| |
Main
Date: 22 Apr 2007 20:07:43
From: Anthony Ayiomamitis
Subject: Astrosib RC's
|
Dear Group,
I was wondering if someone has experience with the Astrosib RC's
(manufactured in Russia) which they can share (publically or in private
via email)?
Any comments most welcome.
Anthony.
|
|
| |
Date: 02 May 2007 11:59:36
From: atasselli@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
On 2 May, 02:43, "George Normandin" <georg...@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
> >> Anyone who knows optics would see right through Meades marketing BS and
> >> know that it is indeed exactly that. A gussied up SCT.
>
> > That doesn't mean they won't work well. Within that price bracket
> > there is little choice but the Meade's R line, I'm afraid.
>
> Andrea, et al;
>
> While I have no doubt that the Meade RCX and R scopes are good deals,
> what about a well made Newt with a coma reducing lens? I know several people
> who are using a Newt for imaging by replacing the secondary mirror with a
> CCD camera and have gotten good results. Just like an RC, premium Newt
> optics come with an interferogram test (or average of multiple tests in the
> case of OMI Torus).
I have one of such newtons but it isn't easy to use and beside that
there is the sheer bulk of it. I got an 300mm f/4 but to be honest
this is as large you want to go, with wind loading and all the
mechanical issues attached to newts.
Andrea T.
|
| | |
Date: 04 May 2007 00:44:41
From: George Normandin
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
< > wrote in
..
> On 2 May, 02:43, "George Normandin" wrote:
>> > That doesn't mean they won't work well. Within that price bracket
>> > there is little choice but the Meade's R line, I'm afraid.
>>
>> Andrea, et al;
>>
>> While I have no doubt that the Meade RCX and R scopes are good deals,
>> what about a well made Newt with a coma reducing lens? I know several
>> people
>> who are using a Newt for imaging by replacing the secondary mirror with a
>> CCD camera......
>
> I have one of such newtons but it isn't easy to use and beside that
> there is the sheer bulk of it. I got an 300mm f/4 but to be honest
> this is as large you want to go, with wind loading and all the
> mechanical issues attached to newts.
>
Andrea,
My friend Alan Chen has just about the same size rig and he promised to
bring it to the Cherry Springs Star Party later this month. I'll be very
interested to see it.
I've seen postings and images from a guy with an Obsession 25-inch with
StellarCat alt/az drive. For imaging he replaces the UTA with a home-made
set-up that includes a Pyxis field de-rotator
(http://www.optecinc.com/optec_023.htm), SBIG ST series camera and AO-7, and
coma reducer (all in place of the secondary mirror). The StellarCat will
take guiding inputs directly from the SBIG camera and will also control the
Pyxis. The AO-7 adjusts for any minor tracking error. I remember seeing his
early images where he had no idea how long to expose. He did an hour
exposure which was perfectly guided - unfortunately the galaxy he was
imaging was completely max-ed out. He said that the most difficult part was
collimation after the camera was on, but a stronger truss tube system could
solve that. It might not be the ideal imaging rig, but it's a lot cheaper
than a 25-inch Ritchey.
George N
|
| |
Date: 02 May 2007 06:02:11
From:
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
On May 1, 10:15 am, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On May 1, 1:34 am, b...@isi.edu (Brian Tung) wrote:
>
>
>
> > M104gal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Surely you are aware of the endless posts in this group berating Meade
> > > for its RCX line claiming it is just a gussied up SCT and nowhere
> > > comparable to an RC. I was simply broadening the original "good deal
> > > Russian RC" thread a bit to suggest that Jason Ware has proved that
> > > the RCX is indeed a very good alternative to a classic RC, at a
> > > greatly reduced price. See the article in the latest issue of
> > > Astronomy magazine.
>
> > Even stipulating that there are "endless posts" in this newsgroup about
> > that, Anthony's post wasn't one of them. To pull his post out to make a
> > point about a host of other posts seems unreasonably opportunistic. He
> > did imply that Jason's skills were instrumental in producing the results
> > he got from his possibly hand-picked RCX. It did not seem back-handed
> > at all to me.
>
> > At any rate, it seems apparent Anthony did not mean what you thought he
> > meant, or do you insist that he must be insincere?
>
> > --
> > Brian Tung <b...@isi.edu>
> > The Astronomy Corner athttp://astro.isi.edu/
> > Unofficial C5+ Home Page athttp://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
> > The PleiadAtlas Home Page athttp://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
> > My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) athttp://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
>
> Anthony is indeed insincere. My original post was not directed at him
> in any way. He took it upon himself to respond to my general post
> directing folks to the Astronomy article on Ware and he suggest that
> Ware's RCX results were a result of "handpicked optics". Of course,
> ALL RCOS built to order scopes are hand-picked by definition aren't
> they? At 5 times the cost of the Meade. Takes many months to get this
> handmade RCOS scope doesn't it?
>
> Handpicked SCT optics?? Is it your expert optical opinion that the RCX
> optical design is not significantly superior to the SCT optical design
> for astropics?
>
> A simple yes or no will suffice.
>
> And is it your opinion that the two RCX reviews in Sky & Tel and
> Astronomy magazines ( both of which stated that the RCX delivered "RC
> type performance" were dishonest? Or written by incompetent reviewers?
>
> Geez, you guys bend yourselves into pretzels to avoid giving Mead any
> credit. It is highly amusing to me. How, exactly, can a "handpicked
> SCT" deliver "RC type performance"?
I've looked through the thread and can not find any negative
refrerence positive or negative about the Meade RCX. The thread
revolves around the AstroSIB optics and the difficulty in the
construction of a RC by amateurs. Only when M104galaxy@gmail.com
started posting were there references to the RCX. In that post
M104galaxy@gmail.com posted:
"Of course, none of them are as good as those on the web site of
that"famous astrophotograher " who knows all and will not use
Meadeequipment--"a tasselli".
