What's the average aperture these days?

Volans · #1 18-03-2006, 01:46 PM

G'day All,

The boss and I were discussing mirror sizes the other day and he was telling me stories about grinding his own 6" when he was a kid. The question came up: What is the average size of aperture these days? Back in the 60's a 6" was the norm or maybe an 8" and there was only one 12" in Queensland and the Bundaberg 19" was colossal beyond belief (or so the boss claims).

Peter.

matt · #2 18-03-2006, 01:49 PM

Appears to be be around the 10" mark...

Although that might all be about to change with quite affordable larger apertures coming on the market.

But you still have the issue of portability for most people who don't want a scope that breaks down into individual components.

wavelandscott (Scott) · #3 18-03-2006, 02:06 PM

I think that average will fall in the 8-10 in...depending on how you calculate "average"...remember there are lots of relatively "little" refractors that will bring the average down...

janoskiss (Steve H) · #4 18-03-2006, 03:20 PM

Peter, I think a better poll question would have been: "What is the aperture of the scope you use most often?" and then taking the average of all asnwers.

Mine is an 8". But the average amongst those who are taking the hobby at least semi-seriously is probably 10". Although like Scott says the refractor faithfuls might bring that figure down.

... and if you include all the wobbly department store 60mm refractors around, then the average is probably around 60.02 mm.

stinky · #5 18-03-2006, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavelandscott

I think that average will fall in the 8-10 in...depending on how you calculate "average"...remember there are lots of relatively "little" refractors that will bring the average down...

I wouldn't call an 8" refractor "little" - I doubt there are too many represented at IIS.

Perhaps the results are best interpreted in relation to newtonians as there is no option for smaller than 8"?

iceman (Mike) · #6 18-03-2006, 05:00 PM

You can get 6" GSO dobs, and smaller 4.5" newts as well (tasco and others).

But with the price of an 8" so cheap ($399), it's almost a no-brainer.

Starkler (Geoff) · #7 18-03-2006, 05:40 PM

Well my next scope purchase is very likely to be a 130mm newt on a Vixen porta mount, so go figure

asimov (John) · #8 18-03-2006, 08:44 PM

I remember your boss's era quite clearly Peter.

Yep, average size back then was 6" but if you had an 8" you were classed as 1 rung up the ladder from the norm. If you had a 10-14" Well! you were in a league of your own almost.

I dreamt of having an 8" when I was 12 & by the time I was 13 I ended up grinding an 8" & building the rest between me & my dad.

Those were great times back then, flipping thru Sky & telescope & Astro Optical Supplies Celestron catalogs & the likes, & seeing those HUGE 8 & 10" SCT's etc.

I reckon today the norm, or average size is 10"

Muddy Diver · #9 18-03-2006, 08:55 PM

Hey....where do I vote?

asimov (John) · #10 18-03-2006, 09:07 PM

Right up the top of the page Muddy.

g__day (Matthew) · #11 18-03-2006, 10:19 PM

You don't seem to have a spot for 11" scopes!

Also its kinda specific to your type of scope, a solar scope is likely to be tiny compared to a apo-refractor, which in turn is bound to be generally smaller then reflectors or Schmit Cassegrains, which will likely be smaller than dobsonians. All these scopes have differnet purposes, so to lump them all together in such a general question doesn't achieve much does it?

Too if you're drifiting into astro-photography your buget could easily be spread 50% mount and controller, 25% OTA and 25% CCD. So purpose can easily skew your results downwards towards quality over aperature.

The only thing you can say about an average is 50% are below it and 50% are above - that's what defines and average, A standard deviation or distribution curve/s focuses alot more useful attention.

matt · #12 18-03-2006, 10:32 PM

just have a bit of fun and vote, eh?

Striker (Tony) · #13 18-03-2006, 11:50 PM

Dam...looks like My C11 has missed out.

asimov (John) · #14 18-03-2006, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matt

just have a bit of fun and vote, eh?

@ Matt

Volans · #15 19-03-2006, 12:25 PM

G'day All,

Well it seems this poll has illicited a responce that I had not anticipated. Maybe if I give some background to the reason for my question then it will become clearer as to why I asked it.

The store room at the planetarium was in need of a huge clean up and in this process we came across the ex-curator's 6" Newtonian. The primary needs to be re-coated, the rack and pinoin is stiff, the spider is bent and the focuser can only hold the old 0.96" eyepieces. The ex-curator did not want it and this all started the reminicing that I mentioned in my original posting for this thread.

Earlier in the day the boss and I were putting the final touches on to the 4 week astronomy course we intend to run in May. The boss came up with the idea of bringing his 8" mirror in and I replied that I would bring my 13.1" in as well. We also found two discs of wood, 22" and 30" respectively, in the clean out. So we decided to make a small display for the students in the astronomy course that would dramatically show the difference in light gathering capacity between the 6, 8, 13.1, 22 and 30.

This then prompted the question I asked for the poll. Becuase it was just my boss and I discussing the matter, I decided to ask a wider audience, i.e, the members of IIS.

If, in my first attempt at a poll, I have failed to phrase the question properly, missed out on a specific aperture, seemed to favour reflectors over refractors and offered a poll that is statistically inept - then I do apologise.

Clear and steady skies to you all,

Peter.

Muddy Diver · #16 19-03-2006, 12:39 PM

Hey Peter and Asi

I was just kidding. If you notice my signature my 4" Celestron doesn't even qualify me to vote!

Barry

matt · #17 19-03-2006, 12:43 PM

Don't worry about it, Peter.

I thought it was a good general question and the reference to your boss "grinding" his own 6" clearly suggested to me you were talking about reflectors.

If folks want something more technically involved and more specific perhaps they should put up their own survey/post rather than seeking to modify one that's already up and running (IMO).

Funny how things go... sometimes

g__day (Matthew) · #18 19-03-2006, 04:15 PM

Good luck Peter, personally I think your question was far too general if you wanted to seriously sample a distribution. Other people might value this spectrum of data.

The only poor question is the one not asked.

Robert_T · #19 19-03-2006, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asimov

I remember your boss's era quite clearly Peter.

Yep, average size back then was 6" but if you had an 8" you were classed as 1 rung up the ladder from the norm. If you had a 10-14" Well! you were in a league of your own almost.

I dreamt of having an 8" when I was 12 & by the time I was 13 I ended up grinding an 8" & building the rest between me & my dad.

Those were great times back then, flipping thru Sky & telescope & Astro Optical Supplies Celestron catalogs & the likes, & seeing those HUGE 8 & 10" SCT's etc.

I reckon today the norm, or average size is 10"

Hey Asi, I could have written this about myself, but was lagging you in the ATM department by a few years

Hi Peter,I was in BBerg recently, the dome of that collossus is still there and I expect so is the scope (I only drove by with screaming kids in the back from a swim at Woodgate). Your boss is right though, 20-30 years ago Queenslanders used to talk in hushed tones of this mythical goliath telescope up north in the canefields!

cheers,

seeker372011 (Narayan) · #20 19-03-2006, 10:45 PM

I happened to be speaking to Lee Andrews at Andrews Communications yesterday and his view was that 8 inches reflectors are declining in sale worldwide