Quote:
Originally Posted by glend
Stefan, if you analyse the available equipment solutions, from the standpoint of cost to acquire (an often important consideration these days), a Newtonian will, or should, be the logical choice. If money is not a consideration, well of course there are other options.
|
My argument is that even if money is not a consideration, there are not many options, but yes, the Newtonian is the most cost effective one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelopardalis
Newts that are financially accessible for most tick all the boxes of what doesn’t work for high resolution planetary imaging… inability of spider or primary cell to hold the mirrors still, cheap and flimsy tube that bends at the thought of a slew…
SCTs are common for that use case because their sins are fairly manageable, and they don’t require superhuman strength or observatory class mounts to use them.
Fwiw I’d love a dedicated planetary scope… but it’d have to come with a kind of seeing guarantee  |
You are spot on regarding Newts. It is very difficult to make them rigid and stable without turning the rigidity problem into a thermal problem. A good planetary telescope needs to have a small thermal inertia not only regarding the optics, but the whole structure. The Cassegrain configuration is much more suitable in that respect.
Anyway, I can provide the scope but not the seeing, unfortunately, although I may be able to include a sorcery manual