16 replies to this topic

[mayhem13]

A topic born from outside the realm of business models, marketing and profit, what does this look like for us hobbyists and practitioners? If you could design and manufacture this device, what would it be?…..would you buy that Optic if it became available tomorrow?

[matt_astro_tx]

Interested to see where this goes…

[imtl]

If generative AI make it, then...

[rgsalinger]

There are more or less four things to consider apart from size and price.

 

First, it has to have a large aperture.

 

Second, it has to have superb optics - diffraction limited.

 

Third it has to be as "fast" as possible - lowest F-number.

 

Finally, it would have to have a perfect image circle out to the largest commonly available CMOS camera you can buy.

 

I'd buy one of these telescopes, if I could afford it, had access to skies that had 1" seeing, and owned a mount that would take it. A cheaper alternative would be a RASA 14. The problem (rumor) with both of these choices, aside from price is the difficulty of keeping them collimated over time. 

[happylimpet]

There are more or less four things to consider apart from size and price.

 

First, it has to have a large aperture.

 

Second, it has to have superb optics - diffraction limited.

 

Third it has to be as "fast" as possible - lowest F-number.

 

Finally, it would have to have a perfect image circle out to the largest commonly available CMOS camera you can buy.

 

I'd buy one of these telescopes, if I could afford it, had access to skies that had 1" seeing, and owned a mount that would take it. A cheaper alternative would be a RASA 14. The problem (rumor) with both of these choices, aside from price is the difficulty of keeping them collimated over time. 

Generally true but for me, f number only needs to be low enough to mount sensibly (no f8 20" scopes). But the planewave? I wouldnt want a 20" scope with a 59% central obstruction! Zowee. Though if you're offering me one of course.....

[auroraTDunn]

I have and have used a great many different types of optical systems. For me, currently the best design, for astrograph scopes) are petzval designs. However with all their wonderful advantages there are other issues which self-defeats the best design. For instance how large can we, sanely, cheaply, and functionally go with refactors, for the average Joe/Jane imager? Same for focal length, while there's no reason you can't have a longer focal length petzval design how many have you ever seen. There are a few issues the longer you want that focal length to go and still maintain a flat image across the whole field.

 

In a dream, fantasy world you would have a semi-variable FL system (think camera lens sort of) that produced flat images with little other distortions/aberrations, diffraction limits of highest order(err should that be lowest order?) and no need to worry about back focus and which can be expanded to larger aperture models and all within a range that above average Joes/Janes (at least monetarily could afford). Again I did mention fantasy, but if one could design it, mmmmmmm (spelled yummmmmmmm - best chocolate ever!!!!)

[matt_astro_tx]

There are more or less four things to consider apart from size and price.

 

First, it has to have a large aperture.

 

Second, it has to have superb optics - diffraction limited.

 

Third it has to be as "fast" as possible - lowest F-number.

 

Finally, it would have to have a perfect image circle out to the largest commonly available CMOS camera you can buy.

 

I'd buy one of these telescopes, if I could afford it, had access to skies that had 1" seeing, and owned a mount that would take it. A cheaper alternative would be a RASA 14. The problem (rumor) with both of these choices, aside from price is the difficulty of keeping them collimated over time. 

Yeah the Delta Rho has been my dream scope since they came out. 

[Dan_I]

A large hyperbolic Newtonian with 3" (or larger) matched corrector. Wide diffraction limited field, low f-ratio while keeping the obstruction under control.

Edited by Dan_I, 14 May 2025 - 11:28 AM.

[andysea]

For me it would an f2 or faster refractive system that can produce a diffraction limited circle of at least 55mm. Focal length should be around 500mm for portability.
Also no camera mounted in the front of the optics. I’ve been on the list for the AP rh305 for over 10 years but no chance of getting one new. I would settle for that if I was offered one from AP lol.
Maybe the new fast astrograph hinted at by Yuri would work too.

Edited by andysea, 14 May 2025 - 05:57 PM.

[mayhem13]

For me it would an f2 or faster refractive system that can produce a diffraction limited circle of at lest 55mm. Focal length should be around 500mm for portability.
Also no camera mounted in the front of the optics. I’ve been on the list for the AP rh305 for over 10 years but no chance of getting one new. I would settle for that if I was offered one from AP lol.
Maybe the new fast astrograph hinted at by Yuri would work too.

Too much chromatic abberation and field curvature at anything over 80mm aperture

[mayhem13]

I think the RASA is a good concept with poor execution as a dedicated astrograph.....they pretty much adapted the SCT EDGE primary cell when they could have created a few focus mechanism that was central and balanced......no need for a baffle tube at all. 

 

Could have developed a couple of extenders too for longer focal lengths and slower speeds. 

 

An battery powered astrocam with wifi connectivity would eliminate any wires and further obstruction.

 

A well built 8" Newtonian at a native F4 with a 3" focuser would be my choice. No need for tube rings......build in a near full length Losmandy plate for mounting to eliminate flexure. 

[erictheastrojunkie]

Where I'm at now in my astro journey, I think a 10" f4 Newt would be the most ideal, with a 3" focuser and diffraction limited optics, utilize the Starizona 0.75x reducer to image at 750mm focal length and f3 for nebula, utilize a paracorr for 1.1x barlow to image at 1100mm and f4.4 for galaxies. 

[joydeepb]

I'll take one Giant Magellan Telescope in space with a giant solar shield, please.

[calypsob]

Honey i shrunk the kids a Samyang 135 in reverse up to a 180mm / 360mm f2 and let me know who to speak with.

Edited by calypsob, 15 May 2025 - 09:42 PM.

[psandelle]

This was always my scope of choice, 1000mm aperture at f1.3. Perfect do-it-all scope. Oh, and it has a big well-corrected image circle, tracks unguided with direct drive. All the mod cons: https://www.astrosys...s/uwf1000-f1-3/

 

Or, you can get this “lesser” scope that has motorized collimation thrown in (I think; one of them does): https://www.astrosys...ducts/uwf300_1/

Edited by psandelle, 15 May 2025 - 10:43 PM.

[rgsalinger]

I really thought those guys went out of business a while back. Cool to see that the opposite has transpired. 

[KGoodwin]

I really thought those guys went out of business a while back. Cool to see that the opposite has transpired.

No, they just stopped targeting the amateur market. Their scopes are generally all quite large and expensive now (not that they were ever cheap, but they had smaller scopes).