Would such a telescope be useful for discovering new main belt asteroids:
Last edited by a moderator:
Not quite clear on what you find extreme in Rob Maston's approach. He hired telescope time at approximately $100 per hour compared to $60,000 just for the scope so maybe $120,000 for a full system based on the telescope proposed by the OP?
The real point I am trying to make is that there is not one factor that dominates but it is a balance of factors optimised to the science task you wish to undertake. For example as well as speed you need a large enough image scale and limiting magnitude coupled to a good search strategy.
Can you go a little bit more into detail what you mean exactly with your last sentence, please? Do you have Modulation Transfer Function and Contrast in mind or under which keywords can I find the explanation to the phenomenon you mention here?That is a great approach for discovering previously unknown asteroids, but, how many amateur hunters are inclined to such extremes? The scope the OP inquired about is f/5, obviously pretty fast. A fast scope does lose some faint detection capability, it's the price you must pay to view a larger area of the sky.
In addition for a scope with equivalent aperture and light loss but with a longer focal length (slower F/ number) has more contrast between "point" sources e.g stars and asteroids and the background sky.A fast scope typically suffers some light loss due to a larger secondary or extra corrector elements in the optical path.