|
I tried to resist .... really
i agree with mick pinners and asters points on a personal basis.
however........
a couple of points come to mind
if you are using a 24 inch rcos remotely and the seeing is poor do you still pay??
Would anyone using this high end gear not have the skills to go through the drudgery of doing a polar alignment and the other mechanical tuning?? (if so then is the argument valid ?)
If you are using your own gear (and lets face it some of it out there is pretty good) then if data is king then you can always gather more free of charge say an extra 20 hrs?? .(is this a reasonable conjecture ???)
im not sure whether processing is the king either, but with my limited experience it does make a big difference, as the image aquired rarely looks like the final product.
the whole debate seems to revolve around its suitability for a competition, its a bit like drug testing at the olympics some are banned and some (ventolin , viagra etc ) are not and much debate as to whether they give an advantage..... but thems the rules: exploit them as you will i guess, its up to the competition commitee to give due consideration to how they are set.
as for unfair advantage , as an average income earner whos not likely to put aside $50,000.00 or more for quality equipment, it seems only the well heeled can expect to really compete at the level that deepsky imaging demands within these competitions.
viva la revolutione.....
its not something that affects the average astronomer, so i wont be losing any sleep over it.
cheers to all.
|