• Astro-Physic's new 111mm refractor. The price?

    From RichA@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 26 17:23:47 2022
    Somewhere around $6k I'd guess? Looks like a terrific scope, one that you could use for photography and that wouldn't put you off going out and observing because you didn't want the hassle of dealing with a big scope.
    Appears they've possibly gotten away from Feathertouch focusers, Feathertouch may be having issues with demand being too high.

    https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-giucqvpdlm/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/602/1339/110GTX_Karen_web__24280.1653079956.jpg?c=2

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From palsing@21:1/5 to RichA on Thu May 26 18:20:25 2022
    On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 5:23:48 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
    Somewhere around $6k I'd guess? Looks like a terrific scope, one that you could use for photography and that wouldn't put you off going out and observing because you didn't want the hassle of dealing with a big scope.
    Appears they've possibly gotten away from Feathertouch focusers, Feathertouch may be having issues with demand being too high.

    https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-giucqvpdlm/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/602/1339/110GTX_Karen_web__24280.1653079956.jpg?c=2

    Well, the 130 mm version is $7490...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From StarDust@21:1/5 to RichA on Thu May 26 22:09:28 2022
    On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 5:23:48 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
    Somewhere around $6k I'd guess? Looks like a terrific scope, one that you could use for photography and that wouldn't put you off going out and observing because you didn't want the hassle of dealing with a big scope.
    Appears they've possibly gotten away from Feathertouch focusers, Feathertouch may be having issues with demand being too high.

    https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-giucqvpdlm/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/602/1339/110GTX_Karen_web__24280.1653079956.jpg?c=2

    Takahashi FSQ-106EDX4 Quadruplet Refractor Astrograph OTA - TQE10630

    https://www.highpointscientific.com/takahashi-fsq-106edx4-quadruplet-refractor-astrograph-ota-tqe10630?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cse&utm_term=TAK-TQE10630&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=12954387354&utm_content=122162854216&utm_term=&
    gclid=CjwKCAjwyryUBhBSEiwAGN5OCN3IlcLMkQ0t6u0O8VVAJKLyHa83KeuHVHriU3u3y-Rm3suD8h0SHxoCMeAQAvD_BwE

    $6390 only!
    Utterly perfect
    Review by Gary C. on 27 Feb 2020review stating Utterly perfectI couldn’t have wished for a better telescope. High Point Scientific delivered my “Tak” flawlessly and quickly (and price matched!) and it’s a *beautiful* instrument. Sublime
    engineering and flawless optics makes this telescope a joy to use. The focuser works extremely well with zero slippage, zero backlash, and exquisite fine control. But just waRead more about review stating Utterly perfectit until you see the images! The
    huge image circle (88 mm) makes regular DSLR full frame sensors practically free of any vignetting. For those of you planning to use this with Canon DSLR cameras, your 1.4 and 2.0x extenders work really well with this telescope. I was able to get images
    of the whirlpool galaxy using my Tak 106-FSQEDX4 plus a Canon 2.0x II extender that far outclass what I could achieve with my Celestron Edge HD scope.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From StarDust@21:1/5 to RichA on Thu May 26 22:03:51 2022
    On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 5:23:48 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
    Somewhere around $6k I'd guess? Looks like a terrific scope, one that you could use for photography and that wouldn't put you off going out and observing because you didn't want the hassle of dealing with a big scope.
    Appears they've possibly gotten away from Feathertouch focusers, Feathertouch may be having issues with demand being too high.

    https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-giucqvpdlm/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/602/1339/110GTX_Karen_web__24280.1653079956.jpg?c=2

    $6k pocket scope for the rich?
    Yee Haw!
    I rather keep my 80mm f/6 APO, until hit the Lotto!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichA@21:1/5 to StarDust on Fri May 27 16:19:09 2022
    On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 01:09:29 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
    On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 5:23:48 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
    Somewhere around $6k I'd guess? Looks like a terrific scope, one that you could use for photography and that wouldn't put you off going out and observing because you didn't want the hassle of dealing with a big scope.
    Appears they've possibly gotten away from Feathertouch focusers, Feathertouch may be having issues with demand being too high.

    https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-giucqvpdlm/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/602/1339/110GTX_Karen_web__24280.1653079956.jpg?c=2
    Takahashi FSQ-106EDX4 Quadruplet Refractor Astrograph OTA - TQE10630

    https://www.highpointscientific.com/takahashi-fsq-106edx4-quadruplet-refractor-astrograph-ota-tqe10630?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cse&utm_term=TAK-TQE10630&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=12954387354&utm_content=122162854216&utm_term=&
    gclid=CjwKCAjwyryUBhBSEiwAGN5OCN3IlcLMkQ0t6u0O8VVAJKLyHa83KeuHVHriU3u3y-Rm3suD8h0SHxoCMeAQAvD_BwE

