As far as making mirrors go, that was barely scratching the surface (pun intended)

AND DRANGULS! ()

That is the primary component of a telescope. That is "How it works".

New how it's made sucks. They're all like this now

​@@dougaltolan3017⚠️ God has said in the Quran: 🔵 { O mankind, worship your Lord, who created you and those before you, that you may become righteous - ( 2:21 ) 🔴 [He] who made for you the earth a bed [spread out] and the sky a ceiling and sent down from the sky, rain and brought forth thereby fruits as provision for you. So do not attribute to Allah equals while you know [that there is nothing similar to Him]. ( 2:22 ) 🔵 And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah, if you should be truthful. ( 2:23 ) 🔴 But if you do not - and you will never be able to - then fear the Fire, whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers.( 2:24 ) 🔵 And give good tidings to those who believe and do righteous deeds that they will have gardens [in Paradise] beneath which rivers flow. Whenever they are provided with a provision of fruit therefrom, they will say, "This is what we were provided with before." And it is given to them in likeness. And they will have therein purified spouses, and they will abide therein eternally. ( 2:25 ) ⚠️ Quran

It's called physical vapor deposition or sputtering. Applied Sciences has a great video showing him making a device to do it.

The thought emporium has some good vids too

The grinding also takes a long time.

Hard to electroplate insulators like glass. Conductors are what can be electroplated like metals.

@@rubiconnn If you mean the mirror coating, it's just evaporative, the simplest method. Sputtering is quite different.

I think they did this intentionally

They knew what they were doing.

Not electromagnetic at all. Simply vaporized metal condensing on the mirror.

Ed Ting would probably know, he has a telescope YT channel and is very knowledgeable.

@@rickkearn7100 Oh yes! Funny thing I've subscribed to his channel, he is indeed very knowledgeable on telescopes! ^^

@@belken117 same

Me too.

It's Orion Optics in the UK

I have a TeleVue Genesis-SDF, beautiful scope. I just wish the lens cell was user-adjustable!

Why is the mirror glass shown here so thick?

@@filcuk pressure due to mounting equipment, gravity and temperature changes can deform the mirror shape, and in telescope even fractions of a millimeter of change can make huge difference. The thick glass is more resistant to deformiities.

I have four Tele Vue eyepieces (8-mm Delos, 13-mm Ethos, 27-mm Panoptic, and 41-mm Panoptic). All four are outstanding. I use them with my Celestron C-5+, Celestron CPC-800, and Celestron CPC-1100HD. I once put the $600 Ethos on my $50 75-mm Celestron FirstScope (Galileo Anniversary Edition, which I bought to decorate my home office). The combo actually worked, even though it is impractical. 🙂

I had a televue 101 and a televue pronto. I had had many televue eyepieces over the years. I had everything stolen in 2018 and had to start over on a shoestring. No more televue refractors, 31 nagler or type 6 naglers and powemates, but I do have a televue paracorr, and old original smoothside 7mm nagler and 32mm plossl. Much less televue than I used to own. I have mostly older meade series 4000 ultrawide eyepieces, older meade series 4000 super plossls, and more modern but excellently executed Chinese clones of the type 5 nagler (28mm UWAN type 82deg) and ethos (20mm XWA), and a couple vixen LVWs and the 24mm explore scientific clone of the 24mm televue panoptic. I previously owned 4 of the meade 5000 swa versions of the same eyepiece, 24, 28 34 and 40mm. But the wide field view of the 31mm nagler in the televue 101 wide field flat field refractor was just insane in dark skies. If I could kill anyone with my bare hands and get away with it, it would be the tweakers that broke into my storage and took it all from me. And they got SO much more than that.

I can afford that, but I live in a city with bad light pollution. I can't afford to go to remote area where there is no light pollution. therefore, it would not be a wise investment.

@@davidjacobs8558 Makes sense given all those parts are machined from blanks. Material cost alone is enormous.

they have. watch?v=xfhjWyAU9Cw

You should check out Hyugen Optics’ channel he has awesome videos about the subject!

@@SevroAuBarca04 Exactly what I was going to post. 👍

They did, it’s in season 8 ep 4

@@SevroAuBarca04 absolutely!

it has spokes, not Maksutov.

Classical Cassegrain maybe.

This is the Orion ODK 10, a 10 inch Optimised Dall - Kirkham astrograph. Which itself is an improved version of a Ritchey Chretien telescope. It's nether a Cassegrain not a Maksutov.

@@nihar1987 👍 I hadn't bothered looking up the company featured here... But my mirrors from 11" Celestron SCT are with them right now being recoated....

you can

its like under 200 for a great image

@@Capadapp be careful with under 200 dollars. you can get some great ones but that is the price where hobby killers prevail.

@@jeremytheimer7443 celestron dobsonian, it was my first

Just don't get a powerseeker. I recommend something from the Skywatcher heritage series.

That birds nest on the boring bar was to help polish the poor surface finish

good comment

1

Yeah, badly, those were the days!

Ever since lenses and mirrors were ground by hand, the only improvement has been the bearings on the grinders.

Don't go cheap cuz you will be disappointed

My experience is consistent with PB's statement. Though, I haven't used a nice telescope before.

@@luchvk I used to have a telescope to try it out, but it was my first one, after looking at all the amazing pictures you can make with a telescope people often forget 90% of those amazing pictures are made with an expensive and known brand telescope. What happens is, people buy a telescope thinking it's expensive enough, only to end up not seeing anything at the level they were hoping to see.

@@-never-gonna-give-you-up- I saw a whole lot of nothing. The one I looked through (a while ago at this point) was DOA. That's something that can happen when you don't get something at least decent in quality.

I was thinking it was going to be about $2,000. I still haven’t had time to research 🔬, but I live on 9 acres lakeside boxed in by the woods and there’s a gully on the lakeside that I assume would make fantastic natural viewing spot. A quick Google search is pointing me towards Celestron, but I need to do more research before dropping $2k.

@@meok2 yep I agree I'm 52 and putting one son so far through college my wife I put through college I. I have another son five years out from college. I never went to college I went to fight a couple of conflicts and one war.

telescopes are useless, unless you go to some remote area where there is no light pollution. if you live near cities, you won't see much with telescopes.

@@davidjacobs8558 the nearest town to me is 40 miles it's population is 1,100 the next city is around 60 miles with a population of 25,000 . My elevation where I go is 4500 ft. It's crystal clear not a sound and 0 pollution.

They’re not that expensive! You can have a decent astrophotography setup for less than $500, or even less if you buy used. It’s amazing how cheap apochromatic refractor or Newtonian reflector telescopes are nowadays considering how good they are. Heck, an 8” dobsonian is like $250 used and they’re powerful enough to easily see the rings of Saturn.

@@davidjacobs8558Absolutely not true. You can get great views of the moon, planets, binary stars, etc. even with heavy light pollution.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

As with any hobby, you can basically spend any amount you want. The scope in this video is pretty darned high end. Just off the top of my head I'd expect it's > $10,000 US. You can get a very nice scope for $500 to $1000 though. "Dobsonian" style scopes are the best value for money. Keep in mind though that good eyepieces are also needed and can double the price.

@@John_Ridley thanks for the info brother 🙏🙏☺️

Just get a good 4" refractor and use at both nightsky and terrestrial viewing.Heavenly bodies at night and "heavenly" bodies at the beach.

Basically the primary mirror (the one with the hole) collects light and through it's curved surface reflects and focuses the light on the secondary mirror at the front of the telescope (the mirror they kind of glossed over in the video) that also has a curve to focus the light down to the hole in the primary mirror to the viewer/camera/etc. The light kind of makes an "N" path from the right side and following it all around the telescope body.

A telescope works similar to a satellite dish. The large outer disc reflects that light back to the small receiver in the middle facing the disc. Using the knobs you change the distance between the outer and inner disc in the same way you can focus the beam of a magnify class on a piece of paper. In the 'ol days you had these film/photo projectors that put a light behind a film and the image was projected on a mirror, than the image of the mirror was reflected on a canvas (or wall). Because of this reflection photo's are shown upside down...

The area where the hole is wouldn't collect any light anyway, it's in the shadow of the secondary mirror. Keep in mind this is only one of dozens of different styles of scopes. Since they didn't mention a front corrector plate and it has a spider secondary, I'm assuming this is a classical cassegrain or similar. They're actually not very common. The most common types are newtonian, Schmidt-Cassegrain, refractors and Maksukov-Cassegrain, probably in that order.

That's not FOD. FOD stands for foreign object damage and that is not applicable here. For assembly you don't need a clean room as long as you use gloves and proper post assembly cleaning. Especially for this level of telescope

@@jtorola FOD stands for foreign object debris.

which telescope?

@@menard518 ASTRONOMICAL TELESCOPE, ESSLNB...

@@sandhillpreppers i looked it up and idk which one specifically ur talking about, but the ones i saw are under 100, so your better off just using your eyes or binoculars until you can get something better

I saw a video of Canon factory, where they assemble one of their large zoom lenses (like 1000mm size), and the factory workers did not wear globes when they assemble those lenses either.

NOT UNTIL NOW!!!

Not anymore

Yes

It need to cool down to get the sharpest images.

Differences in temperature between the inside and outside of the scope cause air currents that distort the image. So you want the scope to cool to ambient temperature before use. Closed tube scopes like the one in the video take longer to cool, so the fans help.