Astro-Physics Plants

Dear Shawn, Oh but he has! Roland has made Newtonians, not long ago,
Mak-Newtonians to be precise. I think he made a couple of MN variants,
but the 9-1/4" Fastmax comes to mind quickly.

I swear to you this, and that is, that I came away from the '96
Astrofest knowing that I viewed through one of the finest "Manageable
size" scopes I've ever had the pleasure of viewing through.

Fortunate that I have had the opportunity again briefly to enjoy views
through this scope over the years.

One of these Fastmax scopes now belongs to Mark Jenkins, and I'd be
betting for sure, that Mark wouldn't trade that Fastmax of his for a new
Vette (Doubt if I would either).

This scope IMO just seems to do everything "Just Right"! I am very
impressed with both it's optics, mechanics, and aesthetic beauty.

For sure, it's a giant killer, and I personally think it would be a wise
move if other manufactures got on the bandwagon and produced a similar
"Clone" of this scope in a similar aperture, and FL. (Yuri, Markus,
Thomas, are you reading this?) It's a short, fat, compact scope, that
WILL run with the big boys, visually, or photographically! Only sad
part was that Roland didn't make a couple of hundred more of these
babies. Mark

Sad to say, Shawn, but a 6" Newtonian is simply not going to give you the
performance of a 6" APO (but you probably knew that). Anyway, everyone
makes Newtonians, so we certainly don't need more of them. Perhaps someone
could make Newts to the same quality levels of the AP scopes, but no one
would want to spend premium prices on "the poor man's telescope."


Ever noticed how all the most expensive Scopes are Newts or at least
reflectors??

Must be some message there somewhere......g

Best thing to do with Shawn is let him rest in peace.....

jon

jon

"Mark" wrote in message
...
Dear Shawn, Oh but he has! Roland has made Newtonians, not long ago,
Mak-Newtonians to be precise. I think he made a couple of MN variants,
but the 9-1/4" Fastmax comes to mind quickly.

I swear to you this, and that is, that I came away from the '96
Astrofest knowing that I viewed through one of the finest "Manageable
size" scopes I've ever had the pleasure of viewing through.

Hi Mark,

I had the pleasure of using the 9.25" Fastmax extensively several times at
WSP. It is, indeed, a wonderful scope, providing both low power, wide field
views, and exceptional high power views of Mars and Saturn. I got to enjoy
it again when Mark Jenkins had it at Astrofest.

Clear skies, Alan

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:51:43 -0700, "Jan Owen"
wrote:

From what I've seen, their objectives have been OK right along; they just
put them in crappy objective cells for quite a while that let them get out
of collimation multidirectionally. And THAT kinda shot their credibility
to hell in a handbasket. Not bad objectives.

Once folks figured out how to modify the cells, to properly align and
collimate them, or sent them back for Meade to install their new, improved
cells, the problem went away.

From what I hear, there are some pretty happy campers out there now...
finally... But there aren't too many of them yet, because all the
negative noise here scared a lot of folks off.

I still think there were some optical problems with some of their
objectives, but you are right about the cells. Stupid *******s!
-Rich

(optidud) wrote in news:a1bc7870.0307160515.87e51e6
@posting.google.com:

Intel Corp has so many plants that's why they can supply thousands
of pentiums without a waiting time of 1-3 years.

Mass production.


Why can't Astro-Physics do the same. They can create more plants...
in the same state (so Roland can visit them constantly) or far away
(he can always use his private jet to visit other states or areas) .

Nah, he prefers to just park his private jet as a garden ornament.


This means waiting time of 1-5 years for a Traveler for example can
be reduced to 6 months and this can put a lot of smile in the faces
of many amateur astronomers.

The actual market for scopes like this is pretty small because of the
cost (if it could be done easily and cheaply, you would already see apo's
coming out of China). Besides, there are alternatives available without
the long waiting list (TMB and TEC come to mind).


Or is the reason because there are restrictions to purchases of high
quality objective lens.

Yeah. All APO owners have to have black sun glasses and secret decoder
rings.

Right now, thermal imager equipments are
restricted and productions are limited to discourage mass export
to other countries. Similarly. Astrophysics quality lenses may be
weapons grade and mass productions being discouraged?

Yeah, that's why Al Queda buy their APO's from Russia.


What possible weapon application can Astro-physics lenses
have. Does laser amplification system or particle beam technology
or other exotic optical based weaponry uses super quality objective
lenses with near zero spherochromatism and high strehl for example?


We would have to kill you if we told you.