    $6390 only!
    Utterly perfect
    Review by Gary C. on 27 Feb 2020review stating Utterly perfectI couldn’t have wished for a better telescope. High Point Scientific delivered my “Tak” flawlessly and quickly (and price matched!) and it’s a *beautiful* instrument. Sublime
    engineering and flawless optics makes this telescope a joy to use. The focuser works extremely well with zero slippage, zero backlash, and exquisite fine control. But just waRead more about review stating Utterly perfectit until you see the images! The
    huge image circle (88 mm) makes regular DSLR full frame sensors practically free of any vignetting. For those of you planning to use this with Canon DSLR cameras, your 1.4 and 2.0x extenders work really well with this telescope. I was able to get images
    of the whirlpool galaxy using my Tak 106-FSQEDX4 plus a Canon 2.0x II extender that far outclass what I could achieve with my Celestron Edge HD scope.

    The FSQ at one time was about $4400. The Pentax equivalent was much, much cheaper even then, but then Pentax sold out to Vixen and the price for their 4 inch astrograph jumped $2000+.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From StarDust@21:1/5 to RichA on Sat May 28 18:30:42 2022
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 4:19:10 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
    On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 01:09:29 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
    On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 5:23:48 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
    Somewhere around $6k I'd guess? Looks like a terrific scope, one that you could use for photography and that wouldn't put you off going out and observing because you didn't want the hassle of dealing with a big scope.
    Appears they've possibly gotten away from Feathertouch focusers, Feathertouch may be having issues with demand being too high.

    https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-giucqvpdlm/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/602/1339/110GTX_Karen_web__24280.1653079956.jpg?c=2
    Takahashi FSQ-106EDX4 Quadruplet Refractor Astrograph OTA - TQE10630

    https://www.highpointscientific.com/takahashi-fsq-106edx4-quadruplet-refractor-astrograph-ota-tqe10630?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cse&utm_term=TAK-TQE10630&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=12954387354&utm_content=122162854216&utm_term=&
    gclid=CjwKCAjwyryUBhBSEiwAGN5OCN3IlcLMkQ0t6u0O8VVAJKLyHa83KeuHVHriU3u3y-Rm3suD8h0SHxoCMeAQAvD_BwE

    $6390 only!
    Utterly perfect
    Review by Gary C. on 27 Feb 2020review stating Utterly perfectI couldn’t have wished for a better telescope. High Point Scientific delivered my “Tak” flawlessly and quickly (and price matched!) and it’s a *beautiful* instrument. Sublime
    engineering and flawless optics makes this telescope a joy to use. The focuser works extremely well with zero slippage, zero backlash, and exquisite fine control. But just waRead more about review stating Utterly perfectit until you see the images! The
    huge image circle (88 mm) makes regular DSLR full frame sensors practically free of any vignetting. For those of you planning to use this with Canon DSLR cameras, your 1.4 and 2.0x extenders work really well with this telescope. I was able to get images
    of the whirlpool galaxy using my Tak 106-FSQEDX4 plus a Canon 2.0x II extender that far outclass what I could achieve with my Celestron Edge HD scope.
    The FSQ at one time was about $4400. The Pentax equivalent was much, much cheaper even then, but then Pentax sold out to Vixen and the price for their 4 inch astrograph jumped $2000+.

    Lot of price manipulation in the telescope business, I think!
    🤔

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From palsing@21:1/5 to StarDust on Sat May 28 19:18:26 2022
    On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 6:30:44 PM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 4:19:10 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
    On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 01:09:29 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
    On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 5:23:48 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
    Somewhere around $6k I'd guess? Looks like a terrific scope, one that you could use for photography and that wouldn't put you off going out and observing because you didn't want the hassle of dealing with a big scope.
    Appears they've possibly gotten away from Feathertouch focusers, Feathertouch may be having issues with demand being too high.

    https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-giucqvpdlm/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/602/1339/110GTX_Karen_web__24280.1653079956.jpg?c=2
    Takahashi FSQ-106EDX4 Quadruplet Refractor Astrograph OTA - TQE10630

    https://www.highpointscientific.com/takahashi-fsq-106edx4-quadruplet-refractor-astrograph-ota-tqe10630?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cse&utm_term=TAK-TQE10630&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=12954387354&utm_content=122162854216&utm_
    term=&gclid=CjwKCAjwyryUBhBSEiwAGN5OCN3IlcLMkQ0t6u0O8VVAJKLyHa83KeuHVHriU3u3y-Rm3suD8h0SHxoCMeAQAvD_BwE

