new scope...how perfect should I expect it to be?

About 5 years ago I bought a TV Pronto and I bought a TV 102 a couple of
years ago. In both cases the optics and the fit and finish were
absolutely perfect, which may have led me to be a bit more critical
about optical and mechanical fit and finish standards. I was looking for
a very, very portable 8in SCT and I thought the NexStar 8i XLT would be
perfect for me for use going up and down the stairs in my apartment (no
elevator).

Well it arrived and I can't decide if I should pack it up for a refund
or give it a chance. I've only had 3 clear nights since the end of
November, so I'm not sure how soon I can test it under the stars.

Here's the letter I sent Celestron support and I'm wondering if I'm
over-reacting and most SCTs ship in such a state or if I really got an
unreasonably bad example. How clean should I expect an SCT to be?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I bought the NexStar 8i for two main reasons...it's a very portable 8in
SCT and I thought Celestron took pride in their craftsmanship and
attention to detail given the "hand figuring" of the optics.
When I unpacked the telescope, it was literally covered in glass dust.
On the base it was as if someone poured half of a salt shaker out on it.
After cleaning that, I proceeded to check the optics with a flashlight.

1. There is a large grease or paint smear inside the baffle tube.
2. There is dust and small pieces of hair on the inside of the corrector
plate and on the mirror in addition to the moderate amount of dust on
the outside of the corrector plate.
3. There are multiple circular streaks and a horizontal streak where
someone rubbed the mirror with (I assume) a cloth. The mirror does not
appear to be scratched and I don't know how much performance will be
lost due to this utter lack of professionalism in letting the scope
leave your factory in such a condition.

How did this telescope make it out of your factory in such a condition
and what is your explanation for the total lack of quality control?
I await your response before I pack it up and send it back to
Astronomics for a full refund and move on to Meade."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Any input would be appreciated. I fear that if I spend more money on an
LX90 I will lose out on the extreme portability and may end up with the
same fit and finish problems. Thanks!

--
Clear Skies,
Paul Murphy

(remove gemini to email me)

Paul Murphy wrote:

Here's the letter I sent Celestron support and I'm wondering if I'm
over-reacting and most SCTs ship in such a state or if I really got an
unreasonably bad example. How clean should I expect an SCT to be?


You often will see lots more than will matter with the flashlight test.

That said, I don't think you are overeacting. Re "3. There are multiple
circular streaks and a horizontal streak where someone rubbed the mirror
with (I assume) a cloth.", perhaps that is part of the "hand figuring"!

The Nexstar8GPS I bought in 2003 was very clean .. only problem was that
the corrector was scratched due to a loose lens cap in shipping; that
made me inspect it carefully and it was pretty much immaculate. I took
it to Celestron (10 minute drive for me) and had them fix it. [The bad
news is that there are never good skies 10 minutes from Celestron!].

However, I wonder if any of what you describe would really affect
optical performance.

I would worry more about "When I unpacked the telescope, it was
literally covered in glass dust. On the base it was as if someone poured
half of a salt shaker out on it." indicating a *total* lack of
inspection before shipping. What else, less visible, slipped through,
in the drives, for example.

Phil

I'd ask for either a totaly refund and THEY pay return shipping or demand a
clean replacement and they pay shipping for BOTH scopes both ways.


--

The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords




"Paul Murphy" wrote in message
.. .
About 5 years ago I bought a TV Pronto and I bought a TV 102 a couple of
years ago. In both cases the optics and the fit and finish were absolutely
perfect, which may have led me to be a bit more critical about optical and
mechanical fit and finish standards. I was looking for a very, very
portable 8in SCT and I thought the NexStar 8i XLT would be perfect for me
for use going up and down the stairs in my apartment (no elevator).

Well it arrived and I can't decide if I should pack it up for a refund or
give it a chance. I've only had 3 clear nights since the end of November,
so I'm not sure how soon I can test it under the stars.

Here's the letter I sent Celestron support and I'm wondering if I'm
over-reacting and most SCTs ship in such a state or if I really got an
unreasonably bad example. How clean should I expect an SCT to be?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I bought the NexStar 8i for two main reasons...it's a very portable 8in
SCT and I thought Celestron took pride in their craftsmanship and
attention to detail given the "hand figuring" of the optics.
When I unpacked the telescope, it was literally covered in glass dust. On
the base it was as if someone poured half of a salt shaker out on it.
After cleaning that, I proceeded to check the optics with a flashlight.

1. There is a large grease or paint smear inside the baffle tube.
2. There is dust and small pieces of hair on the inside of the corrector
plate and on the mirror in addition to the moderate amount of dust on the
outside of the corrector plate.
3. There are multiple circular streaks and a horizontal streak where
someone rubbed the mirror with (I assume) a cloth. The mirror does not
appear to be scratched and I don't know how much performance will be lost
due to this utter lack of professionalism in letting the scope leave your
factory in such a condition.

How did this telescope make it out of your factory in such a condition and
what is your explanation for the total lack of quality control?
I await your response before I pack it up and send it back to Astronomics
for a full refund and move on to Meade."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Any input would be appreciated. I fear that if I spend more money on an
LX90 I will lose out on the extreme portability and may end up with the
same fit and finish problems. Thanks!

