Past, Present and Future of the SCT

"Rockett Crawford" wrote

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?

Yes, that would prevent the Sea Monkeys from falling out of the poked holes.

Howard Lester

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

"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.

Small manufacturers usually pick a niche that the majors do not fill, and
do a very good job of meeting the needs of those who want something from
within that niche. This can be EITHER high end scopes, or low end scopes.
Or any where in between. Very few little guys choose to go head to head
with the big boys. And usually have no interest in doing so anyway...
They can sell all they can make of what the big boys don't want for lack
of sufficient volume interest...


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.

That's true of pretty much any maker in any segment, to the extent they
can justify it by increased sales, or improved efficiency of manufacture.
But it doesn't change what I said.


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

Yes. So have lots of other manufacturers. No argument there at all. But
that wasn't my point.


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

Jan:

No you are wrong, what the market cares about is price/quality ratio. Take one
of my graduate classes if you want to know what drives markets. You are simply
an opinon of one with no supportive quantitative studies. Today consumers and
information is driving price lower and quality higher in many items. I think
many here have experienced that in the images we get from Celestron and Meade
SCTs.

If you've got information showing that today's consumers are "not in the game"
I'm sure we'd all like to see it.

Regards,

Jeff Lee

Jan Owen wrote:

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

Jan:

Do you know what a product life cycle is? How about feedback for firms can
make products that better fit the needs of consumers? Your "facts" are just
unsupported opinions.

Jan Owen wrote:

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. And when you buy a scope from them,
that's a vote for them making another just like it. Call it whatever you
want to. Draw whatever conclusions you want from that. But that's how it
is...

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

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

--
To reply, remove the "z" if one appears in my address
"artwork1" wrote in message
...
Jan:

No you are wrong, what the market cares about is price/quality ratio.
Take one
of my graduate classes if you want to know what drives markets. You are
simply
an opinon of one with no supportive quantitative studies. Today
consumers and
information is driving price lower and quality higher in many items. I
think
many here have experienced that in the images we get from Celestron and
Meade
SCTs.

I've got bad news about today's graduates. The overall quality of today's
graduates is a far cry from those of yesteryear. As for yours, I have no
data... Since you know nothing of my qualifications, you are the one with
unsupported opinions.


If you've got information showing that today's consumers are "not in the
game"
I'm sure we'd all like to see it.

Regards,

Jeff Lee

Jan Owen wrote:

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

Jan Owen wrote:

I've got bad news about today's graduates. The overall quality of today's
graduates is a far cry from those of yesteryear.

Ummm ... in terms of technical college graduates, I suspect you are
wrong. They learn things in high school that we didn't learn until
college. And they are learning a more advanced state-of-the art.

Phil

--
To reply, remove the "z" if one appears in my address
"Phil Wheeler" wrote in message
...
Jan Owen wrote:

I've got bad news about today's graduates. The overall quality of
today's
graduates is a far cry from those of yesteryear.

Ummm ... in terms of technical college graduates, I suspect you are
wrong. They learn things in high school that we didn't learn until
college. And they are learning a more advanced state-of-the art.

Phil

And a significant number of them can't read, write, or reason.

I agree with you, a seemingly small difference physically can be very important
subjectively. .
For example, I find that the images of deep sky objects in a Wessling or
Zambuto mirror (I have heard that Royce mirrors are very good also) are very high
in contrast as well as being much brighter than in smaller scopes. . I like top
quality reflectors because bright, high contrast images of deep sky objects are
very important to me..
It is illuminating to ask, what is a particular kind of telescope best at, and
what does it excel at compared to other designs?
I feel feel SCT's are excellent for teaching, because of goto, and good
eyepiece position, and compactness of the tube in an observatory.. In addition,
SCT's are easily adapted for what I would call narrow-field imaging.
As for APO's, I think they have few if any rivals for wide field
astrophotography. They produce wonderful results in that realm. They are also
superb, maybe unrivaled, for widefield visual viewing.
I don't feel qualified to hazard an opinion on whether any particular design is
better than others for planetary observation.
Bill Meyers

Chris1011 wrote:

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! ;-)

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 Christen

But only those who "want" to Phil...even at the college level,
that number has dropped dramatically. I think Jan is correct.
IMHO,
Tom W.




Phil Wheeler wrote:
Jan Owen wrote:

I've got bad news about today's graduates. The overall quality of
today's
graduates is a far cry from those of yesteryear.


Ummm ... in terms of technical college graduates, I suspect you are
wrong. They learn things in high school that we didn't learn until
college. And they are learning a more advanced state-of-the art.

Phil

John Steinberg wrote:
Yes, that would prevent the Sea Monkeys from falling out of the
poked holes.

It's contributions like the immediately above that define pure genius.

Sure--in the negative. :-P

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt