Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
What? I spend hours composing this article only to have all of the information in it removed and replaced with a plea for someone to fix it? It was never broken in the first place. The only information that could possibly be added to this article is what was already there. Ill 05:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- The reason stuff was removed was because it was too much detail, stuff that was not Trek related. That is what Wikipedia is for. The stub was added because there are a lot more Star Trek references to telescopes than just "First Contact", and it would be nice if they were all here. They aren't, hence the stub. --OuroborosCobra 05:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is missing a lot of uses of telescopes in Star Trek. Just some examples:
- "Fight or Flight"
- "The Slaver Weapon"
- "Future's End, Part II"
- "The Inner Light"
"Two Days and Two Nights"– Tom 14:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
There may be more than that. Also, this article could use a good picture. --OuroborosCobra 05:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- TAS: "The Slaver Weapon"
- TNG: "The Inner Light"
- VOY: "Future's End", "Future's End, Part II", "Blink of an Eye", "Child's Play"
- ENT: "Fight or Flight", "Breaking the Ice", "Two Days and Two Nights", "Awakening"
Reflecting vs. Refracting Edit
The source from Star Trek First Contact says that the telescope is a Reflector, the picture clearly shows it is a Refractor with a lens for a primary aperture instead of a mirror. Does anyone have a copy of the movie to verify that the word "reflector" is actually use? If so do we go by the word or the actual scope used in the movie?--Jlandeen 07:24, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see any lens where you say there is one. The design of the scope is a Cassegrain reflector. --OuroborosCobra talk 08:06, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
When I watched the movie I saw no secondary obstructions which lead me to believe it was of a refracting design, but perhaps I am mistaken. Does anyone have a copy of the movie to verify the script?--Jlandeen 09:05, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
I take my previous comments back, it seems that the set designers used a Catadioptric telescope (one which uses mirrors and lenses) so it is neither refracting nor reflecting, but rather both. It is a standard Meade Telescope on their own mount right off the shelf with a fresh coat of paint and a fake forward truss.--Jlandeen 09:10, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
- Can you link me to which one? I still don't see a lens at the front. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:56, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
Sure here it is on the right, It is a Meade Telescope modified for the set with paint and some extra apparatus on the front. The model is a LX200 series with a Fork mount (according to Meade.) It has both a primary lens and primary mirror. The lens is a corrector plate on the front and is not easily visible in the screencap from the movie but it is there. I included an image to explain what I mean.--Jlandeen 23:48, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
- I still can't see the lens (not sure "primary lens" would even be the proper term), I can't read the writing, the telescope has at the least been modified and shares the basic form with Cassagrain's, the form mount is one Meade uses on tons of their scope designs. We don't see the lens. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:26, November 29, 2009 (UTC)
Well it is clear to me it is Catadioptric (having a mirror and a lens) based the fact it was made from an LX series telescope. I propose we go ahead and make the change to the article to reflect this unless someone finds evidence from the film that this is not the case. (EDIT - note: Meade Instruments does not make a Cassegrain reflector, they have a Schmidt-Cassegrain or Maksutov-Cassegrain, both which are Catadioptric Cassegrains not simple reflectors--Jlandeen 03:47, November 29, 2009 (UTC)