Lovers

or How I pick a telescope

12 inch Meade LX200 SCT I have now had my 30-centimeter (12") LX200 Meade Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescope for three months. I have owned a 25-centimeter (10") LX5 for more than twelve years. In both cases, as of the time of this writing (10/2000).

At the time I bought the LX5, it was the finest accomplishment of Meade Instruments to that time. Just as the LX200 is today. Both telescopes have contributed to a favorable view of this company and their instruments. I had a couple of reasons for upgrading.

I think it was a short time (year or two) after I bought the LX5 that they announced the newer computer-aided version. I was an experienced observer, so I didn’t need a telescope with that kind of augmentation. In fact, I didn’t buy the LX200 for its GOTO capabilities either. Aperture fever dictates that you generally do not buy a smaller telescope as you move along to newer, better. With a 10", I couldn’t just inch up to a C-11! The only choice was the 12" LX200. I also liked the ruggedness of the LX200 fork mount.

The LX5 fork appears to be identical to the present-day LX10, however today, Meade only sells it in the 8" variety. To their credit, they realized that this mount is under-engineered for 10" OTAs and larger. My 10" LX5 is still a perfectly useable telescope. Afterall, it has given me a great deal of enjoyment for a dozen years! But, the fork was my main reason to move up. It was a good move.

GOTO

In 1973, at the age of sixteen, I became a sentient astronomical observer. I got my first real telescope—a Criterion 8" Dynascope Newtonian. I had read plenty on the equatorial coordinate system, and with this equatorially mounted telescope, I quickly got up to speed with star-hopping. I have been adept with Right Ascension and Declination ever since. Thus, with twenty-seven years of experience with manual methods, I had no idea how GOTO telescopes worked. It wasn't even a factor in my purchase decision. But I have learned a lot more as a result.

Some people haven’t been observing as long as I have (Duh! Leroy). It is of little value to them to take on the challenge of star-hopping. They are interested in observing, not finding. One friend of mine wants to teach Astronomy to his son. His son’s attention span is his biggest concern, and he doesn’t want that to interfere with showing him the heavens. That same friend has recently retired, and he is not the only one who has told me that he doesn’t have to time to spend finding, he wants to observe.

I think the LX200 has brought the stars, the solar system, and the deep sky closer to more people, and Meade is to be commended for that good deed.

SCTs

Having used Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescopes (SCTs) for nearly a quarter-century now, I have found them to be the perfect blend of the two older classical telescopes: Refractors and Reflectors (specifically Newtonian). I say, “older classical”, because, like it or not, the SCT is today’s classical telescope. In fact, I doubt you will find more of any one kind of telescope today than the SCT, and that would probably apply to just limiting SCTs to the 20-centimeter variety.

My Criterion Dynamax 8 20-centimeter telescope was my first SCT. After using this telescope to observe all of the Messier objects for an Astronomical League certificate, I can say that I saw a lot of the sky observing with it. Being a first generation SCT, it has its limitations, but what twenty-five year-old telescope doesn’t?

The SCT is typically found with an f/10 focal ratio. This is why I consider it a, “perfect blend” of Refractors and Reflectors. The longer focal length allows it to compare with a refractor, without the long tube, or the expense of a comparably priced objective lens. The use of catadioptrics means the optics can be favorably compared to other reflectors for their use of mirrors, and don’t have to be manufactured critically with performance in mind.

Opticians rant incessantly about things like the central obstruction, etc., of SCT models. Those people fail to take into account that ultimately, for the purpose of observing, these factors have little to do with the end result. You might as well complain about how finely machined door-knobs are. Yes, some could be smoother than others, but it would barely catch the attention of the person opening and closing such a door as they passed that threshold. It might catch the attention of some, but ultimately the goal was to get to the other side!

I am a utilitarian. I like to observe as much as possible, whenever possible, and wherever possible. As a result, I use my backyard too. The longer f/ratio of SCTs reduces the effects of light-pollution. This is a fact of life for modern amateur astronomers. And, if I ever desire a shorter focal length and thus a wider field, I can add my f/6.3 focal reducer/field flattener. The folded optics means a shorter tube, as mentioned above, but the importance of that fact is transportability.

I will admit, that the planets and star clusters are my favorite targets in the sky. These objects are best suited for longer focal length telescopes. In the three months that I have had my 30-centimeter SCT, I have observed 87 of the 126 Globular Clusters within reach of my telescope and latitude. I am very much looking forward to the coming season of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.

If I had a 30-centimeter refractor, I could not take it to any of my favorite observing sites. It would have to be on a permanent mount, inside an observatory structure. Portable amateur astronomy dictates that larger non-SCT apertures manifest themselves in the form of shorter f/ratio reflecting telescopes.

If you choose to observe Galaxies instead, you would probably be better off with a similarly priced Dobsonian Newtonian Reflector—you’ll end up with a lot more aperture, and possibly a shorter focal length. The DNR will also be good for most of the Nebulae, both diffuse and planetary. DNRs also have central obstructions.

Also, to be fair, a friend who observes with a large “Dob” fills up his Mini-Van with his telescope and gear just like I do with mine. We can both setup and break-down our equipment in about the same amount of time. He gets 50% more aperture—I get the ability to take long-exposure photographs and the assurance that my telescope will still be standing in the worst of wind gusts our telescopes are likely to feel.

All telescopes have limitations or “problems” inherent in their designs. Period. End of sentence. Full Stop! (Learn what they are.)

Meade Instruments

My 30-centimeter SCT was actually my third Meade instrument. I bought the Newtonian, at right, for my daughter last Christmas. She loves it. This year, I see the same scope is back, but with a GOTO computer thrown in for an added US$50! I phoned up Meade and got a replacement eyepiece adapter. It can now accept her original .965" eyepieces, or my 1.25" eyepieces. Meade sent this to me free of charge. It did take three tries to get the right adapter, but patience and persistance paid off.

When the Mother of all Meade mailing lists (MAPUG) failed to answer a question, Meade’s customer service technical support team came through for me.

Not a direct problem of my own, a friend recently had his 8" LX200 blown over in the wind. His observing tent acted like a sail under microburst conditions, and over it went. He took it out to the recent Astronomy magazine’s Denver Sky Show where a Meade Vice-President for sales was present. He tore into my friend’s telescope, checked it all out, and repaired his focusing knob. The only other problem was a cracked retainer ring for the corrector plate. A new one will soon be on the way to my friend. And all at no-charge, as far as I know.

The incident of the friend’s 8" LX200 and all of the above just reinforces everything I have ever felt about Meade Instruments.

Epilogue

For all of the above reasons, I am a Meade Lover.

Lovers

GOTO

SCTs

Meade Instruments

Epilogue

Related Links