    $6390 only!
    Utterly perfect
    Review by Gary C. on 27 Feb 2020review stating Utterly perfectI couldn’t have wished for a better telescope. High Point Scientific delivered my “Tak” flawlessly and quickly (and price matched!) and it’s a *beautiful* instrument. Sublime
    engineering and flawless optics makes this telescope a joy to use. The focuser works extremely well with zero slippage, zero backlash, and exquisite fine control. But just waRead more about review stating Utterly perfectit until you see the images! The
    huge image circle (88 mm) makes regular DSLR full frame sensors practically free of any vignetting. For those of you planning to use this with Canon DSLR cameras, your 1.4 and 2.0x extenders work really well with this telescope. I was able to get images
    of the whirlpool galaxy using my Tak 106-FSQEDX4 plus a Canon 2.0x II extender that far outclass what I could achieve with my Celestron Edge HD scope.
    The FSQ at one time was about $4400. The Pentax equivalent was much, much cheaper even then, but then Pentax sold out to Vixen and the price for their 4 inch astrograph jumped $2000+.

    Lot of price manipulation in the telescope business, I think!
    🤔

    Any telescope is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From StarDust@21:1/5 to palsing on Sat May 28 23:10:34 2022
    On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 7:18:28 PM UTC-7, palsing wrote:
    On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 6:30:44 PM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 4:19:10 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
    On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 01:09:29 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
    On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 5:23:48 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
    Somewhere around $6k I'd guess? Looks like a terrific scope, one that you could use for photography and that wouldn't put you off going out and observing because you didn't want the hassle of dealing with a big scope.
    Appears they've possibly gotten away from Feathertouch focusers, Feathertouch may be having issues with demand being too high.

    https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-giucqvpdlm/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/602/1339/110GTX_Karen_web__24280.1653079956.jpg?c=2
    Takahashi FSQ-106EDX4 Quadruplet Refractor Astrograph OTA - TQE10630

    https://www.highpointscientific.com/takahashi-fsq-106edx4-quadruplet-refractor-astrograph-ota-tqe10630?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cse&utm_term=TAK-TQE10630&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=12954387354&utm_content=122162854216&utm_
    term=&gclid=CjwKCAjwyryUBhBSEiwAGN5OCN3IlcLMkQ0t6u0O8VVAJKLyHa83KeuHVHriU3u3y-Rm3suD8h0SHxoCMeAQAvD_BwE

    $6390 only!
    Utterly perfect
    Review by Gary C. on 27 Feb 2020review stating Utterly perfectI couldn’t have wished for a better telescope. High Point Scientific delivered my “Tak” flawlessly and quickly (and price matched!) and it’s a *beautiful* instrument. Sublime
    engineering and flawless optics makes this telescope a joy to use. The focuser works extremely well with zero slippage, zero backlash, and exquisite fine control. But just waRead more about review stating Utterly perfectit until you see the images! The
    huge image circle (88 mm) makes regular DSLR full frame sensors practically free of any vignetting. For those of you planning to use this with Canon DSLR cameras, your 1.4 and 2.0x extenders work really well with this telescope. I was able to get images
    of the whirlpool galaxy using my Tak 106-FSQEDX4 plus a Canon 2.0x II extender that far outclass what I could achieve with my Celestron Edge HD scope.
    The FSQ at one time was about $4400. The Pentax equivalent was much, much cheaper even then, but then Pentax sold out to Vixen and the price for their 4 inch astrograph jumped $2000+.

    Lot of price manipulation in the telescope business, I think!
    🤔
    Any telescope is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

    Like prostitutes?
    😎

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From palsing@21:1/5 to StarDust on Sun May 29 15:29:41 2022
    On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 11:10:36 PM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
    On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 7:18:28 PM UTC-7, palsing wrote:
    On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 6:30:44 PM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 4:19:10 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
    On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 01:09:29 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
    On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 5:23:48 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
    Somewhere around $6k I'd guess? Looks like a terrific scope, one that you could use for photography and that wouldn't put you off going out and observing because you didn't want the hassle of dealing with a big scope.
    Appears they've possibly gotten away from Feathertouch focusers, Feathertouch may be having issues with demand being too high.

