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 The laughably simple synchronous AC clock drive has been replaced by a quartz-oscillator-controlled DC motor drive that can be powered from an external 12 volt battery or from 120vac household current.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 25
Superwedge, which is sold for the current LX200-ACF. The 10-inch LX5 had a lot of appeal for the amateurs of the time, since it was far fancier and had many more features than Celestrons competing telescope, the old-fashioned C11 (which still had an AC drive at this late date).
Crikey! That LX5 sure had a lot of bells and whistles for way back when.

Celestron Ultima C8

or about a year and a half following the LX5 introduction, all was quiet on the SCT front. Oh, Celestron did bring its Compustar series of telescopes to market, but those high-priced CATs were of relatively little interest to the average Joe and Jane
Uncle Rods Used CAT Buyers Guide 26
Amateur. Otherwise, Celestron confined its SCT advancements to tinkering with the configuration of the Powerstar. But then, in late 1988, new telescope ads, new Celestron SCT telescope ads, hit the astronomy magazines. The new CAT from Celestron was dubbed the Ultima 8. Ultima is reminiscent of the word ultimate, and thats a pretty fair description of this classic SCT. Even today, many SCT users consider the Ultima 8 to be the best (non-go-to) 8-inch Schmidt Cassegrain every produced by anybody. What makes the Ultima 8 so special? That this telescope was optimized for photography and included just about every luxury feature a CAT purchaser of the time could want. The OTA was a stock black Celestron tube, but its optics came standard with the desired Starbright coatings. The corrector was a deluxe version that was made of Crown glass, which many amateurs consider superior to the float glass normally found in SCT lenses. There have been rumors floating around over the years to the effect that the optics in the Ultima 8 were hand picked for excellence at the factory. I have no evidence that this was the case, but the optical performance of every Ultima 8 Ive seen has been very good, at least. The rest of the Ultimas appointments were similarly fancy. The 50mm finder was not only large enough for easy object location, but also included an adapter which allowed it to be used in a right angle configuration or straight-through if the owner didnt like mirror-reversed images. There was an illuminator and a special crosshair reticle in the finder eyepiece which, when used with an included slide-rule calculator, made relatively accurate polar alignment a breeze.

Uncle Rods Used CAT Buyers Guide 29
volt model runs out of juice, just slap in a new batterycharging the battery pack at a star party might not always be easy, and if it dies in the middle of the night, it can be a positive show-stopper. The excellent 50mm finder was left in place on the Ultimas till the end, but the right angle viewing attachment was scrappeda definite cost-saving measure. Any bad Ultimas? As mentioned earlier, the earliest U8s were produced with drives that do not have the PEC feature. Id avoid this version if you happen to run across one. When I was initially preparing this guide, I was under the impression that not many of the non-PEC Ultimas were produced, but as they keep turning up, its become obvious that Celestron turned out quite a few of these over the first two years of the Ultimas run. The PEC feature wasnt added until the summer of 1990. The oldest Ultimas, both the PECs and the Non-PECs are now over a decade old, and, as can be expected, are starting to have a few problems. Foremost among these is the lead-acid rechargeable battery, most of which have given up the ghost by now. A replacement battery can be found, but not always easily. More serious is the fact that Im beginning to hear about failing drive electronics with disturbing frequency. Celestron cant help with Ultima failures of this kindthey have no more parts for the old scopes. In fairly recent times, it has been possible to purchase replacement printed circuit boards for the scope from the maker, Tangent instruments. Whether this is still possible, and how long Tangent will be able to supply these, I dont know. Ive also been told that at least some of the Tangent circuit boards may be somewhat defectivewith non functional 12volt power inputs. That is not a huge problem, since the scope will track for hours or more with a fresh 9-volt battery. The Ultima 8 wasnt the only Ultima. Celestron also produced plenty of Ultima 11s and Ultima 9.25s. These scopes are identical to the U8 except for their OTAs and modified (the arms were lengthened) forks. How are they? The Ultima 9.25 is an excellent scope, if not quite as vibration free as the Ultima 8. The Ultima 11s strength is her light gathering power. Otherwise, shes borderline as far a sturdiness and hardly a scope suited for serious imaging. Postscript The Ultima 8 was my choice of 8-inch SCT for over a decade. Ive loved it more than I have loved any other telescope Ive owned in 40 years of observing. But times change and people too. I finally had to admit that I was using the Ultima less and less the last several years. Make that almost never. Mostly this was due to the presence in the house of a NexStar 11. No matter how much I used the NS11, however, I didnt and probably never will feel the affection for it I feel for the Ultima 8. In part, this is nostalgia; I bought the Ultima just following the memorable time when I wooed and won my wonderful wife, Miss Dorothy. The scopes purchase and use by the two of us at one of the first star parties we attended together are pleasant, tender memories. Nevertheless, I wasnt using the U8 anymore, and for one big reason: go-to. I admit to being an unabashed fan of go-to. Im busy enough these days that when those precious observing hours finally come round I want to look, not hunt. I also find that as I get older and creakier its not as easy to contort my body to aim and use a wedge-mounted, non-go-to fork scope as it used to be. The big C11 set up in alt-azimuth

