[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: (IAAC) FWD: What should I buy? (rich field scopes)
Sue and Alan French wrote:
> Well, obviously that was supposed to say between 1.5 degrees and 9
> degrees. I guess ASCII codes don't make through unmolested.
> As for the galaxies, I agree. Then again, there aren't many galaxies
> between 1.5 and 9 degrees in the sky.
>
> Clear skies, Sue
> -----Original Message-----
> From: djm28@email.psu.edu <djm28@email.psu.edu>
> To: netastrocatalog-announce@latrade.com
> <netastrocatalog-announce@latrade.com>
> Date: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 12:22 PM
> Subject: Re: (IAAC) FWD: What should I buy? (rich field scopes)
>
> >>Dave,
> >> Penny may have mentioned some objects that have their strong points in
> >>large apertures, but I was referring to objects between 1.50 and 90
> across.
> >>
> >>Clear skies, Sue
> >
> >Sue,
> >
> >Yes, I understand that completely. Obviously, some objects are too large
> in angular size to be viewed as a whole through a large telescope. And some
> can only be seen in their entirety through just a handful of properly
> equipped rich-field telescopes. And some can only be seen with binoculars.
> And a few can only be seen with the naked eye.
> >
> >But there is another side to the story. I am sure that you are aware that
> many small galaxies are below the threshold of visibility until they are
> magnified enough to activate the complex physiological workings of the
> eye-brain system. A small scope will be unable to supply enough
> magnification and enough light gathering for this to take place.
> >
> >Dave
> >
> >O.K., so I lied about my last message being my final word on the matter.
> >
> >
> >
> >
They keep pulling me back in!
Granted, Sue, but I did say small galaxies did I not?
Dave
References: