SPACETELESCOPELETTER2ICS16ALV

Dear Luke S. Walker,

In the previous letter that I wrote to you, I had found that the result of the mere 5 telescopes we were given was that target acquisition was the best. This time around, we have a total of 8 telescopes. We have added semi-wide field, precision spectroscope, and massive duration, but you already knew that since you told us to analyze these added 3. Furthermore, the one with the lowest, which I have already stated is the best, overall rating is a tie. Both wide-field, and semi-wide field are tied at 3.33. The one with the highest overall rating is a tie between extended time, and high resolution with 4.33. You may have a look at the work that we have below. If you want a more definite answer, we subtracted spectrograph range, multiplied field of view, and for some of them we did it from least to greatest, and some we did it from greatest to least. No, the results now are nothing like the results from the graph with 5 instead of an 8. Therefore, my partner and I have confirmed that the wide field and the semi wide field are both the best, and shall be perfect for the plans that you have for them.I hope that these results will suit you, and that no errors have been made.

Sincerely,

ICS16ALV


 * || Resolution || Spectrograph Range || Field of View || Time to Focus || Max Viewing Time || Max Lifespan || Overall Rating ||
 * Wide Field || 3 || 4 || 1 || 4 || 6 || 2 || 3.33 ||
 * Advanced Spectroscope || 6 || 1 || 7 || 2 || 5 || 3 || 4 ||
 * Extended Time || 5 || 5 || 5 || 5 || 2 || 4 || 4.33 ||
 * High Resolution || 1 || 6 || 7 || 3 || 7 || 2 || 4.33 ||
 * Target Acquisition || 4 || 5 || 4 || 1 || 4 || 5 || 3.83 ||
 * Semi-Wide Field || 2 || 3 || 2 || 4 || 3 || 6 || 3.33 ||
 * Precision Spectroscope || 4 || 2 || 6 || 3 || 5 || 5 || 4.1666666667 ||
 * Massive Duration || 7 || 5 || 3 || 4 || 1 || 1 || 3.5 ||