If the above is the reason. Of course Roland won't admit as he
is bounded by the US Restricted Weapons Contractor Agreement..

If the above is not the reason. Then why can't Roland build more
plants so waiting time for Astrophysics scopes can be cut by
one third or better in order to meet the demands of the public
and world market.

I wonder this from time to time especially when I thought that
it's been ages already since I first signed up in the waiting list
for a Traveler.


That's because you don't know the secret handshake.

L.

optidud

On 17 Jul 2003 13:03:37 +1200, Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th
wrote:

(optidud) wrote in news:a1bc7870.0307160515.87e51e6
:

Intel Corp has so many plants that's why they can supply thousands
of pentiums without a waiting time of 1-3 years.

Mass production.

Not to mention the "speeds" of their processors are not preordained,
it's luck of the draw. Imagine optics like that, oh wait; Chinese
scopes...

Why can't Astro-Physics do the same. They can create more plants...
in the same state (so Roland can visit them constantly) or far away
(he can always use his private jet to visit other states or areas) .

Nah, he prefers to just park his private jet as a garden ornament.


This means waiting time of 1-5 years for a Traveler for example can
be reduced to 6 months and this can put a lot of smile in the faces
of many amateur astronomers.

The actual market for scopes like this is pretty small because of the
cost (if it could be done easily and cheaply, you would already see apo's
coming out of China). Besides, there are alternatives available without
the long waiting list (TMB and TEC come to mind).


Or is the reason because there are restrictions to purchases of high
quality objective lens.

Yeah. All APO owners have to have black sun glasses and secret decoder
rings.

Right now, thermal imager equipments are
restricted and productions are limited to discourage mass export
to other countries. Similarly. Astrophysics quality lenses may be
weapons grade and mass productions being discouraged?

Yeah, that's why Al Queda buy their APO's from Russia.


What possible weapon application can Astro-physics lenses
have. Does laser amplification system or particle beam technology
or other exotic optical based weaponry uses super quality objective
lenses with near zero spherochromatism and high strehl for example?


We would have to kill you if we told you.


If the above is the reason. Of course Roland won't admit as he
is bounded by the US Restricted Weapons Contractor Agreement..

If the above is not the reason. Then why can't Roland build more
plants so waiting time for Astrophysics scopes can be cut by
one third or better in order to meet the demands of the public
and world market.

I wonder this from time to time especially when I thought that
it's been ages already since I first signed up in the waiting list
for a Traveler.


That's because you don't know the secret handshake.

L.

optidud

Jon Isaacs wrote:
Ever noticed how all the most expensive Scopes are Newts or at least
reflectors??

Maybe you just misspoke, but you certainly can't say that in terms
of dollars per inch of aperture.

Mojo
--
Morris Jones *
San Rafael, CA

http://www.whiteoaks.com

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 01:22:38 +0000 (UTC),
(Morris Jones) wrote:

Jon Isaacs wrote:
Ever noticed how all the most expensive Scopes are Newts or at least
reflectors??

Maybe you just misspoke, but you certainly can't say that in terms
of dollars per inch of aperture.

Mojo

Apos are the only scopes that have climbed in price per inch over
the past 10 - 20 years. All other scopes have dropped dramatically
or (in the case of SCTs) levelled off.
They have also improved in most cases, but then so have Newtonians,
Maks and SCTs.
-Rich

Ever noticed how all the most expensive Scopes are Newts or at least
reflectors??

Maybe you just misspoke, but you certainly can't say that in terms
of dollars per inch of aperture.

Finished in 1948, the Palomar 200 inch cost $6,000,000 to build. In 1948
dollars that is $30,000 per inch of aperture. This included the mount of
course.

A modern scope of similar size is substantially more.

jon isaacs

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 15:51:43 -0700, "Jan Owen"
wrote:

From what I've seen, their objectives have been OK right along; they
just
put them in crappy objective cells for quite a while that let them get
out
of collimation multidirectionally. And THAT kinda shot their
credibility
to hell in a handbasket. Not bad objectives.

Once folks figured out how to modify the cells, to properly align and
collimate them, or sent them back for Meade to install their new,
improved
cells, the problem went away.

From what I hear, there are some pretty happy campers out there now...
finally... But there aren't too many of them yet, because all the
negative noise here scared a lot of folks off.

I still think there were some optical problems with some of their
objectives, but you are right about the cells. Stupid *******s!
-Rich

I've heard folks who haven't looked through one say that, but I don't
recall anyone who HAD looked through one with a fully-functional objective
cell, and well collimated objective, say that... Of course THAT doesn't
mean there weren't any, either...