Meade NGC-70TCR Telescope or Celestron® StarSeeker™ 80mm GoTo Refractor Telescope?

Question

I am buying my 12 year old son a telescope for Christmas.

It seems that the telescopes that automatically point to celestial objects would be the best option... or am I wrong, and why?

Do they work? Why do they offer telescopes without this feature?

The two I am looking at are the:

Meade NGC-70TCR Telescope for $200

http://shopping.discovery.com/product-57684.html

or the Celestron® StarSeeker™ 80mm GoTo Refractor Telescope for $329.

http://www.telescope.com/shopping/product/detailmain.jsp?itemID=257599&itemType=PRODUCT&iMainCat=0&iSubCat=0&iProductID=257599

Both have the star finder computer on board and look cool.

Any thoughts/recommendations?

Thank you!

Answer 1

Amateur astronomers are divided on the merits of go-to (automatic pointing) telescopes. Some of the disadvantages are:
• To get go-to, you either have to pay more or settle for less telescope for the money.
• There's a set-up process that you have to learn and perform so the telescope can find things.
• The telescope's database often includes objects that are too dim to see under many conditions.
• The less expensive ones, especially if not carefully set up, can be more like go-near than go-to.
• If you always depend on go-to, you'll be lost when the batteries die.

The alternative is to find things using star charts and a finder scope. The disadvantage of this is that you have to learn to find your way around the sky, and it can sometimes take a long time to find things.

Which is better comes down to a matter of personal preference, and it's hard to predict which way your son would prefer. If he learns by doing and likes to figure things out for himself, a manual telescope and a good beginner's book such as "Turn Left at Orion" may be better than a go-to scope.

Answer 2

GoTo is a feature only recently added to lower end telescopes. It started to appear in serious telescopes in the early 90's when more efficient, cost effective computers came into being. A lot of beginners, or casual star gazers like GoTo because they don't have to spend a lot of time finding the objects themselves, but here is the problem that your son will encounter if you buy him either of the telescopes you listed.

80mm of aperture is small for a telescope and he will not be able to see much of what he probably really wants to see. The GoTo database may have 30,000 objects in it but he will only be able to see dim fuzzy smudges of most of the deep space objects in it and I'm betting the bulk of objects in the database are stars, which more or less look the same so why would you want to see a couple thousand of them? By excluding GoTo you will also be able to invest more in the actual telescope.

What you should be looking for in a telescope is aperture, which is the diameter of the primary mirror or lens. That being said, you will want to find a telescope of at the VERY least, 4.5" of aperture, though if you can manage it, 6". It should either be a reflector or catadioptric, such as a Newtonian, Dobsonian, or Schmidt Cassegrain, not a refractor. If it's a Newtonian it should have a sturdy German Equatorial mount, not rack and pinnion.

With the telescope, he should have at least two quality eyepieces; a fairly low powered one between 25mm-32mm and a fairly high powered one between 9mm-12.5mm The number refers to the focal length of the eyepiece and the higher the number the lower the magnification. Most viewing it done with low magnification because it's hard to get good images in super high magnification eyepieces. He should also have a quality 2X Barlow...this will provide say a 25mm eyepiece the magnification of a 12.5mm eyepiece with the field of view of the 25mm. Last but not least, he will need some 7x50 binoculars. They will come in handy a lot.

I would get him a Celestron, Meade, or Orion. If he does not plan to do astrophotography then you may want to get him a Dobsonian because their simple mounts mean you will be able to afford more aperture.

You may want to consider buying a used telescope. People like new things but in all honesty, used telescopes are usually well maintained and cost half the price new ones do...typically they come with a few accesories as well. Older "beginner" Newtonians are also typically on mounts which are superior to the cheap mounts provided on newer models. If this is something you'd be interested in then look in the classifieds on http://www.astromart.com

You may even be able to find someone to help you out at the local astronomical society.

Answer 3

I have been an amateur astronomer on and off but only with moon and planets. I wanted to know what was the best astronomy telescopes and so I looked tn the mags. I read that there are only two that are reliable....American and russian. I bought a Meade 4" refractor with various eyepieces and a Barlow len 3x and have seen good detail of the planets. I have also done some astrophotography and was lucky enough to get a picture of Hale Bopp comet. I have no complaints with Meade telescopes...and I would say to you...give it a try.

Answer 4

Telescopes can 'automatically' point to stellar objects, this requires a drive system and computer with a library of stored objects. There are tow problems: 1) It takes a bit of setting up for this to work, you have to align with a guide star (typically Polaris) before you can go hunting and 2) I don't think there are such systems available in the $200 range. You could check out Meade or Celestron scopes, do a google search.

Answer 5

The Meade has better magnification potentials but lower light resoloving.

Tht Celstron has better light gathering power but lower magnifcation but comes with a barlow and two lenses and has more catalogs in its star finder.

The celestron would be smaller and take up less room, but your magnification is limited to 100 with the best lens 200 with the barlow, which darkens the view and distorts the image.

The Meade would give you 175 power with the same lens and with a barlow you bought separately you'd get over 300 power. But the scope would be larger in size.

The celestron is more a "rich field" scope designed for looking at groups of star and dark objects like comets.

For more magnification you'd need to get a 6mm or 4mm lens.

So, with celstron you get more light (for dimmer object) 10, 20, 40 and 80 power eyepieces included, 4000 objects and a smaller scope size. 3.1" lense

With the Mease you get less light power 40 and 100 power, 1400 objects and a larger size scope. 2.8" lens

Answer 6

The Celestron 80mm will gather more light than the 70, you'll get to see more, you get what you pay for.