Past, Present and Future of the SCT

On 17 Jul 2003 21:22:32 GMT, (Chris1011) wrote:

Well...Celestron sorta did at one time--the Celestron Pacific scopes were
f/13.
I think the reason you haven't seen something like this since is due to a
couple of factors.

There are a number of 10" Celestron Pacific scopes in this area. They do NOT
work all that well on the planets. The optics are rough, the baffling
nonexistent, and the obstruction quite large, same as present SCTs. Don't pine
for the past.

Roland Christen

And the rear cell and fork arms weigh a ton and hold heat too long.
I had a 10" for a few weeks....
-Rich

--
To reply, remove the "z" if one appears in my address
"Stephen Paul" wrote in message
...

"Jan Owen" wrote in message
news:ciIRa.21290$zy.1902@fed1read06...

I would take however long is necessary to save sufficient money
to buy the right equipment in the first place.

Once you've been around the block enough to know what that means. :-)

Yes. That's quite true. However, you don't HAVE to have all the
experience in the world to make the right decisions.

But if you are going to make the right decisions the first time around,
you'll need to do your homework well.

You need to decide if your current scope is your long term scope. And you
need to decide before THAT what your long term observing preferences are
(hard to know what's the right long term scope, if you don't have a handle
on this first).

Once you've determined those two things with relative certainty, the next
question becomes what magnifications and fields are required to deliver
the proper image scale for the objects you most often will be observing.

Next, you need to decide just how close together you want your
magnifications to be. That will determine how many eyepieces (or
eyepieces and Barlows) you're going to need (or force you to make some
decisions to limit that number...).

THEN, you need to decide whether, for your specific type of observing
needs, you need more high power, high contrast, lunar/planetary type
eyepieces (and you will need to decide here how important eye relief is in
your personal equation), or whether you need more low power, wide field
eyepieces. And if THAT is your choice, you need to decide how important
image quality in the outer field is to you. AND you will also need to
understand how your own eyes fit into the equation - if your eyes won't
open to 7mm, you shouldn't be wasting your time considering wide field
eyepieces that deliver a 7mm exit pupil). Once you know the answer to all
these questions, you can begin to make the right types of decisions...

I started my second major astro-equipment buying cycle with a suite of
TeleVue eyepieces. Now that I know I'm getting the most out of my
scopes,
I'm seeing that they need replacing too. ;-)

You obviously have a much different definition of "effective" than I do.
To
little, old me, the visual appearance and images of the planets in current
scopes, especially those produced by current Meade and Celestron 11 and 12
inch
SCTs are nothing short of amazing. They impress me, for whatever _that's_
worth, anyway! ;-)


Rod,

I think what you say is worth a lot
and tends to ring with experience, at least
with me (for whatever that's worth).


Rockett

--
Capella's Observatory
http://web2.airmail.net/capella

You've got this exactly right! What folks want is CHEAP. And they vote
with their dollars. And they have "won". Meade and Celestron have heard
them, and are providing surprisingly good scopes at quite reasonable
prices. And as long as that's what the buyers demand, that's what
they'll get. But these are NOT premium scopes. They are good value
scopes. The premiun scopes are provided by much smaller companies that
cater to those who demand the best and are willing to pay for it, and
willing to wait for it.

Jan,

There are some of us (including me) that enjoy usign both
what you call "CHEAP" scopes and premium scopes as well.
How do we score in this "game?"

BTW, I would add Takahashi and TV to your list of
telescopes that are supposed to elevate ordinary astronomers
to ones that are superior to others by simply owning
one. (Freud would have loved this). ;^)


take care,
Rockett

--
Capella's Observatory
http://web2.airmail.net/capella

You're not in the game. You're just voting. When you buy a cheap scope,
you're telling the manufacturers to make more cheap scopes, and you're NOT
telling them you want better quality scopes.

Where you, or anyone else, is concerned, there is nothing wrong with
owning, or wanting to own a cheap scope.

But you have to understand that when you buy one, you are voting against
that maker deciding to make a higher quality scope... That's all.
Nothing more, and nothing less.

--
To reply, remove the "z" if one appears in my address
"Rockett Crawford" wrote in message
...

