Maybe it's time for a luxury SCT?

Every notice that SCTs are sort of "middle ground"
when it comes to mechanics/looks? They don't have
the build quality of the APs, TMBs, Questars, etc.
But, they aren't as crude as the Chinese stuff either.
Their utility has come from state-of-the-art Goto systems,
if not the drives themselves.
But maybe it's time to start offering SCTs with subtle refinements?
For instance; How about a more machined-like fork and base system?
Or correcting things like the way the focus knobs on those things
turn eccentrically, which is somewhat annoying.
I'm not advocating turning a C8 into a Q7, but perhaps some
"cleaning up" of the basic look and egonomics of the scopes
could be done and the scopes offered at a higher cost?
Meade's new $5000+ RC wannabes really aren't that much more
sophisticated in that dept themselves. Their improvements are
basically internal and unseen.
I for one would love to walk into a showroom and see a C8
"Questar looking" machined fork and base system. Would it
really raise the cost that much to do this? They could leave
the internals the same.
Imagine how it would look to have clear anodized aluminum forks
and base combined with a carbon fibre tube.
-Rich

"RichA" wrote in message
news
Every notice that SCTs are sort of "middle ground"
when it comes to mechanics/looks? They don't have
the build quality of the APs, TMBs, Questars, etc.
But, they aren't as crude as the Chinese stuff either.
Their utility has come from state-of-the-art Goto systems,
if not the drives themselves.
But maybe it's time to start offering SCTs with subtle refinements?
For instance; How about a more machined-like fork and base system?
Or correcting things like the way the focus knobs on those things
turn eccentrically, which is somewhat annoying.
I'm not advocating turning a C8 into a Q7, but perhaps some
"cleaning up" of the basic look and egonomics of the scopes
could be done and the scopes offered at a higher cost?
Meade's new $5000+ RC wannabes really aren't that much more
sophisticated in that dept themselves. Their improvements are
basically internal and unseen.
I for one would love to walk into a showroom and see a C8
"Questar looking" machined fork and base system. Would it
really raise the cost that much to do this? They could leave
the internals the same.
Imagine how it would look to have clear anodized aluminum forks
and base combined with a carbon fibre tube.
-Rich

That might lead to zircon encrusted, left handed Crescent wrenches. ;-)
Machining does cost quite a bit, and if only for decoration, I wouldn't want
to pay for it.
But I do agree it would look good.
Best regards,

Gary

RichA wrote:
Every notice that SCTs are sort of "middle ground"
when it comes to mechanics/looks? They don't have
the build quality of the APs, TMBs, Questars, etc.
But, they aren't as crude as the Chinese stuff either.
Their utility has come from state-of-the-art Goto systems,
if not the drives themselves.
But maybe it's time to start offering SCTs with subtle refinements?
For instance; How about a more machined-like fork and base system?
Or correcting things like the way the focus knobs on those things
turn eccentrically, which is somewhat annoying.
I'm not advocating turning a C8 into a Q7, but perhaps some
"cleaning up" of the basic look and egonomics of the scopes
could be done and the scopes offered at a higher cost?
Meade's new $5000+ RC wannabes really aren't that much more
sophisticated in that dept themselves. Their improvements are
basically internal and unseen.
I for one would love to walk into a showroom and see a C8
"Questar looking" machined fork and base system. Would it
really raise the cost that much to do this? They could leave
the internals the same.
Imagine how it would look to have clear anodized aluminum forks
and base combined with a carbon fibre tube.
-Rich

J.R. Cumberland sells 4" Pyrex mak cass optic sets for ~$425. The rest
of the cost of a Questar is in the mechanics. It is a simple
proposition to make a high end SCT but it will cost almost as much as a
Questar. When you are paying that kind of money do you really want to
deal with "B" ish grade optical quality and comma?

Ian Anderson
www.customopticalsystems.com

We don't need machined luxuries SCT's, but with a little more ingenuity,
design better focuser, illuminate mirror flops, smaller CO, built in cooling
fan, built in dew shield or built in heaters for the corrector plate.
They still using 30 years old technology for the SCT.
SCT's are like MS Windows, very basic, than one have to buy 100-s of $$$-s
of options for it.

JS

"RichA" wrote in message
news
Every notice that SCTs are sort of "middle ground"
when it comes to mechanics/looks? They don't have
the build quality of the APs, TMBs, Questars, etc.
But, they aren't as crude as the Chinese stuff either.
Their utility has come from state-of-the-art Goto systems,
if not the drives themselves.
But maybe it's time to start offering SCTs with subtle refinements?
For instance; How about a more machined-like fork and base system?
Or correcting things like the way the focus knobs on those things
turn eccentrically, which is somewhat annoying.
I'm not advocating turning a C8 into a Q7, but perhaps some
"cleaning up" of the basic look and egonomics of the scopes
could be done and the scopes offered at a higher cost?
Meade's new $5000+ RC wannabes really aren't that much more
sophisticated in that dept themselves. Their improvements are
basically internal and unseen.
I for one would love to walk into a showroom and see a C8
"Questar looking" machined fork and base system. Would it
really raise the cost that much to do this? They could leave
the internals the same.
Imagine how it would look to have clear anodized aluminum forks
and base combined with a carbon fibre tube.
-Rich

Gary Heath wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
news
Every notice that SCTs are sort of "middle ground"
when it comes to mechanics/looks? They don't have
the build quality of the APs, TMBs, Questars, etc.
But, they aren't as crude as the Chinese stuff either.
Their utility has come from state-of-the-art Goto systems,
if not the drives themselves.
But maybe it's time to start offering SCTs with subtle refinements?
For instance; How about a more machined-like fork and base system?
Or correcting things like the way the focus knobs on those things
turn eccentrically, which is somewhat annoying.
I'm not advocating turning a C8 into a Q7, but perhaps some
"cleaning up" of the basic look and egonomics of the scopes
could be done and the scopes offered at a higher cost?
Meade's new $5000+ RC wannabes really aren't that much more
sophisticated in that dept themselves. Their improvements are
basically internal and unseen.
I for one would love to walk into a showroom and see a C8
"Questar looking" machined fork and base system. Would it
really raise the cost that much to do this? They could leave
the internals the same.
Imagine how it would look to have clear anodized aluminum forks
and base combined with a carbon fibre tube.
-Rich


That might lead to zircon encrusted, left handed Crescent wrenches. ;-)
Machining does cost quite a bit, and if only for decoration, I wouldn't want
to pay for it.
But I do agree it would look good.
Best regards,

Gary



Gary;

You laugh about a "left handed Crescent wrench". I have one. The joke is
that it's stamped "Made in Poland". No joke.
The way you can tell the "handed"ness of an adjustable wrench is to hole
it in either hand and push the adjusting screw with your thumb. If the
jaws close that is the hand of the wrench. So you see a left handed
monkey wrench can exist

Dave N

Good, fast, cheap, pick any two.

RichA wrote:

But maybe it's time to start offering SCTs with subtle refinements?

Yup, you'd think people, especially manager types, would realize that the phrase
"cheaper, better, faster" is self-contradictory and cannot be done after what
NASA in general and JPL in particular went through in recent years. But then,
those managers have shown me that the phrases "learning from experience" and
"using your head in your business" are outside their vocabulary. It has sullied
the reputation of the lab, reduced its in-house engineering projects to just one
project, and will mean the death of JPL as a space research engineering house
before a decade is out.

And for my money,.you can pick one of the three, not two, but then I'm
disillusioned by what happened between 1995 and 2002.
--
Sincerely,
--- Dave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It don't mean a thing
unless it has that certain "je ne sais quoi"
Duke Ellington
----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Tim Killian" wrote in message
...
Good, fast, cheap, pick any two.

RichA wrote:

But maybe it's time to start offering SCTs with subtle refinements?

David Nakamoto wrote in message ...
Yup, you'd think people, especially manager types, would realize that the
phrase
"cheaper, better, faster" is self-contradictory and cannot be done after
what
NASA in general and JPL in particular went through in recent years. But
then,
those managers have shown me that the phrases "learning from experience"
and
"using your head in your business" are outside their vocabulary. It has
sullied
the reputation of the lab, reduced its in-house engineering projects to
just one
project, and will mean the death of JPL as a space research engineering
house
before a decade is out.

And for my money,.you can pick one of the three, not two, but then I'm
disillusioned by what happened between 1995 and 2002.
--
Sincerely,
--- Dave

your timeframe is too short, way too short. Step back and look what happened
from 1700 to 2005 and you'll realise that it's "cheaper, better, faster" ALL
at the same time.

best regards,
matt tudor

I'm referring to things that require more than the usual amount of quality than
a Model T. I concede the point that the Industrial Revolution mantra was
"cheaper, better, faster" and that it produced many wonders no one in their
right mind would do without. However, when it comes to anything of quality that
needs human hands to intervene at some point to produce, hands with more skill
than turning a screwdriver or pounding a hammer, like fine optics and
one-of-a-kind spacecraft, "cheaper better faster" is NOT the way to go. JPL and
NASA should have learned this by studying history, not sacrificing the hopes and
dreams of scientists, engineers and technicians who sacrificed their careers in
order to make space research work.
--
Sincerely,
--- Dave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It don't mean a thing
unless it has that certain "je ne sais quoi"
Duke Ellington
----------------------------------------------------------------------

"matt" wrote in message
...

David Nakamoto wrote in message ...
Yup, you'd think people, especially manager types, would realize that the
phrase
"cheaper, better, faster" is self-contradictory and cannot be done after
what
NASA in general and JPL in particular went through in recent years. But
then,
those managers have shown me that the phrases "learning from experience"
and
"using your head in your business" are outside their vocabulary. It has
sullied
the reputation of the lab, reduced its in-house engineering projects to
just one
project, and will mean the death of JPL as a space research engineering
house
before a decade is out.

And for my money,.you can pick one of the three, not two, but then I'm
disillusioned by what happened between 1995 and 2002.
--
Sincerely,
--- Dave

your timeframe is too short, way too short. Step back and look what happened
from 1700 to 2005 and you'll realise that it's "cheaper, better, faster" ALL
at the same time.

best regards,
matt tudor

David Nakamoto wrote:

JPL and NASA should have learned this by studying history,
not sacrificing the hopes and dreams of scientists
engineers and technicians who sacrificed their
careers in order to make space research work.
--
Sincerely,
--- Dave

What about the billions who have sacrificed their entire lives to mass
production?
A form of torture, for most, which isn't listed under human rights
conventions.
Hardly anybody gets to see the big picture or has the time to create.
Which is the real tragedy for ral human progress.
Cut out the middle men and take your purchases straight to the dump.
What you make is not what is really important any more. As long as it's
cheap enough.
Why should a $10 saving per item on moving production to China affect
*your* job?
Would you have flatly refused to buy the item for $10 more? Really?
The high-end APO manufacturers can't make enough of them to satify
demand.
So what does that tell you about the el-cheapo products from Meade?
It's not what they charge at all! But how much profit they can make on
each item.
The world is collecting mad. We buy stuff made 20,50,100 or 200 years
ago for astronomical prices.
Why are we only willing to pay for cheap crap made today?
Is it just so we can afford the old stuff?
The world is in a crazy tooth-and-claw worldwide competition to
produce.
But at what cost to the individual, the human race and our only home?
Don't we all deserve a little better quality of life?
Rather than a cheaper widgit?

Chris.B