GOTO or not?

[Libbyq]

After years of deliberation I'm finally ready to buy my first telescope. I'm pretty much settled that the Mak 127 is the right scope for me but I can't decide whether to get an EQ3-2 mount or whether to get the AZ goto.

I can find my way around the sky very slowly and tentatively from many many months of naked eye observation and using my bins but I want to know and understand what I'm looking at and how to find things. I'm worried that with a goto mount I'm going to get lazy and not bother learning because I don't have to. I am right in thinking I can't move a goto manually aren't i?

Any advice from people who actually know what theyare doing?,

[Kirscovitch]

I have a goto for my SLT. You can manually move the mount up and down but that's it. Also, once you have aligned the goto if you manually move the tube, the goto is disabled. 

I can not give any information on an EQ but I can share what I know about a goto.

Alignment with a goto can at times get tricky. Depending on how you want to align the scope there are a number of ways to do it. You can choose between 3 stars, 2 stars, 2 star auto align, 1 star, solar system.... you can get the drift.

On some nights I can use the 3 star alignment and all is well and other nights using the same 3 stars it gives me an error and I have to re-align.

Most times on a quick session on Jupiter I can use the solar system align with Jupiter and the tracking at least stays pretty true. However if I try to slew to M31 then I have to do a bit of searching to find it.

I am pretty new at this as well but each time I get the scope out I find out new things about it and each setup is better than the last. The last time out I did the standard 3 star alignment (you don't even have to know the names and planets will work as well. Just three bright objects) and every object I wanted to view was in the EP after slewing to them. The last target I viewed that night was Jupiter and the tracking was amazing after over an hour of viewing.

[Blazar]

Hi,

A nice choice of scope. There are many other aspects of goto that need considering in addition. Any goto scope or mount will need a power source. Usually these are batteries (or power tanks), but are obviously another expense. Also anyone purchasing a Mak (usually) purchase a Dew Shield (not that expensive) as they love to hoover up available moisture and then fog up the corrector plate. I also believe that a goto scope cannot be manually moved (I still use a TAL GEM EQ wooden tripod and mount, though am saving for an NEQ6) so would need someone to confirm that aspect. I don't think you will get lazy per se, as you will know what stars are what, but I guess its just seen as a natural progression from manual EQ to a motorised mount.  I will state though that finding objects is part of the FUN and learning experience (which IMO is key to this fulfilling hobby)...very important aspect...fun.

I think that you would be fine with a manual mount to start with. Finding things is easier with star charts as well as my usual approval of "Turn Left at Orion" (ring bound book), which will aid you. That and Stellarium (another favourite) free software application that will show you whats on show at different times of the night (bearing in mind cloud cover of course!) The application will also provide you details on what you are looking at. 

You will of course still use your binoculars :-)

Wish you luck with your purchase, and eventually you may even have a clear sky to use it on!

Regards

[Kirscovitch]

+1 for both TLAO and Stellarium.

[66mikeg]

If you have GO TO you can use it or not I have synscan go to which, when time is at a premium I can use and spend my time observing. When I fancy a spot of star hopping I can turn it off, loosen the clutches and star hop. The advantage of an EQ mount is that when you locate your target you can tighten them up, switch on the drives and the mount tracks, provided you have some sort of polar alignment this isn't too critical for casual observing.

[Charic]

Libbyq.........Hi, From what you mention, you can already find your way around the sky, slowly. Thats all good. 

Kirscovitch mentions the trials of setting up a GoTo system, and the pitfall if you manually move it, it effectively gets lost, so you will have to  carry out the realign process. Blazer also mentions other costs to consider.

If you intend to take up some astro photography in the future, then the equatorial mount would be a better option, as you need to be able to track the objects in the sky.

However, if you want complete simplicity, A Sky-Watcher Skyliner for about £30 more than the MAK 127 will give you ease of use straight from the start, and the increase in the aperture size from 5" to 8" is a no brainer. More aperture equals more light gathering and the ability to see fainter objects under the right conditions.

The sky liner will take up less floor space(53cm) than the MAK tripod, and stands about 132cm tall, so it just needs a corner space and a cover.

[AndyWB]

Personally, I'm glad I steered clear of computerised mounts for visual use. I can see some situations where it'd be useful or essential, but if you can find your way around slowly, well, what's the rush? You'll get to know the sky better by navigating for yourself.

I thought hard about GOTO before I got my first scope and I've never really missed it (well, okay, tracking objects at really high power - but even that's okay). On the other hand, at the last (only!) star party I went to you could hear cries throughout the night of things like "It still won't align!", "No! The battery has run out!" and "That's [expletive] it! I'm soldering the power cord on!" 

I guess it seemed to me that when it works it's pretty good, but there are plenty of things to go wrong.

[Libbyq]

Charic - that really has thrown a spanner in the works! I couldn't explain why but I've always dismissed the idea of a Dob but perhaps I need to think a little harder. The bigger aperture is (obviously) very tempting! Now I'm all confused!

I spend hours pouring over TLAO - generally it's either cloudy or on the nights it's clear the children typically decide tonight is not the night for sleeping. I have stellarium and star chart both of which I love but I do feel a little like I'm cheating with star chart.

The power source element of the goto is something I have considered a lot. Not a problem when I'm home obviously but I have visions of dragging myself out somewhere only to have it fail on me and being stuck.

I love the idea of being able to go out and just look and enjoy. Just wander around the sky - I think I was under the impression that this was something that isn't possible with a goto mount but I'm not sure how I came to that conclusion.

[Libbyq]

Andy - that's my husbands conclusion. He knows nothing about astronomy and apart from a cursory "very nice dear" when I drag him out to look at something or other through the bins he has no interest. He does know computerised stuff though and he reckons the more computerised something is, the more things there are to go wrong.

I'm a back to basics sort or girl. I don't mind if it takes longer or I end up frustrated because I can't find something and I have a suspicion that using a goto will remove some of my feeling of achievement and I'll end up looking at something and thinking yes, very nice, what's next. As others have said I'm sure for me a lot of the fun and achievement is in finding something myself and then wallowing in looking at it.

[Orange Haze]

Hi Libby

I think a lot of great advice has been said already, however I thought I'd share that I have just been through this exact decision making process myself. I was utterly convinced I needed a goto and spent a good deal of time looking for the right one for me. But the more I researched and thought about the cost, the more I began to think otherwise. Especially given the raft of issues goto users seem to have with alignment and power, although I know some swear by it as indeed maybe I will one day.

Crunch came when I had a viewing session with my frac (no goto) and using a stellarium type ipad app, I managed to find lots of targets all on my own. The sense of achievement was evident and the odd nudge of my hand to keep up with the target is not exactly a chore or power draining. So I have ended up ordering a Skyliner 250px. Lots of aperture, £500 less than goto and hopefully lots of fun. Can't wait for it to arrive.

Good luck Libby and happy viewing! .

[esxste]

Andy - that's my husbands conclusion. He knows nothing about astronomy and apart from a cursory "very nice dear" when I drag him out to look at something or other through the bins he has no interest. He does know computerised stuff though and he reckons the more computerised something is, the more things there are to go wrong.

I'm a back to basics sort or girl. I don't mind if it takes longer or I end up frustrated because I can't find something and I have a suspicion that using a goto will remove some of my feeling of achievement and I'll end up looking at something and thinking yes, very nice, what's next. As others have said I'm sure for me a lot of the fun and achievement is in finding something myself and then wallowing in looking at it.

Hi Libby, 

I'm pretty new to astronomy as well, but I think your husband makes a good point here. I'm a systems engineer, so "computerised stuff" is my thing. And I'm avoiding the GOTO mounts for the time being. Not out of any judgement on the systems themselves, but just because I want to be able to find my own way around the sky, and get the sense of accomplishment when you spot something under your own steam. Having a computer point the telescope at it seems to me to take all the fun out of the learning experience. 

There's also the fact that if your not confident with technology, and don't have a specific interest in learning the technology, then you might be putting yourself at danger of some frustrating evenings looking at your telescope rather than through it!

All the best

[Moonshane]

my opinions are roughly summarised as follows:

more electronics means less aperture for the same price / scope

more electronics means more potential problems with functionality

more electronics means being able to point the scope more quickly at more things (if correctly set up) but consider are they visible with your aperture?

as far as I am concerned, equatorial mounts are more trouble than they are worth for visual. I greatly prefer alt-azimuth mounts (like dobsonian or the AZ you mention)

for imaging, equatorial mounts are far superior if they can handle the scope etc on them

for an average/good quality telescope larger aperture provides better views of almost all objects if they fit in the field of view

larger scopes need a larger eq mount or a dobsonian mount

[dph1nm]

I started astronomy many years ago with a manual EQ mount (you had to sell a house to afford a motorised version in those days, and GOTO was unheard of). I would NEVER go back to one. I hated manual then and I hate it now.  So I would always say get a motorised mount.   Then, do you need GOTO as well (you can have motorised without GOTO - on an EQ mount anyway)? I think that depends on how much time you have to observe. If you have the usual UK weather, and can't observe late during the week due to getting up for work etc, then I would *seriously* consider GOTO. On the other hand, if  you have lots of clear skies and lots of free time, then motorised star hopping can be quite rewarding.

NigelM

[swamp thing]

my opinions are roughly summarised as follows:

more electronics means less aperture for the same price / scope

more electronics means more potential problems with functionality

more electronics means being able to point the scope more quickly at more things (if correctly set up) but consider are they visible with your aperture?

as far as I am concerned, equatorial mounts are more trouble than they are worth for visual. I greatly prefer alt-azimuth mounts (like dobsonian or the AZ you mention)

for imaging, equatorial mounts are far superior if they can handle the scope etc on them

for an average/good quality telescope larger aperture provides better views of almost all objects if they fit in the field of view

larger scopes need a larger eq mount or a dobsonian mount

Err! this ^^^^^^

[rowan46]

If you are getting the 127 mak get one with tracking as that narrow fov can be a pain at high magnification. If however you are getting a scope with a wider fov then by all means consider manual

[scarp15]

Personally, I'm glad I steered clear of computerised mounts for visual use. I can see some situations where it'd be useful or essential, but if you can find your way around slowly, well, what's the rush? You'll get to know the sky better by navigating for yourself.

I thought hard about GOTO before I got my first scope and I've never really missed it (well, okay, tracking objects at really high power - but even that's okay). On the other hand, at the last (only!) star party I went to you could hear cries throughout the night of things like "It still won't align!", "No! The battery has run out!" and "That's [expletive] it! I'm soldering the power cord on!" 

I guess it seemed to me that when it works it's pretty good, but there are plenty of things to go wrong.

Yeah, I have encountered this to, one group even resorting to having to use their white light torches to try and fix the problem. Occasionally my 9 volt battery driven, fork mount on my S.C.T goes on the blink and that seems bad enough - although the slow mo controls are nicely situated for fine tuning. Personally I prefer hands on, quietly maneuvering, nudging and 'dead-reckoning' (a phase picked up from a similar previous thread).

[LouisJB]

Goto is just a feature. If you need it now or in the future, get it (as it's often more expensive to add later). If not, don't. Simple

If you have it and you don't want to use it, on an EQ mount you just don't use it. It's very useful for imaging.

For visual it's a convenience, but it's not like an automatic car that can't be driven manually, you can use any GEM Goto in manual mode as if it didn't exist. You don't even need to plug it in at all if you just want to use it fully manually.

It's different with a computerised alt/az / fork-mount, I'm not sure all of these can be moved manually and rely on the computer/motors to slew around - but a GEM, no problem, you could forget it had any electronics and just use it by hand.

But, there's no point paying for something if you're not to use it. If you need Goto, get it, if you don't, get a mount without it. If you need GEM get one, if you don't get a Dob - each option you don't need progressively saves you $$

[Charic]

libbyq........Not really a spanner, but £30 more for less troubles maybe!...........I love technology, gadgets and displays, but I also get thoroughly engrossed in the manual before purchase. Once the article arrives. I`m generally ahead of the game, but here, after the experience with the EQ Mount on my 127, I decided, never again for just observations. I managed well with the EQ/GEM mount, but why bother. It was the messing around with alignment for each object and having to rotate the tube often, to keep the eyepiece at some respectfull angle.  I can do all that, but what a waste of time. I'm now able to lift my Skyliner complete into the garden, and use it straight away at lowest power. I may still see some basic thermal disturbance untill the scope has cooled to ambient, but I always laugh now, as to what I'd have to do with the Celestron during a viewing session. It was a great tool to understand EQ mounts, but not for me.  I can get the best pictures from Hubble, Internet for no cost.I can even use a DSLR and my Android to snap the Moon (check my gallery). I'm happy with the choice I made.

If you can fully understand how to adjust and set-up, then the GoTo's are still going to be a great buy, but at a far higher cost for the same end result. Plus I feel, the GoTo's are hands off? Everything is slow tracked, even re-positioning to another targer takes time, and the noise of those motors on some units?

Its a tough choice once you've already decided on your telescope and budget, then a few folk come along and say. DONT BUY THAT GET THIS! There will also  be just as many folk here that are getting on fine with their GoTo's. Good luck for them. As someone says, many folk swear by them, I now, swear at them.

I think its possible to unlock the clutches or gears on the GoTo's to allow manual operation, but why would you want to, unless the battery  fails! But if that is an option, then go for an EQ-GoTo whatever, and then you`ll be set up for the future perhaps.

I`m using Stellarium to plan my observations, and print out my own star charts from it. I'm only studying Ursa Major (The plough, Great Bear ) whatever anyone wants to call it. Its better to take out a guide that can be read under  diffuesd redlight, rather than any app, that cant be so readilly dimmed to a low level. I think your rather cheating just using a GoTo, rather than your star charts.

Now when I look at Polaris which is almost overhead?  from my garden, im under street light pollution (untill the vegetation comes back on the trees) and from here, I can just make out M31 and a few other galaxies. But this 8" is a different telescope from a darker site. Truly amazing. But it takes a car trip and some time to get there.

Just today, Ive secured permission in writing to use the grounds of a small village hall, very close by,  on the edge of forestry on the edge of the City, and cant wait to use the site on a clear night. There is probably 5 houses in the village, and I'll be hidden behind the hall on  a mown lawn, cant wait.

[ronin]

Get the one you will feel most comfortable using.

That way you won't feel apprehensive about taking it out to use it.

Whichever you get you will learn the sky, you will basically do the same for each scope before you actually go and view anything.

You want to look at M33, then you will get  a book and find out where it is, then you will stand there, freezing, and look to Andromeda to where you expect it to be. The scope, manual or goto will simply confirm that you had it right and that it is where you expected. So goto or manual you have learnt where M33 is. Thats a surprise is't it, same result different scopes.

The other factor of a goto is I bet no-one that has one actually trusts it, so we will always have a damn good idea of where it should drift off to. Mine went completely the wrong way once, the power was pulled so fast.

You learn with either, and each has their negative aspects.

If it takes you a month to get the alignment perfect then for a month you won't see much.

If it takes a month to get the idea of aimin and nudging a dobsonian then again for a month you won't see much.

[itmo]

My experience is that one of the most important features in a telescope is to be able to just set it up and make it work without electricity. I run my 12" goto half of the time without goto just with the red dot finder or even with an optical finder. I have been thinking of building "iron sights" for it to replace the battery -dependent RDF. So if you get a goto, get one which works also without batteries. 

[Donkeiller]

Personally I'm more interested in actually viewing objects, rather than groping around in the dark trying to find them.

Living in a city centre does not help.

I have both the Synscan AZ and Celestron SE mounts.

Setup and alignment (2 star auto) literally takes 2-3 minutes.

Then I have 3-4 hours of viewing (weather permitting). Gotos are fast (seconds) and precise- object is always in the field of view.
I can also go in warmup/grab a hot drink/watch TV and come back out and the object will still be in the FOV (assuming I'm not using high over x120 magn.)

What is not to like?

[AndyWB]

If you have the usual UK weather, and can't observe late during the week due to getting up for work etc, then I would *seriously* consider GOTO. On the other hand, if  you have lots of clear skies and lots of free time, then motorised star hopping can be quite rewarding.

But I guess that assumes excluding manual At-Az? I guarantee I can have my mini-dob set up and be observing faster than any GOTO can align, and that was part of the appeal given the weather, work, etc.. 

One advantage of GOTO I've heard people mention is in light polluted areas; in theory, you can align on the brightest stars, and then the GOTO finds things for you when there is little else to guide you that's visible. I've not tried it, but it sounds a reasonable point. I prefer to do the research, dead-reckoning, and just plain guessing sometimes as to where they are, but some might find that frustrating.

I bet Libbyq didn't expect all this when asking such an innocent question!

[Astro Imp]

I bet Libbyq didn't expect all this when asking such an innocent question!

This subject always receives a large and varied response, its good to hear other and different viewpoints.

[LouisJB]

Unless it's a fork/alt-az powered computer only goto mount, ANY GEM goto can be used manually WITHOUT goto, alignment, setup or electricity.

It's an additional feature not an either / or situation. So in that respect a goto GEM could be used like a Dob. i.e. plonk it down and start viewing straight away, nudging and moving the tube around by hand...

If you ever image, goto might be invaluable. Otherwise it's just a nice convenience and can be a time saver if you want to make a whirlwind trip around the sights of the night quickly, one after the other. It's certainly not essential visually and you might not use it all the time, I know I don't (but when I need it, it is invaluable).

[Libbyq]

I bet Libbyq didn't expect all this when asking such an innocent question!

I really didn't expect all this but I am very grateful for the input eve if I do feel a little like my head might be about to explode! As I said earlier, I'd always dismissed the idea of a Dob for some reason. Now I'm wondering if I should have a complete rethink and look more closely at the skyliner 200p. I think maybe the extra aperture and the simplicity might work well for me. The idea of setting it up and wandering the skies is very appealing and is what I'm used to doing with my bins after all. I find the idea of collimation very intimidating though and it puts me off a little.