posted 02-03-2007 12:13 AM               

"It was the same camera that Ed White took outside with him on his space walk in June," Underwood recalled. "We just slapped a big lens assembly on the front end."

posted 02-07-2007 10:15 AM            

Thank you for the information. As you may know Questar telescope owners have sometimes been accused of exaggerating the capabilities of their scopes but it’s safe to say the Gordon Cooper took the cake when he said that he was able to use his to photograph car license plates from orbit!

I have a space related story about my little 3.5 inch Questar. Last summer set it up at a BBQ with it’s Hydrogen - alpha filter in place to look at some solar flares. Also present at the BBQ was Steve Robinson. Steve had a look and was thrilled. I asked Steve about the seven inch Questar he had used on his first space mission and we had a great time talking about it.

posted 02-07-2007 03:55 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
....described the camera as a "35-mm Questar with a Zeiss 'Contarex' lens" ...

---

So, in reality the Questar in question was really a camera.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Reade:

Questar telescope owners have sometimes been accused of exaggerating the capabilities of their scopes but it’s safe to say the Gordon Cooper took the cake when he said that he was able to use his to photograph car license plates from orbit!

---

Sounds like Cooper didn't have a Questar telescope on him after all.

That said, the 3.5", 7", 12" etc. telescopes are marvelous pieces of machinery!

On Edit, I wonder if Underwood could have misstated the configuration or maybe Oberg misquoted him? The linked article states that the Questar camera was attached to a 1250 mm cadadioptric Ziess lens. I wonder if maybe that should have been a Questar lens and a Zeiss camera?

• Questars are cadadioptric optical systems as well.
  
• The 3.5" Questar's base focal length of between 1300 and 1400 mm is in the right ball park.
  
• Zeiss makes cameras, such as the Ikon.
  
• I've never heard of a Questar camera before.
  

Could Cooper have possibly used used a Questar lens and a Zeiss camera instead of the other way around?

posted 02-07-2007 04:19 PM            

"35-mm Questar with a Zeiss 'Contarex' lens"

Should have read, "3.5 inch Questar with a 35mm Zeiss Contarex camera body." As small error.

posted 02-07-2007 04:44 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gordon Reade:
Cooper had a 3.5 inch apeture Questar telescope, of that there is no question.

"35-mm Questar with a Zeiss 'Contarex' lens"

Should have read, "3.5 inch Questar with a 35mm Zeiss Contarex camera body." As small error.

---

I agree that the statment made in the linked article is in error, but not which parts of it are in error.

With a little more context added the quote reads, "the camera was a 35-mm Questar with a Zeiss 'Contarex' lens."

To me this says that the "35-mm" referred to a camera shooting 35mm film. It becomes an adjective describing the camera which, according to the quote, was a Questar ("The camera was a 35mm Questar"). And what sort of lens did the camera have? It had a "Zeiss 'Contarex' lens".

I also agree that the lens was probably a Questar for the simple reason there's no such thing as a Questar camera. So why the goofy quote saying that the camera had a Zeiss lens, not a Questar?

Here's another theory. Perhaps the camera had two lenses. The actual brand of the camera wasn't mentioned, but it had a two-lens combination, one by Questar and the other one by Zeiss, and that somehow the lenses were combined. Why combine a Questar and a Zeiss Contarex? Maybe to get a flatter or wider field - I don't know. Maybe the Zeiss and Questar lenses were combined to form a fascinating hybrid.

Another theory. Maybe the 35mm camera (brand unspecified) had two interchangeable lenses -- a Questar 3.5" and the Zeiss Contrarex.

I've often considered getting a Questar. But everytime I come back to this basic fact of telescope ownership: Aperture determines everything, including theoretical resolution. The only exception is it's hard to get my 12.5" Equatorial Newtonian or my 20" Dobson onto an airplane.

On edit, added 3rd theory, above.