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 59
After the experience of nudging and sometimes kicking the Celestar Basics tripod legs to do a polar alignment, the normal LX 10 wedge/tripod combo was a relief. We purchased Meade's standard (i.e. cheapest) wedge/tripod pair, which included a
Simple, yeah, but in this case simple was pretty gull-derned goodfor the money. light but sufficient wedge (for such a featherweight scope). The tripod was also fine, but I noted that it did not include a spreader--though this did not appear to adversely affect
Uncle Rods Used CAT Buyers Guide 60
stability. Like the Celestar tripod, the tripod normally sold for use with the LX10 is not adjustable. A quick examination of the wedge revealed an altitude fine adjustment, but not one for azimuth. The Meade tripod/wedge setup makes it easy to adjust the scope in azimuth, however. Unlike Celestron wedges, which are fastened to their tripods with three bolts, Meades wedges are affixed to the tripod by a central threaded rod secured with a pair of knobs. For azimuth adjustments during polar alignment, the top, wedgeside knob is loosened a little and the wedge is rotated on this threaded shaft. I find it reasonably easy to make fine adjustments to the wedge by moving it by hand. I did find that I had to be very careful the students didnt loosen the knob too much. Didnt want these beautiful new scopes nose diving to the concrete walkway we use as an observing pad the first night out! While the wedge is acceptable for visual use, if photography is contemplated you'd be well-advised to consider an upgrade with good fine adjusters for both altitude and azimuth. As above, the 10s standard wedge does feature an altitude adjustment, but this adjuster is undersized for the wedge, consisting of nothing more than a single, smallish bolt pressing on the tilt plate. Its hard and fussy to adjust, and I dont let the students mess with it. Ive preset the wedges for our latitude, and content myself with allowing the kids adjust only in azimuth during their polar alignments. Accessories? You cant expect too much in the thousand-dollar-SCT world, but what was in the box with the LX10 was a cut above what was shipped with the Celestar Basic. The 26mm Plossl and the star diagonal included with the scope were both of surprisingly good quality, with the eyepiece being a real plus. At this price, I had expected Meade to include one of the dreaded--and dreadfulModified Achromat cheapo oculars of the day that they threw in the boxes with their StarFinder dobsonians. What I found, though, was a very good Series 4000 plossl. While the skies were clear on our first night out with the scopes, haze gradually moved in, and, looking north, we were barely able to make out Polaris without optical aid. While helping the students do a rough polar alignment for the first time, it was forcefully brought back to me just how much of a pain in the butt 30mm finders are. If I were to buy one of these telescopes for myself, the first thing I would do would be to replace this marginal affair with a 50mm unit. Its a shame to put a too small finder on a very good optical tube. The optics on these SCTs are very good, no doubt about it. I have no doubt that they are, as Meade oft pointed out in LX10 advertising, the same as the MCOG (Multi Coated Optics Group, whatever that meant, exactly) optics sets used in the much more expensive LX200s. After the students had polar aligned their telescopes and done a few other simple exercises, I treated them to high power views of Jupiter and Saturn. Though Saturn was less than 20 degrees off the horizon, the Cassini division was very obvious, as was some definite disk detail. In my opinion the views appeared to be just as good as those offered by any 8" SCT. Perhaps even more surprisingly, the views were remarkably consistent in all eight scopes. You can imagine the reaction of the kids to their first look (for just about all of them) of Saturn. These little telescopes delivered. After polar alignment, the students' next assignment was to align the R.A. circle by pointing at a bright star of known right ascension. While one group had their scope pointed at Deneb, I quickly popped in a high power eyepiece in order to do a hurried star

Uncle Rods Used CAT Buyers Guide 61
test. Result? While Deneb is a little bright to use as a star test star, I could tell the optics on this particular scope (and all the others, which I tested as the evening went on) looked pretty danged good, even vis--vis the demanding star test. Another surprise? Image shift while focusing was quite small, less than 45 arc seconds. It was small enough to not be overly distracting, even at 200X. Of course optics aint worth a hoot, no matter how well figured, if you put em on a mount that shakes and shimmies with every breeze and every touch of an excited young hand. The fork mount that Meade used on this scope, while heavier than the one provided on the scopes immediate ancestor, the 2080, is not overly strong lookin. And yet, the scope was decently stable, with a sharp rap to the tube dying out in a few seconds at 200X. Not that there werent a few small annoyances. While we were in the process of playing with the setting circles, I noticed that one of the scopes had come in with a declination setting circle that was misaligned by about 5 degrees. This seems common with Meade scopes of this vintage, but can be easily corrected if you use the circles, be prepared to recalibrate the dec circle once in a while. I also noticed that Meade still includes two declination circles (Celestron's scopes only had one by 1996). Nice touch! The LX10s drives worked well, and while they (like the drives of any scope) showed some periodic error, it was, at about 30 arc seconds or a little more, not outrageous. What you see is what you get, of course. The LX10, like the Celestar Basic, doesnt have PEC, so you cant train PE out. One thing I didn't like was that the drive's on/off switch, idiot light, and jacks for the (included) simple hand controller are mounted vertically on the drive base--they are a bit hard to get at and see in the dark with the scope mounted on its wedge. The power-on light is not easily visible, and, as you might expect, some of the students forgot to turn off their drives prior to packing their scopes away. For most users, ergonomic considerations having to do with the on-off switch and light pale beside the fact that Meade did not scrimp on drive gears. Unlike the Celestar Basic, the LX10 has a worm gear system. One peculiarity of the LX10 electronics? You can power them via either a 9 volt battery or six AA cells (placed in a provided holder). Unfortunately, this versatility is made somewhat less impressive by a battery cover/access door that is the dickens to remove, even in daylight. At least you wont have to pry it open very often. Meade quotes 50 hours for battery life, and thats about what Ive experienced. In short, I found the LX10 to be a competent, lightweight 8-inch SCT. The optics are good, and the fork, tripod and wedge sufficient for visual use. While this scope would not be optimum for photography, photography could be done with it. All in all, I was pleasantly surprised, and would not hesitate to recommend LX10 to someone in the market for a simple, non-computerized scope. Warnings? Not really. Well, almost none. Some LX10 users have reported poor drive rate accuracy. Apparently temperature can affect the oscillator that governs the speed in the LX10s R.A. drive system. This does not happen with all telescopes, and is usually not a problem if youre using the scope visually, but it can be fixed via an adjustable pot (potentiometer) in the drive base. There is an active Yahoogroups LX10 group who can steer you right on this and all other things LX10: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/LX-10/

Uncle Rods Used CAT Buyers Guide 71
handles on the fork for once, and they make it easy for even this broken-down-hillbilly to lift the scope onto the tripod. Celestron didnt follow Meades lead and just screw a couple of rack-handles onto the fork, you see. One is a rack-style handle, but even that is well-designed, with a corresponding depression in the fork arm to accommodate your fingers. The other handle? Its not really a handle per-se. Theres a hole in the underside of one fork arm that forms a handle. You grip the comfortably rounded underside of the fork arm (this is easier to do than describe) with your fingers extending into the hole. The result is that after just a little practice, putting this large scope on its tripod becomes laughably easy. I considered, for example, buying the Starizona Landing Pad at first. This was a NexStar GPS accessory that bolted on the tripod head, guided the drivebase into place, and lined up the bolt mounting holes for you. After a week or two I determined this wasnt needed. Its easy to lift the scope, seat it on the tripod via a central pin, line up the bolt holes, and screw in the hex-style attachment bolts without tools. So, I had the scope on the tripod, but what about the tripod? Its good and bad. It is the standard heavy-duty field tripod thats shipped with many of Celestrons more expensive telescopes over the years. Unfortunately, in the course of trying to keep the price down on the NexStar 11, I suppose, this tripod was cheapened somewhat. Gone are the rubber-covered chrome-plated legs. The original NS GPS tripod did feature a durable powder coatingnot as good as rubber, but certainly serviceable. Also, while the tripod leg spreader looks identical to the sturdy metal one included with the HD tripod furnished with top-of-the-line early-mid 1990s scopes, it was now plastic. Overall, this version of the tripod is noticeably lighter than the original. Not that thats always a bad thingnot if youre lazy like Unk Rod. I could use the original heavy-heavy duty tripod that came with the Ultima 8 for this scope, but the new tripod is a lot easier to schlep around Fortunately, this downgrading of the tripod doesnt seem to have hurt anything. Its still as steady as ever (or not), and despite me cranking the knob down pretty hard, the plastic spreader has never threatened to snap on me (some folks have reported failures, however). The same problems that have afflicted other models of the HD tripod afflict this one, though. The leg end tips have a tendency to come unglued and fall off, and the bolts attaching the legs to the tripod head sometimes loosen. As for configuring the tripod for best steadiness, dont extend the legs (thats safer too; this is a heavy mutha). Leave the rubber crutch tips on the legs, or, for even more steadiness, take em off and place the tripod on the vibration suppression pads. Yes, Celestron, apparently a little skittish about how steady this big scope would be on a light tripod, included a set of three vibration suppression pads in the box. These little metal and Sorbothane disks, one of which goes under each bare tip of a tripod leg, contribute significantly to stability. It was a nice gesture for Celestron to throw em in, but in truth, for alt-az operation, you will probably find the scope steady enough for most purposes without them. Once the scope was on the tripod, I fished around in the big box to see what else Celestron had tossed in there. Not a lot. In addition to the vibration pads, theres the NexStar HC, which looks identical to the models shipped with the earlier NS scopes (but which was loaded with radically different software); a fairly clearly written manual; a stamped metal corrector cover (wish it had been a nice plastic job like those on the C8); a 40mm Plssl eyepiece (OK if you fancy 40mm Plssl; I shore dont); a 1.25-inch

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 76
Whither the NS11? It was with us only a little more than four years. What brought it down was not aging or problems. Well, not scope problems, anyway. The Legal problems that Ive alluded to did it in. Meade, you see, strange as it might seem, decided they had a patent claim on any telescope alignment procedure that involved leveling the tube and pointing north. Celestron decided they could not afford a long court battle and settled. The result? Celestron would have to pay royalties on every GPS scope (and every other go-to scope that used the north level system). This actually turned out not to be a bad thing, as it spurred Celestron to even greater heights of innovation. To replace the north and level GPS alignment mode, the Celestron software folks came up with SkyAlign. Rather than moving north and leveling the tube by itself, the scope lets the user do the work, manually aiming at alignment stars with the HC. Pointing north and leveling are not involved. Using the HC the scope is pointed at three stars. Whats innovative, is that the user can align the scope on any three stars in the sky. Mr. or Ms Amateur doesnt even need to know the names of these stars. Actually, these objects dont even have to be stars; the Moon and planets will do. Celestron also took this opportunity to redesign the drive base and fork, making the scope slightly more stable (if not as attractive in my opinion) and the tracking slightly better--so some people thing; Celestron has never made this claim, and other folks are of the opposite opinion. These new SkyAlign scopes, renamed the NexStar CPCs, are nice, but only time will tell whether they will become the true classics the NexStar 11 and her 8 and 9.25 GPS sisters darned sure are.

Meade LX90

warnt a whole lot goin on down Irvine way in 2000leastways, thats what we thought. At Meade, I mean (yeah, Irvine, but its really more like the Anaheim metro area, not too far from the Ducks fancy home). The LX200 was eight years old that year, and was beginning to show its age, but it was still the SCT of choice for more amateurs than you could shake a 2080 at. The Autostar-equipped ETX had come out the previous year; the Meade LX50 was hangin in there. Why should Meade worryor produce a brand-new scope model? Despite the surface calm, however, not all was quite as it seemed. Sure, the LX200 was still the queen of the SCTs, but she used yesterdays technology (compare the clunky Classic HC to the snazzy new Autostar). She was expensive too; not everyone who wanted one could necessarily get one. Because of the older technology, the scope was also expensive to produce, and provided less green stuff for Meades coffers than youd a-thought. To top it off, the next scope down, the LX50, was never overly popular. People wanted go-to scopes now, and the LX50, despite the abortive semi-go-to provided by the cantankerous Magellan II system, didnt have it. What would Meade do? Replace the LX200 with an LX300? An Autostar equipped LX200? Nope. Not quite yet, anyway. Instead, what Meade debuted in that now-receding year of 2000 was the somewhat blandly named LX90 (couldnt have a higher number than the top scope, and LX100 had already been used). What was an LX90, anyway? The big, glossy ads said it all, Now you can buy the telescope of a lifetime at a price you

Uncle Rods Used CAT Buyers Guide 92
Honey! They done shrunk the OrangeTube! Due to the good reputation of these scopes, lots of folks expect them to work wonders. Many Orange Tube C5s are extremely good telescopes. In fact most all of them are. But they cannot violate the laws of physics. They perform like any other obstructed 5-inch telescope (the secondary comes in at 2 inches) with quality optics: very good on the Moon, also good on the planets, and bearable on the deep sky. Lets face it, if you live in light polluted environs the C5 aint exactly gonna be a powerhouse on DSOs. Globulars, for example, will be blobsbright blobsbut blobs (many will resolve nicely under better skies). The main advantage the 5 has? Portability. At 13 pounds without tripod and wedge, its really quite possible to carry one out in one hand, plop it down in the backyard and be observing in minutes. This was the one factor that could have made the original C5 a long-term success. But, though Celestrons advertisements did trumpet the scopes extreme portability, ease of transport was just not as necessary for the 70s 80s amateur as it for todays SCT User. Back in the early 70s many folks still had respectably dark backyards. If they bought a C5, it was usually for one reason and one reason only: it was less expensive than a C8. This created a problem for Celestron. Before too long it became obvious that the C5
Uncle Rods Used CAT Buyers Guide 93
was simply not much less expensive to produce than a C8. Sometimes smaller is actually harder to do, and this was the case with the C5. This was problematical, because Celestron knew they had to maintain a healthy price differential between the C5 and the C8 if they wanted to sell more than a few 5s. But that was hard to do. In 1977 the base price for the C5 (just the scopeno wedge/tripod) increased from $595.00 to $795.00 in one fell swoop. Being a relatively innocent and relatively young chirper back then, I had no idea of the economics involved and wondered if Celestron were purposely trying to kill the C5. Sadly, the scope wasnt able to remain viable in the magical below 1000 dollars range for much longer. In 1980, the price went up again, to $995.00 this time, squarely in C8 territory. What was Celestron to do? In 1986, with Comet Halley approaching, telescope mania hitting the general public, and Celestron unable to keep up with C8 demand, the solution to the C5 problem became abundantly clear. Bye-bye C5! The C5 was gone, and I thought Id never see its like again. Luckily I was wrong. Seven years after the C5 disappeared, it was back. Actually, Celestron released two new C5s in December of 1992. The first of these, the C5 Classic, had a lot in common with the original (and with the then-new bottom tier C8, the Classic). It possessed a simple AC powered clock drive with a spur gear system and a too small 5x24mm finder. A very light tabletop wedge was also included with the new C5, but the scope was really much happier atop a standard Celestron wedge and tripod. The OTA was a lot like the original in most ways, but it had a pretty white finish rather than a muddy orange, and featured a built-in piggyback bracket. Cool. But, somehow, it was really not quite as attractive as the old Orange Tube C5. It worked every bit as well, though, being optically as good or better than the original (Celestron had now had time to mostly rectify the optical problems that were a result of Halley Madness). Anti-reflection enhanced coatings (not Starbright) helped some. But there was also one big strike against the new 5s, or so we thought. The double arm fork featured on the previous C5 had been replaced with a single-arm arrangement. At first amateurs were appalled. How could this possibly be stable? Had Celestron cheapened the C5 so much that it would now be unusable? We were wrong, it turned out. The scope now looked a bit funky, perched on its spindly single arm, yeah, but it was still quite stable and very usable. The much-admired Quantum 4 and 6 Maksutovs, we remembered belatedly, had also done well on their one arm bandit mounts. I mentioned two C5s. What was the story on the other new telescope? The second C5, the C5+ (plus) as it was called, was really only different from the other new C5 in one major regard: it featured a 9-volt servo motor powered drive. A nice little hand controller paddle was included in the purchase price of the telescope. As on the C5 Classic, the gears on the Pluses are of the spur type, but quite accurate. After a while (by about 1995), the C5+ gained the all-important Starbright coatings as standard equipment. The small finder was also replaced at this timewith a reasonably good 30mm job.

Could Meade out Questar Questar? Your old Uncle was sitting on his you-know-what, browsing through the latest postRichard Berry Astronomy magazine issue to appear in the front hall of Chaos Manor South. Since its his usual practice to read magazines from front to back (god knows why), it took a while for him to reach the big Meade ads that resided up front. What did he see when he got there? Meade had (gasp) cloned the Questar 3.5 Maksutov Cassegrain Telescope. But how well did they do The Deed? How closely did this new telescope, the ETX (which letters, we learned later, stood for Everybodys Telescope), stack up against the original, the legendary, Q3.5? How well, especially, in the eyes of a generation (Baby Boom) of amateurs whod, almost to a man and woman, at least occasionally lusted after the beautiful little Questar?
Uncle Rods Used CAT Buyers Guide 118
The original ETX 90 (later referred to by the company as the ETX RA), wasnt quite a Questar; that was evident just from looking at the magazine ads. It was obvious there was a considerable amount of plastic involved. The question foremost in my mind, however, was: optics, optics, optics. How close could the Meade analogs glass come to those vaunted J.R. Cumberland optics of the real deal?
With aa plasticized Questar?! It wasnt too long before I got my hands on one of the little puppies and had my answer: to my middle-aged eyes the ETX optics were indistinguishable from those in the Q3.5. They were that good, yes. Over the years since I tried my first ETX, Ive had a few Questar fanatics challenge me on this point, claiming the Questars images are higher contrast. Ive never seen that. I didnt rely on memory of what the Questar optics are like, either. Way back when I did an actual side-by-side shootout between the ETX 90 and the Questar 3.5. Result of my back and forthing on Moon, planets, and deep sky? No difference did I see. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. So, the very inexpensive ETX ($495.00) was
Uncle Rods Used CAT Buyers Guide 119
the equal of its inspiration, the Questar, which cost at least six times as much? Yes. Optically. Alas, a telescope is not just optics. Theres the everything else, and it was in the everything else that the Meade came up short. Youre probably thinking, Ah-hah, that bad old plastic. Not really. While most of the scope was made from plastic (fork arms, drive base, rear cell) that really wasnt what caused the Meade to finish a distant second. It was, rather, the execution of the details. The Questar 3.5, as you probably know, includes as a part of its design an ergonomic control box on the rear cell. You focus, switch a Barlow in and out, and change the eyepiece to its through-the-main-eyepiecefinder mode with well-placed buttery-feeling controls.

Uncle Rods Used CAT Buyers Guide 122
Egregious mirror shift (mainly on the 125; more on that scope below). Broken hard stops. These stops, initially made of plastic, were designed to prevent the scope from rotating so much in RA/Az that the cable bundle running up to the fork breaks. Defective declination gears. Excessive backlash on both axes.
This is not meant to scare you away from the ETX, only to emphasize a need to try before you buy. Chances are the ETX you are considering is afflicted by none of these maladies. But it might be. Whats in the box? Surprisingly, until recently, one thing that was not in the box was the Autostar. For most of the ETXs life, the Autostar computer was an extra-cost option. What was included with the scope was a manual controller. Without the Autostar, what you had was a scope that, like the original, had to be polar-aligned to track. All the EC/AT adds without an Autostar is motorized slow motions/slewing on both axes. Like the original, a good Plossl is standard. Oh, and youd need to buy the tripod separately as well, just as with the first 90; all thats included is a set of those crazy lil tabletop doo-hickey legs. If youre buying an ETX that has actually been used, chances are the owner will be including both tripod and Autostar in the deal. The ETX 125 and 105: Big Sisters Yep, 90mm aint much. As the 1990s gave way to the oughts, Meade realized larger versions of the ETX might help Everybodys Telescope develop an even wider audience. First up was the 125, a 5-inch version, whose extra aperture really, really helps in the what can you see department. The 125 can access everything Celestrons legendary C5 can deep-skywise (within the restrictions imposed by the ETXs narrower field of view), and thats a lot. It, the 125, can also, like the C5, show a surprising amount of detail on the planets. Actually, it can show more than the C5, as its optics, despite what you may have heard, are noticeably higher in contrast, and a bit sharper as well. 125 bad stuff? Everything that afflicts the Autostar 90 can afflict the 125, but it brought a couple of new problems to the table as well. Some early examples showed a huge amount of focus shift. Turn the focus knob to focus, and Jupiter might move all the way out of the field. Meade cured this problem in short order, but there may still be used scopes with this annoying problem out there. Almost as bad in some folks opinion is the ETX forks steadiness or lack of it. The 125 is capable of delivering quality views at surprisingly high magnifications due to its excellent optics, but, ironically, its hard to accurately focus the scope at high power. Meade didnt so much design the 125 as just upsize the 90. The plastic fork that is sufficient for the 90 is almost a no-go for the 125. How about a little less aperture for a little less money? Meades last ETX introduction was the 105. This 4-inch scope benefited from the companys years of ETX wrangling, and incorporated some hardware improvements that make it the most reliable of the EC/AT scopes. The loss of almost an inch of aperture, though, does have an effect. This CAT is markedly less capable as a primary instrument than the 125. It also wasnt much less expensive than the 125, and most people wanting More Better Gooder spent the extra amount. This inbetweenness, despite the scopes otherwise good reputation,

Uncle Rods Used CAT Buyers Guide 127

Comrade? Da! Da!

The MK67 A look at the 150mm aperture MK67 immediately brings visions of the Russian Steppe, dour babushkas, and T72 tanks. If the Questar 7 is a Ferrari, the MK67 is a Zil. Quality-wise, this Rumak Maksutov is much closer to an Italian sportscar than a Soviet limousine, however. Not that it looked it. As you can see in the image, the MK67 is, well, a little plain. White paintjob. Some decal lettering. No-nonsense sums it up.
Uncle Rods Used CAT Buyers Guide 128
Plain Jane? Maybe. Until you look through the eyepiece!
Like its predecessor, the MK67 offers 6-inches of aperture, but its focal ratio has been slowed down a bit to F/12.5, and considerable mechanical improvements to the focuser and mirror cell have been made. Vital statistics? This is an all-spherical system in the Rumak (Sigler) style. Wuts they-at mean? It means that, unlike the Gregory style Maks (Questar, ETX, etc.), the Intes uses a separate secondary mirror in a mountlike an SCTrather than a silvered spot on the corrector lens. This makes the scope easily user collimatable, again just like an SCT. The higher ratio helps the primary (Pyrex with Silicon Monoxide overcoatings), the secondary (same) and the corrector (multicoated BK7 glass) produce a flatter field. While the secondary is fairly large for this aperture (53mm with its baffle), the scope delivers good contrast. What else? Well, this aint no lightweight. 14 pounds is pretty heavy for a 6incher. Its easy enough to schlep around, though, via the built-in carrying handle-cum piggyback camera mount seen in the photos. That much weight does make it inadvisable to skimp on mounts. Not only is this Mak comparable to an SCT weight-wise, the tube is slightly longer, and for best results the scope should be placed this on something in the CG5 GEM range AT LEAST. Not only is the MK66 Spartan in the looks department, its also Spartan when it comes to accessories. Intes definitely skimped here. You did get a case, a soft sided canvas affair, but there was no eyepiece included, and the finder shipped with most of the scopes, a 7x35 model, is best described as putrid. The only other thing included with this CAT that could remotely be called an accessory is the Vixen compatible dovetail mount attached to the OTA. How about that focuser? There was good and bad there. The original wasnt very effective, as it had a tendency to slip, but was eventually replaced by a very respectable Crayford. Quality really wasnt the problem where the focuser was concerned, however. The problem was utility. Unfortunately, the scope, unlike the SCTs were so familiar with, used a fixed primary mirror and focused by moving the eyepiece in and out with the Crayford.