Re: A Schiefspiegler as first telescope (was Re: ATM 3-Vane or 4-Vane Spiders)

[Joe Mayenschein <mayen1@mwt.net>]

I always thought the f-6 was the perfect f ratio myself.  Fast enough for decent
faint fuzzies or even photography, yet long enough for decent high power
planetary viewing too. and just about in the center of that bell curve of
difficulty.

joe

Ken Hunter wrote:

> A 10 inch f5-6 is a very DO-ABLE mirror for a first time project. Large
> enough to be worth something when you are done. Still transportable without
> buying a cargo van and fast enough so that you can easily see the Focault
> donut when testing. (And faint fuzzies when you are done!)
>
> Ken Hunter
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Charvell" <charvell@sofnet.com>
> To: <atm@shore.net>
> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 7:59 PM
> Subject: Re: A Schiefspiegler as first telescope (was Re: ATM 3-Vane or
> 4-Vane Spiders)
>
> >
> > So a long focal lengh mirror is actually harder to do than a medium focal
> > lengh? Am I getting this correctly? Long=hard, medium=easier, short=very
> > hard. So where is the very easiest place to start and would a 10" be OK
> for
> > a first time mirror or should I try a smaller? I want the easiest option
> to
> > start with. I don't have anyone I can get to come over and bail me out  :)
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "mjc5" <mjc5@psu.edu>
> > To: <atm@shore.net>
> > Sent: Friday, October 05, 2001 6:07 PM
> > Subject: Re: A Schiefspiegler as first telescope (was Re: ATM 3-Vane or
> > 4-Vane Spiders)
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I suggest the 8 inch f6 or f8. I've made an F10.2 mirror, and it isn't
> > > as easy as it may seem at first. A sphere at that length is a shallow
> > > creature indeed.
> > >
> > > Then if you want to make your Schief, you can apply what you learned
> > > from your first mirror.
> > >
> > > - Mike -
> >
> >
> >