Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Photo

Yuri debuts 10 inch Tec at WSP...

  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

#76 Paul G

Paul G

    Cosmos

  • *****
  • Posts: 8,819
  • Joined: 08 May 2003
  • Loc: Freedonia

Posted 11 March 2017 - 01:46 PM

 

It always amazes me when people talk about how expensive telescopes can be and only a very few wealthy amateurs can afford them. I then drive over to my son's house in a very middle class neighborhood and see a number of $30,000-60,000 boats on expensive trailers with 45 HP  outboard motors and a monster pickup truck needed to pull it. My daughter's boyfriend wants to get into chartering salt water fly-fishing and needs a $40,000 flats boat plus at least a 25 hp motor and trailer. I could go on and on. I won't even get into the sailboats I see in the harbor here. Astronomy is a NOT a very expensive hobby by comparison. You do NOT have to be wealthy to own a 10" refractor. It just depends where your priorities are. Bass boat, motor, trailer and pickup truck that you need a stepladder to get into the driver's seat or a 10" refractor? Most of the bass boat owners I see would not be characterized as wealthy. The difference in my opinion is that the bass enthusiast will have another excuse to own the pickup, and will get a loan if needed to buy what he wants, whereas the amateur astronomer will not.

 

Great TEC 10"! I hope many will consider owning, what for many is, the dream telescope of a lifetime.

I would argue that for a middle class family bringing in let's say $120,000, a $50,000 scope + the mount to carry it and an observatory to put it in, total $75,000, is an extravagance.  Most people who have boats already have a vehicle to tow it, and a boat is more of a family item.  In my previous family of 4, I was the only one interested in Astronomy.

 

Of course if I hit the lottery, naw, I still wouldn't buy a 10" Fluorite refractor.  Maybe an 8", something I could lift on a mount myself.

 

So it's a matter of priorities.


  • Neptune likes this

#77 ybor

ybor

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 459
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2006

Posted 11 March 2017 - 05:13 PM

It would be nice to find out if Tec  decides to make a

TEC  200 if it will be a Flourite or an ED model .

If the scope is made a little lighter than the previous

TEC 200 , it's  manageability might help increase sales within our  telescope market .

 

Thanks



#78 Cotts

Cotts

    Just Wondering

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 10,272
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Madoc, Ontario

Posted 11 March 2017 - 06:51 PM

 

700X on a double star of 0.7" separation showed a clean, dark-sky split.  No 'hair', 'fuzz' or anything other than the central spot and the first diffraction ring.  Textbook diffraction pattern.   Identical to the views of similarly separated pairs in the steady, steady skies of the Winter Star Party last year in my 12.5" f/6.5  Lockwood/Teeter dob for a wee bit more than 1/10 the price.   
 
Dave

700X on a double star of 0.7" separation showed a clean, dark-sky split.  No 'hair', 'fuzz' or anything other than the central spot and the first diffraction ring.  Textbook diffraction pattern.   Identical to the views of similarly separated pairs in the steady, steady skies of the Winter Star Party last year in my 12.5" f/6.5  Lockwood/Teeter dob for a wee bit more than 1/10 the price.   
 
Dave

Dave,
What all did you see through the scope? Which double?

 

Darren.  Sorry I took so long to reply to this question.  I misplaced a binder with the information in it.

 

the pair was  STT 517 AB, WDS 05135+0158, Coordinates 05 13 32, +01 58 04, Magnitudes 6.79, 6.99, Separation (2014) 0. 698", PA (2014) 240.3 degrees.

 

Dave



#79 Jeff B

Jeff B

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 6,723
  • Joined: 30 Dec 2006

Posted 11 March 2017 - 07:00 PM

It would be nice to find out if Tec  decides to make a

TEC  200 if it will be a Flourite or an ED model .

If the scope is made a little lighter than the previous

TEC 200 , it's  manageability might help increase sales within our  telescope market .

 

Thanks

I'm sure it would be Fluorite.  

 

And Yuri has mentioned the possibility of a run of 200 FLs when he gets far enough along with the 250 run.  I wonder if it would be air/oil spaced or a combination.

 

But that project could be a while.  

 

Jeff



#80 Kent10

Kent10

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,025
  • Joined: 08 May 2012

Posted 11 March 2017 - 11:36 PM

Yuri had planned on announcing the new 200Fl in January of this year, but he got behind on the 250 and needs to finish 11 of those before getting to the 200 which should be some time later this year.  It will be Fluorite oil-spaced F8 similar to the original 200Fl but with even better color correction, if I understand correctly.  4 crossings instead of 3, if I am getting that right.  Does that sound right to anyone who knows exactly what that means?



