Questar should have made a 5" Mak-Cass

On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 11:15:38 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 14 February 2016 10:49:13 UTC-5, wrote:
On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 6:30:31 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
I'd have liked one. I've owned the 3.5" and the 7" and believe 5" would be idea. Still relatively portable, yet with sufficient aperture to be used under less than good skies, assuming you look at other things than planets.

As it is, I've got 2 5" Meade ETXs, but I miss the Questar mount.

The Questar was to have been 130mm originally, but 90mm was chosen as more affordable, versatile and practical. The rest is history.

No criticism about their choice for the premiere scope, the 90mm was a good choice.

Here's another 90mm 'scope from ~the same era:

http://www.philharrington.net/skyscop.jpg

wrote:
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 8:02:46 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:

So you have no answer Mr wannabe freeloader!

There are people in your country who make much more than you and pay
quite a bit more in taxes to "support" your government (such as it is.)

You are not paying your fair share.




Ludicrous!

Their money comes from the pockets of people like me. So does all the money
paying for parasites like tax lawyers, public relations consultant,
advertising agencies and accountants that they employ.

Try harder.

On Tuesday, 1 March 2016 09:57:59 UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 11:15:38 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 14 February 2016 10:49:13 UTC-5, wrote:
On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 6:30:31 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
I'd have liked one. I've owned the 3.5" and the 7" and believe 5" would be idea. Still relatively portable, yet with sufficient aperture to be used under less than good skies, assuming you look at other things than planets.

As it is, I've got 2 5" Meade ETXs, but I miss the Questar mount.

The Questar was to have been 130mm originally, but 90mm was chosen as more affordable, versatile and practical. The rest is history.

No criticism about their choice for the premiere scope, the 90mm was a good choice.

Here's another 90mm 'scope from ~the same era:

http://www.philharrington.net/skyscop.jpg

Don't like the mounting. TWANGGGG!

On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 12:49:56 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 March 2016 09:57:59 UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 11:15:38 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 14 February 2016 10:49:13 UTC-5, wrote:
On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 6:30:31 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
I'd have liked one. I've owned the 3.5" and the 7" and believe 5" would be idea. Still relatively portable, yet with sufficient aperture to be used under less than good skies, assuming you look at other things than planets.

As it is, I've got 2 5" Meade ETXs, but I miss the Questar mount.

The Questar was to have been 130mm originally, but 90mm was chosen as more affordable, versatile and practical. The rest is history.

No criticism about their choice for the premiere scope, the 90mm was a good choice.

Here's another 90mm 'scope from ~the same era:

http://www.philharrington.net/skyscop.jpg

Don't like the mounting. TWANGGGG!

The mount can be replaced, but for looking at the Moon and some bright objects, is usable.

On Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:13:08 UTC-5, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 12:49:56 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 March 2016 09:57:59 UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 11:15:38 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 14 February 2016 10:49:13 UTC-5, wrote:
On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 6:30:31 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
I'd have liked one. I've owned the 3.5" and the 7" and believe 5" would be idea. Still relatively portable, yet with sufficient aperture to be used under less than good skies, assuming you look at other things than planets.

As it is, I've got 2 5" Meade ETXs, but I miss the Questar mount.

The Questar was to have been 130mm originally, but 90mm was chosen as more affordable, versatile and practical. The rest is history.

No criticism about their choice for the premiere scope, the 90mm was a good choice.

Here's another 90mm 'scope from ~the same era:

http://www.philharrington.net/skyscop.jpg

Don't like the mounting. TWANGGGG!

The mount can be replaced, but for looking at the Moon and some bright objects, is usable.

Probably has a spherical mirror, given its focal ratio and aperture.

On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 6:48:06 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:13:08 UTC-5, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 12:49:56 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 March 2016 09:57:59 UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 11:15:38 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 14 February 2016 10:49:13 UTC-5, wrote:
On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 6:30:31 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
I'd have liked one. I've owned the 3.5" and the 7" and believe 5" would be idea. Still relatively portable, yet with sufficient aperture to be used under less than good skies, assuming you look at other things than planets.

As it is, I've got 2 5" Meade ETXs, but I miss the Questar mount.

The Questar was to have been 130mm originally, but 90mm was chosen as more affordable, versatile and practical. The rest is history.

No criticism about their choice for the premiere scope, the 90mm was a good choice.

Here's another 90mm 'scope from ~the same era:

http://www.philharrington.net/skyscop.jpg

Don't like the mounting. TWANGGGG!

