Tomas9970 Posted June 16, 2022 Posted June 16, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, okopanja said: Based on your optics I would say this is a reflector telescope, in this case you would also have additional side effects expressed through elongation of "point" from center toward edges of the view. Furthermore these type usually requires collimation, I am not 100% convinced it would used for military optics. Most likely a refractor (the lenght of the pod is still good enough) or better one of the catadioptric would be more suitable. Yeah, I'm basing my math on a reflector telescope but I also never heard about using any different formulas for different types of telescope. A quick google search of a Litening TGP head shows refractive lenses behind the front glass so maybe it is a very short refractor as everything has to fit inside the head. I agree that an SCT-like design would give longest focal length but a refractor has an undeniable advantage of not losing collimation with rough handling so that makes it an obvious choice. On a second look, there are photographic lenses with catadioptric internals, convex glass at the front and no visible secondary mirror. These obviously don't need regular collimation so that might be what is used in our pod (unless someone comes with official info). Edited June 16, 2022 by Tomas9970
silverdevil Posted June 16, 2022 Posted June 16, 2022 interesting comparison between telescope optics vs military optics. what i see in these posts, is no one is mentioning that particle density in earth's atmosphere degrades the image. such as humidity. cold air is better than warm air. reason why the space telescopes are better and preferred to ground types. Quote Why do stars twinkle, but planets don't? Stars twinkle while planets don't because stars are so much further away from Earth. This makes them appear as concentrated points of light, and that light is more easily disturbed by the effects of Earth's atmosphere. Planets, on the other hand, are much closer, and the sunlight reflected off them comes back through Earth's atmosphere in a much thicker beam of light than starlight, so it is not as noticeably affected by the distorting effects of the atmosphere. The fact that planets don't twinkle, and the fact that they are found along the ecliptic, are worth remembering if you are looking up at the night sky and trying to work out whether that bright dot is a star or a planet. i am a total amateur astronomer. but i can look up and tell the difference between a planet and a star. my point is, regardless of capabilities of the DCS optics, there is going to be limits of what can be seen at a distance. Quote At sea level the curvature of the earth limits the range of vision to 2.9 miles. The formula for determining how many miles an individual can see at higher levels is the square root of his altitude times 1.225. Thus on a clear day at 1,000 feet a person with normal vision can see 39 miles; at 10,000 feet, 123 miles; at 25,000 feet, 194 miles. With good visibility a pilot at 25,000 feet can see Germany from the English Channel; at the same altitude over Tunisia he can see the middle of Sicily. now lets talk about what it would take to see that far in DCS. "preload radius" AKA_SilverDevil Join AKA Wardogs Email Address My YouTube “The MIGS came up, the MIGS were aggressive, we tangled, they lost.” - Robin Olds - An American fighter pilot. He was a triple ace. The only man to ever record a confirmed kill while in glide mode.
okopanja Posted June 16, 2022 Posted June 16, 2022 33 minutes ago, silverdevil said: interesting comparison between telescope optics vs military optics. what i see in these posts, is no one is mentioning that particle density in earth's atmosphere degrades the image. such as humidity. cold air is better than warm air. reason why the space telescopes are better and preferred to ground types. seeing, all of that is inside, but thank your for explicitly mentioning.
Recommended Posts