#81 Kent10

Kent10

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,025
  • Joined: 08 May 2012

Posted 11 March 2017 - 11:38 PM

The original 200FL weighed 45 pounds bare and the new one will probably be similar, both at F8.  The ED model is 8" longer than the FL and weighs 50 pounds bare.


Edited by Kent10, 11 March 2017 - 11:39 PM.


#82 ybor

ybor

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 459
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2006

Posted 12 March 2017 - 10:24 AM

It would be nice if Yuri would design the TEC 200 FL using lighter materials so that it will weigh around 40lbs.

This would help those who can afford this scope be able to lift it and use a more flexible mount .

I think that a Tec 200 FL should not be limited to only the observatory market .

Thanks


  • Neptune likes this

#83 Scott99

Scott99

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • *****
  • Posts: 5,150
  • Joined: 10 May 2007
  • Loc: New England

Posted 17 March 2017 - 08:19 PM

It would be nice if Yuri would design the TEC 200 FL using lighter materials so that it will weigh around 40lbs.

This would help those who can afford this scope be able to lift it and use a more flexible mount .

I think that a Tec 200 FL should not be limited to only the observatory market .

Thanks

You could try to make your own tube to get the weight down but I suspect you'd have to make sacrifices that affect performance.  The lens cell is a certain weight, I doubt any pounds can stripped there.  That leaves the tube materials and focuser.  You could put a lighter focuser on to shed a few pounds, that will unbalance the tube weight though.  TEC's refractors are very light already, compare them to equivalent APM/LZOS models or Taks or even AP's.   I believe AP's recent 175mm scope weighs the same as the TEC200FL.


  • Paul G likes this

#84 Neptune

Neptune

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,334
  • Joined: 16 Apr 2007
  • Loc: Georgia

Posted 06 December 2017 - 06:51 PM

 

It always amazes me when people talk about how expensive telescopes can be and only a very few wealthy amateurs can afford them. I then drive over to my son's house in a very middle class neighborhood and see a number of $30,000-60,000 boats on expensive trailers with 45 HP  outboard motors and a monster pickup truck needed to pull it. My daughter's boyfriend wants to get into chartering salt water fly-fishing and needs a $40,000 flats boat plus at least a 25 hp motor and trailer. I could go on and on. I won't even get into the sailboats I see in the harbor here. Astronomy is a NOT a very expensive hobby by comparison. You do NOT have to be wealthy to own a 10" refractor. It just depends where your priorities are. Bass boat, motor, trailer and pickup truck that you need a stepladder to get into the driver's seat or a 10" refractor? Most of the bass boat owners I see would not be characterized as wealthy. The difference in my opinion is that the bass enthusiast will have another excuse to own the pickup, and will get a loan if needed to buy what he wants, whereas the amateur astronomer will not.

 

Great TEC 10"! I hope many will consider owning, what for many is, the dream telescope of a lifetime.

I think the price of the TEC 250 is reasonable. It matches quite close to the price of my LZOS 228 which cost $42,000, onto which had to be added the price of getting it into the country and taxes. In the end it was a $50,000 purchase which is the price of the TEC although 22mm smaller. I am not rich by  any stretch and it is only my personal priorities that allowed me to make the purchase. That purchase had effects in other areas of my life. But for me, the scope and what it can do is more meaningful than what I could do with a boat. I've been married a few times and this purchase would never happened had I been married ... never.

 

The question as to why some consider the cost of the TEC 250 to be so high can be partly answered by considering the specifics of those who feel this way. I think there are many reasons and I consider the following as general catagories of those who may consider $50,000 as an excessive amount to spend on a scope

  1. An individual who is later in life, close to retirement, and for whom a $5,000 is doable, but for whom a $50,000 purchase would kill all hopes of retiring for some targeted time-frame.
  2. Those who are married and whose wife would never permit spending $50,000 on a selfish hobby especially considering that she doesn't have any interest in astronomy and won't get anything out of the purchase. In this case a boat may be justifiable, but not a telescope. So for this hobbyist, $50,000 on a dream scope is an extreme amount of money.
  3. For those who don't have $50,000 in cash, or any form of asset that can be turned into cash. You cannot get a loan for such a purchase, at least not like going to a boat dealership or truck dealership and signing a few forms and driving away with a new vehicle even though there isn't much in the person's bank account.

