Rival Telescope Manufacturers Locked in Battle

Newsday ^ | June 19, 2002 | ANDREW BRIDGES -- AP Science Writer

[Willie Green]

LOS ANGELES -- The world's two largest telescope makers are locked in a battle that amateur astronomers and federal regulators alike fear could monopolize the market for a popular type of stargazing equipment.

Meade Instruments Corp. of Irvine has filed three lawsuits against rival Celestron International Inc., alleging patent infringement related to computerized telescope technology.

Celestron, based in Torrance, believes the suits could bankrupt the company as it seeks to buy back its independence from parent Tasco Worldwide Inc., which announced in May it was liquidating its assets.

[Willie Green]

bttt

[First_Salute]

Feel the love.

[RightWhale]

A cassegrain telescope is something an amateur mirror-maker can make without too much hassle. The schmidt addition, however, increases the necessary expertise to a point where few amateurs would undertake the task. Of course anyone can make a functional newtonian scope including grinding and polishing the mirror; it's very simple, even though the mirror surface should be perfect to 1/10th the wavelength of light. Most would send the polished mirror to a company for addition of the reflective coating, which usually is done with specialized vacuum equipment.

[Henrietta]

ping

[OBAFGKM]

YIKE!! I hate this!

Quality-wise, Celestron blows Meade away. (Meade has slicker advertizing.)

[jboot]

IMHO, Meade scopes are better than Celestron scopes of equivalent price, but I'd hate to lose Celestron. Then you wouldn't be able to touch a decent catadioptic scope for under $2K.

I think I'll just opt out and get a TeleVue.

[Willie Green]

Amateurs have been into building their own scopes, grinding/polishing lens and mirrors for decades.
I certainly do not pursue this hobby in depth, myself. But IMHO, the cutting edge competition in amateur telescope technology in recent years has been in the computer data-base driven equatorial mounts that make it really easy to find stuff. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I get when looking at the nifty features in the magazine ads.

[RightWhale]

Like they used to say, if you spend all your time and money on the optics and nothing on the mount, you will end up with just another useless garden ornament. These electronic controls and CCDs are way off the deep end as far as my star-gazing budget is concerned; the scope itself is a minor part of the cost these days.

[OBAFGKM]

"...Meade scopes are better than Celestron scopes of equivalent price..."

Meade optics are a crap shoot -- you just might luck out and buy an instrument with superb optics, but more likely, you're going to get a soft focus and mediocre off-axis performance.

[MrNeutron1962]

Aspects of this sound a little like what is going on in my favorite hobby, Amateur Radio. You have a hobby, that in its nascent years was populated with many very savvy people, most of whom made a great deal of there own equipment. As the technology developed, it became harder and harder to match the performance on commercially manufactured equipment. In addition, many of the reasons for the hobbies existence became moot. New reasons for the hobbies existence, along with many that were always there, are becoming more apparent all the time. But, the old radio experimenter days are fading fast as the demands of technology pass by all but the most dedicated radio amateur. Ask any high school aged teen if they have ever even heard of amateur radio and my guess is the answer will be no.

Now I understand that there is a dedicated body of amateur astronomers doing some truly excellent work. But, as the difference between what is possible with the amateur equipment and the major observatories grows wider, I wonder if that tradition will last. As equipment becomes more expensive and manufacturers go out of business, I wonder how long it will be before Amateur Astronomy passes into the realm of quaint pastime. For many see Amateur Radio as nothing more than a curious hobby, that on its best days seems expensive and ridiculous when compared to a Cellular Telephone. I wonder, is Amateur Astronomy far behind?

[AdA$tra]

These electronic controls and CCDs are way off the deep end as far as my star-gazing budget is concerned

You can get a Meade or Celestron capable of discerning the rings of Saturn and the moons of Jupiter for less than $500, electronic tracking equipment included. I opted for one of the smaller the Meade scopes. It keeps me entertained. At least it gives me something to do while I drink my pale ale. I recently purchased an "electronic eyepiece" that allows me to plug straight into a VCR or camcorder. Talk about cool.

[OBAFGKM]

"I wonder, is Amateur Astronomy far behind?"

I dunno. It's very difficult for an astronomer to get time at a major observatory, and if there's happens to be an overcast that night -- tough. For years, amateur astronomers have actually coordinated their work with observation programs at major observatories. For example, many supernovae and comets are first observed by amateurs every year -- major observatories depend on them for notification.

For another example, see Variable Star Observers. It would be prohibitive for a major observatory to devote time to observing and measuring thousands of variable stars, yet astrophysics is in part dependent on such observations.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Like they used to say, if you spend all your time and money on the optics and nothing on the mount, you will end up with just another useless garden ornament.

Most serious amateurs sell the mount, or tripod and invest in 30 dollars worth of concrete, a little rebar and stick a 8 inch diameter pipe, 4 feet into the ground. Then you have a rock solid pier for CCD and imaging work and no more, or very little polar alignment. Flip a few switches and your in business.

I am fortunate enough to have an LX-200 10" and thats my next project, to build the pier. I figure it can be done for about 180 bucks. Then eventually, I will build a 8 foot diameter observatory around it.

Meade mounts are fairly good and pretty stable, but a German mount can be had used for about 1500 dollars and would be a vast improvment. I have seen great CCD imaging work done with a Meade with a Meade mount on a tripod. You can imagine the improvment with a German mount on a permanent pier.

[Joe Hadenuf]

"Quality-wise, Celestron blows Meade away"

Well, I would disagree and would add that Meades electronics are superior. I have had both, and I prefer the Meade.

[RightWhale]

The idea of a big, dumb telescope mount was what caused me to take welding class. Truck axles and concrete, nothing could be finer.

[Joe Hadenuf]

For many see Amateur Radio as nothing more than a curious hobby, that on its best days seems expensive and ridiculous when compared to a Cellular Telephone. I wonder, is Amateur Astronomy far behind?

I disagree. I too have two hobbies, amateur astronomy, and amateur radio. I communicate with my family over 100 mile area via two meters for free. No bill at the end of every month like cell phones. I can DX all over the world on HF and tune into short-wave broadcast and learn alot. I don't really care what the many see or think.

As far as Amateur astronomy, again, I can point my computerized 10" Schmidt Cassegrain at a star cluster and photograph it, while my neighbor down the road watches a basketball game. Amateur astronomers and their telescopes have made many discoveries and continue to do so. And it's not really about the need to discover anything. It could happen, but that's not what drives me. My drive is obtaining photographs of nebula and star clusters thousands of light years away, and I am actually becoming good at it. And with advances in CCD imaging, it opens up a whole new game, as the telescope is now hooked up to the computer and the images can be sent directly to the computer and enhanced in Photoshop etc. It's super fun and extremely interesting.

They are two great hobbies. Don't worry about what others may think. Amateur astronomy is not going anywhere. It only gets better.

[Joe Hadenuf]

LOL! You bet.

[Atlas Sneezed]

We long-time Questar owners start to feel foolish comparing comparable scopes at 20% of the price.

I understand that one of the magazines did a test, and Meade beat Questar on optics.

[Joe Hadenuf]

I have always been a Meade guy. My dream was to own an LX200 computerized scope. Two years ago I was finally able to buy a "like new", used one. A real nice scope.

I always admired the Questar, but never owned one.