If you have any doubts about Tasselli's superior skills, why, just ask
him. "
Why M104galaxy@gmail.com insulted Anthony and moved the thread to a
"let's all sing the praises of Meade" is beyond me.
M104galaxy@gmail.com is worse than a troll, anything to do with a RC
scope and suddenly it's about Meade and how wonderful the RCX is.
Sorry part is even Meade now says that the RCX is not a RC but an
aplanatic SCT
|
| |
Date: 01 May 2007 11:02:06
From: atasselli@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
On 1 May, 11:50, "William R. Mattil" <wrmat...@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
> M104gal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Surely you are aware of the endless posts in this group berating Meade
> > for its RCX line claiming it is just a gussied up SCT and nowhere
> > comparable to an RC.
>
> Anyone who knows optics would see right through Meades marketing BS and
> know that it is indeed exactly that. A gussied up SCT.
That doesn't mean they won't work well. Within that price bracket
there is little choice but the Meade's R line, I'm afraid.
Andrea T.
|
| | |
Date: 02 May 2007 01:43:39
From: George Normandin
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
>>
>> Anyone who knows optics would see right through Meades marketing BS and
>> know that it is indeed exactly that. A gussied up SCT.
>
> That doesn't mean they won't work well. Within that price bracket
> there is little choice but the Meade's R line, I'm afraid.
>
Andrea, et al;
While I have no doubt that the Meade RCX and R scopes are good deals,
what about a well made Newt with a coma reducing lens? I know several people
who are using a Newt for imaging by replacing the secondary mirror with a
CCD camera and have gotten good results. Just like an RC, premium Newt
optics come with an interferogram test (or average of multiple tests in the
case of OMI Torus).
While the RCX & R are very nice scopes I think that they could be
improved. The biggest improvement would be to be able to adjust the
collimation of the primary mirror. It would also be nice to get an
interferogram with the scope that documents the quality of the optical
system.
At NEAF I asked the Meade rep when/if Meade will sell the RCX as a tube
assembly. He said that Meade is reviewing the possibility of that now, but
to do it would require a re-design of the electronics controls since they
reside in the mount. He said that if it happens it won't be "right away".
George N
|
| | | |
Date: 02 May 2007 03:14:52
From: lal_truckee
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
George Normandin wrote:
> I know several people
> who are using a Newt for imaging by replacing the secondary mirror with a
> CCD camera
Good grief - you know people who actually know what and where the prime
focus is?
|
| | |
Date: 01 May 2007 21:22:25
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
atasselli@hotmail.com wrote:
> That doesn't mean they won't work well. Within that price bracket
> there is little choice but the Meade's R line, I'm afraid.
>
Andrea,
Absolutely. In fact the RCX series solves some real issues that SCT's
are plagued with. But that still doesn't make them an RC. Let alone a
Hubble for your Backyard <g >
To name two ....
Fixed primary
faster focal ratio
Bill
|
| |
Date: 01 May 2007 08:18:39
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
On May 1, 5:50 am, "William R. Mattil" <wrmat...@ix.netcom.com > wrote:
> M104gal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Surely you are aware of the endless posts in this group berating Meade
> > for its RCX line claiming it is just a gussied up SCT and nowhere
> > comparable to an RC.
>
> Anyone who knows optics would see right through Meades marketing BS and
> know that it is indeed exactly that. A gussied up SCT.
>
> > I was simply broadening the original "good deal
> > Russian RC" thread a bit to suggest that Jason Ware has proved that
> > the RCX is indeed a very good alternative to a classic RC, at a
> > greatly reduced price. See the article in the latest issue of
> > Astronomy magazine.
>
> Since you continually bring up Mr. Wares name you should probably know
> that he most likely did not spend his own money on the RCX. It was
> gratis from Meade. Were he to spend his own money his choices would
> likely be different. You seem to be blissfully unaware of this. Also the
> larger "Professional Series" Or whatever Meade calls it, is only on
> loan to him.
>
> > To dismiss this proposition out of hand and suggest that Ware's
> > results are a result of "hand picked optics" is puerile and misses the
> > point completely.
>
> Not at all. This proves that you simply "Don't get it"
>
> > I attributed perhaps too much intelligence to those
> > who missed the point.
>
> Your status as an Troll is thus confirmed.
>
>
>
> > And, again, if the basic RCX design is a fraud as so many in this
> > group have argued, how could a hand picked set of a fraudulent design
> > produce such outstanding astropics?
>
> Perhaps they show that in the hands of a competent imager even a crappy
> optical system is capable of reasonable images ? And your statement also
> proves that you haven't seen many images taken with a real RC
>
> > i don't expect a direct answer--easier to dismiss the obvious answer
> > with "troll" talk.
>
> You actually have nothing of value to add to *any* discussion regarding
> RC's.
>
> Bill
Someday, perhaps, your astrophotography skills will approach those of
Ware but I doubt it regardless of how much money you throw at high
end, custom built "handpicked" scopes.
|
| | |
Date: 01 May 2007 21:19:43
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
M104galaxy@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Someday, perhaps, your astrophotography skills will approach those of
> Ware but I doubt it regardless of how much money you throw at high
> end, custom built "handpicked" scopes.
>
Maybe, Maybe not ... One thing I am certain of though is that my images
are far better than anything you have ever taken.
So either produce something other than mindless rhetoric or shut up.
Bill
|
| |
Date: 01 May 2007 08:15:54
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
On May 1, 1:34 am, b...@isi.edu (Brian Tung) wrote:
> M104gal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Surely you are aware of the endless posts in this group berating Meade
> > for its RCX line claiming it is just a gussied up SCT and nowhere
> > comparable to an RC. I was simply broadening the original "good deal
> > Russian RC" thread a bit to suggest that Jason Ware has proved that
> > the RCX is indeed a very good alternative to a classic RC, at a
> > greatly reduced price. See the article in the latest issue of
> > Astronomy magazine.
