RC product design deficiency

I am still trying to figure out if this was corrected or not in recent releases. I bought mine in late 2021 from TS and the baffle gas a small extension threaded into it. I probably should email TS and ask, maybe they sell them separately if someone doesn't want to 3D print their own.

what kind of issues are you facing?

I purchased the RC8 carbon from TS in September ‘21. It seems that they must have fixed the issue:
The baffle tube’s front piece has a slight conic shape. From the front, there is no direct view onto the camera/end of the focuser possible. Also the center of the secondary can hardly be seen through reflection in the primary mirror as the baffle tube just blocks the view.

In addition, I might have never noticed the issue as I always imaged with a dew shield attached to the tube.

Björn

Thanks for this one. The last few months i tried to figure out why my RC always shows big light blobs/reflections around brighter stars - i think i now know the answer. I wanted to order the light shade mentioned in the video but it seems that there is no one available for my smaller 8" scope. I just asked TS if there is one available. I'll report back if i have an answer from them.

I never had the problem on my old 8RC, but it is very apparent on the 10RC.

I would not try to diminish the quality or usability of such telescopes in any case but I have to say something about… The term RC is been abused for more than 20 years even for optics that are NOT true RC. Meade was the first to claim they produce an RC telescope causing the reaction of many manifacturer that makes REAL RC. They did a public cause to Meade and finally They had to remove the term RC and use "coma free" instead. Suche claimed RC optics made in China are still not true RC. The only way to produce such an optics is by hand since there are two optical sets (primary and secondary mirrors) that havo to be worked toghether as a pair. While the first paraboloidal shape could be obtained by machining de surfaces, the Hyperboloidal aspherization could be made only by hand, figuring the two pieces of optics toghether and one in relationship withthe other. Such a work imply the use of an interferometer to figure out the shapes in relation after each correction. It is quite clear that this process is not an industrial type one and it's very costy and time consuming. Suche so defined RC's from China are more a kind of aspherized classical cassegrain than RC's. If You buy a true RC flattener and place it on Your optical path it simply doesn't work. The baffles on such systems are crucial and, if You just introduce some sort of reducer or flattener, it could simply don't work anymore. In a real achromatic system such an only mirrors optic any introductions of glass elements destroy the advantages of having just two reflective optical elements so why an RC? Not only buffles but also materials and flocking it is very important on such telescopes, using a material that seems to be very dark and unreflective but is not in infrared i.e. could be an error causing unpredictable results when measuring. Typical obstruction of an RC is quite large for the fact they produce an aplanatic field (which means free of coma but not flat) so they can use this to cover very large illuminated fields but is not mandatorty, if don't need such big field You could use smaller secondary mirror to have less obstruction but, if You choose an RC is also for that big field right? In the end if You don't really need sucha a large illuminated field You can choose other optical shapes that are less complicated to do and so cheaper… RC is the most used scheme by professionals but in big diameter, the advantage of such a scheme in small aperture is really less evident, specially with the use of corrector/reducers/flatteners.

Giovanni Paglioli:
I would not try to diminish the quality or usability of such telescopes in any case but I have to say something about... The term RC is been abused for more than 20 years even for optics that are NOT true RC. Meade was the first to claim they produce an RC telescope causing the reaction of many manifacturer that makes REAL RC. They did a public cause to Meade and finally They had to remove the term RC and use "coma free" instead. Suche claimed RC optics made in China are still not true RC. The only way to produce such an optics is by hand since there are two optical sets (primary and secondary mirrors) that havo to be worked toghether as a pair. While the first paraboloidal shape could be obtained by machining de surfaces, the Hyperboloidal aspherization could be made only by hand, figuring the two pieces of optics toghether and one in relationship withthe other. Such a work imply the use of an interferometer to figure out the shapes in relation after each correction. It is quite clear that this process is not an industrial type one and it's very costy and time consuming. Suche so defined RC's from China are more a kind of aspherized classical cassegrain than RC's. If You buy a true RC flattener and place it on Your optical path it simply doesn't work. The baffles on such systems are crucial and, if You just introduce some sort of reducer or flattener, it could simply don't work anymore. In a real achromatic system such an only mirrors optic any introductions of glass elements destroy the advantages of having just two reflective optical elements so why an RC? Not only buffles but also materials and flocking it is very important on such telescopes, using a material that seems to be very dark and unreflective but is not in infrared i.e. could be an error causing unpredictable results when measuring. Typical obstruction of an RC is quite large for the fact they produce an aplanatic field (which means free of coma but not flat) so they can use this to cover very large illuminated fields but is not mandatorty, if don't need such big field You could use smaller secondary mirror to have less obstruction but, if You choose an RC is also for that big field right? In the end if You don't really need sucha a large illuminated field You can choose other optical shapes that are less complicated to do and so cheaper... RC is the most used scheme by professionals but in big diameter, the advantage of such a scheme in small aperture is really less evident, specially with the use of corrector/reducers/flatteners.

We’ll this statement surprises me a bit. Since Meade’s “RC” case, some years have passed and industrial manufacturing has advanced, so I see no reason why these mirrors shouldn’t be producible through CNC machines as the previous post notes.

Besides it: if a true RC can only be made by hand shaping, I am curious how Hubble, the VLTs and many other research grade telescopes came into existence?

Björn