 

For a variety of reasons, I think the purchase of a scope is fundamentally different than a more sociably acceptable item. Boats can be used by the family. Trucks can be rationalized by the guy who wants it and can be purchased relatively easily. A $50,000 telescope requires $50,000 in cash that  effectively evaporates ... that is an extremely large amount of cash for most any working class person, myself included.

 

Dave, I am by no means wealthy if talking about finances, in family, yes, but money, no. I paid for my AP175 (about $23,000.oo) with a loan from our local Credit Union and sold everything I had that I didn't need (hobby or otherwise).  I guess I am saying it can be done.  It's all about priorities as you say.  I love telescopes, not boats, Harley's, sports cars, well I do like sports cars but, when you are of meager means AND married you have to make choices.  I choose the AP large APO and have not looked back.  BTW... the only way my wife would go along with this is I HAD to show that I could sell it for more than I paid for it or worst case scenario break even.  Believe me, it was a hard sell.  



#85 t.r.

t.r.

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • ****-
  • Posts: 6,160
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008
  • Loc: 1123,6536,5321

Posted 06 December 2017 - 08:15 PM

Jeez...Don't tell her they sell for 10k+ more than you paid or she will be cutting your break lines!!! 😜
  • Neptune and Olee like this

#86 mark8888

mark8888

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,477
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2010

Posted 07 December 2017 - 12:15 AM

 

 

It always amazes me when people talk about how expensive telescopes can be and only a very few wealthy amateurs can afford them. I then drive over to my son's house in a very middle class neighborhood and see a number of $30,000-60,000 boats on expensive trailers with 45 HP  outboard motors and a monster pickup truck needed to pull it. My daughter's boyfriend wants to get into chartering salt water fly-fishing and needs a $40,000 flats boat plus at least a 25 hp motor and trailer. I could go on and on. I won't even get into the sailboats I see in the harbor here. Astronomy is a NOT a very expensive hobby by comparison. You do NOT have to be wealthy to own a 10" refractor. It just depends where your priorities are. Bass boat, motor, trailer and pickup truck that you need a stepladder to get into the driver's seat or a 10" refractor? Most of the bass boat owners I see would not be characterized as wealthy. The difference in my opinion is that the bass enthusiast will have another excuse to own the pickup, and will get a loan if needed to buy what he wants, whereas the amateur astronomer will not.

 

Great TEC 10"! I hope many will consider owning, what for many is, the dream telescope of a lifetime.

I think the price of the TEC 250 is reasonable. It matches quite close to the price of my LZOS 228 which cost $42,000, onto which had to be added the price of getting it into the country and taxes. In the end it was a $50,000 purchase which is the price of the TEC although 22mm smaller. I am not rich by  any stretch and it is only my personal priorities that allowed me to make the purchase. That purchase had effects in other areas of my life. But for me, the scope and what it can do is more meaningful than what I could do with a boat. I've been married a few times and this purchase would never happened had I been married ... never.

 

The question as to why some consider the cost of the TEC 250 to be so high can be partly answered by considering the specifics of those who feel this way. I think there are many reasons and I consider the following as general catagories of those who may consider $50,000 as an excessive amount to spend on a scope

  1. An individual who is later in life, close to retirement, and for whom a $5,000 is doable, but for whom a $50,000 purchase would kill all hopes of retiring for some targeted time-frame.
  2. Those who are married and whose wife would never permit spending $50,000 on a selfish hobby especially considering that she doesn't have any interest in astronomy and won't get anything out of the purchase. In this case a boat may be justifiable, but not a telescope. So for this hobbyist, $50,000 on a dream scope is an extreme amount of money.
  3. For those who don't have $50,000 in cash, or any form of asset that can be turned into cash. You cannot get a loan for such a purchase, at least not like going to a boat dealership or truck dealership and signing a few forms and driving away with a new vehicle even though there isn't much in the person's bank account.

 

For a variety of reasons, I think the purchase of a scope is fundamentally different than a more sociably acceptable item. Boats can be used by the family. Trucks can be rationalized by the guy who wants it and can be purchased relatively easily. A $50,000 telescope requires $50,000 in cash that  effectively evaporates ... that is an extremely large amount of cash for most any working class person, myself included.

 

Dave, I am by no means wealthy if talking about finances, in family, yes, but money, no. I paid for my AP175 (about $23,000.oo) with a loan from our local Credit Union and sold everything I had that I didn't need (hobby or otherwise).  I guess I am saying it can be done.  It's all about priorities as you say.  I love telescopes, not boats, Harley's, sports cars, well I do like sports cars but, when you are of meager means AND married you have to make choices.  I choose the AP large APO and have not looked back.  BTW... the only way my wife would go along with this is I HAD to show that I could sell it for more than I paid for it or worst case scenario break even.  Believe me, it was a hard sell.  

 

 

But an honest one.  I don't understand the "effectively evaporates" phrase above.  Many scopes can be resold and gain back most, all, or even more than was originally paid. Other TECs and APs have demonstrated this. 



#87 nicknacknock

nicknacknock

    A man of many qualities, even if they are mostly bad ones

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 13,550
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Nicosia, Cyprus

Posted 07 December 2017 - 01:17 AM

I think it is fairly easy to sell a TEC or AP costing $5,000 or $10,000.

 

When you get to $50,000 the pool of available potential buyers shrinks significantly, so you may find yourself stuck with an asset you cannot convert to cash if need be...


  • ryderc1 and Neptune like this

#88 mark8888

mark8888

    Vanguard

  • *****
  • Posts: 2,477
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2010

Posted 07 December 2017 - 02:24 AM

I think it is fairly easy to sell a TEC or AP costing $5,000 or $10,000.

 

When you get to $50,000 the pool of available potential buyers shrinks significantly, so you may find yourself stuck with an asset you cannot convert to cash if need be... 

Agreed that it would be more difficult to sell, and could sell at a loss?  But surely 50K would not "effectively evaporate".  



#89 nicknacknock

nicknacknock

    A man of many qualities, even if they are mostly bad ones

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 13,550
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Nicosia, Cyprus

Posted 07 December 2017 - 02:34 AM

Definitely not evaporate, but surely become an asset that cannot be liquidate easily / tendered as guarantee for cash. It's a niche product after all...


  • mark8888 likes this

#90 Neptune

Neptune

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,334
  • Joined: 16 Apr 2007
  • Loc: Georgia

Posted 07 December 2017 - 08:30 AM

Definitely not evaporate, but surely become an asset that cannot be liquidate easily / tendered as guarantee for cash. It's a niche product after all...

This is why EVERY astro purchase I make gets put to the question of what will it be worth in the future should I have to liquidate. This tends to keep things fairly simple and not get to crazy buying lower quality astro gear or junk I just don't need. (most of the time)...


  • nicknacknock likes this

#91 nicknacknock

nicknacknock

    A man of many qualities, even if they are mostly bad ones

  • *****
  • Administrators
  • Posts: 13,550
  • Joined: 20 Feb 2012
  • Loc: Nicosia, Cyprus

Posted 07 December 2017 - 08:32 AM

Sigh... I got to quality gear on the back of low end to medium gear. If one had only steered me towards the good stuff from the beginning and I had saved and done the deed from the get-go, I would have been several thousands of $$$ better off...


  • Neptune, CounterWeight, Ken Sturrock and 1 other like this

#92 t.r.

t.r.

    Fly Me to the Moon

  • ****-
  • Posts: 6,160
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2008
  • Loc: 1123,6536,5321

Posted 08 December 2017 - 01:46 PM

I think most of the stuff now is "good gear". The Chinese have made great strides. The "excellent gear" is what you mean here and does indeed still cost an arm and leg for most. Consider yourself fortunate if you can afford and enjoy it...most cannot and "good gear" will have to do! Thank goodness it is better than it has been...a breakthrough for the amateur!

Edited by t.r., 08 December 2017 - 01:48 PM.

  • CounterWeight likes this

#93 jrbarnett

jrbarnett

    Eyepiece Hooligan

  • *****
  • Posts: 30,276
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2006
  • Loc: Petaluma, CA

Posted 08 December 2017 - 10:37 PM

That would have been a treat to spend some time looking through. I own a used TEC 140 and haven't had a chance to look through a larger TEC. I have seen a TEC 160 a few times at the GSSP,  but it was alway setup for imaging so no chance to look through it. I am by no means poor but it takes a lot of savings and setting priorities to put together the cash for the TEC180. Can't imaging the market or total number of 10 inch scopes built will be more than a dozen or so. The number of very wealthy people who are extremely serious astronomers has to be tiny. That kind of wealth could afford a permanent dark sky observatory or an telescope assistant to handle the setup and break down.

Of course many "non-wealthy people" buy $60k pickup trucks and nice bass boats for $70k.  :shrug:

 

It's all relative, and all about priorities and choices.  No one is feeding themselves with freshwater fish they catch, and no one really needs a "Cowboy Cadillac" truck; the plain Jane version works for work just dandy.

