<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Meade Telescopes Compared With Other Telescopes</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.astronomicalbinoculars.org/meade-telescopes-compared-with-other-telescopes/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.astronomicalbinoculars.org/meade-telescopes-compared-with-other-telescopes/</link>
	<description>Astronomical Binoculars</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:28:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: coconsel deight</title>
		<link>http://www.astronomicalbinoculars.org/meade-telescopes-compared-with-other-telescopes/comment-page-1/#comment-2607</link>
		<dc:creator>coconsel deight</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:10:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.astronomicalbinoculars.org/meade-telescopes-compared-with-other-telescopes/#comment-2607</guid>
		<description>When you use a flash for fill light it will usually add unwanted orange from the AWB if thats what you are using. Fill flash was definitely not used here.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When you use a flash for fill light it will usually add unwanted orange from the AWB if thats what you are using. Fill flash was definitely not used here.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: stolo</title>
		<link>http://www.astronomicalbinoculars.org/meade-telescopes-compared-with-other-telescopes/comment-page-1/#comment-2291</link>
		<dc:creator>stolo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:22:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.astronomicalbinoculars.org/meade-telescopes-compared-with-other-telescopes/#comment-2291</guid>
		<description>Téléscope Célestron Schmidt Cassegrain 8`` Nexstar 8SE  de Célestron dans sa boite.  N`a servie</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Téléscope Célestron Schmidt Cassegrain 8&#8220; Nexstar 8SE<br />
 de Célestron dans sa boite.<br />
 N`a servie</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dan towestntma</title>
		<link>http://www.astronomicalbinoculars.org/meade-telescopes-compared-with-other-telescopes/comment-page-1/#comment-1733</link>
		<dc:creator>dan towestntma</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Mar 2010 06:03:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.astronomicalbinoculars.org/meade-telescopes-compared-with-other-telescopes/#comment-1733</guid>
		<description>In Australia, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that the amateur astronomer, Anthony Wesley, a 44-year-old computer programmer from a village north of Canberra, made the discovery “using his backyard 14.5-inch reflecting telescope. ... Now I was caught between a rock and a hard place - I wanted to keep imaging but also I was aware of the importance of alerting others to this possible new event. Could it actually be an impact mark on Jupiter? I had no real idea, ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In Australia, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that the amateur astronomer, Anthony Wesley, a 44-year-old computer programmer from a village north of Canberra, made the discovery “using his backyard 14.5-inch reflecting telescope. &#8230; Now I was caught between a rock and a hard place &#8211; I wanted to keep imaging but also I was aware of the importance of alerting others to this possible new event. Could it actually be an impact mark on Jupiter? I had no real idea, &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: goodfiely</title>
		<link>http://www.astronomicalbinoculars.org/meade-telescopes-compared-with-other-telescopes/comment-page-1/#comment-1645</link>
		<dc:creator>goodfiely</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 19:14:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.astronomicalbinoculars.org/meade-telescopes-compared-with-other-telescopes/#comment-1645</guid>
		<description>Not used for a while - great condition! Here&#039;s a description from the Celestron site... Celestron NexStar 4 GT - The Celestron NexStar 4 GT is a discontinued telescope. It was a blend of two classic designs - the Maksutov and Cassegrain. The Celestron NexStar 4GT possessed a one full degree field of view, a Flip Mirror Control and a Straight-Through Photographic Port to make short-exposure astrophotography easy. It also included the a sturdy metal base with three rubber gripping feet for vibration suppression and traction that could be placed on any flat surface or mounted on the optional (not included) field tripod. The package included both 1.25″ (25mm) 53x and 1.25″ (10mm) 133x eyepieces, computerized hand control, The Sky Level 1 CD-ROM, NSOL control software, StarPointer finderscope. While the design was discontinued, the telescope was actually quite a good idea. With 102mm (4.0″) Optical Diameter and a 1325mm Focal Length, f/13 Focal Ratio, it made a pretty good astrophotography...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not used for a while &#8211; great condition! Here&#8217;s a description from the Celestron site&#8230; Celestron NexStar 4 GT &#8211; The Celestron NexStar 4 GT is a discontinued telescope. It was a blend of two classic designs &#8211; the Maksutov and Cassegrain. The Celestron NexStar 4GT possessed a one full degree field of view, a Flip Mirror Control and a Straight-Through Photographic Port to make short-exposure astrophotography easy. It also included the a sturdy metal base with three rubber gripping feet for vibration suppression and traction that could be placed on any flat surface or mounted on the optional (not included) field tripod. The package included both 1.25″ (25mm) 53x and 1.25″ (10mm) 133x eyepieces, computerized hand control, The Sky Level 1 CD-ROM, NSOL control software, StarPointer finderscope. While the design was discontinued, the telescope was actually quite a good idea. With 102mm (4.0″) Optical Diameter and a 1325mm Focal Length, f/13 Focal Ratio, it made a pretty good astrophotography&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: angevilla</title>
		<link>http://www.astronomicalbinoculars.org/meade-telescopes-compared-with-other-telescopes/comment-page-1/#comment-1248</link>
		<dc:creator>angevilla</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:52:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.astronomicalbinoculars.org/meade-telescopes-compared-with-other-telescopes/#comment-1248</guid>
		<description>i thought the hard part was paying for it</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i thought the hard part was paying for it</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dufoulton dausco</title>
		<link>http://www.astronomicalbinoculars.org/meade-telescopes-compared-with-other-telescopes/comment-page-1/#comment-570</link>
		<dc:creator>dufoulton dausco</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:31:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.astronomicalbinoculars.org/meade-telescopes-compared-with-other-telescopes/#comment-570</guid>
		<description>Yeah, I have a 10&quot; reflecting telescope I made gathering dust in the garage &lt;sigh&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, I have a 10&quot; reflecting telescope I made gathering dust in the garage &lt;sigh&gt;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
