Past, Present and Future of the SCT

Hi Gang:

The .ppt slides from my 2003 ALCON presentation, "The Past, Present and
Future of the Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope" are now available for download on
my
website at the url below. Just choose "Uncle Rod's Presentations" from the menu

of choices. As I have time, and if there is sufficient interest, I'll post
some of my other .ppt presentations.
Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

Very interesting reading, Uncle Rod. One question however which I've
been curious for a while now and was not fulfilled by your great slide
presentation ;-). Why is it that neither Celestron nor Meade ever produce
a planetary SCT? That is, somehing about f/15 with a small 22-23%
secondary? (Ok, Meade makes the 7" MCT but it ain't SCT).

Thanks,
Ron B[ee]
--------------

"Rod Mollise" wrote in message
...
Hi Gang:

The .ppt slides from my 2003 ALCON presentation, "The Past, Present and
Future of the Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope" are now available for download
on
my
website at the url below. Just choose "Uncle Rod's Presentations" from the
menu

of choices. As I have time, and if there is sufficient interest, I'll post
some of my other .ppt presentations.
Peace,
Rod Mollise
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

I've
been curious for a while now and was not fulfilled by your great slide
presentation ;-). Why is it that neither Celestron nor Meade ever produce
a planetary SCT?

Hi Ron:

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.

When the SCT really took off, what propelled it in part was deepsky imaging
(photography, that is :-)). The general assumption was that nobody would stand
for a scope with a native f/r greater than f/10 anymore.

And I think what prevents the introduction of this now is the same thing that
prevents the introduction of a premium f/10 SCT, or a heavy duty
astrophotographer's scope. You've got two companies locked in a mortal struggle
for a finite number of customers, who've made it clear they are willing to pay
1000 - 3500 for an SCT. And that they want goto and everything else on it. In
this environment, I can't see either Meade or Celestron taking a chance on a
"special" telescope.

There are plenty of MCTs out there that'll fill your bill, anyway, though I'll
admit that 8 inch and larger maks ain't exactly cheap. :-)

Oh, and a well collimated SCT will keep many a planetary observer happy and
even astounded. Believe it or no. ;-)


Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

I missed the presentation because my dumbass boss made me work.

Hey Rod,

Count this as at least one interested party.

Thanks

Tom T.

On 17 Jul 2003 17:26:49 GMT, (Rod Mollise) wrote:

Hi Gang:

The .ppt slides from my 2003 ALCON presentation, "The Past, Present and
Future of the Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope" are now available for download on
my
website at the url below. Just choose "Uncle Rod's Presentations" from the menu

of choices. As I have time, and if there is sufficient interest, I'll post
some of my other .ppt presentations.
Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

And I think what prevents the introduction of this now is the same thing
that
prevents the introduction of a premium f/10 SCT, or a heavy duty
astrophotographer's scope. You've got two companies locked in a mortal
struggle
for a finite number of customers, who've made it clear they are willing
to pay
1000 - 3500 for an SCT. And that they want goto and everything else on
it. In
this environment, I can't see either Meade or Celestron taking a chance
on a
"special" telescope.

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. There will always be upper end suppliers to give
the few hard core observers what they need (along with a few others who
simply MUST have bragging rights, but who really have no clue how to make
good use of a premium scope - these are the ones who also demand
interferometer documentation of just how good their scope is, because they
are incapable of evaluating it's optics themselves, and for them, it's the
numbers that matter anyway for bragging rights, not the images the scope
delivers).

Same thing goes for eyepieces. If you don't buy good eyepieces, you will
not extract the best performance your scope is capable of. But how often
each day do you see multiple people looking around SAA to see what the
absolutely cheapest eyepieces are, and where they can get them.

As long as cheap products are what folks want, that's what the large
companies will give them.

If you demand the best, you will pay premium prices, and you'll likely be
dealing with the same folks who provide the highest quality scopes.
That's the AP's, the TMB's, and the TEC's of the world.


There are plenty of MCTs out there that'll fill your bill, anyway,
though I'll
admit that 8 inch and larger maks ain't exactly cheap. :-)

Because their makers know that there will always be some who are willing
to pay an appropriate price for a high quality scope... But
unfortunately, not enough of them to cause the LARGER companies to tool
up...


Oh, and a well collimated SCT will keep many a planetary observer happy
and
even astounded. Believe it or no. ;-)


Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

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.

Hi Roland:

Me?! Wouldn't dream of it. There are, however, some very good C10s out there.
Not all of 'em, I'm sure, but some. ;-)


Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

Call me conservative if you like Jan, but I live in the real world and
I have to (unfortuneatly) work to a 'Bills first, astronomy stuff
second' rule.

I fully understand that buying less than premium eyepieces compromises
my viewing but don't you think getting those eyepieces at the expense
of getting my telescope re-possesed would be a tad foolish? ;O)

Gaz

"Jan Owen" wrote in message news:xFFRa.21086$zy.20504@fed1read06...



Same thing goes for eyepieces. If you don't buy good eyepieces, you will
not extract the best performance your scope is capable of. But how often
each day do you see multiple people looking around SAA to see what the
absolutely cheapest eyepieces are, and where they can get them.

As long as cheap products are what folks want, that's what the large
companies will give them.

There are, however, some very good C10s out there.
Not all of 'em, I'm sure, but some. ;-)

Good for what? Grabbing light? Certainly not for planetary studies. Today's
scopes run circles around that older design. I used to be a dealer for
Celestron back in the '70s, and have seen my share of scopes of that era. There
were none back then that I really had a hankering to own. Scopes made today at
Celestron are quite a bit better, but still have too large central obstruction
to be really effective planetary scopes.

Roland Christen

"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. :-)

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. ;-)