View Single Post
Old 13-01-2014, 10:48 PM
clive milne
Registered User

clive milne is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Freo WA
Posts: 1,443
Originally Posted by Bassnut View Post
You carefully always connect your comments on the value of CF with quartz optics, whys that ?. Is there something about quartz optics that makes CF tubes of lesser value?.
Fred, I was just pointing out that the marketing spiel on the Astronomics website was specious at best. The claim that you need CF truss tubes and quartz optics to preserve focus (or image scale) is meaningless in the context of the OTA under discussion. They would have been better off supplying a welded steel truss and pyrex optics and including a mechanically adequate ascom compliant rotating focuser with the money saved. A properly engineered steel truss would also be lighter and stronger than what we see with these OTA's. GSO missed a trick here.

That is not to suggest that the OTA is fundamentally flawed (I think it looks reasonably good) just that money was spent were it isn't really needed.
My hope is that future iterations will address the mechanical requirements of an imaging OTA rather than just trying to replicate the cosmetic appeal of Planewave et al.

In saying all that, if the only issue with these telescopes is the focuser, then they are without doubt a fundamental game changer. I have my fingers crossed that this is the case. I also think it is time they supplied a field corrector to go with them too.

Reply With Quote