The Spyglass Network (SGN)

The Spyglass Network (SGN)

Monday, January 23, 2012

Why I Like Small Scopes by Roger W. Gordon

My first telescope at age 11 in 1952 was a small 30x40 spotting scope, and like many budding amateurs I dreamed of owning a larger one. In 1956 I got a 2.4" refractor just in time for the Mars opposition, but it wasnt long until I wanted an even larger scope. In 1961, I got a 4" Unitron, and 1962 added a 6" Criterion reflector. Marriage occured in 1963, and our first home in 65. In that year I also obtained an 8" F7.5 reflector, and that is when my quest for alarger scopes came to a halt. It weighed over 160 lbs and thermal currents often ruined the images. A chore to set up and take down, I gradually lost interest in it and slowly started losing interest in the hobby.

A friend of mine in our club who worked for Questar came up and showed me his instrument. I marvelled at how much detail it showed, and in 66 I sold the 8" and bought a Questar. After that I gradually added more scopes, but never more than 6" aperture. As of today, I've owned more than 50 scopes, refractors, reflectors, and catadioptrics. Presently I have 16 scopes, all ranging from 2 to 4.5 inches aperture. They take up far less space than one or two large scopes, are easy to set up and use, have good to exclennet optics, and are less affected by seeing problems. Pennsylvania is not known for Arizona type skies either in clarity or steadiness. I enjoy using these scopes and sometimes have 2 or 3 set up at once for comparison.

I collect telescopes now. I look for older classic optics rather thannewer equipment. I have no wish or need to duplicate instruments already in proflific existence. I'm not a crowd follower. Almost all my scopes are altazimuth, and several have no slow motions. Only one, a 3.5" Questar, has a clock drive. I will never own a telescope that has computers or other modern electronics attached to it. I'm a visual observer because eyeball astronomy is first source information. CCDs and video photos are secondary source information. If I want secondary source info I'll open a magazine or buy a book etc. When I'm at the scope, I want the images being interpreted by my eye/brain system, and if I want to record what I see, I'll draw it. I prefer instruments that have a history behind them, not some flashy piece of often overpriced underperforming junk.

Small scopes are not only more efficient in reaching theoretical resolution on a greater number of nights than larger ones, their guide setup time means more observing time and less setup/take down time. And small scopes, if of excellent optical quality, often outperform their larger brethren on mediocre seeing nights when used on the moon and planets. Another aspect of observign with small scopes I particuarly enjoy is proving the authorities wrong on various test objects - that is, seein them with less than the minimum aperture often quoted as necessary. Manufacturers often dont like to sell small scopes because they dont make as much profit on them. Consequently, small apertures are often downplayed to make more profit or higher comessions. Small scopes are also often downplayed for use in deep sky observing, but a look at the drawing doen by John Massas with a 4" f/14 refractor in The Messier Album (Mallas and Kreimer) will show more stars per field than will larger apertures due to the much wider field they cover. The same is true for certain wide angle binoculars.

Small scope sprovide enjoyment far out of proportion to their aperture. Going from naked eye to a 3" scope is a huge gain in what one can see. To obtain a comparable gain, one would have to go from a 3" to a 50" scope. One final thing about small scopes - remember the old saying. Good things come in small packages!

No comments:

Post a Comment