>
> Even stipulating that there are "endless posts" in this newsgroup about
> that, Anthony's post wasn't one of them. To pull his post out to make a
> point about a host of other posts seems unreasonably opportunistic. He
> did imply that Jason's skills were instrumental in producing the results
> he got from his possibly hand-picked RCX. It did not seem back-handed
> at all to me.
>
> At any rate, it seems apparent Anthony did not mean what you thought he
> meant, or do you insist that he must be insincere?
>
> --
> Brian Tung <b...@isi.edu>
> The Astronomy Corner athttp://astro.isi.edu/
> Unofficial C5+ Home Page athttp://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
> The PleiadAtlas Home Page athttp://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
> My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) athttp://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
Anthony is indeed insincere. My original post was not directed at him
in any way. He took it upon himself to respond to my general post
directing folks to the Astronomy article on Ware and he suggest that
Ware's RCX results were a result of "handpicked optics". Of course,
ALL RCOS built to order scopes are hand-picked by definition aren't
they? At 5 times the cost of the Meade. Takes many months to get this
handmade RCOS scope doesn't it?
Handpicked SCT optics?? Is it your expert optical opinion that the RCX
optical design is not significantly superior to the SCT optical design
for astropics?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
And is it your opinion that the two RCX reviews in Sky & Tel and
Astronomy magazines ( both of which stated that the RCX delivered "RC
type performance" were dishonest? Or written by incompetent reviewers?
Geez, you guys bend yourselves into pretzels to avoid giving Mead any
credit. It is highly amusing to me. How, exactly, can a "handpicked
SCT" deliver "RC type performance"?
|
| | |
Date: 01 May 2007 22:09:38
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
M104galaxy@gmail.com wrote:
> Anthony is indeed insincere.
I disagree.
> Handpicked SCT optics?? Is it your expert optical opinion that the RCX
> optical design is not significantly superior to the SCT optical design
> for astropics?
I don't know. I'm not an optical expert, nor do I have oodles and
oodles of experience with RCXs. I'm merely speaking to what Anthony
actually said, as opposed to what you read into his post.
> Geez, you guys bend yourselves into pretzels to avoid giving Mead any
> credit.
What amazing imaginary things you do read into people's posts. Read
what I actually wrote, as opposed to what you read into it. I have no
trouble with Meade's equipment or its quality.
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
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.html
|
| |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 07:02:37
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
On Apr 29, 5:13 pm, b...@isi.edu (Brian Tung) wrote:
> M104gal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > If the Meade RCX design is that inferior to a "classic" RC, what
> > difference would it make if the "RCX is handpicked by Meade"?
>
> Why the antecedent? Anthony never claimed the RCX design was inferior
> to a classic RC. His suggestion that it might have been hand-picked
> logically implies that he thinks that a hand-picked RCX is better than
> a run-of-the-mill RCX--not (necessarily) better or worse than a classic
> RC, hand-picked or otherwise.
>
> --
> Brian Tung <b...@isi.edu>
> The Astronomy Corner athttp://astro.isi.edu/
> Unofficial C5+ Home Page athttp://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
> The PleiadAtlas Home Page athttp://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
> My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) athttp://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
Surely you are aware of the endless posts in this group berating Meade
for its RCX line claiming it is just a gussied up SCT and nowhere
comparable to an RC. I was simply broadening the original "good deal
Russian RC" thread a bit to suggest that Jason Ware has proved that
the RCX is indeed a very good alternative to a classic RC, at a
greatly reduced price. See the article in the latest issue of
Astronomy magazine.
To dismiss this proposition out of hand and suggest that Ware's
results are a result of "hand picked optics" is puerile and misses the
point completely. I attributed perhaps too much intelligence to those
who missed the point.
And, again, if the basic RCX design is a fraud as so many in this
group have argued, how could a hand picked set of a fraudulent design
produce such outstanding astropics?
i don't expect a direct answer--easier to dismiss the obvious answer
with "troll" talk.
|
| | |
Date: 01 May 2007 10:50:52
From: William R. Mattil
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
M104galaxy@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Surely you are aware of the endless posts in this group berating Meade
> for its RCX line claiming it is just a gussied up SCT and nowhere
> comparable to an RC.
Anyone who knows optics would see right through Meades marketing BS and
know that it is indeed exactly that. A gussied up SCT.
> I was simply broadening the original "good deal
> Russian RC" thread a bit to suggest that Jason Ware has proved that
> the RCX is indeed a very good alternative to a classic RC, at a
> greatly reduced price. See the article in the latest issue of
> Astronomy magazine.
Since you continually bring up Mr. Wares name you should probably know
that he most likely did not spend his own money on the RCX. It was
gratis from Meade. Were he to spend his own money his choices would
likely be different. You seem to be blissfully unaware of this. Also the
larger "Professional Series" Or whatever Meade calls it, is only on
loan to him.
> To dismiss this proposition out of hand and suggest that Ware's
> results are a result of "hand picked optics" is puerile and misses the
> point completely.
Not at all. This proves that you simply "Don't get it"
> I attributed perhaps too much intelligence to those
> who missed the point.
Your status as an Troll is thus confirmed.
>
> And, again, if the basic RCX design is a fraud as so many in this
> group have argued, how could a hand picked set of a fraudulent design
> produce such outstanding astropics?
Perhaps they show that in the hands of a competent imager even a crappy
optical system is capable of reasonable images ? And your statement also
proves that you haven't seen many images taken with a real RC
> i don't expect a direct answer--easier to dismiss the obvious answer
> with "troll" talk.
You actually have nothing of value to add to *any* discussion regarding
RC's.