You've got this exactly right! What folks want is CHEAP. And they
vote
with their dollars. And they have "won". Meade and Celestron have
heard
them, and are providing surprisingly good scopes at quite reasonable
prices. And as long as that's what the buyers demand, that's what
they'll get. But these are NOT premium scopes. They are good value
scopes. The premiun scopes are provided by much smaller companies
that
cater to those who demand the best and are willing to pay for it, and
willing to wait for it.

Jan,

There are some of us (including me) that enjoy usign both
what you call "CHEAP" scopes and premium scopes as well.
How do we score in this "game?"

BTW, I would add Takahashi and TV to your list of
telescopes that are supposed to elevate ordinary astronomers
to ones that are superior to others by simply owning
one. (Freud would have loved this). ;^)


take care,
Rockett

--
Capella's Observatory
http://web2.airmail.net/capella

You're not in the game. You're just voting.
When you buy a cheap scope, you're telling the
manufacturers to make more cheap scopes, and
you're NOT telling them you want better quality
scopes. Where you, or anyone else, is concerned,
there is nothing wrong with
owning, or wanting to own a cheap scope.

But you have to understand that when you buy one, you are voting against
that maker deciding to make a higher quality scope... That's all.
Nothing more, and nothing less.

Don't be offended, but this smacks of the old
"keeping up with the Jones" game. What you
describe as "cheap" scopes are not cheap,
there's not the vast gulf of quality being asserted,
and there aren't two simplistic groups of people,
one of which "demand the best."

Most people buy the best scopes
they can afford and ones that are right for
the application which isn't always a
4 or 5 inch apo, not because they
have inferior judgment.

As far as "voting," people who buy
SCTs are buying the best scope for
the amount of money they can afford.

Again, a 11 inch SCT may be a lot
better scope for someone viewing
Mars under typically good conditions
than a 4 inch apo which costs twice
as much.

If someone is voting, they are voting
for a valid market which makes sense,
not because they lack the judgment
of that superior group you describe.

;^)

best to you,
Rockett

--
Capella's Observatory
http://web2.airmail.net/capella

I think everything has been done with the SCT! You have GO-TO , Gem mounted ,
fork mounted, small and big SCT's.

I think the SCT has been beat to death !

Only thing to improve is better mounts, and maybe even better optics.

I say bring back the long focus Newt...

Chas P.

"Jan Owen" wrote in message
news:CvVRa.21439$zy.11932@fed1read06...
I'm not offended. And I'm not suggesting anyone should buy a scope they
can't afford. Nor am I espousing any particular brand or type of higher
quality scope. I'm just pointing out that the larger manufacturers will
make what is in demand. Period.

Small manufacturers will do the same. No business can
survive if no one will buy their product.

And when you buy a scope from them,
that's a vote for them making another just like it.

That's not always true. Some companies pre-emptively
improve their products without any drop off in sales
as better ways to design and manufacture come about.

SBig is a good example. They have been
routinely coming out with superior products to
the ones that are already selling like hotcakes.

Call it whatever you want to. Draw whatever
conclusions you want from that. But that's how it
is...

I think what you are basically saying is true. All
manufacturers produce products that they can
sell. If no one buys, they have to re-evaluate
why they are losing sales. Sometimes they change
their products for other reasons as well though.

take care,
Rockett

--
Capella's Observatory
http://web2.airmail.net/capella

Perhaps effective is the wrong word, since for some people an 80mm short
tube
achromat is an "effective" planetary scope. Obviously a C11 or Meade 12"
is a
powerful instrument for any use.

I guess the word is optimized. The difference may not be large for you,
but for
the dedicated planetary hound, that last 5% is an order of magnitude
between
seeing something and having it veiled in spilled over light.

Roland,

I like the way you rephrased this and I think it describes the situation
well. All other things being equal that last 5% starts to stand out for some
people with specific purposes.

Rockett


--
Capella's Observatory
http://web2.airmail.net/capella

I keep having this persistent image of an SCT with a mostly perforated
aluminum OTA. This to speed thermal equilibration. Further, the OTA
would come with a completely opaque fabric shroud to wrap when not in
use and once the OTA has cooled and/or under windy or light polluted
conditions.

This is probably as nutty an idea as my Assisted Living Home
franchises for elderly Sea Monkeys, but please spare no expense at
/poking holes/ in this concept.

John,

I think this is an excellent idea. Maybe the perforations
could be filtered to protect the optics inside?


Rockett

--
Capella's Observatory
http://web2.airmail.net/capella