    https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-giucqvpdlm/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/602/1339/110GTX_Karen_web__24280.1653079956.jpg?c=2
    Takahashi FSQ-106EDX4 Quadruplet Refractor Astrograph OTA - TQE10630

    https://www.highpointscientific.com/takahashi-fsq-106edx4-quadruplet-refractor-astrograph-ota-tqe10630?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cse&utm_term=TAK-TQE10630&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=12954387354&utm_content=122162854216&utm_
    term=&gclid=CjwKCAjwyryUBhBSEiwAGN5OCN3IlcLMkQ0t6u0O8VVAJKLyHa83KeuHVHriU3u3y-Rm3suD8h0SHxoCMeAQAvD_BwE

    $6390 only!
    Utterly perfect
    Review by Gary C. on 27 Feb 2020review stating Utterly perfectI couldn’t have wished for a better telescope. High Point Scientific delivered my “Tak” flawlessly and quickly (and price matched!) and it’s a *beautiful* instrument. Sublime
    engineering and flawless optics makes this telescope a joy to use. The focuser works extremely well with zero slippage, zero backlash, and exquisite fine control. But just waRead more about review stating Utterly perfectit until you see the images! The
    huge image circle (88 mm) makes regular DSLR full frame sensors practically free of any vignetting. For those of you planning to use this with Canon DSLR cameras, your 1.4 and 2.0x extenders work really well with this telescope. I was able to get images
    of the whirlpool galaxy using my Tak 106-FSQEDX4 plus a Canon 2.0x II extender that far outclass what I could achieve with my Celestron Edge HD scope.
    The FSQ at one time was about $4400. The Pentax equivalent was much, much cheaper even then, but then Pentax sold out to Vixen and the price for their 4 inch astrograph jumped $2000+.

    Lot of price manipulation in the telescope business, I think!
    🤔
    Any telescope is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

    Like prostitutes?
    😎

    Like just about anything you want to buy...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris L Peterson@21:1/5 to All on Sun May 29 17:20:34 2022
    On Sun, 29 May 2022 15:29:41 -0700 (PDT), palsing <pnalsing@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 11:10:36 PM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
    On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 7:18:28 PM UTC-7, palsing wrote:
    On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 6:30:44 PM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 4:19:10 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
    On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 01:09:29 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
    On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 5:23:48 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
    Somewhere around $6k I'd guess? Looks like a terrific scope, one that you could use for photography and that wouldn't put you off going out and observing because you didn't want the hassle of dealing with a big scope.
    Appears they've possibly gotten away from Feathertouch focusers, Feathertouch may be having issues with demand being too high.

    https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-giucqvpdlm/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/602/1339/110GTX_Karen_web__24280.1653079956.jpg?c=2
    Takahashi FSQ-106EDX4 Quadruplet Refractor Astrograph OTA - TQE10630 >> > > > >
    https://www.highpointscientific.com/takahashi-fsq-106edx4-quadruplet-refractor-astrograph-ota-tqe10630?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cse&utm_term=TAK-TQE10630&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=12954387354&utm_content=122162854216&
    utm_term=&gclid=CjwKCAjwyryUBhBSEiwAGN5OCN3IlcLMkQ0t6u0O8VVAJKLyHa83KeuHVHriU3u3y-Rm3suD8h0SHxoCMeAQAvD_BwE

    $6390 only!
    Utterly perfect
    Review by Gary C. on 27 Feb 2020review stating Utterly perfectI couldnt have wished for a better telescope. High Point Scientific delivered my Tak flawlessly and quickly (and price matched!) and its a *beautiful* instrument. Sublime
    engineering and flawless optics makes this telescope a joy to use. The focuser works extremely well with zero slippage, zero backlash, and exquisite fine control. But just waRead more about review stating Utterly perfectit until you see the images! The
    huge image circle (88 mm) makes regular DSLR full frame sensors practically free of any vignetting. For those of you planning to use this with Canon DSLR cameras, your 1.4 and 2.0x extenders work really well with this telescope. I was able to get images
    of the whirlpool galaxy using my Tak 106-FSQEDX4 plus a Canon 2.0x II extender that far outclass what I could achieve with my Celestron Edge HD scope.
    The FSQ at one time was about $4400. The Pentax equivalent was much, much cheaper even then, but then Pentax sold out to Vixen and the price for their 4 inch astrograph jumped $2000+.

    Lot of price manipulation in the telescope business, I think!
    ?
    Any telescope is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

    Like prostitutes?
    ?

