Jump to content

Narrowband

Charles Kirk

Members
  • Posts

    42
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Charles Kirk

  1. The production cost increases significantly when working to higher tolerances. That in combination with the additional optical elements in the baffle tube to correct for both coma and field curvature is the reason for the price difference. Also the margins tend to be higher on premium products. The white paper makes a good read, a skilfully executed technical sales document. For Visual some people are more sensitive to the coma in conventional SCT designs which makes the EdgeHD attractive. Another thing is that as interests evolve over time the EdgeHD is better futures proofed for an observer who starts out main interested in visual but becomes interested in imaging. The pricing in the UK is incredibly expensive compared to the US it looks as if Celestron want to preserve their profit margins in USD despite the fact that the telescopes are manufactured in China by Syntra.
  2. My first telescope, back in the 1980s, maybe around 1983/1984 was a Fullerscopes 8.75 inch 222mm f/7.25 on a Fullerscopes Mark III mount. It sound like this may be the same model. Quite an unusual mirror size. I have fond memories of that scope, superb views of star clusters and double stars.
  3. The result will be a Supernova Remnant rather than a planetary nebula, there are some important differences http://www.astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2013/08/planetary-nebulae-and-supernova-remnants
  4. Just to make the Aperture Fever a bit worse http://www.reginato.it/telescopes.htm 24inch heaviest part 26Kg. Italian engineering flare.
  5. We only have accurate brightness estimates for around 100 years, a very short period compared to the 100,000 year timespan in which it is anticipated that Betelgeuse may become a Supernova. I do think that it would be quite profound to see both the Sun and a Supernova in the sky at the same time.
  6. Well that's disappointing to hear. On the other hand, it's very good to hear that the mirror is good, as the rust and other minor issues I have read about would be solvable. They do seem to have been quite well received in the comments I have read.
  7. Was that a first generation model or a second generation model?
  8. Am I correct in assuming that the spot analysis is for the edge of a 2.0 inch (50mm) field for 20 inch RC and CC apertures? The analysis is very interesting and probably explains why they went for the CC design at f/12 instead of an f/12 RC design, the CC design being slightly easier to build. I don't understand the effective aperture discussion in the CN review https://www.cloudynights.com/articles/cat/user-reviews/telescopes/gso-8-inch-true-cassegrain-r3215 Using a smaller secondary will increase the contrast of fine planetary detail and reduce the fully illuminated field diameter which the review states is 100% over a 15mm diamater, but the effective aperture is going to be similar to that of a Celestron 8 Edge as they both have central obstructions of similar size. I wonder if the lower image brightness in the CC was one or both of higher magnification and a smaller fully illuminated field diameter .
  9. I think that all Skywatcher mirrors are parabolic 1/4pv (diffraction limited). The Skywatcher Explorer 130M looks to be the best choice out of those. I would not purchase from Amazon, much better to support a small company that specialises in telescopes like FLO.
  10. Good animation, it really brings home how much dimmer it is. I saw it on Friday evening, it was around the brightness of Bellatrix. The following article has some long term light curves. https://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/fainting-betelgeuse/
  11. Those upgrades look very useful, so I think it depends on whether you have the time and inclination to make those types of modifications yourself or prefer to pay more to have something that works well out of the box. The flocking would be time consuming to do, so the labour cost would account for some of the price difference.
  12. I wonder why they didn’t make an f/12 RC instead, which would be have a smaller central obstruction than the current f/8 models. I suspect that they wanted clearer product differentiation and saw a market for the classical Cassegrain design. No corrector plate to dew up saving the cost of a dew shield is certainly attractive.
  13. That's interesting, 19th Century theory still works! That would be a very interesting comparison.
  14. Dawes Limit assumes point sources, so it is more directly applicable to separating double stars than fine lunar and planetary detail.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.