Open Letter to Sky and Telescope

The following post reflects my personal opinions
only:

Sky and Telescope's Test Report on "Bargain
Scopes You Can Recommend To Friends And
Family" in the December issue was certainly timely,
and should have been a service to the amateur
astronomical community; instead it appears to be an
example of vendor bias. If this is not the case, then
we must accept the idea that a first time telescope
user, who cannot purchase an extra eyepiece and
cannot operate a telescope without explicit
instructions (according to the magazine's premise),
can nevertheless disassemble, collimate, and rebuild
a sealed instrument to endow it with acceptable
optics.

S&T describes taking delivery of an Edmund Scientific
Astroscan that could not come to a sharp focus. Its
staff then returned it and received another that was
out of collimation and.... presumably could not come to a
sharp focus. The Astroscan is not designed to be collimated
by users, and the practice is strongly discouraged in the
accompanying literature. Despite that fact, the S&T staff of
experts disassembled and rebuilt their second instrument to
make it perform acceptably - though still imperfectly. They
then had the temerity to actually recommend the Astroscan,
on the basis of the rebuilt scope's (tepid) performance.

A rational, impartial observer would have had to disqualify
the Astroscan on the basis of quality control issues (poor
optics), design problems (impossibility of user collimation
and a primary mirror cell that pinches the optics), and
delivery issues (poor undajustable collimation upon
arrival). S&T did not do this, so simple logic compels me
to conclude that the magazine is not impartial, or that it is
not rational, or that it is not an observer. The procedure
was certainly not scientific, as the term "Test Report" implies,
and was evidently designed to confirm preconceived opinions.

Yes, the Astroscan was once an acceptable instrument. Yes,
many S&T readers have fond childhood memories of the
Astroscan. Yes the Astroscan has fine eyepieces. Yes,
Edmund Scientific is a reputable dealer with excellent
phone support. Alas, S&T's experience with the *present
day* Astroscan telescope, *as delivered*, reflects my own.
I certainly cannot recommend it, and I am astonished that
S&T did, given identical information.

Ethically, the rating is on a par with a teacher who erases
the incorrect responses of favored students and supplies
correct ones. (Indeed, it is a lie to call the procedure a
"Test" since favored vendors were not allowed to fail.) This
is more than a matter of ethics, however; it has substance as
well. What happens when a first time telescope user
purchases an Astroscan, and draws a sample from the same
universe that S&T sampled? The article betrays that first
time telescope buyer - the very person it pretends to aid.

-Larry Curcio

Nothing new, I see. Both for the Astroscan and S&T.

Andrea T.

Hi Larry:

Larry Curcio wrote:
The following post reflects my personal opinions
only:

Understand...


Sky and Telescope's Test Report on "Bargain
Scopes You Can Recommend To Friends And
Family" in the December issue was certainly timely,
and should have been a service to the amateur
astronomical community; instead it appears to be an
example of vendor bias. If this is not the case, then
we must accept the idea that a first time telescope
user, who cannot purchase an extra eyepiece and
cannot operate a telescope without explicit
instructions (according to the magazine's premise),
can nevertheless disassemble, collimate, and rebuild
a sealed instrument to endow it with acceptable
optics.

I've read and reread the article and don't see that they (S&T/Gary
Seronik) recommended this course of action for beginners or anyone
else. Quite the contrary. Mssr Seronik explicitly states:

"we were able to dismantle it and correct the problem. Unlike most
reflectors, however, _this isn't a procedure recommended for users_"
(emphasis mine).

The Astroscan has been a very popular scope with beginners over the
years for some obvious reasons. The alternative would have been for the
Sky and Scope gang to leave the A-scan out of their review, something I
don't think would have been a good thing. I assume that the collimation
was bad enough to be deemed "not normal" for an Astroscan by Gary
Seronik, who certainly has more than enough experience to judge such
things, and that this prompted the adjustments.

Further their final assessment of the Astroscan is hardly the glowing
recommendation you seem to think it is. Seronk says that, following
collimation, the Astroscan delivered "acceptable" images. In the
summation of the scopes tested, it gets 3.5 stars out of 5 and the
comment: "Good low power views." That's the bottom line on all the
Astroscans. Always has been, but many folks have found it a pretty
useful little scope anyway.

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
and _The Urban Astronomer's Guide_

Like SCTs and MCTs?
Join the SCT User Mailing List.
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/sct-user

See my home page at
http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland/index.htm
for further info

For Uncle Rod's Astro Blog See:
http://journals.aol.com/rmollise/UncleRodsAstroBlog/

You might consider shortening your letter and then sending it in to Sky
and Telescope. They might surprise you and print it.

Dave

"Larry Curcio" wrote in message
news:vgQsf.3406$yx.2176@trndny01...
The following post reflects my personal opinions
only:

Sky and Telescope's Test Report on "Bargain
Scopes You Can Recommend To Friends And
Family" in the December issue was certainly timely,
and should have been a service to the amateur
astronomical community; instead it appears to be an
example of vendor bias. If this is not the case, then
we must accept the idea that a first time telescope
user, who cannot purchase an extra eyepiece and
cannot operate a telescope without explicit
instructions (according to the magazine's premise),
can nevertheless disassemble, collimate, and rebuild
a sealed instrument to endow it with acceptable
optics.

S&T describes taking delivery of an Edmund Scientific
Astroscan that could not come to a sharp focus. Its
staff then returned it and received another that was
out of collimation and.... presumably could not come to a
sharp focus. The Astroscan is not designed to be collimated
by users, and the practice is strongly discouraged in the
accompanying literature. Despite that fact, the S&T staff of
experts disassembled and rebuilt their second instrument to
make it perform acceptably - though still imperfectly. They
then had the temerity to actually recommend the Astroscan,
on the basis of the rebuilt scope's (tepid) performance.