    Like just about anything you want to buy...

    Well, for elastic goods, anyway (like telescopes).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichA@21:1/5 to palsing on Sun May 29 23:48:59 2022
    On Saturday, 28 May 2022 at 22:18:28 UTC-4, palsing wrote:
    On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 6:30:44 PM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
    On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 4:19:10 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
    On Friday, 27 May 2022 at 01:09:29 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
    On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 5:23:48 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
    Somewhere around $6k I'd guess? Looks like a terrific scope, one that you could use for photography and that wouldn't put you off going out and observing because you didn't want the hassle of dealing with a big scope.
    Appears they've possibly gotten away from Feathertouch focusers, Feathertouch may be having issues with demand being too high.

    https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-giucqvpdlm/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/602/1339/110GTX_Karen_web__24280.1653079956.jpg?c=2
    Takahashi FSQ-106EDX4 Quadruplet Refractor Astrograph OTA - TQE10630

    https://www.highpointscientific.com/takahashi-fsq-106edx4-quadruplet-refractor-astrograph-ota-tqe10630?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cse&utm_term=TAK-TQE10630&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=12954387354&utm_content=122162854216&utm_
    term=&gclid=CjwKCAjwyryUBhBSEiwAGN5OCN3IlcLMkQ0t6u0O8VVAJKLyHa83KeuHVHriU3u3y-Rm3suD8h0SHxoCMeAQAvD_BwE

    $6390 only!
    Utterly perfect
    Review by Gary C. on 27 Feb 2020review stating Utterly perfectI couldn’t have wished for a better telescope. High Point Scientific delivered my “Tak” flawlessly and quickly (and price matched!) and it’s a *beautiful* instrument. Sublime
    engineering and flawless optics makes this telescope a joy to use. The focuser works extremely well with zero slippage, zero backlash, and exquisite fine control. But just waRead more about review stating Utterly perfectit until you see the images! The
    huge image circle (88 mm) makes regular DSLR full frame sensors practically free of any vignetting. For those of you planning to use this with Canon DSLR cameras, your 1.4 and 2.0x extenders work really well with this telescope. I was able to get images
    of the whirlpool galaxy using my Tak 106-FSQEDX4 plus a Canon 2.0x II extender that far outclass what I could achieve with my Celestron Edge HD scope.
    The FSQ at one time was about $4400. The Pentax equivalent was much, much cheaper even then, but then Pentax sold out to Vixen and the price for their 4 inch astrograph jumped $2000+.

    Lot of price manipulation in the telescope business, I think!
    🤔
    Any telescope is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.

    Hey, check out the original fluorite Stowaway on Astromart Auctions. I'm betting it'll go over $10,000.
    Probably one of the highest prices ever for an inch per inch cost.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From W@21:1/5 to RichA on Mon May 30 04:30:48 2022
    On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 2:49:11 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:

    Hey, check out the original fluorite Stowaway on Astromart Auctions. I'm betting it'll go over $10,000.
    Probably one of the highest prices ever for an inch per inch cost.

    The Nikon WX 10x50 binocular is listed at ~$6400.

    While not a direct comparison, fisheye lenses can be even pricier.

    The Keck telescopes ran over $200K per inch.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris L Peterson@21:1/5 to All on Mon May 30 07:40:32 2022
    On Mon, 30 May 2022 04:30:48 -0700 (PDT), W <wsnell01@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 2:49:11 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:

    Hey, check out the original fluorite Stowaway on Astromart Auctions. I'm betting it'll go over $10,000.
    Probably one of the highest prices ever for an inch per inch cost.

    The Nikon WX 10x50 binocular is listed at ~$6400.

    While not a direct comparison, fisheye lenses can be even pricier.

    The Keck telescopes ran over $200K per inch.

    There's probably an interesting curve for how the glass factors into
    the price. For very small scopes, the glass is inexpensive compared
    with the mount, focuser, and other mechanical components. As we get
    larger, the glass price grows rapidly, and may dominate the other
    costs. But above a certain size, all of the mechanical stuff takes
    over again (as with Keck, where only a small part of the budget went
    into the mirrors).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From StarDust@21:1/5 to Chris L Peterson on Mon May 30 10:11:02 2022
    On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 6:40:36 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Mon, 30 May 2022 04:30:48 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 2:49:11 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:

    Hey, check out the original fluorite Stowaway on Astromart Auctions. I'm betting it'll go over $10,000.
    Probably one of the highest prices ever for an inch per inch cost.

    The Nikon WX 10x50 binocular is listed at ~$6400.

