[AZ-Observing] Re: Goto Scopes for Marathons

Hello everyone,

OK, my turn to weigh in on the "to GOTO, or not GOTO, that is the
question" 
thing. As someone who is dabbling in computer-driven scopes for the
first
time, I feel (a little) qualified to render an opinion on this heavy
subject. What I have discovered is that many people on both sides of the
issue approach it with an assumption or two that I think needs a bit of
examination:

(1) that GOTO scopes are easy to use; and
(2) that they work so well that they require less knowledge of the sky.

To a high degree, I have found (at least with less expense equipment),
that both assumptions are largely false. Here is why:

(1) they are *not* easy to use. Guide star alignment becomes a
*critical*
issue that I have attempted to solve with the purchase of an illuminated
reticle eyepiece. You haven't lived until you have spent an hour
repeatedly
drifting/pointing your target star to the center of the cross-hairs. 
The reason: while my Celestron or Meade (I have used both) is in close
star
alignment mode, the scope doesn't track at all. Plus, you have to learn
40+
guide stars--there is no guarantee that the scope will point to the
right
star to begin with. If you don't achieve accurate alignment, you will
get
bad GOTOs, and you are star-hopping. Even with accurate alignment and
GOTOs, 
you are "star-hopping in place" because any observer worth his/hers salt
has to verify the ID of the object maybe placed right at the edge (or
off)
the FOV. Higher $ scopes like the C11 might do better, but I was at the
2002
AAMM next to two C11 GOTO owners, and one of them was having problems
with
pointing the scope. So he was star-hopping. 

As a corollary to the above, the condition of your equipment becomes
paramount with a GOTO scope: it must be "square" or "orthogonal" to
itself,
and set-up in the field has to be correct, or no amount of alignment
will product good GOTOs. Most GOTO scope users learn this through
painful 
experience.


Which brings me to (2):

(2) It is my theory that GOTO scope users who do not learn or know the
sky
will inevitably become GOTO scope owners whose scopes collect dust from
disuse. I would guess that many of the "six month old" NexStars and LXD
GPSs sold on Astromart fit into this category. So, it is my opinion that
the *successful* use of a GOTO scope requires *more* knowledge of a
diverse
range of Astro subjects (ie, the names/locations of esoteric 3rd-4th mag
guide stars) rather than the knowledge required to push around an alt/az
Dob. But a Dob user has to know star-hopping and chart reading. In my
personal experience, the GOTO user has to read charts (at the least) as
well, and star-hop when the thing doesn't point to the right spot (which
is all too often with lower-end scopes).

In short, to see anything in either type of scope you have to know
what you are doing. And that means learning both your equipment AND the
sky.

So, having separate GOTO/non-GOTO awards is unnecessary. Completing an
Astro
list of any size over any duration of time with any type of equipment is
essentially in the same class of accomplishment. This, of course, is
merely
my opinion, but like Steve, I know I'm right!

Matt

ps: this message served up with copious grains of salt . . .


--
See message header for info on list archives or unsubscribing, and please 
send personal replies to the author, not the list.

Other related posts: