Celestron LCM 60 Computerised Telescope

I ordered the Celestron 114LCM Computerized Telescope (Black), a reflecting telescope. What I received was the Celestron 60LCM Computerized Telescope, a refracting telescope. Yeah, THAT'S the same thing. I figured since it was sitting in my living room, I'd take a look.

When I was ten, I received a cheap refracting telescope from Sears with a plastic tripod that barely let me see the moon - though not in focus - and pretty much nothing else. This telescope reminds me of that one. If you want an actual telescope, look elsewhere. I learned long ago that refracting telescopes are useful for watching birds or your license plate, but not stars. This doesn't disappoint in that regard.

You know how they say men don't need instructions? Good thing I'm a man, because this thing doesn't come with instructions on how to assemble it. Luckily, I figured it out. The tripod legs are more delicate than the Sunpak 2001 UT I use for my video camera, which is a medium-duty tripod! Logic? I felt like it lacked the weight and barely had the sturdiness to support the off-center telescope. Placing all the weight to one side makes this top-heavy. Is it a good idea for the telescope and mount to outweigh the tripod? My physics says no. The person who designed the mount must have plenty of money to burn buying new telescopes when they fall out of their mounting. The dovetail block that holds this scope to its mount is too small. You want a snug fit, preferably with a flange or something to prevent the scope from slipping out. There is a significant gap between the block and the mount. Tightening the bolt as much as possible only holds it as long as you don't: a) move the telescope, b) touch the telescope, or c) look through or at the telescope for any measureable amount of time. Any of those actions, including wind, will cause the telescope to move. (Of course, if your plan is to sit this in a corner of your garage and not use it, it will work just fine.) The one bolt holding it in place does not secure this telescope - you can't apply enough pressure without overstressing the cheap dime store plastic the mount is made from. Nothing about the design of the tripod, the mount, or even the telescope itself gave me the impression that this was intended to last the assembly process, let alone stargazing with friends. A light wind outside my house knocked it over - fortunately, I caught it. Carl Sagan never had to put up with this.

That computerized bit that is supposed to move the telescope for you, find 4,000 stars, follow them across the sky, bring us world peace, etc.? Yeah. Wonder what happened to that idea. I guess Celestron scrapped it but decided to leave that word on the box because it looked so darn impressive, it was sure to generate sales. I tried to align it, aim it, calibrate it, and it just doesn't do anything. It doesn't point out any stars and it doesn't move your telescope. It just sits there and smiles at you. Having some INSTRUCTIONS on how to do this might have helped, but even just randomly pushing buttons didn't get me anywhere. It doesn't even light up. I know astronomy is done "in the dark", but c'mon, I'm not an owl. Give me a red light or something. And does this thing run on batteries or a power supply? Neither were included nor mentioned. No "Batteries not included" on the box. Of course, a power supply would be useless out in the middle of a field. I bet the un-included INSTRUCTION manual would have helped here (sold separately?).

Looking at the fuzzy specks in the night sky made me want to see them better. Turns out, they not only look like fuzzy specks through this telescope, but they look fuzzier than they do without the telescope! That was unexpected. I was hoping for more with a 6o mm aperture to resolve starlight into a more coherent dot. And oh, yeah, the universe either has the early stages of Parkinson's Disease, or is suffering from a 9.0 earthquake, er, I mean, universequake. This telescope shakes constantly, even with the bolts tightened as much as I dared. Once you get a star in there and get it focused, the second you let go of the knob, your star goes racing off out of sight. It's somewhere else, and you can forget about finding it. Oh, you may see other stars, but remember, they have Parkinson's. Bacteria can blame Browniwn motion, stars don't have that excuse. No wonder class B supergiants get wonky and go supernova.

I've read that the newer refracting scopes have "fluorite glass optics" and intensify light better so you see stars brighter. None of this applies to this telescope. The box brags about having "all glass optics". Yeah, the owner's manual for my car doesn't brag about having four tires. Useable optics are always made of glass. Plastic optics are used in the truly horrid telescopes you buy at the department stores.

What a complete disappointment. I expected a telescope, first and foremost, that would help me see stars that actually look like stars through the eyepiece without shaking. The computer helping me find stars was icing on the cake. The Celestron 60LCM utterly fails in all regards. I can't think of a single thing this telescopes does well. It barely stands on its own and it doesn't allow you to see anything. If I were that guy in their CES 2010 video, I'd be embarrassed to be seen near this thing. Saying it is the Yugo of telescopes is too kind. This product pretends to be a telescope in much the same way that the Cincinnati Bengals pretend to be a football team. I fail to understand why they thought anyone would enjoy this, unless their goal was the discourage new people from enjoying astronomy as a hobby. I rated it 1 star because I couldn't rate it 0 or lower. Anyone who gets one of these will learn to steer clear of Celestron, if not astronomy as a whole. You can get this kind of disappointing experience for a lot less than $200. Celestron obviously wanted people in the market for a telescope to know that they can't be bothered to produce a quality, functioning product anymore, but they are happy to take more money from you. If this is all you can afford, you are probably better off building your own or relying on NASA.

I can't help but wonder why Celestron replaced a decent entry level computerized telescope, the Nexstar 60 SLT, with this piece of... I just can't believe that Celestron puts their good name on this product. What a step backwards.

It is a shame that the company that pioneered the Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope in the late 1960's puts their name on such a lousy product, just to have an entry level telescope. The whole LCM line is a real disservice to the hobby of astronomy due to low quality.

Beginners are much better off getting an inexpensive, well made Dob. Celestron no longer markets economical Dobs - their Sky Watcher line is premium but more $ than beginners may want to pay. Suggestions include Dobs by Orion, Zhumell, and the 6" model at Optics Planet.

Frankly, I got this because of the mount. I found out that the mount had a standard vixon style dovetail. I bought a 1/4 20 Vixon adapter plate from another source that would allow my Personal Solar Telescope or my 80 mm short tube scope to be used on the mount. It works beautifully. There are several reviews that talk about cheap construction on the mount but I found none of that so I suspect an agenda on their part. Celestron apparently will try to market a $200 version of the mount but I got the same thing for under $170 and a 60 mm telescope was "thrown in". It is everything I had hoped for and shipping was free! PS, I had to put a rubber tape in the controller bracket to keep it from sliding down the tripod leg. :-)

› Go to Amazon.com to see all 4 reviews  2.2 out of 5 stars