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

What is the most over rated scope from the 60's and 70's era.

  • Please log in to reply
155 replies to this topic

#151 clamchip

clamchip

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 11,279
  • Joined: 09 Aug 2008
  • Loc: Seattle

Posted Yesterday, 06:01 PM

Celestron founder Tom Johnson when interviewed about why orange:

"Just different and controversial. The color scheme came from the Mauna Kea Telescope."

http://www.ifa.hawai...er-public.shtml

 

Robert 


Edited by clamchip, Yesterday, 06:05 PM.

  • Terra Nova, Bomber Bob, Kasmos and 1 other like this

#152 GUS.K

GUS.K

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 885
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2014
  • Loc: Katoomba, NSW, Australia.

Posted Yesterday, 06:37 PM

I remember the Celestron catalogues from the early eighties, I loved the orange colour scheme, dreamed of owning one, but I was still at school so no chance. A couple of years later, rebuilt an eq mounted reflector into a dob and painted it orange, didn't quite have the same appeal.

 

Attached Thumbnails

  • IMG_20210509_0916187518 (2).jpg

  • clamchip, Terra Nova, Bomber Bob and 2 others like this

#153 LukaszLu

LukaszLu

    Messenger

  • -----
  • Posts: 420
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2020
  • Loc: Poland

Posted Yesterday, 06:46 PM

Celestron founder Tom Johnson when interviewed about why orange:

"Just different and controversial. The color scheme came from the Mauna Kea Telescope."

http://www.ifa.hawai...er-public.shtml

 

Robert 

That's exactly what I meant: "it's not an ordinary telescope like many others, but ... an orange Celestron"... :-)


  • clamchip likes this

#154 Joe1950

Joe1950

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,827
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2015

Posted Yesterday, 07:21 PM

I’ve told this story before, but I hope it’s worth repeating.

 

About 1968 or so I saw a C-8 for the first time. It was in a display case at the Franklin Institute, Phila. I wanted one right then and there. I read about them, followed the ads and saved my money. It was $1,000 back then, surely a lot of money but other expenses were low, so I bought one from Edmunds about ‘70 or so.

 

It was a good scope, but I saw nothing jaw-dropping through it. The moon was great, and the planets good, but not outstanding. Plus the sky was much better than now but still not real dark.

 

In the early ‘70s there were 2 consecutive and very favorable oppositions of Mars. For one of them the club I was in, Willingboro Astronomical Society, had a ‘bring your scope’ to look at Mars in the parking lot of the club. So I did. I set up and observed Mars, the detail was good and one of the best views I had seen to that point.

 

Next to me was a gent with an 8” Newt on a heavy equatorial mount. A lot of scope to lug around I thought. He asked if he could look through my C-8, and offered me a look through his Newt. Sure.

 

When I looked through the Newt at Mars, my jaw dropped. Unbelievable detail, color, contrast. Many times better than the C-8. The guy must have seen the look on my face and said the difference must be because of the large secondary obstruction. I thought it was more than just that. Not long after I sold the C-8 and got a 10” Cave. Another story.

 

 

In that case you would have to say that the C-8 was mediocre at best. And, the original hype was just that and they were much over-rated. That said, many, many were sold and they changed the telescope industry of the time.

 

Looking back and knowing what I do today about collimation and how important it is to good performance in an SCT and Mak, I have to wonder if the C-8 back then was collimated well enough to give the finest views possible. All most of us knew about collimation was to look in the eyepiece holder, without an eyepiece, and adjust the screws on the secondary so that the secondary shadow was centered in the primary mirror reflection. That was it!

 

Today we know that is not nearly accurate enough to collimate the scope. So, I’d have to say in all fairness, the bad rap on SCTs at the time was at least partially due to the lack of understanding of collimation and lack of accurate procedures to do so. Now we have exacting methods that will get SCTs spot on to get the most possible from them.

 

Attached File  SCT Collimation(1).pdf   163.5KB   8 downloads

 

Still over-rated? Maybe, maybe not so much. I don’t know.  shrug.gif

 

 

ADDED: Myself and the club and club members all were very close to the Edmund Scientific retail store. I loved going there any chance I could.

 

But, to the guys with the biggest and best scopes, Edmund’s products were considered meh! The gold standard to them was Cave. An 8”, 10” Cave was the best of the best.

 

They would buy the scope, immediately take off the clock drive and replace it with a large diameter Buyers drive. And none of them would ever consider an SCT, or as they called them, ‘Suitcase Telescopes.’ lol.gif

 

 


Edited by Joe1950, Yesterday, 11:24 PM.

  • Terra Nova, Bomber Bob and davidc135 like this

#155 CHASLX200

CHASLX200

    ISS

  • *****
  • Posts: 22,331
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2007
  • Loc: Tampa area Florida

Posted Today, 06:12 AM

I never knew there was a C8 in 1968. I know they had a 4",6" 10", 12",16" and on and on. Then that one off  axis job.



#156 Joe1950

Joe1950

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10,827
  • Joined: 22 Aug 2015

Posted Today, 07:45 AM

I can’t be sure of the exact year Chas. It could have been later. The one I saw at the Franklin Institute may have been a pre-production prototype. I don’t think it was for sale at that time. Anyway it was about those times +/- 5 years. grin.gif


Edited by Joe1950, Today, 07:47 AM.



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