Hi Phil,

Very good question. This is a question which has crossed my mind some time
ago...but for an entirely different reason. My question is: why invest all
this money in a GoTo system for a small aperture scope when the scope's
aperture is not large enough to see most of the targets in its database?
The problem is even more severe when using the ETX-90.

The reason, I assume, why many of these scopes are sold and will continue to
sell, is that a lot of people simply don't know the sky. This is an easy
way out. Let me make it clear that there is nothing wrong with a person not
knowing the sky...but this scope holds the promise of eventually
DISAPPOINTING its owners.

Al


----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 11:37 AM
Subject: RE: [M]: ETX-125


> I know this is a bit off the mark, but my question is probably borne out
of
> naivete. My question is, why would one want goto in such a small
telescope?
> I have never used a goto 'scope, but from what I know of robotics (my
field)
> I know how painfully difficult it is to make a jointed system accurate.
In
> a telescope, small errors in the kinematics of the telescope can cause
> substantial pointing errors. In a small aperture telescope, shouldn't the
> goal be to spend money on the optics, and not on the complexity of making
> goto work well (assuming it does). Making goto work well means all sorts
of
> care has to be taken when machining the mount and drive train. This is
care
> that we know MEADE is not doing. You can get a better telescope for $900
> (the price of an ETX-125) if you skip the goto capabilities, which in a
> small aperture telescope seems like the right choice.
>
> For those that bought the 125, or the Nexstar, what was the motivating
> factor in getting goto?
>
> Phil Freeman
>
>
>

View index by [date] [author] [subject]
Previous message: RE: [M]: ETX-125, Freeman, Philip L
Next message: Re: [M]: ETX-125, Al
Next message in thread: Re: [M]: ETX-125, Al
Previous message in thread: RE: [M]: ETX-125, Freeman, Philip L