I can appreciate the good sense of this question, especially from someone
who knows the skies and would obviously want better optics than electronic
gizmos. While I have to agree that optics takes priority over 'goto', there
is a reason that Meade is selling these gizmos so well (and more power to
them for it. More on this later).

Star hopping and knowledge of the skies is an aquired skill, and for some
of us, not easy. My third scope was an 8" LX200, and I was somewhat
'ridiculed' by my friends in my local astronomy club. But at star parties,
even the boys with the 24" dobs were coming over and asking that I slew to
some obscure DSO, to double check their locations in the dark, and make
sure they were looking in the right place for that obscure object.

I use the MIDI interface (another hobby) in a similar way. Since my music
skills are only so-so, I play back my scores on MIDI to 'listen' to their
accuracy. I am always suprised when musicians and teachers ask me to play
their scores on my midi setup to check things out (proof the score).

In other words, the best way to learn is to be able to check on your
accuracy and misses, ESPECIALLY with smaller apertures. Add to this the
'fun' of opening the heavens to a novice with 'bells & whistles'. The fact
that Meade is trying to 'mass market' the cheap goto, well, it's as
American as the Wright bros. or Henry Ford.

Now, as astronomy expands into a broader market, don't we all benefit?
Things get cheaper, options increase, and there are more of us to share our
learning with and more eyes on the skies to conduct valuable research. Such
devices and capabilities may usher in 'less knowledgable' folks, but didn't
we all start out that way? Personally, I enjoy watching the field grow,
having been there before most of the current crop and able to share &
assist others to grow. Don't we all admire people such as Doc G for just
that? I think Meade and Celestron portable scopes have done a lot to
'teach' and introduce the skies to many. Kudos to them. Certainly, we
should support such products as opposed to the mass marketed toy refractors
which only give astronomy a bad name. Goto and go-for it.

And long-winded as this is already, after adding wedge, flip-mirror,
reducer, barlows, counter weights, lenses, focusers and every trick in the
book to stabilize the mount, GOTO is just icing on an expensive cake.

MHO, a GOTO justification for my mediocrity in hopes of future expertise.
Chris Margaritis

At 10:37 AM 12/10/99 -0600, you wrote:
>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]: Re: LAN/Remote control software, mapug mike
Next message: Re: [M]: ETX-125, Ric L Ecker
Next message in thread: Re: [M]: ETX-125, Ric L Ecker
Previous message in thread: Re: [M]: ETX-125, Joe Hartley