Celestron Products and Their Placement
I love astronomy gear. I dream about it. I find myself contemplating of all the ways I would design new products and prepare users for the impact they will have. While I lack the insider's perspective of sales margins and market-shares, I am a telescope guy with an uncommon experience within the amateur astronomy hobby. I can speak strongly from a consumer's point of view as an advanced hobbyist. Likewise, my standing as an astronomy mentor and teacher within the education industry gives me unique perspective that Celestron might find useful. I would like to share some of those perspectives below in the form of my qualifications. Then, please allow me to speculate upon specific areas where I feel that market effectiveness can be improved via products and their placement, as well as to build consumer confidence, trust, and loyalty.
|
MY UNIQUE QUALIFICATIONS
|
Above and below - My imaging rigs at the Texas Star Party in 2005 and a resulting image of IC1805, the Heart Nebula in Cassiopeia. Images shown are from Dickinson and Dyer's classic text, "The Backyard Astronomer's Guide, 3rd Edition."
|
|
Celestron and Sky-Watcher
|
- I am good at technical writing - I have a history of technical writing, "how-to" tutorials, and instructional guides via my website at www.allaboutastro.com. A similar history exists when writing instructional curricula within my career as an educator.
- An experienced consultant of technologies - I have user-maintained all of the gear I have used. I have user-modified many of my own tools, including camera mods, scope mods, and power-distribution setups. I have developed one-off solutions for specific projects, including arduino programming. I understand telescope connectivity via ASCOM and know how such tools work together, being a user observing and imaging systems for nearly 17 years now.
Image taken August 10, 2015 from CBBHO near Newcastle, Wyoming - M31 - Andromeda Galaxy - Taken with 11" Celestron RASA with Nikon D810a camera
Now that you know me, here are some convictions I have about amateur astronomy, representing what I have learned and believe about those who attempt to enter our hobby. I feel that I have a firm understanding of the "consumer" in today's confusing and technological market place. As somebody who could be in a position to make or influence decisions where products are concerned, these principles would guide me in the direction I believe the industry should go.
1.) Consumers need more than a telescope. They need to know that if they choose Celestron, then they will have a better user experience than one from a competitor. They might need a supplement to the manual that teaches them how to use their investment. They might need a reliable internet community to ask questions. They could certainly use more videos posted to YouTube to learn their gear. In a hobby where satisfaction is largely based on growing a SKILL, my experience is that products must support the growth of said skill. I know of NO telescope maker that truly does this. I know many other industries of consumer products that do! Additionally, time is never in abundance in this hobby. Every time a consumer must buy a third party product to do something like polar-aligning, this learning requires time and energy that the generic hobbyist usually does not have. As such, Celestron products should have such features built-in. Thus, I believe that great products should work as functionally designed, but also in a way that facilitates the growth and education of the hobbyist, as well as honor the amount of time the typical hobbyist has.
2.) Consumers need an upgrade path. A true hobbyist will always purchase more than one telescope. In a sense, if Celestron only sells consumers one telescope, then they've missed out on a follow-up opportunity, losing business to the competition. A user is more likely to upgrade their telescope if they LOVE the first one and believe that spending a little more money on a follow-up product will gain them the same experience, only better. Currently, I see gaps within the Celestron product line that can meet those expectations, which should provide Celestron with an opportunity to innovate other meaningful products. The placement of such products are needed to provide continuity, keeping consumers within the brand, even if they return little in profit. Later, I will discuss the products in terms of the "halo effect," where such products raise the image of all Celestron products. But most important, such products will appeal to the most committed of Celestron customers, giving them an option to stick with Celestron, rather than jump to a competitor's product.
3.) Consumers need a way to LAST in this hobby. Telescopes are like treadmills...they end up as laundry racks. Perhaps, like with my first conviction above, it's just a matter of buyers having the wrong user experience. But most of what I see in terms of a bad user experience comes with the natural complexity of the hobby AND the faulty expectations of a product. For example, while telescopes might be designed to be iOS-based, with auto-alignment and all the bells and whistles, this doesn't address the issue that there might be fruitless nights ahead. Such false expectations come after the product promises to deliver effective results, while consumers lack the experience to know that it's not usually the fault of the product. Buyers will always think the views should look like Hubble photos, simply because they lack a realistic perspective. Nor do many have the luxury of understanding the true capabilities of a telescope unless they are blessed with dark, rural skies. And even when everything goes right in terms of the conditions, the grandeur of the night sky necessitates some challenging learning by nature of astronomy itself.
One of the recurring themes as we talk about astronomy equipment in the following sections will be the thought that astronomy seems harder than it needs to be. Whole imaging systems are not required to take good images of the skies. And everybody, including visual astronomers, can benefit from using technology if it's packaged in the right way. Much of this is because of the opinions in the industry and among users that astronomy should be done a certain way in order to overcome the difficulties of it. Thus, we will build toward the conclusion that Celestron as a company can inform all the while their products can function as intended.
1.) Consumers need more than a telescope. They need to know that if they choose Celestron, then they will have a better user experience than one from a competitor. They might need a supplement to the manual that teaches them how to use their investment. They might need a reliable internet community to ask questions. They could certainly use more videos posted to YouTube to learn their gear. In a hobby where satisfaction is largely based on growing a SKILL, my experience is that products must support the growth of said skill. I know of NO telescope maker that truly does this. I know many other industries of consumer products that do! Additionally, time is never in abundance in this hobby. Every time a consumer must buy a third party product to do something like polar-aligning, this learning requires time and energy that the generic hobbyist usually does not have. As such, Celestron products should have such features built-in. Thus, I believe that great products should work as functionally designed, but also in a way that facilitates the growth and education of the hobbyist, as well as honor the amount of time the typical hobbyist has.
2.) Consumers need an upgrade path. A true hobbyist will always purchase more than one telescope. In a sense, if Celestron only sells consumers one telescope, then they've missed out on a follow-up opportunity, losing business to the competition. A user is more likely to upgrade their telescope if they LOVE the first one and believe that spending a little more money on a follow-up product will gain them the same experience, only better. Currently, I see gaps within the Celestron product line that can meet those expectations, which should provide Celestron with an opportunity to innovate other meaningful products. The placement of such products are needed to provide continuity, keeping consumers within the brand, even if they return little in profit. Later, I will discuss the products in terms of the "halo effect," where such products raise the image of all Celestron products. But most important, such products will appeal to the most committed of Celestron customers, giving them an option to stick with Celestron, rather than jump to a competitor's product.
3.) Consumers need a way to LAST in this hobby. Telescopes are like treadmills...they end up as laundry racks. Perhaps, like with my first conviction above, it's just a matter of buyers having the wrong user experience. But most of what I see in terms of a bad user experience comes with the natural complexity of the hobby AND the faulty expectations of a product. For example, while telescopes might be designed to be iOS-based, with auto-alignment and all the bells and whistles, this doesn't address the issue that there might be fruitless nights ahead. Such false expectations come after the product promises to deliver effective results, while consumers lack the experience to know that it's not usually the fault of the product. Buyers will always think the views should look like Hubble photos, simply because they lack a realistic perspective. Nor do many have the luxury of understanding the true capabilities of a telescope unless they are blessed with dark, rural skies. And even when everything goes right in terms of the conditions, the grandeur of the night sky necessitates some challenging learning by nature of astronomy itself.
One of the recurring themes as we talk about astronomy equipment in the following sections will be the thought that astronomy seems harder than it needs to be. Whole imaging systems are not required to take good images of the skies. And everybody, including visual astronomers, can benefit from using technology if it's packaged in the right way. Much of this is because of the opinions in the industry and among users that astronomy should be done a certain way in order to overcome the difficulties of it. Thus, we will build toward the conclusion that Celestron as a company can inform all the while their products can function as intended.
Image taken on August 10, 2015 from CBBHO near Newcastle, Wyoming - M8 and M20 region - Image is shot with 11" Celestron RASA and Nikon D810a camera.