The mount can be replaced, but for looking at the Moon and some bright objects, is usable.

Probably has a spherical mirror, given its focal ratio and aperture.

~1/12 wave, assuming it's a good sphere.

On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 12:03:04 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 8:02:46 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:

So you have no answer Mr wannabe freeloader!

There are people in your country who make much more than you and pay
quite a bit more in taxes to "support" your government (such as it is.)

You are not paying your fair share.




Ludicrous!

Their money comes from the pockets of people like me.

Then don't buy their products and services. Problem solved.

So does all the money
paying for parasites like tax lawyers,

Making your tax system fair and simple would obviate the need for tax lawyers.

public relations consultant,
advertising agencies

No doubt the NHS has spent some (tax) money on PR and advertising.

and accountants that they employ.

You've never had to hire an accountant or financial adviser?

Try harder.

Done.

wrote:
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 12:03:04 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 8:02:46 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:

So you have no answer Mr wannabe freeloader!

There are people in your country who make much more than you and pay
quite a bit more in taxes to "support" your government (such as it is.)

You are not paying your fair share.




Ludicrous!

Their money comes from the pockets of people like me.

Then don't buy their products and services. Problem solved.

And their government subsidies and tax breaks?
What about commercial TV. I watch very little of this but the higher prices
due to advertising costs can't be escaped.
Commercial free to air TV channels cost everybody, even those with no TV,
much more than the BBC.

So does all the money
paying for parasites like tax lawyers,

Making your tax system fair and simple would obviate the need for tax lawyers.

Certainly would. But your "fair tax" would make things far worse. You would
need a whole Stazi to prevent fraud.

public relations consultant,
advertising agencies

No doubt the NHS has spent some (tax) money on PR and advertising.

Public service announcements only. Useful for vaccination, public health,
epidemics etc.


and accountants that they employ.

You've never had to hire an accountant or financial adviser?

No. Explain why I should.

Try harder.

Done.

Try harder

On Tuesday, 1 March 2016 19:33:38 UTC-5, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 6:48:06 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:13:08 UTC-5, wrote:
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 12:49:56 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Tuesday, 1 March 2016 09:57:59 UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 11:15:38 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 14 February 2016 10:49:13 UTC-5, wrote:
On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 6:30:31 PM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
I'd have liked one. I've owned the 3.5" and the 7" and believe 5" would be idea. Still relatively portable, yet with sufficient aperture to be used under less than good skies, assuming you look at other things than planets.

As it is, I've got 2 5" Meade ETXs, but I miss the Questar mount.

The Questar was to have been 130mm originally, but 90mm was chosen as more affordable, versatile and practical. The rest is history.

No criticism about their choice for the premiere scope, the 90mm was a good choice.

Here's another 90mm 'scope from ~the same era:

http://www.philharrington.net/skyscop.jpg

Don't like the mounting. TWANGGGG!

The mount can be replaced, but for looking at the Moon and some bright objects, is usable.

Probably has a spherical mirror, given its focal ratio and aperture.

~1/12 wave, assuming it's a good sphere.

I highly doubt that figure.

On Wednesday, March 2, 2016 at 7:00:17 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 12:03:04 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:

Their money comes from the pockets of people like me.

Then don't buy their products and services. Problem solved.

And their government subsidies and tax breaks?

Get rid of the income taxes and there won't be any subsidies or tax breaks, not that they are actually getting such things now.

What about commercial TV. I watch very little of this but the higher prices
due to advertising costs can't be escaped.
Commercial free to air TV channels cost everybody, even those with no TV,
much more than the BBC.

Spoken like a true communist.

In fact, advertising usually LOWERS prices through increased sales and competition. Not that how a business runs its business is any of YOUR business.


So does all the money
paying for parasites like tax lawyers,

Making your tax system fair and simple would obviate the need for tax lawyers.

Certainly would. But your "fair tax" would make things far worse. You would
need a whole Stazi to prevent fraud.

You clearly do not understand the fair tax or anything about how it would be administered or implemented.


public relations consultant,
advertising agencies

No doubt the NHS has spent some (tax) money on PR and advertising.

Public service announcements only. Useful for vaccination, public health,
epidemics etc.

Such announcements should be unnecessary. The British sheep should simply show up on schedule for their shots and always do as they are told.

and accountants that they employ.

You've never had to hire an accountant or financial adviser?

No. Explain why I should.

If you have no need of them, then have no opinion about them.