A rational, impartial observer would have had to disqualify
the Astroscan on the basis of quality control issues (poor
optics), design problems (impossibility of user collimation
and a primary mirror cell that pinches the optics), and
delivery issues (poor undajustable collimation upon
arrival). S&T did not do this, so simple logic compels me
to conclude that the magazine is not impartial, or that it is
not rational, or that it is not an observer. The procedure
was certainly not scientific, as the term "Test Report" implies,
and was evidently designed to confirm preconceived opinions.

Yes, the Astroscan was once an acceptable instrument. Yes,
many S&T readers have fond childhood memories of the
Astroscan. Yes the Astroscan has fine eyepieces. Yes,
Edmund Scientific is a reputable dealer with excellent
phone support. Alas, S&T's experience with the *present
day* Astroscan telescope, *as delivered*, reflects my own.
I certainly cannot recommend it, and I am astonished that
S&T did, given identical information.

Ethically, the rating is on a par with a teacher who erases
the incorrect responses of favored students and supplies
correct ones. (Indeed, it is a lie to call the procedure a
"Test" since favored vendors were not allowed to fail.) This
is more than a matter of ethics, however; it has substance as
well. What happens when a first time telescope user
purchases an Astroscan, and draws a sample from the same
universe that S&T sampled? The article betrays that first
time telescope buyer - the very person it pretends to aid.

-Larry Curcio

I was also a little curious about any corelation between advertising
and reviews. Here's what I found: Orion had the top 4 spots in the
reviews. Meade had 4 of the 5 lowest rankings. Then I counted ads. I
forget the exact number, but Meade had the most by far, and Orion the
least of the big 3.

So, not only there no evidence of bias in favor of their advertisers,
they actually hammer their biggest advertiser with reviews like "Shaky
mount, below-average optics." I should have expected that considering
S&T's reputation. Someone should do the same with Car & Driver.

While the Astroscan sounds like crap, it is a 114mm reflector up
against 70mm dept store refractors.

I think S&T did real well. And their top two picks (XT45 and
Starblast) have won rave reviews in many other places.

Greg

Their conclusion was likely motivated by the fact that Edmund
advertises the Astroscan in the magazine. As with any of their reviews
-- particularly with products advertised -- read between the lines.
They were honest enough to point out the problems with the product vs
actual performance. In the end it is left to the reader to draw their
own conclusion. One may listen to someones' opinion/conclusion that
this or that is a good scope or not, but it is just one opinion, expert
or not. Examine the evidence offered and make your own judgement.
Failure to do so is one's own fault which runs rampant thruout America,
and is one reason we are overrun with corrupt and anti-constitution
politicians.

urban astronomer wrote:
Their conclusion was likely motivated by the fact that Edmund
advertises the Astroscan in the magazine.

Hi:

You have some _evidence_ of this? Or is it just a "feeling"?

Hi:

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Join the SCT User Mailing List.
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/sct-user
============================
See my home page at
http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland/index.htm
for further details!
============================
For Uncle Rod's Astro Blog See:
http://journals.aol.com/rmollise/UncleRodsAstroBlog/

"urban astronomer" wrote in message oups.com...
Their conclusion was likely motivated by the fact that Edmund
advertises the Astroscan in the magazine.

Have you actually READ the reviews or just took Larry's
letter at face value. I have(read the article) and concur
with Rod Mollise's comments.

Furthermore, if the ratings correlated with ad dollars
then the Meade scopes should have been top rated instead
of receiving the low ratings they did. The top rated
scopes were the Orions.

--

Hilton Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lon -71° 04' 35.3"
Lat +42° 11' 06.7"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Webcam Astroimaging
http://mysite.verizon.net/hiltonevan...troimaging.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
http://www.chempensoftware.com

Worst thing about the Astroscan; Focus creep in cold weather.
Apart from that, is a robust rich field scope.

urban astronomer wrote:
Their conclusion was likely motivated by the fact that Edmund
advertises the Astroscan in the magazine. As with any of their reviews
-- particularly with products advertised -- read between the lines.
They were honest enough to point out the problems with the product vs
actual performance. In the end it is left to the reader to draw their
own conclusion. One may listen to someones' opinion/conclusion that
this or that is a good scope or not, but it is just one opinion, expert
or not. Examine the evidence offered and make your own judgement.
Failure to do so is one's own fault which runs rampant thruout America,
and is one reason we are overrun with corrupt and anti-constitution
politicians.


Ah .. S&T as the next ENRON? Seems unlikely.

I've always had fond memories of the Astroscan I owned in the late 80s
until I gave it away 4-5 years ago. Especially noteworthy were the great
views of a total solar eclipse from So Calif in Jan of 1992 (or was it
1991?). Had it outfitted with a glass solar filter, necessary plumber's
special counterbalance and on a PVC tripod of my making (S&T article, as
I recall). Lots of folks got to see the eclipse with my Astroscan that day.

Just to compare my fond memories with reality, I borrowed it back a year
or two ago. Good views at 16x (sort of the default magnification with
the standard EP, as I remember now). At higher powers it quickly became
seriously flawed, compared to an ST-80 refractor I was using for A-B
testing (not my best refractor, but I was striving for fairness).

Still, a nice starter scope for the kids of the fellow I gave it to, and
likely for many. These days it may be a bit overpriced relative to the
small Orion Dobs.

Phil