STRENGTHENING THE CELESTRON PRODUCT LINE
Again, lacking the virtue of knowing specifically why telescope makers offer the products they do, it does not keep me from wondering about it. Based on the three broad points or "convictions" mentioned above, I have often questioned this concerning Celestron's product lineup. Having the mind of an advanced amateur and already being intimate with Celestron (and Sky-Watcher) products, please allow me to make some observations. These prompt questions in my mind. While the answers might come down to simple market research information, logistics, or manufacturing limitations of which I am not familiar, perhaps the following thoughts might give Celestron some perspectives they have not considered...and in the least, perhaps it lets you see into the heart and mind of a guy who's thought long and hard about his hobby.
Products placed toward beginners...
You currently have 35 telescopes priced under $250 directed toward a market that lacks the understanding of the differences in those products. Refractors and reflectors, EQ mounts and dobs; it's all the same to them. Informed first time buyers know that scopes in this price tier aren't recommended by the amateurs who are advising them, which means that these sourced, consumer products are directed at impulse, one-time buyers...the "Walmart crowd." But why so many? Why risk negative perception among loyal consumers by selling telesopes with questionable marketing and product packaging?
None of those "under $250 products" are sold by Sky-Watcher, presumably in an attempt to position Sky-Watcher products toward intermediate or advanced hobbyists. Celestron has succeeded there; Sky-Watcher value and quality are well regarded. However, the parent company's reputation suffers because it cannot compete with similar Celestron-branded products of its own. Certainly Celestron is placing products in the same markets as Meade, which makes sense, but their reputation does not suffer by virtue of the fact that they appear to have products in all market segments.
My overall impression is that the parent company ends up with a bad perception among amateurs, as if they are "selling" out, mostly because consumers do not know that Sky-Watcher is also Celestron. Meade gets the "selling out" label too, but they appear to have more cool stuff up and down the product line...a "something for everybody" kind of reputation.
As part of the solution, I feel that Celestron could trim down some of the lower tier items. If such were a possibility, I'd keep quality instruments like the FirstScope tabletop series (especially the Reeves lunar version), a wide-field 80mm refractor on azimuth tripod mount, a longer focal focal length option of the same and the 114mm newt on the CG-3 mount. I would market these heavily toward lunar and planetary observing, with white-light solar-filters as a ready option. Complex and cheap EQ mount should be avoided. As such, as an informed buyer, I would avoid a scope like the 127mm newt on the CG-1 mount. I would make sure that EQ mounts in this segment have drive motors, ideally CG-3 quality or better. This might price EQ mounts out of this tier, but altaz or tripod-head mounts are much more user-friendly here anyway.
Another way to solve the reputation issue would be to place more quality products in the middle market tiers, even if Sky-Watcher is supposed to fill that market space with so many of the practical and innovative scopes and accessories. And truthfully, while the SCTs are always wonderful, there seems very little else offered by the parent company that gets our attention, except for the RASA, a scope with a very limited market.
MIddle-tier products...
As such, Celestron currently offers only 11 complete telescopes in the $500 to $1000 segment. These are mostly 5" to 6" SCTs, a couple of newts, achro refractors, and a small Mak, all on non-GOTO CG-4s or GOTO altaz mounts. Other than the SkyProdigy (StarSense) technology itself, these are uninspiring when compared to the Sky-Watcher offerings.
Celestron is currently missing a computerized mount option between $299 and $899...and thus you have nothing good to mate with setups that end up in the $500 to $1000 range. Celestron once offered a computerized CG-5, which seems to be discontinued now (although it's essentially your AVX), but even that would be priced out of this segment once the OTA is added. Logically, the Sky-Watcher EQM-35 (a computerized CG-4 mount) at $725 might be a solution at the top end of the segment, but that would be pushing it with starting imagers and hobbyists who want a lower price point.
