A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Long Term Reliability of Meade/Celestron SCTs



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 23rd 05, 05:27 PM
Too_Many_Tools
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Long Term Reliability of Meade/Celestron SCTs

As opposed to others who might have a "Scope of the Month" approach
towards the hobby, I tend to keep for a long period of time the scopes
that I buy. The majority of these are SCTs from both Celestron and
Meade. The oldest I currently have is a 25 year old C8 that looks and
works great. Many of the others are early to mid 90's units that are
now ten years or older.

Now recently I purchased a N11GPS with considerable electronics content
which has all the makings of being another keeper. The question I have
is how have the newer SCTs with the larger electronics content fared
with age? The rule of thumb is the more complex an apparatus is, the
more likely it will fail and fail often. So, how has your personal
experience been in the murky world of SCT reliability?

I would guess a side issue in this is how responsive and economical are
Celestron and Meade in relation to repairing their products and
especially their older scopes.
Thanks for whatever information you can provide on this issue.

TMT

  #2  
Old January 24th 05, 02:44 PM
RMOLLISE
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Now recently I purchased a N11GPS with considerable electronics

content
which has all the makings of being another keeper. The question I

have
is how have the newer SCTs with the larger electronics content fared
with age? The rule of thumb is the more complex an apparatus is, the
more likely it will fail and fail often. So, how has your personal
experience been in the murky world of SCT reliability?



Hi:

As you observe, the more complex a device is, the more likely it is to
fail. However, that doesn't stop us from using computers, DVD players
and the other acouterments of the technological age.

Certainly this is just anecdotal evidence, but still I see quite a few
of the earlier LX200s on observing fields. They are still going strong
a decade or more after they were purchsed. Of course, quite a few
LX200s have undoubtedly bit the dust, too.

One bright spot is that every new generation of computerized scope
design reduces the number of components used it the electronics
package, and, therefore, increases reliability. Other developments
help, too. If you don't mind using a laptop with your Celestron
Nexstar, you can eliminate the hand controller by using the program,
Nexremote. This eliminates one common failure point for goto scopes. It
also helps to always run the scope off a good DC source, and to be
careful with plugs and connections.

But, yes, eventually your goto scope will give up the ghost. What then?
Hard to say. Neither Meade nor Celestron has had a particularly good
track record when it comes to supporting no longer produced scopes. The
best solution, if your aged gotoer dies, may be just to put it on a new
mount. Computerized GEMs are getting better and cheaper all the
time...and you may be ready for all those new features in 10 years,
anyway.

The bottom line, though, is that the most critical element, the OTA
should still be fine. I have a 1973 Orange Tube C8 at the University
that I still use on occasion, and it still presents good views.
Peace,
Rod

  #3  
Old January 24th 05, 08:03 PM
Too_Many_Tools
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Good discussion Rod....thanks for taking the time to write it.

I would agree...the OTA will outlast the computerized/motorized
mount...as long as I don't drop the scope first *cringe*.

One of the reason why I ask is that not only does it seem that one has
to contend with product obselesence but also the fact that companies
disappear. It is one thing when support is poor, quite another when it
is gone.

Judging from Astromart, I don't see alot of broken GOTOs being sold
which could indicate that their lifespan is longer than shorter. Does
one see many disabled GOTOs at the star parties for sale?

In reference to the LX200 and Nexstar series of scopes, are the
components used off the shelf or are they customized? I remember my
first reaction when I saw the split ring inside the Nexstar 11GPS and
thinking potential point of failure in the future. In my experience any
custom component will be a pain later to replace when, not if it fails.

I think of the world of computers where it is next to impossible to get
many parts for machines that are older than three years old. Only as
long as the used supply exists can one find what is needed. It is one
of the reasons why we buy new rather than fix the old. It is also one
of the reasons why discarded electronics are being such a problem in
the waste stream.