    While not a direct comparison, fisheye lenses can be even pricier.

    The Keck telescopes ran over $200K per inch.
    There's probably an interesting curve for how the glass factors into
    the price. For very small scopes, the glass is inexpensive compared
    with the mount, focuser, and other mechanical components. As we get
    larger, the glass price grows rapidly, and may dominate the other
    costs. But above a certain size, all of the mechanical stuff takes
    over again (as with Keck, where only a small part of the budget went
    into the mirrors).

    I don't think the glass it's self drive up the price of the scopes?
    Like diamonds, raw diamonds are cheap, but the workmanship, figuring the diamond what drives up it's price.
    Same with telescope optics, larger the glass, longer it takes to figure it's shape, drive up the cost , adding the cost of labor etc...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris L Peterson@21:1/5 to All on Mon May 30 11:24:50 2022
    On Mon, 30 May 2022 10:11:02 -0700 (PDT), StarDust <csoka01@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 6:40:36 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Mon, 30 May 2022 04:30:48 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 2:49:11 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:

    Hey, check out the original fluorite Stowaway on Astromart Auctions. I'm betting it'll go over $10,000.
    Probably one of the highest prices ever for an inch per inch cost.

    The Nikon WX 10x50 binocular is listed at ~$6400.

    While not a direct comparison, fisheye lenses can be even pricier.

    The Keck telescopes ran over $200K per inch.
    There's probably an interesting curve for how the glass factors into
    the price. For very small scopes, the glass is inexpensive compared
    with the mount, focuser, and other mechanical components. As we get
    larger, the glass price grows rapidly, and may dominate the other
    costs. But above a certain size, all of the mechanical stuff takes
    over again (as with Keck, where only a small part of the budget went
    into the mirrors).

    I don't think the glass it's self drive up the price of the scopes?
    Like diamonds, raw diamonds are cheap, but the workmanship, figuring the diamond what drives up it's price.
    Same with telescope optics, larger the glass, longer it takes to figure it's shape, drive up the cost , adding the cost of labor etc...

    In common parlance, when discussing optics, "glass" refers to the
    finished optics, not the raw materials. Sorry for any confusion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichA@21:1/5 to Chris L Peterson on Mon May 30 13:23:47 2022
    On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 13:24:54 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Mon, 30 May 2022 10:11:02 -0700 (PDT), StarDust <cso...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 6:40:36 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Mon, 30 May 2022 04:30:48 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 2:49:11 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:

    Hey, check out the original fluorite Stowaway on Astromart Auctions. I'm betting it'll go over $10,000.
    Probably one of the highest prices ever for an inch per inch cost.

    The Nikon WX 10x50 binocular is listed at ~$6400.

    While not a direct comparison, fisheye lenses can be even pricier.

    The Keck telescopes ran over $200K per inch.
    There's probably an interesting curve for how the glass factors into
    the price. For very small scopes, the glass is inexpensive compared
    with the mount, focuser, and other mechanical components. As we get
    larger, the glass price grows rapidly, and may dominate the other
    costs. But above a certain size, all of the mechanical stuff takes
    over again (as with Keck, where only a small part of the budget went
    into the mirrors).

    I don't think the glass it's self drive up the price of the scopes?
    Like diamonds, raw diamonds are cheap, but the workmanship, figuring the diamond what drives up it's price.
    Same with telescope optics, larger the glass, longer it takes to figure it's shape, drive up the cost , adding the cost of labor etc...
    In common parlance, when discussing optics, "glass" refers to the
    finished optics, not the raw materials. Sorry for any confusion.

    Well, since scope makers buy very little (as opposed to the amount of fluorite some outfit like Canon uses for it's high-end telephotos) it's going to cost something.
    Further, Christen is said to only accept glass meeting very stringent specs, higher than the average for the ED glasses he uses.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichA@21:1/5 to Chris L Peterson on Mon May 30 13:22:08 2022
    On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 09:40:36 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Mon, 30 May 2022 04:30:48 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 2:49:11 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:

    Hey, check out the original fluorite Stowaway on Astromart Auctions. I'm betting it'll go over $10,000.
    Probably one of the highest prices ever for an inch per inch cost.

    The Nikon WX 10x50 binocular is listed at ~$6400.

    While not a direct comparison, fisheye lenses can be even pricier.

