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

Hi,

I am sorry to hear that you received a scope in such poor shape. I
would definitely demand an exchange. As an aside, I purchased a
C11S-GT a few months ago and yersterday received a N8i-SE and they both
came in virtually perfect shape. I also once owned a Meade 8" LX200GPS
which also came in great condition. There is hope!!

Hopefully, you will get things worked out.

jeff

"Paul Murphy" wrote in message .. .
snip

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!

Return it for an exchange or refund.

--

Hilton Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lon -71° 04' 35.3"
Lat +42° 11' 06.7"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Webcam Astroimaging
http://mysite.verizon.net/hiltonevan...troimaging.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
http://www.chempensoftware.com

Return it.... Not sue BUT I do not see it leaving the factory in the
condition you state...BUT who knows what can happen between the
factory and the dealer and betweeeen the dealer and you...

BUT return it... refund? opr replacement? your choice..

I do own a 8i have for a l;oittle over 2 years BUT I picked it up
from the dealer saw it unwrapped..saw it checked out, saw it bench
tested optics checked etc...then re-boxed it and put int in my
truck...

Been a Great scope...and like you I purchased it because at 36-37
pounds "complete" on the tripod This 60+ year old fart can haul the
scope anyplace and set it up without any problems...

I'm lucky in that My dealer is fantastic...and is located only an hour
drive away...and they scheck out every scope before they deliver it to
the customer.

Send it back... !

Bob G..







On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 04:43:23 GMT, Paul Murphy
wrote:

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!

Paul Murphy wrote:
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!

Paul Murphy wrote:
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.

Hi:

To be honest, turn a flashlight on _any_ scope (or point one just right
at any light source) and you'll see some things you don't like.

Bottom line on this? It's up to you to decide whether you can live with
these minor imperfections. If you obsess about such things, if they
bother you to distraction, you should probably return the scope for a
refund. You will never be able to enjoy the beautiful things this scope
can and will show you.

Sadly, If things like this are a problem for you, you may have a hard
time finding ANY telescope that fulfills your expectations...even the
_most_ expensive. None of these things you've listed, by the way, will
have the slightest impact on telescope performance. Period.

A path to unhappiness, the Flashlight Test is. --Yoda.

;-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Join the SCT User Mailing List.
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/sct-user
============================
See my home page at
http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland/index.htm
for further details!
============================
For Uncle Rod's Astro Blog See:
http://journals.aol.com/rmollise/UncleRodsAstroBlog/

Sadly, If things like this are a problem for you, you may have a hard

time finding ANY telescope that fulfills your expectations...even the
_most_ expensive. None of these things you've listed, by the way, will
have the slightest impact on telescope performance. Period.

Not necessarily true, Rod. I've never been thrilled with SCT
performance, period. Yet I own numerous Reflectors and refractors with
which I am quite thrilled. As to your second comment, to suggest that
streaks and finger prints can have no impact on performance "period"
demonstrates either a surprising lack of knowledge regarding the
effects of light scatter on contrast or a marked bias (in favor of a
particular design), I wonder which it could be? ;-) I for one
wouldn't accept a new instrument that didn't arrive as new, and of
course that has nothing to do with how it will perform once used. Most
SCT's can't even get up 1/4 wave to save their life, they never cool
down, and even if they do they immediately dew over. They are the
perfect "Jack of All Trade" telescopes.

rat
~( );

.. Most
SCT's can't even get up 1/4 wave to save their life, they never cool
down, and even if they do they immediately dew over. They are the
perfect "Jack of All Trade" telescopes.

rat
~( );
======================
Yep... that is exactly why I own one....Plus the price offered one
hell of a bang for the buck... kind of like using AOL
to each his own,...

Enjoy
Bob G.

rat ~( ); wrote:
Sadly, If things like this are a problem for you, you may have a hard

time finding ANY telescope that fulfills your expectations...even the
_most_ expensive. None of these things you've listed, by the way, will
have the slightest impact on telescope performance. Period.

Not necessarily true, Rod. I've never been thrilled with SCT
performance, period. Yet I own numerous Reflectors and refractors with
which I am quite thrilled. As to your second comment, to suggest that
streaks and finger prints can have no impact on performance "period"
demonstrates either a surprising lack of knowledge regarding the
effects of light scatter on contrast or a marked bias

Hi Rat:

So, you're suggesting that the "problems" he found with his trusty
flashlight would affect performance? If so, every scope is going to
suffer from this performance degradation unless it's kept in a clean
room. I may not know much, but I do know that. ;-)

As for your theories about the good and bad of SCTs, that's not what's
being discussed. What's being discussed is minor artifacts revealed
with a bright flashlight. Show me a telescope that _doesn't_ look
horrible under these conditions. ;-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Join the SCT User Mailing List.
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/sct-user
============================
See my home page at
http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland/index.htm
for further details!
============================
For Uncle Rod's Astro Blog See:
http://journals.aol.com/rmollise/UncleRodsAstroBlog/

Come on over some time. I'll show you three of them.

As for your theories about the good and bad of SCTs, that's not
what's
being discussed. What's being discussed is minor artifacts revealed
with a bright flashlight. Show me a telescope that _doesn't_ look
horrible under these conditions. ;-)

Peace to you too,

rat
~( );

One day I got ambitious and cleaned my 4 year old Nexstar 11 optics using
collodion. This included the primary mirror, secondary and corrector lens.
After that cleaning, it looked quite nice with a flashlight test -- better
than new. A year later it does not look as good, but still not bad. I
think these scopes could pass a flashlight test when new if the manufacturer
wanted it.

Bryan

"rat ~( );" wrote in message
oups.com...
Come on over some time. I'll show you three of them.

As for your theories about the good and bad of SCTs, that's not
what's
being discussed. What's being discussed is minor artifacts revealed
with a bright flashlight. Show me a telescope that _doesn't_ look
horrible under these conditions. ;-)

Peace to you too,

rat
~( );