I understand the analogy of DVDs, VCRs and such compared to scopes but
I don't know how well it holds up. Scopes are very much a niche product
with extremely low volumes while consumer electronics like VCRs are
measured in millions of units per year. Only in recent times have we
really seen the cost reductions one sees with increased production and
that is only on the lower quality scopes...the "good stuff" still costs
$$$. SCTs in my opinion are an exception to this rule where consistent
demand has led to amazing cost/performance benefits for the amateur
community. I also have mixed feelings about having throw away scopes
where once a problem occurs, it is cheaper to toss it than to fix it. I
would agree the relocation of the OTA to a different mount will be a
common way to salvage a dead GOTO scope in the future if support
disappears or the cost to repair is excessive.
Thanks again for addressing this topic,

SRU

  #4  
Old January 24th 05, 10:17 PM
RMOLLISE
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi:

Too_Many_Tools wrote:


Does
one see many disabled GOTOs at the star parties for sale?


No...I don't, anyway.


In reference to the LX200 and Nexstar series of scopes, are the
components used off the shelf or are they customized? I remember my
first reaction when I saw the split ring inside the Nexstar 11GPS and
thinking potential point of failure in the future. In my experience

any
custom component will be a pain later to replace when, not if it

fails.

Many of the components, the mechanical components used in the scope are
off-the-shelf, used in the companies' other scopes, will continue to be
used and available, or can be easily fabricated. Electronic components?
Aye, there's the rub. Some components, ICs, etc., which were commonly
available when your scope was new will, in the normal course of things,
be scarce or impossible to obtain 10 years later. There's not much of a
solution to that and some owners of the earlier Classic LX200s are
encountering that problem now (this isn't yet a serious problem, as
Meade is still repairing LX200s themselves).


I think of the world of computers where it is next to impossible to

get
many parts for machines that are older than three years old. Only as
long as the used supply exists can one find what is needed. It is one
of the reasons why we buy new rather than fix the old. It is also one
of the reasons why discarded electronics are being such a problem in
the waste stream.


Yes, see above.

I
would agree the relocation of the OTA to a different mount will be a
common way to salvage a dead GOTO scope in the future if support
disappears or the cost to repair is excessive.


That's what I think. And cost is relative. You can get a new goto GEM,
a good one, for about (or less) than the price of a new
top-of-the-line laptop PC. And you're liable to get more years (and
more fun) out of the GEM! ;-)

Thanks again for addressing this topic,

SRU


You're welcome. ;-)

  #5  
Old January 27th 05, 06:12 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"The oldest I currently have is a 25 year old C8 that looks and
works great. Many of the others are early to mid 90's units that are
now ten years or older."

I have a 1990 Ultima C11. About 5 years ago the drive circuit died on a
105 dF Texas night. Luckily this mount had an AC synchronous motor so a
simple 12V DC-120V AC @60 Hz inverter can be used to drive the motor
well enough for visual observations (the only observations I do). Total
repair cost $12.

I think, however, the key here was the AC synchronous motor and the
wedge tripod design (only 1 motor running at constant speed).

Mitch

  #6  
Old January 28th 05, 04:44 AM
Matthew D. Mills
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I had the same problem with my Ultima 8. Doc Greiner sacrificed an
extension cord and wired it direct to the AC synchronus motor. Tracks great
even at ten below zero.
Matt Mills
wrote in message
oups.com...
"The oldest I currently have is a 25 year old C8 that looks and
works great. Many of the others are early to mid 90's units that are
now ten years or older."

I have a 1990 Ultima C11. About 5 years ago the drive circuit died on a
105 dF Texas night. Luckily this mount had an AC synchronous motor so a
simple 12V DC-120V AC @60 Hz inverter can be used to drive the motor
well enough for visual observations (the only observations I do). Total
repair cost $12.

I think, however, the key here was the AC synchronous motor and the
wedge tripod design (only 1 motor running at constant speed).

Mitch



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NASA Studying Russian 12-month Plan JimO Space Station 99 May 4th 04 08:31 AM
It's been a long road ... Jon Berndt Space Shuttle 60 September 22nd 03 05:44 AM
Long term durability/longevity? Chuck Scappaticci Amateur Astronomy 5 September 11th 03 03:04 AM
Good coatings on SCTs; A long time coming [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 12 August 15th 03 11:27 PM
Is exposure to lunar dust a long term health hazard for a future lunar base? Alan Erskine History 4 July 27th 03 05:21 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.