Yeah, 2 screws wuz a wacky arrangement for collimationbut it worked-more or less--on the early 2080s. The 2080 was soon followed by a 4-inch SCT, the 2044. In a move to counter Celestrons C11, a third model was added in 1983, the 2120 ten inch. The 2120 can be recommended. They were usually well made optically and mechanically (if a bit light for photo purposes). The 2044 and its successor, the 2045, though, could be iffy optically and should probably be thoroughly tested before purchase if possible (see the Little CAT section of this Guide).

The Celestron Super C8

ot far from Meades headquarters in Costa Mesa, California, Celestrons management, based in Torrance, realized they had a problem. The 2080 did make the classic Orange Tube look ancient. It took a few years for the company to do something about it, but, in July of 1983, readers of the astronomy magazines noticed a new advertisement from Celestron. This full-page, full-color ad was emblazoned with the headline, Superceded. The photo showed the beloved Orange Tube literally being pushed out of the frame by a snazzy looking black (tubed) CAT, the Super C8. But what makes a Super C8 Super? In addition to its more modern and admittedly 2080-style looks, the Super brought some genuine improvements to the C8 line. Foremost was that it, like the Meade scope,
Uncle Rods Used CAT Buyers Guide 15
was equipped with a worm gear drive system. And this was not just any worm gear, but one made by the highly regarded Edward Byers company, renowned amongst amateurs for high-precision mounts and drive gears. Assuming the scope is properly balanced and lubricated, this is a very accurate drive. Noticeably better periodic-error wise, than even good Orange Tube spur sets, and much better when it comes to random tracking errors. Celestron was mighty proud of the Byers gears on this scope. Many models of the C8 Plus actually have a little clear window in the base just so you can show off that WORM GEAR to your buddies! The drive is still, of course, powered by Dual AC motors. What else? The dinky 30mm finder scope is gone, replaced by a nice 8x50 model equipped with a star diagonal for comfortable (if mirror reversed) right angle viewing. Celestron claimed improved coatings were applied to the scopes optics, but real Starbright coatings were an extra cost option (about $100.00 more in big 1983 dollars). Like all the pre-1990s SCTs produced by both companies, the Super C8 is provided with a convenient footlocker-type case that holds the scope, drive base and a few accessories. Is the Super C8 a good telescope? Quite good, but rather hard to find. The Super C8 wasnt around long before it was replaced by a new Celestron model, the Super C8 Plus. A well maintained Super C8 with its gleaming black tube (it was also available with an orange-colored tube for a short time after its introduction) and old-style fork mount is a thing of beauty capable of producing beautiful photographs and delivering stunning visual performance. Should you buy a Super in preference to an Orange Tube model of equal or better condition? That depends. If you do imaging, definitely. If youre primarily or exclusively a visual observer, theres less impetus. Yes, the worm drive of the Super is better, but, if all you do is look or take the occasional undemanding photo, theres not much reason to choose a Super C8 if its more expensive.

Meade LX3

efore Meade introduced the 2080 LX3 in 1985, everybody knew how you made an SCT. You took an OTA, put it on a fork mount, installed an AC motor, and you were done. The 2080 LX3 retains the basic OTA of the earlier Meade scopes, but changes much else. In fact, many CAT fanciers point to 1983 and the coming of the LX3 as the birth of the modern Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope. Whats so all-fired revolutionary about the LX3? The fork is beefed up a little. The finder is a nice right angle 50mm model. The Multi Coated Optic Group (MCOG) enhanced coatings are standard. The wedge is equipped with fine adjusters and a compass. All-in-all, a top of the line, deluxe scope. But the revolutionary aspect of the LX3 is found in the drive base. The laughably simple synchronous AC clock drive has been replaced by a quartz-oscillator-controlled DC motor drive that can be powered from an external 12 volt battery or from 120vac household current. Theres even a hand controller with directional buttons for photography and a two-position switch to select sidereal or solar speeds! The entire telescope is well laid-out and equipped, even by current standards. Unfortunately, some of the advances made by the LX3 make it a somewhat less than ideal telescope for todays used CAT hunter. The DC drive with its more sophisticated electronics means theres a little more to go wrong. For example, lately the hand controller has become a real problem. Failures are occurring and theres no source for replacement units. Some LX3s are also prone to electronics failures in the circuitry in the drive base. Another caveat lies in the fact that some of these telescopes were sold with super enhanced MCSOG optics. MCSOG means Multi Coated SILVERED
Uncle Rods Used CAT Buyers Guide 20
Optics Group, and silvered means that as the scopes age their secondary mirrors (which were the only silvered surface) tarnish and degrade. To their credit, Meade has proven generous in this regard, repairing/replacing these scopes secondaries for free or for a nominal charge (the silvered secondary mirror was technically not covered by the scopes nominal lifetime warranty, Im told). In addition to concerns about electronics and optics, dont forget the LX3 was, like the Celestrons of the time, sometimes a victim of the Halley Curse. Too many scopes thrown together and thrown out the door too quickly when telescopes were all the rage. The problems inherent in an old scope with increased electronics complexity can and should give todays users pause, but in good and working condition the LX3 is a cheap and effective instrument. The PECless drive certainly cannot compare with the accuracy of todays scope scopes, but good pictures can still be taken with these CATs, and much more conveniently than with an AC motor telescope. Incidentally, the introduction of the LX3 meant the basic 2080 (which had been only slightly remodeled in LX and LX-2 versions over the few years preceding the LX3s birth) disappeared for a few years when the new scope was released. Like the 2080, the LX3 is also found in a 10-inch version, which is identical to the 8 except for the larger OTA and minimally modified fork arms.

Uncle Rods Used CAT Buyers Guide 21
Was the Meade LX3 really the first modern SCT? Yeppers! Cant you tell?
Celestrons Powerstar 8 (and a last C8 Plus)
he introduction of the Meade LX3 seemed to have taken Celestron by surprise. They didnt respond with a modern SCT of their own for a while. But it was clear that they would have to do something. Meade had once again bested Celestron in the features race, and the DC drive on the LX3 was a much more serious challenge to the Celestron scopes than was the simple addition of a worm gear drive in the 2080 a few years previously. Celestron was no doubt unhappy that the Super C8+, which was and is a very nice CAT, obviously wouldnt be able to remain the companys flagship instrument for long without modification. The Super C8+ remained on the market for an uninterrupted period of less than two years after the introduction of the LX3. As quickly as possible, Celestron brought forth its own high-tech telescope, the Powerstar C8. When the Powerstar C8 appeared in late 1987, it didnt really surprise anyone. It was about what wed expected, a Super C8+ type telescope with a DC drive motor. Yes, the LX3 stole the Powerstars thunder, but that doesnt make the PSC8 a bad telescope. It is actually very attractive and is a good performer. What will we find if we open that dusty old Powerstar case? The OTA is the familiar Celestron black tube equipped with (usually) very good Celestron optics. The fork and drive base are similar to whats found on the Super as well. With one important difference. Inside the drive base is a DC powered quartz-locked drive motor. An optional hand controller was available to make the Powerstar photography ready. Enhanced Starbright Coatings were another popular add-on for discriminating purchasers. Thats the basic Powerstar, a DC servo motor driven Super C8+. The Powerstar C8 proved to be a very popular SCT, and Celestron kept producing it for nearly 10 years. During this time the telescope went through an almost unprecedented (for Celestron) number of revisions. In addition to the Powerstar, there are Powerstar IIs, Powerstar IIIs, Powerstar IVs, and Powerstar PECs. The nicest Powerstar to stumble across is the last of the breed, the Powerstar PEC. In addition to the features of the original Powerstar, this early 1990s telescope has, as the name suggests, a DC drive with a Periodic Error Correction Feature. And unlike earlier DC Celestrons, it is powered by an internal battery (the initial Powerstar PEC used 6 AA cells; later P-stars used single 9 volt batteries). Other deluxe features are Starbright Coatings as standard equipment, and an included hand controller. The only slightly sub-par aspect of the scope is the little 30mm finder. The other Powerstars? They are a mixed and somewhat confusing bag. Some have 50mm finders, some include dewshields, some are equipped with piggyback camera mounts, some come with hand controllers, some dont. Some were sold without a tripod/wedge and may be on the used market with a variety of wedge/tripod combinations.

Uncle Rods Used CAT Buyers Guide 44
NexStar 8, helped Meade come to this decision, Id guess. The LX50s replacement, in fact was the fully-go-to enabled LX-90. Is the LX50 a good buy if youre hunting a used SCT? Id say yes as long as you understand its limitations. The 50 can be a very pleasant and friendly scope. It does lack PEC, but its strong fork and drive base mean its actually more imaging-capable than more lightly mounted telescopes that do feature PEC or PPEC. Id definitely prefer a used LX50 to earlier Meade scopes like the LX-6 and LX5 and the Celestron Powerstar. For best results, though, Id strongly advise you to try to obtain the newest LX50 you can findone that at least has a brass worm set for the R.A. drive. The Magellan II? Huh! Youd do better to install an inexpensive third party DSC system like the excellent Sky Commander system.
The Meade LX200 Classic SCT
et me take you back, way back to the bad old days of amateur astronomy communications. 1992. No Yahoogroups. No Cloudynights. No Astromart, for Gods sake. Still, news managed to leak out of the big telescope companies and get passed around somehow (there was the Fidonet Astonomy computer bulletin board system). The word on the street in mid 1992 was that Meade was preparing to release a revolutionary new SCT to replace its LX6/Premier series. That sounded odd. I mean, how much more hi-tech could you get than that dial and light encrusted LX6 drive base? What more could you do with a Schmidt Cassegrain? SurelyMeade wasnt thinking about GO-TO. Not after Celestrons ongoing Compustar debacle, surely? Oh, yes they were, in a big way, too. Building on some of the same technology Celestron had used to develop the Compustars, Meade was finally able to crack the code for the amateur go-to SCT. Not that the Compustars were bad, mind you. They werent bad at all, no matter what you may think you remember. But they were horribly expensive. The LX200, in contrast, would be popularly priced, with the 8-inch hovering at that magical 2000 dollar price point that was accepted at that time as the upper limit for a top-of-the-line 8-inch SCT. It was all speculation until late 92, of course, when the ads for something called the LX200 (not LX7?) suddenly appeared in the astronomy magazines. Shortly thereafter, the scopes themselves hit the streets. While the LX200 was destined to be earth-shaking, you wouldnt know it from reading the initial Meade ad copy in Astronomy and Sky and Telescope. Looking at the first LX200 advertisements, it takes you quite a while and some rereading before you realize that these things are go-to scopes, that they could automatically point to an amazing 747 objects (more objects were an option, but it is not clear to me that this memory upgrade was ever actually available for the first scopes or that, if so, many people took advantage of it). I suppose Meade didnt want to shock us, and therefore chose to concentrate on the scopes heavy duty mounting, PPEC, and other pedestrian things rather than the LX200s amazing computer system.

Uncle Rods Used CAT Buyers Guide 54
course, that the Celestar is not in a whole other class compared to the Classic. Were still talking a 1000 dollar class scope, but definitely one thats a step up from the bottom of the line AC drive loss leader. Yes, the Celestar is most definitely a no-frills instrument but it has a few nice features. Firstly, this is a lightweight telescope, one which, at 28 pounds (sans tripod/wedge), weighs a tad less than even its surprisingly light Meade competitor, the LX10. This is just a very pleasant scope to tote around and set up. This portability is somewhat offset, though, by Celestrons decision to forego a case. At the time of the Celestars release in 1996, the company was beginning a phase-out of cases for all its telescopes, and not just the cheapies. Without a case, an SCT and its accessories tend to spread out all over your car. I know you younguns dont expect a case, and either pay extra for one or make do with Tupperware boxes, but I still think it was a shame when Celestron (and Meade, too) decided they had to economize and chose telescope cases as the place to do it. Cases, schmases. Whats the bottom line on the little Celestar? The optical tube assembly is up to the Celestron standards of the time with very good Starbright optics, smooth focusing (some folks call the focuser action of mid 90s Celestrons too easy, and prefer the stiffer focusing typical of the Meades), a nice black Celestron finish for the tube, and a usable eyepiece. The single included ocular is one of the Kellner-type eyepieces, Super Modified Achromats, SMAs, Celestron was dispensing with its inexpensive telescopes at the time. Remember, this was just before the wave of cheap Chinese Plssls hit amateur astronomy. The fit and finish of the Celestar are in my opinion slightly superior to those of the Meade LX-10, something which was typical in the Meade/Celestron SCT face-off in the mid 90s. How about the obviously light fork mount? It is about the same steadiness-wise as what youll experience with its Meade doppelganger. A gentle tap of the tube of either scope at 160X will take several seconds to damp out--not bad, and quite acceptable for most uses. I believe that any shortcomings here--on both scopes--are more attributable to their light tripods and wedges rather than to their somewhat undersized fork arms. Which is not to say its all fun-fun-fun with the Celestar Basic. What didn't I like? I did not like the wedgepod, the tripod with the built-in wedge Celestron shipped with this scope. A wedge was de rigueur for the Celestar, since, lacking the computer guts of a go-to scope, it had to be used in polar-aligned mode. Celestron decided they couldnt just throw a C8 wedge in the box, oh no. Instead, they hit upon a cost saving alternative. The wedge on the Celestar Basic is not separate from the tripod. The tripod legs are attached directly to the wedge. How well does this work? Oh, I guess its ok for general visual use, but for dabbling in photography or CCD work.well, let's just say it is a pain to polar align. The only way to move the scope/wedge in azimuth is by nudging the tripod. Also, said tripod is not adjustable in height, so if you don't find its height convenient, too bad for you, Buster. Certainly you can mount the scope on a standard C8 wedge, but since the wedge is integral to the tripod you will have to replace the whole shebang, and not just the wedge in order to upgrade. I will say that the wedgepod is considerably steadier than the dreadful extruded aluminum tripod that was offered with the C8 Plus the Celestar evolved from. Subtract another 10 points off this contestants final score for the measly 30mm finder that rides on the pretty OTA. As Ive said (many times) before, a 50mm finder

Uncle Rods Used CAT Buyers Guide 55
really is necessary for comfortable, efficient aiming of SCTs. This particular finder is no worse than any other 30mm unit Celestron shipped during this time period, however. In fact, its significantly better than some of the really low-ball Chinese finderscopes you see today. But its still too small. If you buy a used Celestar, youre gonna replace this peep-o-scope with a 50mm job or a Telrad. Then theres the drive system. Celestron thought theyd go high tech (and, incidentally, cheap). Rather than use the servomotors seen in most other DC Celestrons, this one was furnished with a stepper motor (one of the little electronic motors widely used in computer printers). That was both good and bad. The good part was that this delivered a very consistent drive rate without a lot of expense and electronics. The bad part was that you could see the stepping action if you looked for it carefully at high power. C did the gears on the cheap, too, with the scope being saddled with the oft-disdained spur gears, just like the Classic C8. If you wanted to try deep sky imaging with this scope, youd need to pony up more $$$ for yet another of Celestrons options. The hand paddle (controller) was not included with the basic scope. Nor was a declination motor, but we were used to that. But dont get me wrong! This can be a sweet little scope. I ran across a Celestar Basic at a club star party not long after the scope hit the streets. Being anxious to see what the Big C could offer for a minimal cash outlay, I somewhat rudely pushed its novice owner aside (go way son, you bother me) and took the controls. It bein summertime, I sent the Celestar right straight over to Hercules. The image of M13 in this telescope was, to me, as good as what you'll see in any 8-inch SCT, and I must admit I lingered over the wondrous globular for quite a while. Once I was able to get the scope roughly polar alignedcurse that wedgepodit tracked well, too, keeping the glob near the center of the field without any huge periodic error excursions that I could see. Whats the used market like for these scopes? They are fairly plentiful, if not as plentiful as the LX10. It may take a bit of rummaging through Astromart to find one, though. Often youll miss this scope or its Deluxe sister. Youll pass over a lot of C8 for sale ads thinking they are referring to real C8s, Orange Tubes, that is. Instead, the owners are actually selling Celestars, which many owners refer to as C(elestar)8s. If you want a basic, battery powered scope for visual use, and weight/portability is a major consideration, you could do a lot worse than this guy.

Celestar 8 Deluxe

o, by 1996 Celestron had an el-cheapo, the Celestar Basic. And, well over a thousand dollars north of that, the soon-to-be-gone Ultima 8 and the new go-to baby, the Ultima 2000. When it came to fork mount scopes, you either turned your pockets out or you settled for a Celestar. Companies like full product lines, though, product lines with items that appeal to every possible variety of consumer. Clearly, a mid-range scope was needed. Something new and different. What did I expect? Another Powerstar. After all, Celestron had given birth to at least five Powerstar models previously. What could one more hurt? Call it the Powerstar 2000, yeah. What came out of Celestron in 1997 wasnt much different in capabilities

Uncle Rods Used CAT Buyers Guide 72
Chinese-made star diagonal (OK), a 1.25-inch visual back; and a 50mm finder with mount. Normally, this finder was an OK Chinese import. For once, though, your Unk lucked out. At the time I bought my scope, Celestron was all out of the Chinese finders, so I got one of the excellent Japanese 50mm jobs (with the polar alignment reticle). This is the same finder that shipped with the Ultima 8, and its a shame Celestron couldnt include it with all NS11s. What was I most excited about? Beyond the joy of a new scope: WHOOHOOUNCLE ROD DONE GOT HIM A STARBRIGHT C11! I was curious about the GPS receiver. What exactly would it do for me? Remember, even in 2001, GPS was Heap Big Magic to the silly among us--like Your Old Uncle. As soon as it got dark, I got a taste of the NS11s fascinating and (to me at the time) amazing GPS alignment routine. I powered-up the scope using a 12vdc cord (optional) and the 12vdc jump start battery pack Id bought down to the local WallyWorld for this purpose. Celestron included an AC wall-wart style power supply with the scope, but Id already been warned this didnt provide the amount of clean current the NS11 needed for best operation. Indeed, the only times my scope has done something wacky have been the times Ive powered it with this adaptor. Anyhoo, I connected-up the battery, plugged the HC into the scope (you can either plug into a receptacle in the recess in the right fork arm where the HC is stored or into an Aux port on the base), found the little power switch, and set on-off to ON. Before letting Miss NS do her alignment thing, I did hit menu and change the time zone to CDT from the PDT setting it shipped with. Other than that, I set the tube altitude slightly below level (needed for the early scopes), pointed roughly north (also more necessary for the early scopes), and started the GPS alignment. The scope nodded and danced around a bit in the course of leveling and finding north with the aid of an electronic compass and level sensors, and then stopped and started listening for GPS satellites. It waited and I waited for about minutes. This is normal for these scopes if theyve never been used or have been moved a significant geographic distance. The almanac theyll have in memory for the GPS constellation will be out of date or missing, and theyll have to download a new one from the GPS SVs (satellites). That done, the scope acquires satellites, gets current time and geographic position, and heads for the first of two alignment stars, which you center in the finder and in the main scope. How did this go the first time? Right well. No, the alignment stars were not in the finder, but I had already been told about the NS11s compass calibration routine that would take magnetic variation into account and make those initial slews closer. While magnetic variation is small down here, doing this procedure did help, and allowed the scope to place the alignment stars in the field, usually the inner 50% of the field, on subsequent alignments. One nice thing about the Celestron GPS alignment routine (and subsequent Celestron alignment routines) was that it used both the Enter and Align keys on the HC. Thats nice because it enables the scope to switch speed and direction key placement, making alignment a joy. When the scope slews to the first alignment star and stops, slew speed is high, and the up/down/left/right keys on the HC are arranged to match the view through the finder. Once you center the star in the finder, you hit Enter. The scope then slows down the slewing speed for main eyepiece centering and flips the paddle keys around to match what you see in the main eyepiece using a star diagonal. There is one

Uncle Rods Used CAT Buyers Guide 79
Optically, the scope is the same as any other post-2000 Meade 8-incher. That is, pretty impressive, if maybe not quite as impressive as the contemporary crop of Celestrons. However, the LX90 optics most assuredly provide bright and snappy views. Mechanically, like other Meade OTAs, the focus mechanism uses thrust bearings rather than ball bearings (like Celestron). This definitely makes for a stiffer focusing action, and may also contribute to Meades somewhat greater degree of focus shift and a greater tendency toward focus backlash as compared to the other brand. There is no mirror lock as on the LX200GPS, unfortunately. Is there anything about the LX90 that should alarm a used buyer? No, not really. As long as an LX90 has been treated kindly, it should be as good as ever. Its really a simple scope--for a go-to scope--with the brains being in the reliable (and replaceable) Autostar. Speaking of the Autostar, it can be upgradedeasilyto the latest and the greatest LX90 features (well, almost, see below). One thing to look around for: UHTC. These superior optical coatings were available for the LX90 as an extra cost option. Quite a few LX90 buyers, unfortunately, did without to keep that cool LX90 price. Hold out for a UHTC scope if at all possibleit really does make a difference. Whatever happened to the LX90? Nothing. Its better (and bigger) than ever as the LX90-ACF. Meade, as youd guess from that, has recently upgraded the telescope with the new aplantic SCT optics; a GPS receiver was added in the scopes previous iteration. At that time, they also added the LNT red dot device as found on ETX PEs (while keeping the scopes 50mm finder), and piled on plenty of other new hardware and software features, too. In addition to GPS, the LX90s object library was nearly doubled to 30,223 objects, UHTC coatings became standard, and the scope finally gained PEC (NOT PPEC; turn off the scope, the PEC recording disappears). The price did rise 300 dollars, to $1995.00, where it remains today. That seems reasonable considering the added functionality and the fact that its still much less expensive than the next Meade scope up, the $2699.00 LX200-ACF 8-inch.
Uncle Rods Used CAT Buyers Guide 80
Sweet. Sweet and GOOD. Should you save up for a new ACF 90? Not necessarily, especially if youve been able to run down an older scope equipped with UHTC and, maybe, GPS. The ACF optics are nice, but, frankly, stars at the edge of the field look darned near as good using a Celestron or Meade f/6.3 reducer/corrector, which most SCT mavens use most of the time anyway. For about four and a half years the LX90 was only available as an 8-inch. Then, suddenly, Meade released 10-inch and 12-inch versions. This really didnt involve much work on their part. All they did was modify the forksthey made em longer, that is. That worried me: The LX90s fork was skinny to begin with, and yall are gonna put a 12-inch OTA on it? Theres no doubt that a big 12 is stretching the limits for this simple little scope, but, nevertheless, the reports Ive heard from 12-inch users are generally favorable, regarding visual observing anyway. The main drawback to the 12 might be that, at $3299.00, its competing with the unarguably heftier and fancier Celestron CPC C11.

Uncle Rods Used CAT Buyers Guide 83
Celestron OTA on a Losmandy GEM. In this case, the mount is the (still sold) Losmandy GM8, the G11s little brother. What was the result? Ho-hum. The 9.25 OTA is certainly nice (though the earlier models incorporated a prone-to-malfunction mechanical counter for the focuser), but the mount aint. Oh, the head is purty enough; its like a shrunken G11, all stainless-steely and purty. A GM8 aint the rock of Gibraltar, however, and putting a 9.25-inch Celestron on it and expecting it to do astrophotography may be asking a wee bit much. To make matters worse, Celestron, wantin to save George Washingtons, put the GM8 on a cheapo extruded aluminum tripod they got from China. Again, this combo, unlike the CG11, is OK but nothin special. Would I buy an early CG11? Perhaps. Remember, you can easily make your own used CG11 (or 9 especially or 14) buy mating a used G11 and an OTA. That is possibly preferable to settling for an old model of the Real Deal.
The CG9 ? OK. Kinda-sorta. A few words about the C9 OTA Nows as good a time as any to play myth-buster, I reckon. 9.25 OTAs, old or new, are excellent SCTs. They are not magic, however. Do they produce better images that a C8? Yep. But almost all of that is due to their extra inch and a quarter of aperture, not some hoodoo Marie Laveau optics. Yeah, when this OTA was released all kinds of weird stories went round. Ya still hear some of these today; specifically: This one is so good cuz it aint an SCT. Its got a parabolic primary, not a spherical one. Even people with the smarts to know better was trumpetin this foolishness. What do yall think the corrector on the front of the scope is for if this aint an SCT? This is a normal Schmidt Cassegrain. The only difference being a just slightly slower focal ratio for that spherical primary, about f/2.3. That allows the scope to get by with a slightly smaller secondary
Uncle Rods Used CAT Buyers Guide 84
obstruction and a secondary mirror with a lower 4.3x magnification. Which may contribute a little bit to the scopes legendary goodness.
The CI-700: Celestron GEMs Redux
Celestron sold quite a few CG scopes to quite a few happy amateurs for about five years. Then it all came to a screeching halt in 1998. WHY, DADDY, WHY? I dont know that theres ever been an official explanation, but I suspect the reason was twofold. First, its no secret that Scott Losmandy has always had trouble producing G11s in sufficient numbers. Bringing Celestron into the mix meant more demand, more dealersyou get the picture. Also, I would GUESS some of the folks at Celestron wondered whether they might not be able to produce a similar GEM in-house and kick up the ol profit margin. This theory is offset by the still-heard story that Losmandy produced some/all the CI700s components. Whatever the reasons for its demise, when the G11 became unavailable, Celestron was quick to produce a mount of its own, the aforementioned CI700.

Uncle Rods Used CAT Buyers Guide 96

Meades 2040 and 2044

y 1981, only a year after they introduced their first SCT, Meade was well on the way to becoming a serious competitor for Celestron. The 2080 had been a pretty sizable hit, and the company quickly introduced a line of accessories and smaller scopes to reinforce its new SCT, referring to the whole shebang as the Meade System 2000. One of the elements of this system was the incredibly rare Meade Schmidt camera, the 2066 (a 4 inch f/2.54). This thing was of limited appeal, and didnt hang around too long. The other additions, though, were, in one form or another, to become fixtures in Meades stable for many years to come. Most notable of these was the 2040, a 4-inch SCT. Like Celestron, Meade had a problem: the 8-inch scope, at a thousand dollars with wedge and tripod, seemed just as horribly expensive to amateurs of the 80s as the C8 had to the amateurs of the 70s. Celestron tried to address this sticker shock with its C5; now Meade had its own little CAT. Meades smaller SCT was only a 4-inch, but the 2040 was a pretty little thing with a nice, shiny blue tube whose paint job that matched that of its big brother, the 2080. The 2040 was not just a slightly smaller doppelganger of Celestrons C5, it was considerably different mount-wise, riding on a single-arm fork more like the one provided for the Celestron C90 MCT and the Quantum Maksutovs rather than the normal dual-tine design of the original C5. As was the case with the C5+, however, a single tine fork is not necessarily fatal for a small scope. The 2040 was stable, if not solid as a rock on its little mount. In a marketing strategy identical to the one Celestron used with its C90, the same 4 inch OTA was also available in a Spotter version, the 1022, and as the 1020 Telephoto (no finder, no diagonal), which Meade recommended as a guide-scope for the SCT (OK-if you didnt mind lots of trailed stars caused by using a moving-mirror focusing scope to guide a moving-mirror focusing scope in the long exposure film days). Whats worth saying about the 2040 in the final analysis? Not too much. It was a competent scope optically (usually) and the AC spur gear drive was OK. But not many of the 2040s were made before it de-evolved into the almost identical and slightly more numerous and familiar 2044.
Uncle Rods Used CAT Buyers Guide 97
Did Rube Goldberg really design this 4-inch guidescope mounting? Naw, and the 2040 liked it fine. When we began to hear that Meade was replacing the 2040 with the newimproved 2044, we assumed the scope and mount might be upgraded to something closer to the considerably more expensive and fancy C5 (the 2040 had listed for only $545.00 in 1981). However, the 2044 was not quite what we were expecting. Instead of a Meade C5, what we saw, when the Meade full-color ads hit the magazines in 83, was a 4-inch SCT with an OTA identical to the one on the 2040, but with a considerably lighter and obviously cheapened mount. The drive base on the 2040 had been very similar to the one on the 2080, and the fork arm, while smaller than the arms on the 8inch scope, was still nice and hefty. The new models single fork arm and drive base, however, reminded me more of what had been furnished with Quantums superlightweight scope, the ill-fated Quantum 100. In one fell stroke, all the rumors of an elegant Meade 4 inch were stifled. The 2044, despite my impressions when it was released, is, in retrospect, a nicelooking instrument thats blessed a certain attractive simplicity and lan. Back in the 80s, though, instead of considering the 2044 to be clean-looking, elegant, or high-tech or thinking Questar or Quantum, most amateurs just thought the telescope looked cheap. Meade trying to save a few bucks by making the single-arm mount on the 4-inch even lighter, huh? This small SCT can actually be a very pleasant telescope to use and especiallyto carry around. Lets face it, a fully loaded C5 with a field tripod and wedge isnt that much more portable than a C8. Theres little doubt that Meade probably was trying to save a few dollars, but whats wrong with that? The 2044 was not only cheaper to produce; Meade could sell it for less, still make money, and still deliver a useful scope. The 2044 mounting was fine for visual use, if a little shaky, and was driven by an AC spur-gear that was more than sufficient for visual observers.

