated processes can
only get you so far.

I'm willing to be convinced that somewhere there's gouging, but I won't
be convinced by arguments from electronics manufacture. *Chipsets are
basically die cut. *You can't do that with optical components because
the tolerance ratios are ridiculous. *A chip may have tolerances on the
nanometer level, but those tolerances are local only; that is to say,
one does not have to make sure that two components a centimeter apart
are calibrated to one another. *An optical surface has to be accurate
to a quarter-wave on a surface that is perhaps a million times wider
than that; the *whole* thing has to be like that.

You started this thread, but I think you only want comments that are
sympathetic to your point of view.

--
Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner athttp://www.astronomycorner.net/
*Unofficial C5+ Page athttp://www.astronomycorner.net/c5plus/
*My PleiadAtlas Page athttp://www.astronomycorner.net/pleiadatlas/
*My Own Personal FAQ athttp://www.astronomycorner.net/reference/faq.html

A good discussion has arguments and proofs for the many facets of the
subject.

My opinions are not the only ones that count.

I do understand your argument concerning electronics and I would agree
to a point...it is that "magic" that has allowed GOTO mounts to occur
and the revolution in imaging. The evolution of cheaper H-alpha
filters and other specialized filters for night time viewing is
another example.

I also agree with the relative precision concerning optics..but much
of that now is automated with the final figuring perhaps done by
hand...statistical sampling can and does go far with providing us with
good optics.

When one considers the significant price reduction that has occurred
once the Chinese began producing telescopes tells us that there was a
significant protected profit margin...and a significant portion still
remains.

A recurring example in this hobby is where a manufacturer will
closeout a product by cutting it to less than half price...and the
vendors still make a profit selling it. A recent example is where
Meade has closed out its SolarMax offerings at 50%...and a number of
vendors have complained that Meade did not allow them to sell that
closeout product. Obviously there was profits made even at the
firesale prices.

TMT

On Feb 22, 12:36*am, (Brian Tung) wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Have you priced astro accessories lately?

Go take a look at eyepieces and think "Blue Blades".

Great UO-type orthos for about the same price as a game. *And I'm still
using eyepieces that are a dozen years old. *Can't say the same for any
of those video games. *And, honestly, aside from one eyepiece a couple
of years ago, I haven't bought any of them in maybe eight years. *Don't
need any more. *Those who have trouble affording them can get along very
well without any more.

--
Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner athttp://www.astronomycorner.net/
*Unofficial C5+ Page athttp://www.astronomycorner.net/c5plus/
*My PleiadAtlas Page athttp://www.astronomycorner.net/pleiadatlas/
*My Own Personal FAQ athttp://www.astronomycorner.net/reference/faq.html

Brian...we both know that some people change eyepieces more often than
we change our socks.

And as you pointed out, the cheaper eyepieces are priced similar to
games..not by accident...by marketing.

TMT

TMT

On Feb 23, 2:50*am, "Chris.B" wrote:
On 23 Feb., 09:25, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:



If we're not whinning about the weather, it's scintillation, but them
rare evenings when everything is perfect, a neighbor needs a 1000W
flood light.

Why do people, who are afraid of the dark, move to the country? *There
must be 100 "security" lights within a half mile radius now. Often
they are left on all day as well. Giving burglars a very clear
indication of who is not at home. All these lights belong to young
incomers. Before they arrived there were no outside lights except
single bulbs over outside doors. Just to see who was calling. The
fashion now is for a chain of lights down both sides of every drive
like a damned status symbol! Their cars must have adequate lights by
law. They never (ever) walk anywhere. So why, the hell, do they need a
row of "landing lights" just to find their way to their parking spots
or carports in their cars?

LOL..I noticed that too.

I have pointed out to more than one neighbor that the crooks can't
steal what they can't see.

Provide the light and they can see it.

I am the only one with NO outside lights that remain on over night.

TMT

On Feb 23, 5:01*am, wrote:
On Feb 20, 9:15*am, Martin Brown
wrote:





On 19/02/2011 11:55, wrote:

On Feb 19, 4:46 am, Martin
wrote:
On 19/02/2011 07:48, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Got a link to a US vendor and price?

You could always set up shop and import them from directly from China if
you really believe there is a huge untapped market available. I think
you will lose your shirt if you do.

I will grant you that there isn't that much in the under $200 category
that is worth buying new in the USA but there is some. HandsonOptics
conveniently allow a search on price range - some are OTAs only.

http://handsonoptics.com/index.php?m...earch_result&k...

There are a couple of get what you pay for scopes there under $200.

Almost every product in the world is "[you] get what you pay for."

Only if you consider that some designer brand name tat is really worth
the extra x10 factor for a $1 cotton badge sewn onto it. Materials cost
bears no relationship to end user price in high end brandname fashion.

From my experience, more expensive clothes last longer and look better
than cheaper versions.

Here is a $100 scope with excellent reviews:

http://www.telescope.com/control/tel...elescopes/orio....

It is an upgraded version of one of my first scopes. *It has better
eyepieces and focuser than mine did, yet costs about half as much
after adjusting for inflation.

Costs about as much as my first scope (Japanese 75mm kit refractor - the
eyepieces were rubbish but the main optics were not bad). And it was
bought secondhand but in mint condition.

The $100 scope I mentioned comes with 1.25-inch eyepeices with a 50
degree AFOV, 3 to 4 elements and lens coatings.

Now the Skywatcher might be a good deal at $400, the question arises,
would one be better off with a larger, cheaper 8-inch Dob, or even
better off by saving up an additional $150 or so and buying an 10-inch
Dob instead?

It really depends on the child if this is meant to be a Christmas
present which was the original suggestion. I still think buying one for
someone who is interested in the sky is best done after Xmas and taking
advantage of the bored new owners, or distressed sellers in Autumn.

Buying a used 'anything' is often a good deal, but that general advice
depends on someone buying a new one in the first place.

It isn't like telescopes wear out significantly with normal use...

The buyer of a used scope would still need to know a good deal when he
saw one, which we cannot assume he will.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Agreed..for this discussion I would consider used to be not realistic
since we are talking about parents who will likely know as little as
the child about a telescope.

TMT