Posts Made By: Richard Anderson

If going from a 12" LX200 to a 5-8" SCT for transportability
seems like a huge aperture drop (and it is) WHY would you
consider going to a 6" refractor? You aren't one of those
people who think a refractor magically matches a reflector twice it's size, are you? If you don't know the sky or want
the convenience of Goto, stick with an SCT which provides the
most aperture and portability of any scope type.
I would suggest a Meade LX90 8" SCT as it is considerably lighter than an LX200 8" and it performs very similarly, with Goto, etc.

Absolutely jaw-dropping!!!

Seems like the huge wave of interest I saw in the late 1980s and 1990's has waned. I put it down to baby boomers buying in, still having memories of basic science interests and experiments done while children and teens in the late 1950s and 1960s. Many hobbies seem to have been supplanted by things like video games which offer faster, more visceral experiences for younger people, at least to most. It's too bad, but I saw the same thing happen with microscopy.

Looks like Celestron has downloaded
their last Meade song....

I saw the article about it in Photonics Spectra magazine.
It looks interesting, but that "mirror within a mirror" looks
complicated to fabricate (= expensive) so it will be interesting
to see which amateur telescope maker tackles one first.
Sure bet it won't be the manufacturers of current amateur telescopes.

Expect Nagler prices to stay down and possibly fall more.
Meade's Series 5000 14mm UW is being advertised now for
$169.00 from one source. This is FAR lower than the old 14mm
price. If the Meade eyepieces turn out to be on par with their
old gear or the TVs, this will exert a huge downforce on prices of
physically competitive eyepieces. Nagler still needs to keep his
production up to keep his costs in-line, but that will be hard to
do if lower priced Meade eyepieces start chewing away at his customer
base. However, if the Meade eyepieces are poor, Al will be dancing
in the street.

There are a few characteristics that make up an image
in a telescope:
Resolution: seeing the smallest detail
Sharpness: How good the detail looks
Contrast: Can you see all the "tones" in an object
Colour: How many shades

All of these are enhanced by aperture size, provided the scope is of good quality and the atmosphere allows for a steady enough image.
All aberrations contribute to image degradation, but
how much they degrade the image depends on the severity of
the aberration. People have "rated" various aberrations
but they can all ruin an image.
Why is a little apo better than a reflector?
-It's harder to make a good mirror set than a lens.
-The aberrations are doubled because you have two mirrors.
Having said that, if you use a diagonal on a refractor, the
effect is similar, though not as pronounced because you don't generally use all of the diagonal surface as you
would in a reflector.
-Reflective coatings on mirrors are still an inferior way
to "broadcast light" than transmission though and apo lens.
However, this is a point at which a larger aperture mirrored scope beats an apo in terms of the amount of detail (and how well you see the detail) on a planet or
deepsky object. Lots of people have debated what the
dividing line is, but from looking through more than a few
scopes, I'd say that if you compare a Newtonian reflector to an apochromatic refractor, a 6" reflector will show you
more details on planets and of course brighter, more detailed views of deepsky objects. For an SCT, it's a bit
different. Owing to their larger than a Newtonian (most of
the time) central obstruction, you need to add another inch
to the aperture of the SCT in the case of planets.
Here's an interesting thing; A 5" inexpensive achromatic
refractor will show deepsky objects far better than a 4"
apo. Also, a large scope can have poor sharpness but still show lots of detail owing to it's resolving power.
It all comes down to aperture since chromatic aberration doesn't play a big part in viewing deepsky
objects as they don't have enough illumination (except for
some stars) to make chromatic aberration much of an issue.
Good rule of thumb might be this:
If you want more detailed images than an apo, go 50% larger
with a GOOD reflector.

One observer (me) once used a technique were you do the outline
of the image, then divide it into numbered sections, and
simply write down basic descriptions for each section. If you've
observered enough deepsky, you can use a kind of shorthand, then
when you are inside and thawed out, you can re-do the sketch according
to the numbered diagram. It's almost like paint by number.
But it's easier to write words than properly sketch under those
conditions. Also, you can observe more objects since the bulk of the
sketchwork is done indoors after observing.

Judson Mitchell said:

Our club is attached to the local science center which provides a broad spectrum of science to the local schools. Unfortunately the general membership is not made up of those who are likely to go observing. That generally requires a significant trip away from the metropolis and even some of the more interested find the effort beyond that which tempts them.

Jud

Exactly. Astronomy isn't a passive hobby, it takes some effort to realize its true potential. Those who think they'll (through ignorance) set-up their new computerized scope in their suburban backyard (with their porch light on) and get the Hubble view are more and more the kind of people that seem to be beginners. They don't last more than a month. I know very few people in the hobby now who started as completely clueless, stuck it out and learned and stayed with the hobby. Mostly, because the people entering the hobby are too old to do all that. The hobbyist retiree in astronomy who is with the hobby longer than a year is rare. Hobbyists must start young, and they must have an inherent interest.