 

Setting up and taking down a trailerable sailboat isn't any less of a hassle (als a two person job) than setting up a 10" refractor on a big mount, and people deploy them by the thousands each and every day.

 

I think a well-organized, disciplined pair of observers of average financial means could enjoy a non-permanently-mounted 10er.

 

Best,

 

Jim 


  • Paul G, 3 i Guy, nicknacknock and 1 other like this

#94 HowardSkies

HowardSkies

    Vostok 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 125
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2017

Posted 09 December 2017 - 11:09 PM

Depreciation.  Its all about depreciation.

 

Cars and motorcycles drop fast.

 

Boats slower.

 

Telescope and good optics even slower and some keep up with inflation.

 

A high quality used refractor should hold its value over many years and then gradually go up over time.

 

howard



#95 Cotts

Cotts

    Just Wondering

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 10,272
  • Joined: 10 Oct 2005
  • Loc: Madoc, Ontario

Posted 11 December 2017 - 08:52 AM

 

That would have been a treat to spend some time looking through. I own a used TEC 140 and haven't had a chance to look through a larger TEC. I have seen a TEC 160 a few times at the GSSP,  but it was alway setup for imaging so no chance to look through it. I am by no means poor but it takes a lot of savings and setting priorities to put together the cash for the TEC180. Can't imaging the market or total number of 10 inch scopes built will be more than a dozen or so. The number of very wealthy people who are extremely serious astronomers has to be tiny. That kind of wealth could afford a permanent dark sky observatory or an telescope assistant to handle the setup and break down.

Of course many "non-wealthy people" buy $60k pickup trucks and nice bass boats for $70k.  shrug.gif

 

It's all relative, and all about priorities and choices.  No one is feeding themselves with freshwater fish they catch, and no one really needs a "Cowboy Cadillac" truck; the plain Jane version works for work just dandy.

 

Setting up and taking down a trailerable sailboat isn't any less of a hassle (als a two person job) than setting up a 10" refractor on a big mount, and people deploy them by the thousands each and every day.

 

I think a well-organized, disciplined pair of observers of average financial means could enjoy a non-permanently-mounted 10er.

 

Best,

 

Jim 

 

Jim, it's not just about priorities and choices.  The financing of the purchase is vital...These $60k and $70k items are purchased with a relatively small down payment (10% - 25%) and a loan, usually from the dealer.  Never cash up front.   They carry for $200 or $300 a month or whatever which makes them "affordable" to the average Joe.  Or they are leased...

 

If a bank loan is obtained, the boat or truck is the collateral and will be seized upon default...These bank loans are routine and are easily negotiated.

 

Now, let's ask Yuri P. if a buyer can put $5000 or $10000 down on the 10" scope and pay the rest in instalments over the next 5 years...You think he'd go for that?  Even knowing that he would make more money over the term of the deal than he would with cash up front?  Not likely.... 

 

Or ask a bank for a $40 000 loan on a telescope....This would be a very strange 'asset' to a bank loan officer - I doubt they would go for it... It's not a 'registered' or licensed asset like a car or boat...

 

I can only recall one telescope company that financed the scopes right up front in their advertising.  Can't recall their name but they made big dobs....And I suspect they either aren't around anymore (!) or have withdrawn the opportunity to buy "on time"....  I have not seen any telescope maker offer financing in a few years now.

 

Dave


  • Peter Besenbruch likes this

#96 jag32

jag32

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,065
  • Joined: 30 May 2017

Posted 11 December 2017 - 11:43 PM

 

Or ask a bank for a $40 000 loan on a telescope....This would be a very strange 'asset' to a bank loan officer - I doubt they would go for it... It's not a 'registered' or licensed asset like a car or boat...

 

It would not be strange to any bank loan officer, I promise you.  Its called a personal loan and virtually every bank offers them with no collateral required in exchange for simple cash that you can do with it what you please.  As long as you have good credit, a bank will give you cash in less than a few minutes in the form of a personal loan.  Your $40,000 dream honeymoon where the money disappears in a single weekend with nothing to show for it?  A bank will gladly give you a personal loan for that.  Same thing with a telescope.  The only difference with a personal loan where collateral and a title does not exist and you are simply receiving cash is that you can typically expect to pay a higher interest rate.  For example, a $50,000 car loan from my bank for 72 months the average interest rate is about 1.9%, however for a personal loan of the same amount, the interest rate will hover around 8%.  Not bad at all.  


Edited by jag32, 11 December 2017 - 11:44 PM.



CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics