Re: (IAAC) FWD: What should I buy? (rich field scopes)

    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
Date: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 12:22 PM
Subject: Re: (IAAC) FWD: What should I buy? (rich field scopes)
>>    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
>>Clear skies,  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.
>O.K., so I lied about my last message being my final word on the matter.