Part 6
Well, after going to the observing session, I realized I had a lot of evaluating to do before making my decision. I went to every telescope review site I could find and read as much as I could. At that point I was thinking that my primary reason for buying the scope would be for planetary viewing, so I began leaning toward an APO refractor. My dream scope became the Astrophysics 130mm APO, which (1) would not be ready by the summer of 2003 and (2) was utterly beyond my means. Second was the Televue 102, which was (1) readily available and (2) near the extreme fringes of my financial means. I also began looking at alternatives including the Orion 120 achromatic and the Orion 8” reflector (which have recently has been given a larger/heavier mounts) and the ITE mak-newts. While I admire the dobs, I didn’t feel strongly led to buy one. This is more of a feeling than a rational decision, which may change over time (i.e., when I want more aperture and realize that a dob is the only way I’ll be able to afford it.) I also began to take notice of the mounts these telescopes came on or which might work best with them. For example, I liked the idea of an alt-azimuth mount for ease of use and portability and was taken by the Televue Gibraltar with Skytour.
By the spring of 2002 I was beginning to ask a lot of questions on this forum, particularly under the Meade, Celestron, Televue, and refractor sections. At this time I was heavily leaning toward the Televue and was trying to figure out how in the world I could afford one. However, just when I thought the balance had clearly swung in the favor of the Televue, Celestron announced its $500 rebate on their GPS SCT. Now I had to do some more considering, as I could get more aperture and the convenience of GOTO for considerably less than the 4” APO. Things really heated up when Meade countered Celestron’s offer by offering the rebate and a discount on their eyepieces. (The latest is that Celestron is offering their own eyepiece deal, which includes a barlow and filters; hurray for competition.)
In August I did the only sensible thing a person can do – I made a list of the pros and cons. This helped, but was not conclusive. For example, the Televue was lighter and more portable, but not as good on deep sky objects. The 8” was heavier and more stable and would allow me to see deep sky objects, but not as well as a 10” or 12”. I also visited some more websites. Tom Trusock’s site was informative as he has used both an 8”SCT and the Televue 102. Tom invites comments so I emailed him and like most amateur astronomers, he as been very gratuitous in communicating with me and sharing his thoughts. His site also has a link to Ron Bee’s site, where Ron describes the benefits of his mighty TV 102 “light cup.”
Well, after going to the observing session, I realized I had a lot of evaluating to do before making my decision. I went to every telescope review site I could find and read as much as I could. At that point I was thinking that my primary reason for buying the scope would be for planetary viewing, so I began leaning toward an APO refractor. My dream scope became the Astrophysics 130mm APO, which (1) would not be ready by the summer of 2003 and (2) was utterly beyond my means. Second was the Televue 102, which was (1) readily available and (2) near the extreme fringes of my financial means. I also began looking at alternatives including the Orion 120 achromatic and the Orion 8” reflector (which have recently has been given a larger/heavier mounts) and the ITE mak-newts. While I admire the dobs, I didn’t feel strongly led to buy one. This is more of a feeling than a rational decision, which may change over time (i.e., when I want more aperture and realize that a dob is the only way I’ll be able to afford it.) I also began to take notice of the mounts these telescopes came on or which might work best with them. For example, I liked the idea of an alt-azimuth mount for ease of use and portability and was taken by the Televue Gibraltar with Skytour.
By the spring of 2002 I was beginning to ask a lot of questions on this forum, particularly under the Meade, Celestron, Televue, and refractor sections. At this time I was heavily leaning toward the Televue and was trying to figure out how in the world I could afford one. However, just when I thought the balance had clearly swung in the favor of the Televue, Celestron announced its $500 rebate on their GPS SCT. Now I had to do some more considering, as I could get more aperture and the convenience of GOTO for considerably less than the 4” APO. Things really heated up when Meade countered Celestron’s offer by offering the rebate and a discount on their eyepieces. (The latest is that Celestron is offering their own eyepiece deal, which includes a barlow and filters; hurray for competition.)
In August I did the only sensible thing a person can do – I made a list of the pros and cons. This helped, but was not conclusive. For example, the Televue was lighter and more portable, but not as good on deep sky objects. The 8” was heavier and more stable and would allow me to see deep sky objects, but not as well as a 10” or 12”. I also visited some more websites. Tom Trusock’s site was informative as he has used both an 8”SCT and the Televue 102. Tom invites comments so I emailed him and like most amateur astronomers, he as been very gratuitous in communicating with me and sharing his thoughts. His site also has a link to Ron Bee’s site, where Ron describes the benefits of his mighty TV 102 “light cup.”