Bill
|
| | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 23:34:14
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
M104galaxy@gmail.com wrote:
> Surely you are aware of the endless posts in this group berating Meade
> for its RCX line claiming it is just a gussied up SCT and nowhere
> comparable to an RC. I was simply broadening the original "good deal
> Russian RC" thread a bit to suggest that Jason Ware has proved that
> the RCX is indeed a very good alternative to a classic RC, at a
> greatly reduced price. See the article in the latest issue of
> Astronomy magazine.
Even stipulating that there are "endless posts" in this newsgroup about
that, Anthony's post wasn't one of them. To pull his post out to make a
point about a host of other posts seems unreasonably opportunistic. He
did imply that Jason's skills were instrumental in producing the results
he got from his possibly hand-picked RCX. It did not seem back-handed
at all to me.
At any rate, it seems apparent Anthony did not mean what you thought he
meant, or do you insist that he must be insincere?
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
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.html
|
| |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 10:38:07
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
On Apr 29, 4:04 am, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr >
wrote:
> M104gal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> >>>>>The current issue of Astronomy magazine features Jason Ware and
> >>>>>displays many of his first rate astrophotos taken with a 12" Meade
> >>>>>RCX.
>
> > 1. Is the Meade RCX optical design superior to a same size Celestron
> > SCT for astrophotography ( assuming neither has manufacturing
> > defects )??
>
> Who cares? I certainly don't! I quoted a specific portion of text and
> replied TO IT!
>
>
>
> > 2. Does the performance of a Meade RCX, for astrophotography, come
> > very close to that of the RC optical design of comparable aperture?
>
> Who cares? I certainly don't!
>
>
Another Meade-bashing self important twit. Your refusal to address the
questions speaks volumes. "Who cares"?? Perhaps those who would
rather pay $8,000 US for a big RCX with mount rather than, say,
$30,000 for a same size RCOS. And your tacit admission that Jason Ware
is very talented is amusing.
How, exactly, can you "hand pick" a claimed flawed design. You are a
joke!
|
| | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 20:44:12
From: Anthony Ayiomamitis
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
M104galaxy@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 29, 4:04 am, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>M104gal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>>>>>>>The current issue of Astronomy magazine features Jason Ware and
>>>>>>>displays many of his first rate astrophotos taken with a 12" Meade
>>>>>>>RCX.
>
>
>
>>>1. Is the Meade RCX optical design superior to a same size Celestron
>>>SCT for astrophotography ( assuming neither has manufacturing
>>>defects )??
>>
>>Who cares? I certainly don't! I quoted a specific portion of text and
>>replied TO IT!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>2. Does the performance of a Meade RCX, for astrophotography, come
>>>very close to that of the RC optical design of comparable aperture?
>>
>>Who cares? I certainly don't!
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Another Meade-bashing self important twit. Your refusal to address the
> questions speaks volumes. "Who cares"?? Perhaps those who would
> rather pay $8,000 US for a big RCX with mount rather than, say,
> $30,000 for a same size RCOS. And your tacit admission that Jason Ware
> is very talented is amusing.
>
> How, exactly, can you "hand pick" a claimed flawed design. You are a
> joke!
>
The only joke is this particular subthread you started and I am now
washing my hands of YOU!
Personally I do not care about the Meade RCX since it does NOT interest
me. Make sense now? Why should it?
As for the "hand picking", I hope you realize that all manufacturers
have minimum production specifications to which they adhere to ... and
that some units exceed the minimum specs more than others ... and "hand
picking" refers to the idea that someone within the company will hand
pick a unit which exceeds the minimum specs more than other units of the
same product.
Anyway, this is all beyond you .... just look at the subthread.
Please troll (anonymously) elsewhere.
Anthony.
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 17:46:34
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
On Apr 28, 7:15 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr >
wrote:
> M104gal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Apr 28, 4:43 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr>
> > wrote:
>
> >>M104gal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>On Apr 27, 11:57 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> >>>>On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 04:53:50 GMT, "George Normandin"
>
> >>>The current issue of Astronomy magazine features Jason Ware and
> >>>displays many of his first rate astrophotos taken with a 12" Meade
> >>>RCX.
>
> >>Jason has a lot of advertising on his website which may suggest that he
> >>collaborates with Meade and, perhaps, his RCX is hand-picked and/or
> >>custom-made.
>
> >>Just a possible scenario and not to distract from his skills and quality
> >>of work!
>
> >>Anthony.
>
> > If the Meade RCX design is that inferior to a "classic" RC, what
> > difference would it make if the "RCX is handpicked by Meade"? Are you
> > thus agreeing with the proposition that the RCX design, if properly
> > executed, really is far superior to an ordinary SCT for
> > astrophotography??
>
> > And surely you are not suggesting that Meade sent Ware a custom made
> > "classic" RC instead of its RCX??
>
> Excuse me but where do I bring in the "RC vs RCX" issue? Go back and
> read my comments CAREFULLY (in fact, just READ them this time).
>
> I am wondering if Jason's RCX is representative of the complete line or
> just a hand-picked premium example.
>
> You sure make gross extrapolations!
>
> Anthony.
Ok, lets take it very slowly; I realize English is not your native
tongue.
1. Is the Meade RCX optical design superior to a same size Celestron
SCT for astrophotography ( assuming neither has manufacturing
defects )??
2. Does the performance of a Meade RCX, for astrophotography, come
very close to that of the RC optical design of comparable aperture?
This thread, by the way, deals with RC scopes, right? "Astrosib RC"
ring a bell?
|
| | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 12:04:12
From: Anthony Ayiomamitis
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
M104galaxy@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 28, 7:15 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr>
> wrote:
>
>>M104gal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 28, 4:43 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>M104gal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Apr 27, 11:57 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 04:53:50 GMT, "George Normandin"
>>
>>>>>The current issue of Astronomy magazine features Jason Ware and
>>>>>displays many of his first rate astrophotos taken with a 12" Meade
>>>>>RCX.
>>
>>>>Jason has a lot of advertising on his website which may suggest that he
>>>>collaborates with Meade and, perhaps, his RCX is hand-picked and/or
>>>>custom-made.
>>
>>>>Just a possible scenario and not to distract from his skills and quality
>>>>of work!
>>
>>>>Anthony.
>>
>>>If the Meade RCX design is that inferior to a "classic" RC, what
>>>difference would it make if the "RCX is handpicked by Meade"? Are you
>>>thus agreeing with the proposition that the RCX design, if properly
>>>executed, really is far superior to an ordinary SCT for
>>>astrophotography??
>>
>>>And surely you are not suggesting that Meade sent Ware a custom made
>>>"classic" RC instead of its RCX??
>>
>>Excuse me but where do I bring in the "RC vs RCX" issue? Go back and
>>read my comments CAREFULLY (in fact, just READ them this time).
>>
>>I am wondering if Jason's RCX is representative of the complete line or
>>just a hand-picked premium example.
>>
>>You sure make gross extrapolations!
>>
>>Anthony.
>
>
>
>
> Ok, lets take it very slowly; I realize English is not your native
> tongue.
I am suspecting the same for you on the basis of this message and the
previous one.
>
> 1. Is the Meade RCX optical design superior to a same size Celestron
> SCT for astrophotography ( assuming neither has manufacturing
> defects )??
Who cares? I certainly don't! I quoted a specific portion of text and
replied TO IT!
>
> 2. Does the performance of a Meade RCX, for astrophotography, come
> very close to that of the RC optical design of comparable aperture?
Who cares? I certainly don't!
>
> This thread, by the way, deals with RC scopes, right? "Astrosib RC"
> ring a bell?
>
So? I replied to specific text which I quoted. Again, go back and see my
original message involving Astronomy Magazine!
Anthony.
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 17:40:15
From: atasselli@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
On 28 Apr, 21:14, "M104gal...@gmail.com" <M104gal...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Apr 27, 11:57 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 04:53:50 GMT, "George Normandin"
>
> The current issue of Astronomy magazine features Jason Ware and
> displays many of his first rate astrophotos taken with a 12" Meade
> RCX.
>
> Of course, none of them are as good as those on the web site of that
> "famous astrophotograher " who knows all and will not use Meade
> equipment--"a tasselli".
No, in fact not even close enough.
>
> If you have any doubts about Tasselli's superior skills, why, just ask
> him.
Indeed.
Andrea T.
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 16:05:54
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
On Apr 28, 4:43 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr >
wrote:
> M104gal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Apr 27, 11:57 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> >>On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 04:53:50 GMT, "George Normandin"
>
> > The current issue of Astronomy magazine features Jason Ware and
> > displays many of his first rate astrophotos taken with a 12" Meade
> > RCX.
>
> Jason has a lot of advertising on his website which may suggest that he
> collaborates with Meade and, perhaps, his RCX is hand-picked and/or
> custom-made.
>
> Just a possible scenario and not to distract from his skills and quality
> of work!
>
> Anthony.
If the Meade RCX design is that inferior to a "classic" RC, what
difference would it make if the "RCX is handpicked by Meade"? Are you
thus agreeing with the proposition that the RCX design, if properly
executed, really is far superior to an ordinary SCT for
astrophotography??
And surely you are not suggesting that Meade sent Ware a custom made
"classic" RC instead of its RCX??
|
| | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 15:13:24
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
M104galaxy@gmail.com wrote:
> If the Meade RCX design is that inferior to a "classic" RC, what
> difference would it make if the "RCX is handpicked by Meade"?
Why the antecedent? Anthony never claimed the RCX design was inferior
to a classic RC. His suggestion that it might have been hand-picked
logically implies that he thinks that a hand-picked RCX is better than
a run-of-the-mill RCX--not (necessarily) better or worse than a classic
RC, hand-picked or otherwise.
--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
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.html
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Apr 2007 03:28:46
From: Anthony Ayiomamitis
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
Brian Tung wrote:
> M104galaxy@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>If the Meade RCX design is that inferior to a "classic" RC, what
>>difference would it make if the "RCX is handpicked by Meade"?
>
>
> Why the antecedent? Anthony never claimed the RCX design was inferior
> to a classic RC. His suggestion that it might have been hand-picked
> logically implies that he thinks that a hand-picked RCX is better than
> a run-of-the-mill RCX--not (necessarily) better or worse than a classic
> RC, hand-picked or otherwise.
>
Brian,
Thanks for the confirmation about the content of my messages in this
subthread. I am convinced we just have someone trolling and no more.
Anthony.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 03:15:52
From: Anthony Ayiomamitis
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
M104galaxy@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 28, 4:43 pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr>
> wrote:
>
>>M104gal...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 27, 11:57 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 04:53:50 GMT, "George Normandin"
>>
>>>The current issue of Astronomy magazine features Jason Ware and
>>>displays many of his first rate astrophotos taken with a 12" Meade
>>>RCX.
>>
>>Jason has a lot of advertising on his website which may suggest that he
>>collaborates with Meade and, perhaps, his RCX is hand-picked and/or
>>custom-made.
>>
>>Just a possible scenario and not to distract from his skills and quality
>>of work!
>>
>>Anthony.
>
>
>
> If the Meade RCX design is that inferior to a "classic" RC, what
> difference would it make if the "RCX is handpicked by Meade"? Are you
> thus agreeing with the proposition that the RCX design, if properly
> executed, really is far superior to an ordinary SCT for
> astrophotography??
>
> And surely you are not suggesting that Meade sent Ware a custom made
> "classic" RC instead of its RCX??
>
Excuse me but where do I bring in the "RC vs RCX" issue? Go back and
read my comments CAREFULLY (in fact, just READ them this time).
I am wondering if Jason's RCX is representative of the complete line or
just a hand-picked premium example.
You sure make gross extrapolations!
Anthony.
|
| |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 13:14:01
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
On Apr 27, 11:57 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 04:53:50 GMT, "George Normandin"
>
>
The current issue of Astronomy magazine features Jason Ware and
displays many of his first rate astrophotos taken with a 12" Meade
RCX.
Of course, none of them are as good as those on the web site of that
"famous astrophotograher " who knows all and will not use Meade
equipment--"a tasselli".
If you have any doubts about Tasselli's superior skills, why, just ask
him.
|
| | |
Date: 29 Apr 2007 00:43:10
From: Anthony Ayiomamitis
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
M104galaxy@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 27, 11:57 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 04:53:50 GMT, "George Normandin"
>>
>>
>
>
> The current issue of Astronomy magazine features Jason Ware and
> displays many of his first rate astrophotos taken with a 12" Meade
> RCX.
Jason has a lot of advertising on his website which may suggest that he
collaborates with Meade and, perhaps, his RCX is hand-picked and/or
custom-made.
Just a possible scenario and not to distract from his skills and quality
of work!
Anthony.
|
| |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 11:16:10
From: M104galaxy@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
On Apr 26, 8:57 am, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 04:27:11 GMT, "George Normandin"
>
> <georg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >While it is possible for an amateur to make an RC, the
> >design does have greater mechanical tolerance requirements than other
> >designs.
>
> IMO, not significantly so. I did mechanical designs for both a 0.5m and
> a 1.0 meter RC, and the mechanical requirements are not significantly
> different than for a classical Cassegrain. Unless I were designing for
> an optimum minimal design (for instance, a scope that needed to be
> optimally light for some reason), I wouldn't be looking at a different
> mechanical system for either. Both would be sufficiently over-engineered
> that flexure would be significantly smaller than necessary to impact
> optical performance.
>
> Again, building an RC is well within the capabilities of many ATMs.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com
If the ATM approach is workable and OMI-Torus figures RC optical sets,
that would seem to be the only way to go. I have seen OMI's optical
work and it is far superior to Star Optical. Portability is obviously
not a design goal here. You don't load big RC's with their mounts in
the back of your car.
RCOS would seem to have a HUGE profit mark-up in their RC scope
assembly offerings; probably OGS does as well.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 04:53:50
From: George Normandin
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
< > wrote
>
> If the ATM approach is workable and OMI-Torus figures RC optical sets,
> that would seem to be the only way to go. I have seen OMI's optical
> work and it is far superior to Star Optical. Portability is obviously
> not a design goal here. You don't load big RC's with their mounts in
> the back of your car.
>
> RCOS would seem to have a HUGE profit mark-up in their RC scope
> assembly offerings; probably OGS does as well.
>
OMI will make you the entire telescope. Both Parallax and OGS will make you
a scope with what ever optics you want, so you can order OMI optics or
Russian optics.
I own scopes with both OMI-Torus and Star Instruments optics, but the Torus
is a 20" F/5 Newt, not an RC. I have interferogram tests on the 10 & 20 RC,
and the 20-inch Torus Newt. The Torus mirror is superior in all ways -
except coma - which is of course why I own an RC to begin with. If you're
not doing imaging an RC is waste of money. The main error on both Star
Insturments mirror sets is astigmatism: about a fifth wave on the 20 and an
eighth wave on the 10. I'm not sure if OMI RC optics are any better than
SI's, and for the most part it wouldn't matter. All three scopes are
excellent for 'real world' use. OGS does not make much money - for years it
was a losing enterprise. It's just John's "hobby" business and provides
employment for about 5 full timers and another 10 or so part timers - and
gives John and his friends a chance to use the scopes before he ships them.
John makes his 'real money' as the owner of the Stiles Funeral Home. (OGS is
in the basement of the funeral home!!) BTW, for 16-inch and larger
telescopes OGS does on-site installation, polar alignment, collimation, and,
if you don't like it, you get your money back and he takes it away. One
final point: I'm not sure if this is true with RCOS, but OGS scopes have
primary mirror blanks that are slightly larger than the stated size. The
outer quarter inch or so is masked by the mirror mount and is actually
unfinished - as a precaution against turned-down-edge. So the blank in the
20 RC I use is 20.75 inches, but only 20 inches is used.
George N
|
| |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 04:51:15
From: atasselli@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 01:43:08 -0500, KLM <mlk@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> >Please explain -
> >Thanks.
>
> I disagree that an RC has significantly different mechanical demands
> than other designs. It does have very critical collimation requirements,
> so you need things to be solid and stable, but that is true of any well
> built telescope.
>
> Figuring RC optics is a job for experts, but constructing a telescope
> around them is well within the means of anybody with good tools and good
> mechanical aptitude.
No, it isn't that easy, both in general terms and in specifc (to the
RCs) terms. Because positional tolerances are tighter than other
designs mechnical tolerences are tighter too and that makes the task
even more harder than already is for a Cassegrain. Because of the mass
of the primary and the centering tolerances you really want to use a
secondary focusing system on top of any you might have at the back
end, just to mention an issue that you wouldn't probably be bothered
with in a Dall-Kirkham. This said, if you feel you're up to the task
go ahead and let us see the results :)
Andrea T.
|
| |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 05:44:40
From: atasselli@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
KLM wrote:
> "atasselli@hotmail.com" wrote:
>
> > On 22 Apr, 18:07, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr>
> > wrote:
> > > Dear Group,
> > >
> > > I was wondering if someone has experience with the Astrosib RC's
> > > (manufactured in Russia) which they can share (publically or in private
> > > via email)?
> > >
> >
> > >From what I know (from an italian dealer) they are OK, I mean the
> > optics not the scopes (of which I don't know anything about).
