[SJAAboard] Thoughts on requirements for scopes larger than 10"

[Gary Mitchell]

Mark Wagner wrote:

> On Wed, May 14, 2008 11:43 pm, Gary Mitchell wrote:
> 
> 
>>When I hear that the loaner program should only be populated
>>with currently available commercial scopes
> 
> 
> LOL!   I don't recall saying that.

Maybe not in those exact words, but it sure sounded like it.

>  What I am in favor of is having scopes that are of designs
> that are representative of commercially available scopes.

Representative?  That could mean almost anything.

 > There is a difference.  To require they be currently available
 > from manufacturers would be nuts!  This criterion would certainly
 > include solid tube Dobs, as they are ubiquitous.  What I have
 > stated I am opposed to are what I referred to as boutique scopes.

Again, that could be almost anything.  You need to be more
specific than that.

 > Again (again), it gets down to what the purpose of the program is.
> If it is to provide the membership a range of scopes from basic to
 > rare high-end designs, its one thing... if it is to provide entry
 > level scopes to allow people some experience with this or that
> design, it is another thing.

It's becoming clear that we aren't even looking at this from
the same angle.  You're thinking in terms of the equipment
itself and its relevance to commercially available scopes.
I'm thinking in terms of the club supplying a benefit to its
members according to its charter, having scopes that will
spur more interest and enjoyment in astronomy regardless of
their commercial availability.

It's fine for the loaner program to provide the knowledge and
experience needed to make a wise purchase, but I don't think
that should be its main goal.  The program shouldn't be trying
to get people to buy scopes, although that comes along for the
ride, but rather it should be trying to sell astronomy.  It's
a significant difference in my mind.


>>It's like the difference between teaching someone how to drive
>>a car (any car) versus teaching them to drive a particular make,
>>model, and year.  If it's the latter, it seems to me like club
>>is just being used.
> 
> Using the car analogy further, I'd prefer letting people learn in a Ford Focus (appropriate)
> instead of a Ferrari.  It is more cost effective for the club, less risk the user will cause
> damage, and would be more like what they could get commercially and quickly.

Well, no one is suggesting we should have a 7" Astrophysics
refractor (Ferrari) in the program... not that I would mind,
you understand. ;)  But by the same token, I'm certainly not
in favor of having mostly 30 year old beat up VW Bugs either.

If we have a Ford Focus in the program and it just happens to
be available on the car lots, that's fine.  I've got no
problem with folks using it to see if they might want to buy
one.

On the other hand, I'm fine with having homemade or custom
cars just as well, provided they're good.  The fact that
there's no way you could buy one in the store is of no
consequence as far as I'm concerned.  It'll still do the job.

Having homemade or custom scopes has value too.  It shows that
you don't HAVE to buy one in the store, there are lots of
options with telescopes.  People are frequently amazed to hear
that we sometimes build our own scopes, including the mirror.
I wouldn't want to take that out of the program.

Gary