--
Clear Skies,
Paul Murphy

(remove gemini to email me)

I think you've pretty much described, for a picky person, the
difference between Televue and Celestron.
Oh yeah, you might as well skip Meade, too...

rat
~( );

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 01:37:36 -0800, rat ~( ); wrote:

I think you've pretty much described, for a picky person, the
difference between Televue and Celestron.
Oh yeah, you might as well skip Meade, too...

rat
~( );


Hmmm, I think I'm about as pessimistic and sceptical as most folks get
and I was thrilled with the state in which my Meade arrived. The "fit and
finish" of the styrofoam packing material was excellent, the scope and
accesories looked like they'd never been touched by human hands.

After a couple of weeks I discovered that the switch on the polar
alignment reticle illuminator was broken. Meade replaced the entire
alignment scope.

I agree with the poster who said that there is hope.

Tom R

Tom Rauschenbach wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 01:37:36 -0800, rat ~( ); wrote:


I think you've pretty much described, for a picky person, the
difference between Televue and Celestron.
Oh yeah, you might as well skip Meade, too...

rat
~( );

I took a look at the telescope in daylight for the first time and the
mirror looks perfect, except for some dust. Whatever was wiped across
the mirror is only visible under direct illumination with a flashlight.
(I take it Celestron doesn't inspect its scopes in a dark room with a
flashlight...)

I talked to Astronomics and they said that the flashlight test in a dark
room was a very difficult test for any SCT and even their Questar MCTs
usually have dust and swirl marks visible under a flashlight.

I'll leave the issues logged with Celestron and Astronomics just in case
and I'll at least give it a try under the stars to see how it does.

I think I'll stick to buying scopes from a local dealer and inspect them
on the spot from now on. I now appreciate the time and care that went
into my two refractors a bit more.

--
Clear Skies,
Paul Murphy

(remove gemini to email me)

Paul Murphy wrote:
Tom Rauschenbach wrote:

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 01:37:36 -0800, rat ~( ); wrote:


I think you've pretty much described, for a picky person, the
difference between Televue and Celestron.
Oh yeah, you might as well skip Meade, too...

rat
~( );


I took a look at the telescope in daylight for the first time and the
mirror looks perfect, except for some dust. Whatever was wiped across
the mirror is only visible under direct illumination with a flashlight.
(I take it Celestron doesn't inspect its scopes in a dark room with a
flashlight...)

That may be an overly stringent test.



I talked to Astronomics and they said that the flashlight test in a dark
room was a very difficult test for any SCT and even their Questar MCTs
usually have dust and swirl marks visible under a flashlight.

I'll leave the issues logged with Celestron and Astronomics just in case
and I'll at least give it a try under the stars to see how it does.

Good thinking; if it works well, optically and mechanically, you may be
well advised to keep it.



I think I'll stick to buying scopes from a local dealer and inspect them
on the spot from now on. I now appreciate the time and care that went
into my two refractors a bit more.


Good idea. I think mail order works well with some of the premium
scopes (e.g., AP, TV, SV, others) but less so with Meade and Celestron.
That said, I took my defective NS8GPS to Celestron (a 20 min
roundtrip) vs. to the local dealer (a 4 hr roundtrip on crowded LA freeways)

Phil

I talked to Astronomics and they said that the flashlight test in a
dark
room was a very difficult test for any SCT and even their Questar MCTs
usually have dust and swirl marks visible under a flashlight.

Whatever. What SCT's are there, Celestron and Meade? Both being lowest
common denominator manufacturers, of course the flashlight test is
going to be difficult for them, their products are flat out mass
produced at the lowest possible cost to squeak by on customer
satisfaction, so they can sell them as cheap as possible in order to
compete with each other. Sorry to sound so jaded, but IMHO Televue has
a totally different business model, and it shows in the superior
quality of their merchandise. Your problem is that it is too late, you
have already become discriminating enough to notice. I for one don't
think there is any going back.


rat
~( );

Tom R:

The "fit and
finish" of the styrofoam packing material was excellent,

Sounds like you got some real good packing material.

the scope and
accesories looked like they'd never been touched by human hands.

That's just it; I'll bet they never were.

rat
~( );

Paul Murphy wrote:

snip

Here's the letter I sent Celestron support and I'm wondering if I'm
over-reacting and most SCTs ship in such a state or if I really got an
unreasonably bad example. How clean should I expect an SCT to be?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"[...] How did this telescope make it out of your factory in such a condition
and what is your explanation for the total lack of quality control?
I await your response before I pack it up and send it back to
Astronomics for a full refund and move on to Meade."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it a little intemperate to threaten them with the competition
in your initial letter. Although your disappointment sounds quite
justified, if you present yourself as expecting to get nothing less
than the prompt and fair response you deserve, you'll be less likely
to provoke defensive stonewalling or buck-passing. So I'd have
reserved the aggressive stance for replying to a potentially
unsatisfactory response.

--
Odysseus