Yes, Chuck, most folks don't have the capability to build tracking nor goto mounts. There are some who do though. My reference was to the optical performance of the scopes, as I believe your original post was also. As to direction, that is learned and after a while becomes second nature. I hope I didn't claim that it was elitist to be a person who recognizes the stars and constellations. I merely stated that something was lost in the not having the ability ability to do so. That ability can also be learned but isn't as necessary with the computerized mounts. That doesn't make you better, just able to enjoy different aspects of astronomy. On Tuesday, October 22, 2019, 07:34:09 AM MDT, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote: Actually, that's not really true. If you are talking about someone just starting out in ATMing, they are probably going to build something simple. But there is a core of ATM's today who design and build very sophisticated systems, easily on-par with, or superior to commercial telescopes in terms of precision, tracking, etc. In fact many of the designs, circuits, etc., that are commercial products today were invented or introduced by amateurs who commercialized their design. The high-end ATM scope of today is easily superior to the mass-produced Meade, Celestron, etc., scopes that permeate the market. If you want to talk about precision instruments, don't mention Celestron and Meade. Let's talk about Astro Physics, Edward Byers and the small-volume custom houses. All started by amateur astronomers yet are today considered "aerospace grade" optics and mechanics. Your Meade Go-To may seem like NASA engineering, but it's not. I've tested innumerable commercial telescopes and found almost all of them to be lacking. I have never found a commercial SCT scope that was much better than 1/4 wave for the system. Amateurs do much better than that, on the whole. They can keep working their optics until essentially perfect, the commercial producer has to say "good enough" at some point, and it's never as good as most consumers think it is. So Joe, I respectfully disagree with you. If commercial scopes are a person's only option, that's fine, but know that unless you spend five figures, it's not going to blow the better ATM efforts out of the water. I think many people are mis-informed over the current state of ATMing simply because it's not presented in the magazines and websites like it used to be. It's not required in the hobby anymore. What is being presented is the simple stuff that anyone can build, not the ones who are making stuff that is better than the commercial run-of-the-mill. Only rarely will they publish cutting edge amateur stuff anymore, sadly. Remember who pays for the advertisements, it's the manufacturers of consumer-grade scopes. They obviously don't want the press telling people that you can build a better product, yourself. The magazines editorial content is tempered by those paying the bills- the advertizers. On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 4:50 PM Joe Bauman via Utah-Astronomy < utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> wrote:
Brent, I suspect homemade setups can’t generally match mass-production models when it comes to precision tracking and astrophotography. Computing power and programs are required, and I doubt homemade gear systems are up to the task. Further, some who enjoy astronomy tremendously are, like me, directionally dyslexic. Without a go-to I would be lost. It’s elitist to claim the person who has memorized the stars and constellations is superior to someone who can’t manage it. To each his/her own, I say.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Send messages to the list to Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com The Utah-Astronomy mailing list is not affiliated with any astronomy club. To unsubscribe go to: http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Then enter your email address in the space provided and click on "Unsubscribe or edit options".