I don't find a goto scope at all gimmicky. As you say - it may prevent some beginners from truly learning the night sky - but if it gets them out using their telescope - I say, go for it. It also depends partly on what your emphasis is. If your greatest joy is finding a particular object - then certainly don't use a goto scope. But, if your greatest joy is looking at more objects in an evening or observing some of the real elusive stuff like dark nebulae - then a goto scope is going to be perfect. I personally don't think an amateur should feel ashamed or feel like they have to defend whatever type of scope they get (except to their spouse <g>). Goto scopes are just another arrow in the astronomer's quiver. I find the whole goto/star-hop issue a bit like GUI vs command line for computers from a few years back. When mice first became available for computers many people (including myself) thought they were a gimmick. Nowadays, do I use/create GUI's? Certainly. Do I use/create command line interfaces? Sometimes. It just depends on what works best for the application. I also find it a bit amusing that this kind of thing always seems to go one way. I hear purists decry use of goto scopes, but I never seem to hear people with goto scopes complain about purists that spend an hour or two to find one object - or that complain when a purist comes over to look through the finder of a goto scope to get some ideas about where to look for something. As I said before - whatever gets you outside (or into your observatory) is what you should use. -----Original Message----- I agree entirely with Brent (almost). There's no way one will learn the night sky without spending time star-hopping - with planisphere and unaided eye, binoculars, or a telescope. An added benefit is the myriad treasures one happens upon quite by chance while one is hunting a specific target. A couple years ago I came upon, quite by chance, a fabulous deal on a Celestron Ultima 2000, a "go-to" model capable of both alt-az and equatorial operation. I bought the scope mainly for it's optical quality but also for use at public star parties. There are two advantages for me: the scope is lighter and more compact than either of my Newtonians and I can more quickly find objects so that people waiting don't get bored and go away. "Oh, you've never seen a quadruple star? Well give me 30 seconds and I can show you one." I still use my Newtonians or my refractor for serious personal observing. Except for these and maybe other marginal advantages, I find that the go-to phenomenon is gimmicky and discourages beginners, especially, from simply scanning the sky to see what one may find. I am especially puzzled why the manufacturers promote their GPS models over all others. After all, how much trouble is it to align a scope on a couple of stars? Kim A. Hyatt, AIA SL&A Architects 331 South Rio Grande, Suite 304 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 801.322.5550 x122