Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward
Problem might be that the venerable Celestron 14 might be a commercial thorn in the side of your plans. Since Don Parker started using one with photographic
film last century (bugger... I must be old) they have produced remarkable results.
In terms of bang for buck, how would your design, on paper at least, improve on them? (e.g theoretical resolution/contrast)
|
A long time ago when Don Parker was using a 16" Newtonian, I made a 10" Dall-Kirkham as a step up from a 180mm Gregory-Maksutov that I was using at the time - and I was so happy with it that I ended up making a 16" version, a few years later.
A 10" DK cannot compete, of course, with a C14 regarding resolution but it is far more portable and can better handle the seeing. When I moved from the 10" to the 16", the good seeing nights became a lot less frequent.
A problem with C14s appears to be that not all of them are equally good, making it a risky investment. Although this opinion of mine is based on very few samples.
Another advantage of the DK is that it doesn't have a corrector plate that can dew up. At least in Melbourne, the nights with the best seeing tend to be very dewy.