Better optic coatings

Status
Not open for further replies.
2

2844az

Guest
I am still looking for the ultimate telescope for the buck. We have talked about apertures, focal length, eyepieces, f./ratios etc. Now here is something interesting: The optic coatings. I was reading about Meade’s new optic coating. Its reflective coating is so good that they say, “The overall effect of the UHTC “Ultra-High Transmission Coatings†is, as it relates to image brightness, to increase the telescope's effective aperture. Image brightness of the Meade 10" LX200GPS is, for example, effectively increased by about one full inch of aperture.†[http://www.opticsplanet.com/catalog/meade/meade-uhtc.shtml]. I suppose they are saying that their 10-inch telescope is equivalent to a 11- inch scope? That would be great for the money. If a 10- in. scope with UHTC will give you an 11- in. aperture. If that be true then would a 8- in. scope be like having a 8.8- in. aperture? One thing about Meade is that their mirror is actually ¼- in. wider than specified (ie. 8- in. is really 8.25-in. mirror), which equals more light.<br /><br /> And then there is the Meade 8 in LX200R Advanced Ritchey-Chretien (RC) Astronomical Telescope it is suppose to be the Hubble for your Backyard! It is about 700.00 more than the Meade 8 inch LX90GPS UHTC Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescope w/ GPS, LNT, Meade Autostar Computer Controller. <br /><br />Does anyone really think that (RC) is worth the 700.00 extra, or would you be better off buying a better diagonal and quality eyepieces? Thanks, Gary.<br />
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
I haven't refreshed the thread yet to see what other people wrote, but yes, it is.<br /><br />The UHTC coatings are junk compared to the Celestron XLT for light transmission. But the RC is the be-all for smal scopes. And it's not just the coatings! The Ritchey Cretian design is HUGELY more efficient. The RC is a research-grade scope. The others aren't. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>.</p><p><font size="3">bipartisan</font>  (<span style="color:blue" class="pointer"><span class="pron"><font face="Lucida Sans Unicode" size="2">bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən</font></span></span>) [Adj.]  Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.</p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ff0000">IMPE</font><font color="#c0c0c0">ACH</font> <font color="#0000ff"><font color="#c0c0c0">O</font>BAMA</font>!</font></strong></p> </div>
 
H

heyscottie

Guest
But it seems that the Meade RC scopes are not REALLY Ritchey Chretien, but instead are modifed Schmidt Cassegrain. I believe that Meade was recently forced to stop using the "RC" initials on these telescopes due to this.
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
There's a reason you see so many club scopes that are Meade RC's, CE. The Meade RC has nothing to do with the low/mid-grade Meades. The RC is built and assembled in the US. It's hand-built by real builders, not mass-chinese-produced. The R/C light path is like an S/C on steroids (which is one good reason the Hubble is an R/C. As is the big scope at Lowell [and others])<br /> <br /><br />[full disclosure: My big scope is an R/C] <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>.</p><p><font size="3">bipartisan</font>  (<span style="color:blue" class="pointer"><span class="pron"><font face="Lucida Sans Unicode" size="2">bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən</font></span></span>) [Adj.]  Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.</p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ff0000">IMPE</font><font color="#c0c0c0">ACH</font> <font color="#0000ff"><font color="#c0c0c0">O</font>BAMA</font>!</font></strong></p> </div>
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
The Meade RC is a modified RC design, agreed. But checking their latest catalog, they're still using the RC. (The RCX). My club just got a new 16 RCX a couple months ago as well. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>.</p><p><font size="3">bipartisan</font>  (<span style="color:blue" class="pointer"><span class="pron"><font face="Lucida Sans Unicode" size="2">bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən</font></span></span>) [Adj.]  Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.</p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ff0000">IMPE</font><font color="#c0c0c0">ACH</font> <font color="#0000ff"><font color="#c0c0c0">O</font>BAMA</font>!</font></strong></p> </div>
 
H

heyscottie

Guest
The Meade RC scopes, while not TRUE RC designs, do seem to be superior to general Schmidt-Cassegrains.<br /><br />A real RC scope is made up of hyperbolic primary and secondary mirrors, and nothing else. The Meade uses a parabolic mirror for one of these (I forget which one) and a refracting corrector plate, making it more accurate to call it an Advanced Schmidt-Cassegrain.<br /><br />Not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with these scopes; I'm sure they are very good. But they will still suffer from chromatic aberation, and their coma is not as well corrected for as a true RC design does. But they do seem to beat Schmidt-Cassegrains. Do they beat them by $700? Maybe.<br /><br />Scott
 
P

pirated

Guest
Well, i can confirm that anything over 6" is made in the U.S. (at least as of 1986) <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> , as i use to work there. (in orange county, ca.).<br /><br />just my 2 cents <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>Peace. </p><p><font color="#33cccc">-------------------------------------------------------------------</font> <strong><font color="#993300">I'm a Rock!</font></strong></p><p><font color="#33cccc">Little Johnny was a scientist. Little Johnny is no more. For what he thought was H2O was H2SO4.</font></p> </div>
 
A

adrenalynn

Guest
How much of it? Entirely too many boxes involved say "china" for my taste. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>.</p><p><font size="3">bipartisan</font>  (<span style="color:blue" class="pointer"><span class="pron"><font face="Lucida Sans Unicode" size="2">bī-pär'tĭ-zən, -sən</font></span></span>) [Adj.]  Maintaining the ability to blame republications when your stimulus plan proves to be a devastating failure.</p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000"><font color="#ff0000">IMPE</font><font color="#c0c0c0">ACH</font> <font color="#0000ff"><font color="#c0c0c0">O</font>BAMA</font>!</font></strong></p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY