Posts Made By: Mark Holden

Wayne Gay said:

Hello folks, I am looking at buying an apo or semi apo for a grab and go scope for imaging. I currently use an LX200 but it is becoming increasingly difficult to take with me as it takes up a lot of room in my car, and is quite heavy. I want to leave it in my observatory (nearly complete) and get an APO or Semi-Apo for field use. I currently have a televue TV-60 for my wide field work and have thought about getting a nice mount and using it for the time being, but I would prefer to go with something bigger, perhaps a 102mm or even a 127mm Apo. I have about two thousand to spend on scope and mount, so any of the top of the line apo's and mounts are out of range. There is a Meade 127 ED APO w/ 650 GOTO mount up for sale here and it is in my price range, but I hesitate because I haven't heard how well this scope and mount performs for astrophotography. I do like the fact that the mount is a goto, as I am fairly new to this hobby and am still learning the skies. I generally run a mount via my laptop and would prefer this ability. Does this mount allow this? Would I be better off getting a nice gm-8 with goto and using my TV-60? All help appreciated.

Steven Lynn said:

In my 10+ years of playing with telescopes I've only used tripods. I've never seen a simple comparison between the benefits and downsides of piers vs tripods.

I can understand the benefits of a pier in a permanent installation, but any comments comparing the two for portable equipment? The major point of course is stability, but there are all those other issues. Ergonomics, weight, hassle factor, ect. Is one generally superior to the other?

For example, I have kinda adapted to having the legs in the way. Are the feet of a tripod just a similar annoyance or in practice a great relief to not have legs in the way?

Current scopes: TV-85 on Vixen GP-very stable, Orange Tube C8 on the original tripod, 2-3 second vibration die down time.

Gary Smith said:

I also am considering a higher end refractor or a solar scope (not both). I just want to understand the quantitative values above and how they impact the viewing experience. I have an Orion 80ED and when I look at the moon it is crystal clear (what else is there?). I'll grant you it doesn't have the ability to see deeper like a larger refractor, or reflector does, but I'm just trying to see the value in these two benchmarks and practically what they represent. It kind of reminds me when the audio industry would market "THD" or total harmonic distortion, which to me was some marketing hype, the reality is if your hearing is damaged from working around power equipment etc. its pointless to go for some ultra expensive speakers/system because your ears will never perceive the 'fidelity'. I have 20/20 and 20/15 vision and I'm in my early 40's what I've noticed in the last 5 yrs. is how my night vision has worsened. I used to get up in the night and be able to make it around in a completely dark house with ease, now I have to proceed more cautiously. When I look at this scope: http://www.astromart.com/classifieds/details.asp?classified_id=363494 , (which must have superlative optics and a premium added to the price for the high benchmarks) I just want to know if when I look through the eyepiece if I am going to perceive any difference, otherwise whats the point? I'm very pragmatic and if there is no added value then I don't need to waste the money on something that is I guess only for bragging rights. Thank you for the replies and any clarity (no pun intended) you can offer.

Also what are the minimum strehl and wavefront values that are desired before the viewing experience is affected and what do you start to "see" when these values become inferior?

Jim Babcock said:

I warned you about the source.

The thesis of this article would be something like:

Even though 36 news agencies explained in a friend of the court brief, to preempt reporters from being held in contempt of court, that there was not a crime committed in the outing of Plume because Plume had already been outed long before by the CIA itself, the press was complicit in attacking Karl Rove for partisan reasons and simply has not reported evidence that supports Rove or anyone in the White House.

I had to use this source because I could not find a "mainstream" source that was reporting this even though if the story is correct there were 36 news organizations that signed the friend of the court brief.

The reported story discusses the facts provided by news agencies to the court to prove that Plume's outing could not have been a crime. Then the media proceeded to orchestrate an attack campaign with their complicit friends in the Democratic party to smear Karl Rove, even though they knew they were reporting lies.

This article again says that we should hold judgment on whether any crime was committed, but it presents a perspective that has not been heard before and is at least interesting.

David Pitre said:

I'm wondering how good/bad the first run discounted ones are.
Hows the 9mm?
David

Gary Carter said:

I recently purchased an Orion ED100 and after a night of evaluation I determined there was a problem. As it happens the spacers between the elements are visible in the FOV. A quick note to Orion's technical support confirms this and they are willing to either have me send it in or, at my option, open it up and move them back in the appropriate position. Being the typical "male-child" I'm not adverse to taking things apart and putting them together again (hopefully) - it's kind of challenging. But this assumes one has the willingness and the proper tools, which brings me to the question....

Where do I find a spanner wrench of the appropriate size to dissasemble the lens assembly?