From: mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu (Michael J. Edelman)
Subject: Re: Purchasing a portable telescope
Reply-To: mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu
Organization: Wayne State University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:57:03 GMT


info on the nets says the aircraft were photo-recon. no verification of
the shooting bit at random. i doubt very much they would have done that,
as it would more than likel
From mje  Tue Dec 15 15:54:48 1992
Return-Path: <mje>
Received: by pookie.pass.wayne.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
	id AA00263; Tue, 15 Dec 92 15:54:48 EST
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 15:54:48 EST
From: mje (Michael J. Edelman)
Message-Id: <9212152054.AA00263@pookie.pass.wayne.edu>
To: cnolan@alex
Subject: Re: Purchasing a portable telescope

In article 27198@ringer.cs.utsa.edu, cnolan@alex (chris nolan) writes:
>I am currently looking to purchase a telescope that will be quite portable and 
>take up a minimum of storage space.  For my price range, I have been 
>considering a Celestron C-90 or a Meade 2045D.  I am wondering if anyone who
>has experience with either of these two scopes could give me feedback on them,
>in particular:
>    --does the lack of a standard equatorial mount on the C-90 make it too
>difficult for lengthy, if casual, observing?  I don't plan to need any photo
>capabilities, but I wonder if a spotting scope design would become tedious in
>time.
>    --can the tabletop tripod of the Meade be used easily, or does one really
>require a field tripod?  Without a tripod, what type of table does one use to
>get a stable base?  A folding table sounds a little unwieldy.
>
>Also, I will do quite a bit of viewing from a relatively light-polluted area.
>Is the small cat design ok for this type of location, or would I be better
>off looking at small refractors?  My main interests are lunar/planetary, though
>I enjoy some deep-sky targets as well.
>
>
>Thanks for any other information about these or other such portable telescopes
>you would happen to recommmend.
>
>Chris Nolan
>Trinity University 

Chris,
   My personal predjudices: The C90 is okay for lunar viewing, and the Meade I
have heard is okay, but that's about it. Neither is great. I almost bought the Meade
at one point, though, based on the portability and built-in drive.

I was lucky enough to find a Questar at a low price, and so I have a portable and
optically excellent scope. But....unless you're working at very high magnifications
(over 120x) a motor drive isn't really necessary. A motor is also needed for
astrophotography, but I wouldn't use either of those little scopes for that.
 
At lower magnfications a well-made alt-az mount is a dream to use, much easier
than an Equatorial drive. No awkward positions. Of course, a tripod does not 
equal a good alt-az mount- it's not well balanced like, for example, the 
Televue alt-az mount.

Your budget would appear to be between $400 and $700, given the scopes you're
considering. I would consider a good wide-field refractor in that size and price
range. University has a kit for $289 that has a good reputation, and Orion has
an ED glass 80mm refractor for $444. To either I'd add a 90 degree prism or 
mirror, a few good quality eyepieces and a simple, solid tripod. A 28mm, 18mm and
a good Barlow would give you around 18 to 80 power, enough to do some fine lunar
observing, see Saturn, Jupiter, their moons, and a lot of deep sky objects.

Even in by highly light polluted back yard I find some of my best viewing is done
at low power- 25-40x with the Questar. Even that is too much for many targets,
like the Pleades. With binoculars or at 20x in a scope they're a wonderful
jewel box. At 40x, just stars.

I have, besides the Questar, a Coulter 8" bought as a light bucket for comets and
some deep sky objects, but I'm selling it. I'm going to get an 80mm scope
kit from University and use that for wide-field viewing and for traveling when the 
Questar would be too risky to take, like camping.
 
My views seem to be a tad heretical to some- many seem to favor aperture over
all else, and SCTs if you have the money. I think refractors, Maksutovs and the
rare well-made reflector are much better. I also agree with those authors who
say a beginner needs first and formost a good rich field telescope. The nice thing
about small refractors is that they can often stand a lot more magnification than can
fast reflectors- especially cheap ones. My 8" Coulter is not useable over 40x on
planets without masking down to 3", but my old 3" Celestron SS-80 was a treat on
Saturn at 60x- and it was an f/5 scope, too. It was also wonderful at 20x.

I'd recommend the SS-80, too, as it comes with a 18mm eyepiece, but it has one 
fault- it comes with a 45 degree amici diagonal prism. This gives a non-reversed
image, which is great in a spotting scope, but it has too much diffraction on
bright objects, and the 45 degree angle isn't good for viewing overhead. Still, at about $350 you could buy it and add a 90 degree prism and another eyepiece and
still be under $400. My choice at the time was between the SS-80 and the C90;
while the C90 has a greater aperture, the SS-80 makes up for it by not having
a central obstruction and by having a full-sized 1-1/4" focusing mount.
 
Whew....that's more than I planned on saying ;-) Good luck in your purchase.

     --mike