    The Keck telescopes ran over $200K per inch.
    There's probably an interesting curve for how the glass factors into
    the price. For very small scopes, the glass is inexpensive compared
    with the mount, focuser, and other mechanical components. As we get
    larger, the glass price grows rapidly, and may dominate the other
    costs. But above a certain size, all of the mechanical stuff takes
    over again (as with Keck, where only a small part of the budget went
    into the mirrors).

    Even with the Chinese stuff, the jump in build quality going from a 100mm refractor to a 110-114 seems to be notable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris L Peterson@21:1/5 to All on Mon May 30 14:31:32 2022
    On Mon, 30 May 2022 13:23:47 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 13:24:54 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Mon, 30 May 2022 10:11:02 -0700 (PDT), StarDust <cso...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 6:40:36 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Mon, 30 May 2022 04:30:48 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 2:49:11 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:

    Hey, check out the original fluorite Stowaway on Astromart Auctions. I'm betting it'll go over $10,000.
    Probably one of the highest prices ever for an inch per inch cost.

    The Nikon WX 10x50 binocular is listed at ~$6400.

    While not a direct comparison, fisheye lenses can be even pricier.

    The Keck telescopes ran over $200K per inch.
    There's probably an interesting curve for how the glass factors into
    the price. For very small scopes, the glass is inexpensive compared
    with the mount, focuser, and other mechanical components. As we get
    larger, the glass price grows rapidly, and may dominate the other
    costs. But above a certain size, all of the mechanical stuff takes
    over again (as with Keck, where only a small part of the budget went
    into the mirrors).

    I don't think the glass it's self drive up the price of the scopes?
    Like diamonds, raw diamonds are cheap, but the workmanship, figuring the diamond what drives up it's price.
    Same with telescope optics, larger the glass, longer it takes to figure it's shape, drive up the cost , adding the cost of labor etc...
    In common parlance, when discussing optics, "glass" refers to the
    finished optics, not the raw materials. Sorry for any confusion.

    Well, since scope makers buy very little (as opposed to the amount of fluorite some outfit like Canon uses for it's high-end telephotos) it's going to cost something.
    Further, Christen is said to only accept glass meeting very stringent specs, higher than the average for the ED glasses he uses.

    Yes, the raw materials may be very expensive as well. But I think most
    of the time the material cost is small in comparison with the
    manufacturing cost.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris L Peterson@21:1/5 to All on Mon May 30 14:33:12 2022
    On Mon, 30 May 2022 13:22:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 09:40:36 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Mon, 30 May 2022 04:30:48 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 2:49:11 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:

    Hey, check out the original fluorite Stowaway on Astromart Auctions. I'm betting it'll go over $10,000.
    Probably one of the highest prices ever for an inch per inch cost.

    The Nikon WX 10x50 binocular is listed at ~$6400.

    While not a direct comparison, fisheye lenses can be even pricier.

    The Keck telescopes ran over $200K per inch.
    There's probably an interesting curve for how the glass factors into
    the price. For very small scopes, the glass is inexpensive compared
    with the mount, focuser, and other mechanical components. As we get
    larger, the glass price grows rapidly, and may dominate the other
    costs. But above a certain size, all of the mechanical stuff takes
    over again (as with Keck, where only a small part of the budget went
    into the mirrors).

    Even with the Chinese stuff, the jump in build quality going from a 100mm refractor to a 110-114 seems to be notable.

    Presumably, once the cost of the optics exceeds a certain amount, the
    price of the entire system has moved into a marketing category where
    most buyers are more serious about things like build quality.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From RichA@21:1/5 to Chris L Peterson on Mon May 30 19:19:21 2022
    On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 16:33:15 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Mon, 30 May 2022 13:22:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 09:40:36 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Mon, 30 May 2022 04:30:48 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 2:49:11 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:

    Hey, check out the original fluorite Stowaway on Astromart Auctions. I'm betting it'll go over $10,000.
    Probably one of the highest prices ever for an inch per inch cost.

    The Nikon WX 10x50 binocular is listed at ~$6400.

    While not a direct comparison, fisheye lenses can be even pricier.

    The Keck telescopes ran over $200K per inch.
    There's probably an interesting curve for how the glass factors into
    the price. For very small scopes, the glass is inexpensive compared
    with the mount, focuser, and other mechanical components. As we get
    larger, the glass price grows rapidly, and may dominate the other
    costs. But above a certain size, all of the mechanical stuff takes
    over again (as with Keck, where only a small part of the budget went
    into the mirrors).

    Even with the Chinese stuff, the jump in build quality going from a 100mm refractor to a 110-114 seems to be notable.
    Presumably, once the cost of the optics exceeds a certain amount, the
    price of the entire system has moved into a marketing category where
    most buyers are more serious about things like build quality.

    Unfortunately, it's meant a measurable increase in weight of the telescopes as well. I picked up
    a 108mm Askar the other day, I couldn't believe how heavy a comparatively small scope was.
    Gone are the days of much simpler, cast cells and focusers and light tubes.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris L Peterson@21:1/5 to All on Mon May 30 22:33:24 2022
    On Mon, 30 May 2022 19:19:21 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 16:33:15 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Mon, 30 May 2022 13:22:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Monday, 30 May 2022 at 09:40:36 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
    On Mon, 30 May 2022 04:30:48 -0700 (PDT), W <wsne...@hotmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 2:49:11 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:

    Hey, check out the original fluorite Stowaway on Astromart Auctions. I'm betting it'll go over $10,000.
    Probably one of the highest prices ever for an inch per inch cost.

    The Nikon WX 10x50 binocular is listed at ~$6400.

    While not a direct comparison, fisheye lenses can be even pricier.

    The Keck telescopes ran over $200K per inch.
    There's probably an interesting curve for how the glass factors into
    the price. For very small scopes, the glass is inexpensive compared
    with the mount, focuser, and other mechanical components. As we get
    larger, the glass price grows rapidly, and may dominate the other
    costs. But above a certain size, all of the mechanical stuff takes
    over again (as with Keck, where only a small part of the budget went
    into the mirrors).

    Even with the Chinese stuff, the jump in build quality going from a 100mm refractor to a 110-114 seems to be notable.
    Presumably, once the cost of the optics exceeds a certain amount, the
    price of the entire system has moved into a marketing category where
    most buyers are more serious about things like build quality.

    Unfortunately, it's meant a measurable increase in weight of the telescopes as well. I picked up
    a 108mm Askar the other day, I couldn't believe how heavy a comparatively small scope was.
    Gone are the days of much simpler, cast cells and focusers and light tubes.

    The market is for imaging. And for that, weight isn't usually an
    issue.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Quadibloc@21:1/5 to Chris L Peterson on Mon May 30 21:50:34 2022
    On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 10:33:28 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

    The market is for imaging. And for that, weight isn't usually an
    issue.

    I thought for imaging one could always use a Ritchey-Chretien,
    a Meade ACF, or some other design with a large central obstruction,
    and the large refractors are for visual observing by perfectionists.

    John Savard

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris L Peterson@21:1/5 to jsavard@ecn.ab.ca on Mon May 30 22:55:26 2022
    On Mon, 30 May 2022 21:50:34 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
    <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

    On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 10:33:28 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

    The market is for imaging. And for that, weight isn't usually an
    issue.

    I thought for imaging one could always use a Ritchey-Chretien,
    a Meade ACF, or some other design with a large central obstruction,
    and the large refractors are for visual observing by perfectionists.

    You can. And that's generally the best choice. But people who do wide
    field imaging typically prefer refractors with their shorter focal
    lengths, despite the loss of light that goes with a smaller aperture.

    You don't see all that many visual observers with high end equipment
    anymore.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From palsing@21:1/5 to Chris L Peterson on Tue May 31 20:13:35 2022
    On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 9:55:29 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

    You don't see all that many visual observers with high end equipment
    anymore.

    Especially because telescopes like my budget $15,000 25" f5 dob can blow just about any refractor out of the water when it comes to visual observing. How many refractors can bust up Hickson 50?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From StarDust@21:1/5 to palsing on Tue May 31 21:42:35 2022
    On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 8:13:37 PM UTC-7, palsing wrote:
    On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 9:55:29 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

    You don't see all that many visual observers with high end equipment anymore.
    Especially because telescopes like my budget $15,000 25" f5 dob can blow just about any refractor out of the water when it comes to visual observing. How many refractors can bust up Hickson 50?

    I can see it without telescopes!
    Da!
    http://cosmicneighbors.net/m97.htm

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From palsing@21:1/5 to StarDust on Wed Jun 1 18:55:10 2022
    On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 9:42:36 PM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
    On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 8:13:37 PM UTC-7, palsing wrote:
    On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 9:55:29 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

    You don't see all that many visual observers with high end equipment anymore.
    Especially because telescopes like my budget $15,000 25" f5 dob can blow just about any refractor out of the water when it comes to visual observing. How many refractors can bust up Hickson 50?
    I can see it without telescopes!
    Da!
    http://cosmicneighbors.net/m97.htm

    It is a booger to see, even under optimal conditions...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)