Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Ward
If you then accept guiding as a given, not matter how good the RA drive, then guiding *adaptively* is the next step....
|
So why leave a weak link in the chain? Get rid of the worm and wheel, replace it with direct drives, augment the system with AO, and you're that much closer to tracking Nirvana. Who would voluntarily cripple themselves by clinging to a system inherently limited by periodic error, however small it may be? The top dogs won't do it.
Serious (amateur) astronomers have no time for sentiment. They won't cling to a type or brand of mount just because it was the best at one time, and because they invested as much in it emotionally as they did financially. No, they are forever chasing perfection, and that takes a certain ruthlessness. Out with the old and inferior, in with the new and superior.
The direct drive offers obvious advantages and there are those who are willing to pay the extra to have it. That's why today's high end mounts such as the PME, AP-1200, EM-500, etc exist and sold well for so long, but it's also why they're considered to be yesterday's mount technology by the guys who won't settle for second best.
Your PME will no doubt be more than adequate for your own needs for a while to come, but it doesn't alter the fact that the people pushing the bleeding edge, the top end of amateur astronomy, will instantly ditch their own PMEs the second a better solution presents itself, and direct drive is that solution.
In a very few years time this debate is going to seem as silly as those which took place when the PME was released. By then the direct drive mounts will be the unquestioned king of the hill, and people will wonder why some took so long to recognize the obvious.