> >
> > You can check few images taken by RCs with Astrosib's optics in at the
> > following link:
> >
> > http://www.astrotech.it/italiano/gallery/foto_ultime.htm
> >
> > Unfortunately comments are in italian.
> >
> > I wouldn't considering building my telescope though, RCs are real dogs
> > to get to work all right.
> >
>
> Please explain -
> Thanks.
>
Tight tolerances, difficult baffling at f/8. Never mind the other bits
like mirror cells, supports, tube and so on.
Andrea T.
|
| |
Date: 22 Apr 2007 11:29:46
From: atasselli@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
On 22 Apr, 18:07, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr >
wrote:
> Dear Group,
>
> I was wondering if someone has experience with the Astrosib RC's
> (manufactured in Russia) which they can share (publically or in private
> via email)?
>
>From what I know (from an italian dealer) they are OK, I mean the
optics not the scopes (of which I don't know anything about).
You can check few images taken by RCs with Astrosib's optics in at the
following link:
http://www.astrotech.it/italiano/gallery/foto_ultime.htm
Unfortunately comments are in italian.
I wouldn't considering building my telescope though, RCs are real dogs
to get to work all right.
Andrea T.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 01:43:08
From: KLM
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
"atasselli@hotmail.com" wrote:
> On 22 Apr, 18:07, Anthony Ayiomamitis <anth...@perseus.no2spam.gr>
> wrote:
> > Dear Group,
> >
> > I was wondering if someone has experience with the Astrosib RC's
> > (manufactured in Russia) which they can share (publically or in private
> > via email)?
> >
>
> >From what I know (from an italian dealer) they are OK, I mean the
> optics not the scopes (of which I don't know anything about).
>
> You can check few images taken by RCs with Astrosib's optics in at the
> following link:
>
> http://www.astrotech.it/italiano/gallery/foto_ultime.htm
>
> Unfortunately comments are in italian.
>
> I wouldn't considering building my telescope though, RCs are real dogs
> to get to work all right.
>
Please explain -
Thanks.
>
> Andrea T.
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Apr 2007 15:39:24
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 01:43:08 -0500, KLM <mlk@mchsi.com > wrote:
>Please explain -
>Thanks.
I disagree that an RC has significantly different mechanical demands
than other designs. It does have very critical collimation requirements,
so you need things to be solid and stable, but that is true of any well
built telescope.
Figuring RC optics is a job for experts, but constructing a telescope
around them is well within the means of anybody with good tools and good
mechanical aptitude.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 04:27:11
From: George Normandin
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
"Chris L Peterson" < > wrote
>
> I disagree that an RC has significantly different mechanical demands
> than other designs. It does have very critical collimation requirements,
> so you need things to be solid and stable, but that is true of any well
> built telescope.
>
> Figuring RC optics is a job for experts, but constructing a telescope
> around them is well within the means of anybody with good tools and good
> mechanical aptitude.
>
Chris, et al:
I considered building a RC back in the early 90's before I got a key to
Kopernik Observatory and its new (at the time) OGS 20-inch RC, and then I
bought my 10-inch RC tube from OGS in 1995 ( It was made as a test of
non-standard optional parts, like a large Tak focuser, and a slightly longer
focal ratio, with a smaller secondary, that never made it into OGS
commercial scopes). While it is possible for an amateur to make an RC, the
design does have greater mechanical tolerance requirements than other
designs. Tube flex that would not show much impact in a Newt, classical
Cass, or SCT will impact an RC. Basically you need to beef up the tube
strength and mirror mount adjustment accuracy compared to other designs, and
that becomes more difficult with size. John Stiles of OGS has told me that a
few thousandths of an inch flex in an RC tube is enough to measurably
degrade the image, but would be un-noticeable in an SCT or classical Cass.
About 4 years ago I saw a home-made 16-inch RC at Stellafane. The guy
built the scope and did the optics himself. The scope was an alt-az Dob
style, and had a third flat mirror, that sent the focus out thru the center
of one of the altitude bearings. The focuser was thus always at the same
height and just right for seated observation. The entire scope, truss tube
and alt/az mount, was made from riveted square Al tubing and used commercial
mirror mounts. The scope had a very good star test, and won first prize at
Stellafane that year.
I prefer OGS as a supplier of RCs (- but then what do I know??). However
there are other RC makers in the US who are suppose to be good, including
RCOS, Parallax, and OMI (who also makes RC mirror sets). OMI is probably
best known to amateurs as the maker of 'Torus' brand Newt mirrors used in
big Dobs (I have one in my Obsession 20 that is excellent), but they also
make classical Cass and RC mirror sets and have built pretty large (up to
40-inch) Cass's (http://www.opticalmechanics.com/cassegrain_telescopes.htm).
George Normandin
|
| | | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 13:57:37
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 04:27:11 GMT, "George Normandin"
<georgepn@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
>While it is possible for an amateur to make an RC, the
>design does have greater mechanical tolerance requirements than other
>designs.
IMO, not significantly so. I did mechanical designs for both a 0.5m and
a 1.0 meter RC, and the mechanical requirements are not significantly
different than for a classical Cassegrain. Unless I were designing for
an optimum minimal design (for instance, a scope that needed to be
optimally light for some reason), I wouldn't be looking at a different
mechanical system for either. Both would be sufficiently over-engineered
that flexure would be significantly smaller than necessary to impact
optical performance.
Again, building an RC is well within the capabilities of many ATMs.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 10:39:43
From: William C. Keel
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu > wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 04:27:11 GMT, "George Normandin"
> <georgepn@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>While it is possible for an amateur to make an RC, the
>>design does have greater mechanical tolerance requirements than other
>>designs.
> IMO, not significantly so. I did mechanical designs for both a 0.5m and
> a 1.0 meter RC, and the mechanical requirements are not significantly
> different than for a classical Cassegrain. Unless I were designing for
> an optimum minimal design (for instance, a scope that needed to be
> optimally light for some reason), I wouldn't be looking at a different
> mechanical system for either. Both would be sufficiently over-engineered
> that flexure would be significantly smaller than necessary to impact
> optical performance.
> Again, building an RC is well within the capabilities of many ATMs.
One thing that gets your attention with an RC faster than, say, a
Newtonian seems to be decentering between primary and secondary.
I was shocked to find out how bad the images got on a 16" RC
with no more than maybe 1.5mm of centering shift.
Bill Keel
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Apr 2007 16:29:30
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
On 26 Apr 2007 10:39:43 -0500, "William C. Keel"
<keel@bildad.astr.ua.edu > wrote:
>One thing that gets your attention with an RC faster than, say, a
>Newtonian seems to be decentering between primary and secondary.
>I was shocked to find out how bad the images got on a 16" RC
>with no more than maybe 1.5mm of centering shift.
Yes, the positioning of the components on a RC is very critical, which
is one reason why collimating them is such a bear, much more so than
with a Cassegrain.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 04:53:50
From: George Normandin
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
"Chris L Peterson" < > wrote
>>One thing that gets your attention with an RC faster than, say, a
>>Newtonian seems to be decentering between primary and secondary.
>>I was shocked to find out how bad the images got on a 16" RC
>>with no more than maybe 1.5mm of centering shift.
>
> Yes, the positioning of the components on a RC is very critical, which
> is one reason why collimating them is such a bear, much more so than
> with a Cassegrain.
Chris, et al:
Collimation of an RC? A bear? Tell me about it! :)
Sean Walker (of S&T) and I spent about an hour at Stellafane working on
my 10-inch until John Stiles of OGS happened by and had it dead on in about
5 minutes! Now I have John tweak up my 10 every year. When's the last time
the prez of Celestron or Meade went to a star party and went around
collimating customers' scopes! :)
John hasn't only designed 40 inch RCs, he builds and sells them and he
beefs up the RCs compared to classical Cass's (and the Newts he use to sell
when people would buy them). Not only do the mirror mounts in an RC have to
have precise adjustments, but the tube can't flex much either. However, I'm
sure that a talented ATM with access to a good machine shop could build a
successful RC. It just needs more strength and precision mechanical parts
than other designs.
George N
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Apr 2007 04:57:51
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 04:53:50 GMT, "George Normandin"
<georgepn@worldnet.att.net > wrote:
> Sean Walker (of S&T) and I spent about an hour at Stellafane working on
>my 10-inch until John Stiles of OGS happened by and had it dead on in about
>5 minutes! Now I have John tweak up my 10 every year. When's the last time
>the prez of Celestron or Meade went to a star party and went around
>collimating customers' scopes! :)
I'm not sure I'd want him to!
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| |
Date: 22 Apr 2007 17:14:05
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:07:43 +0300, Anthony Ayiomamitis
<anthony@perseus.no2spam.gr > wrote:
>I was wondering if someone has experience with the Astrosib RC's
>(manufactured in Russia) which they can share (publically or in private
>via email)?
>
>Any comments most welcome.
Publicly, please! I'm also interested.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | |
Date: 22 Apr 2007 20:24:40
From: Anthony Ayiomamitis
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:07:43 +0300, Anthony Ayiomamitis
> <anthony@perseus.no2spam.gr> wrote:
>
>
>>I was wondering if someone has experience with the Astrosib RC's
>>(manufactured in Russia) which they can share (publically or in private
>>via email)?
>>
>>Any comments most welcome.
>
>
> Publicly, please! I'm also interested.
Chris, here is something to make one drool:
http://www.astrosib.ru/astrosib_rc400_optics.html ....
Anthony.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Apr 2007 17:29:06
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:24:40 +0300, Anthony Ayiomamitis
<anthony@perseus.no2spam.gr > wrote:
>Chris, here is something to make one drool:
>http://www.astrosib.ru/astrosib_rc400_optics.html ....
Thanks. That looks great. Now that I'm no longer considering RCOS as a
supplier, I'm seriously considering building a scope. But I'm not
considering making my own optics. The price given seems very reasonable.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Apr 2007 01:52:09
From: Davoud
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote:
> >Chris, here is something to make one drool:
> >http://www.astrosib.ru/astrosib_rc400_optics.html
Chris L Peterson replied:
> Thanks. That looks great. Now that I'm no longer considering RCOS as a
> supplier, I'm seriously considering building a scope. But I'm not
> considering making my own optics. The price given seems very reasonable.
Interesting. Not long ago I gave some thought to what it might take to
build an R-C, but I looked at optics prices and decided to think about
something else. At those prices, one might reconsider.
I know that "ataselli" is correct in noting that "RCs are real dogs to
get to work all right," but there are a few companies around me that
have experience in fabricating OTA's, trusses, and the like for NASA
and other government agencies, and their prices are not extreme minus
the optics...
Davoud
Excited about attending NEAIC and NEAF this week!
--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Apr 2007 20:34:16
From: Anthony Ayiomamitis
Subject: Re: Astrosib RC's
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 20:24:40 +0300, Anthony Ayiomamitis
> <anthony@perseus.no2spam.gr> wrote:
>
>
>>Chris, here is something to make one drool:
>>http://www.astrosib.ru/astrosib_rc400_optics.html ....
>
>
> Thanks. That looks great. Now that I'm no longer considering RCOS as a
> supplier, I'm seriously considering building a scope. But I'm not
> considering making my own optics. The price given seems very reasonable.
Glad to be of help. The pricing is indeed very reasonable and especially
as far as Europe is concerned where we have to worry about high taxes
and duties.
Anthony.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> Chris L Peterson
> Cloudbait Observatory
> http://www.cloudbait.com
|
|