Uncle Rods Used CAT Buyers Guide 123
meant it never sold like lil sis or big sis, which led to Meades eventual phase out of the 105 (in 2006). The 105 might be a very good used buyif you can find one. Fewer were made and sold, so this is a somewhat rarer bird on the used market. The New Breed In 2005, Meade updated the ETX again with the PE series. This version, which includes only 125 and 90mm models at this time, incorporates some significant changes and improvements. Gone is that lousy little finder of yore. Its been replaced with a much more useable red dot sight, which is incorporated into the scopes LNT (Level North Technology) module. The red dot is a much more practical aid to getting the scope aligned than the small finders, and also has some clever features. It, for example, turns itself off after the alignment process is complete (it can be turned back on via the Autostar), and the red dot can be varied in brightness or even made to blink if desired. The LNT and associated circuitry do more than furnish the scope with a bb-gun style sight; they provide a very user-friendly alignment system for the ETX. Using the LNT alignment method, all the user must do is turn the scope counterclockwise until it encounters the hard stop (now metal), and turn on the power. The scopes then gets the time and date from its precision internal clock, finds north and level via electronic sensors, picks an alignment star, and slews to it. This alignment process, which is very similar to the procedure for Meades GPS-equipped SCTs, means all the user must worry about is centering alignment stars with the Autostars direction buttons and pressing enter. Meade upgraded both the 90 and the 125 (and, for a while, the 105) with this LNT gadgetry, but went even farther with the 125. The plastic fork of yore is now only plastic on the outside. Beneath the plastic covering is a real, metal fork. This makes the 125 considerably more stable than its predecessors. Both ETX PEs now come standard with an Autostar, a decent tripod, a tripod carrying bag (nice), and a Plssl. Any caveats? Some of the earliest models LNT modules were defective and/or prone to intermittent operation. Meade has upgraded the finder and associated circuitry/software a couple of times already. One minor problem? Meade decided to do away with the traditional blue ETX tube. The tubes of the initial ETX PEs were silkscreened with deep space images (see Uncle Rods 125PE below). Some people like this, some hate it. It appears Meade has now decided to make the plain blue tube an option for the PE for this reason. Whats the PE doing in this Guide, anyway, which is devoted to no-longerproduced scopes? Indications are that there will soon be no more PEs. Ive been hearing rumors that Meade is set to revamp/revise the ETX in a serious way Real Soon Now for a while. That seems to have been borne out by comments made by company bigwigs at a recent investor-teleconference. Chances are that the PE will soon be toast. If all this ETX history seems confusing, there is a place to go where all will be clarified. Theres a tremendous amount of information available online, mainly on one wonderful website. If you need more than whats given here, the best place to look for all things ETXalways--is Mike Weasners Mighty ETX site at http://www.weasner.com/etx.

Uncle Rods Used CAT Buyers Guide 130
And you even got a case---sorta. Intes offered a Deluxe version of the MK66, too. This model that adds the same features as the Deluxe 67 to the basic scope: better primary substrate, better coatings, bigger (if not much better) finder, better wavefront error specs. The upshot? If you want an MCT in this aperture range, its hard not to recommend the MK66 or MK67. On a modern go-to mount like the CG5, this scope can be a real performer, leaving the ETX125 in the dust as far as light gathering power and build quality go. If I had my druthers, Id get the MK66, as I dont think the fixed mirror focusing arrangement of the 67 was a very practical one for a compound scope. One last thing should be mentioned: the company that made this telescope, Intes, is now out of business (as of 2006). That shouldnt mean much to the used buyer, however. Theres little, if anything, that should ever need replacing on this rugged kitty. It would take quite some doing, even, to break the (thick) corrector. How do you get one? Intes is gone, but they made and sold a considerable number of these scopes, so it is not difficult to find one (the 67 is, unfortunately, more common than the 66). Cant find an Intes MK67 to suit you? Keep your peepers peeled for an Orion Argonaut 150, then. U.S. dealer Orion (Telescope and Binocular Center) sold the scope for a while badged as the Argonaut. This scope, shown in the image below, is identical to the standard 67 except for the paintjob. Orion offered the scope as an OTA or in a package with a lightweight GEM as an option. Unfortunately the GSO-made mount was a bit too light for this scope in my opinion.
Uncle Rods Used CAT Buyers Guide 131
The Orion version. Undercover KGB: Kool Good Buy
Uncle Rods Used CAT Buyers Guide 132
The Constant Classic: The Questar 3.5
ike a lot of folks in the astronomy biz, I reckon, I have a habit of slingin around the word classic when referring to my favorite telescopes. Some of the CATs your ol Uncle has been known to append this term to are: The Celestron Pacific Blue and White SCTS. The Celestron Orange Tubes. The Quantum MCTs. The Classic LX200. The Celestron Ultima 8. The AstroPhysics Ultimate MCT.
Yep, and they are all good--or even greattelescopes, but the real classic? The one CAT that is so fine (too fine to be mine) that it has continued to be sold, bought, and loved for over 50 years nearly unchanged? The Questar 3.5.