Consequently, a low-cost EQ imaging mount with GOTO fits here, if you can innovate one at around $500. Sky-Watcher carries a couple such mounts, though they somewhat lack imaging capacity with a small telescope. Competitor products like the $500 iOptron SmartEQ or the $400 Custom Scientific iEXOS-100 seems to be what you are missing. I know that Sky-Watcher in Europe has a CG-3/5 SynScan upgrade kit. Either way, I feel that such a mount is more important to Celestron than to others because they lack great products at that entry point.
Astronomy Mounts
Celestron astronomy mounts are an interesting mix. At the lower end, you only offer a CG-4, for which I do not see a market. Sky-watcher carries two terrific mounts, the AllView and the Star-Adventurer, set toward casual and advanced DSLR users, but they lack the payload to do long-exposure photography though a telescope with any meaningful size. I've already mentioned that I would strive to produce a low-cost EQ mount with GOTO aimed for entry-level imaging at the $400 or $500 price point.
Among the middle-tier mounts, Celestron has the AVX that is well-priced, but it does not inspire much confidence in me (I have one at home). Perhaps it's the plastic cover? A good performer though. The CGEM-II seems a bit redundant, a duplication of the EQ-6 types of mounts carried under the Sky-Watcher brand. It is nice looking, however. The AVX and CGEM-II do seem to be well thought out and other than a few cosmetic things on the AVX, I do not see a need for change there.
At the high-end, which I consider "middle-tier" mounts, Celestron has the CGX and CGX-L. They, like their predecessors, the CGE (I've owned 2) and CGE-Pro (I've owned 1), are solid mounts, but not without some issues. While the natural periodic error is quite respectable, I am skeptical of the belt drive system and gear-box on the CGX mounts, which would appear to lend itself to some drive noise, making the PEC feature less effective. User results on the Internet seem to indicate that my skepticism is correct. I do like the hardware fixed stops, home encoders, and PWI software integration, however. These are nice features, great improvements over the CGE family.
I feel that these mounts are under-priced, that astronomers who pay $3500 to $14,000 for large SCTs and RASAs are prepared to pay slightly more for mounts that handle these great OTAs. With a slight price increase, you can freshen the look a little bit, making it look as awesome as it performs. As a seller of large telescopes, Celestron needs mounts with large payload capacities and these seem to be feature-rich, yet cost-effective. So keeping these mounts is logical, with some evolution in regard to refinement and look.
And speaking of the look, my only issue with the CGX and CGX-L is that they aren't very pretty. It seems like these mounts are unable to shake the Losmandy GM-8 and G-11 legacy, in cosmetics, payload, and price point. Maybe it is because the mounts are black, like the Losmandys, but these CGX mounts seem old, despite the nice tech. Even so, I understand why these mounts have been designed the way they are.
I would work toward a fresh redesign, however, with a less evolutionary look. The target consumer should be those who are looking at the iOptron, Takahashi and Software Bisque mounts in the $3000 to $6000 price range. Freshen it up, making it partly (or mostly) out of orange aluminum extrusion. Make it lighter, to off-set the cost of the materials (reduce payload capacity slightly). Install a quick and accurate through axis polar-alignment scope. Rethink the drive system and strive for smooth gears, more suitable for PEC correction, which Tak doesn't offer in their mounts. Save money on the NexStar controller and use only a simple hand-pad with slew arrows and a speed adjustment. Make all features controllable by TheSkyX and an iOS app (SkyPortal), or via PWI-technology minus the NexStar. At that point, make the PWI-tech a stand-alone product, if possible.
I would target such a mount at $3000 to $3300 for refractor users and 11" SCTs or smaller, which undercuts the Tak EM-11 and iOptron CEM-60EC, both of which I feel are superior, more accurate mounts than Celestron's current offerings. I would position another mount at $5000 to $5500 for larger RASA and C-14 users, to under-cut Meade's LX850 and the Paramount MY-T.
Then, I would carry the same look with the redesigned mounts from above into some "halo" products, mounts that will rival Software Bisque and Astro-Physics, intended for remote observatory use, technology you already have in the CGX mounts. To the above traits, add bulletproof integration with TheSkyX, including hardware fixed encoders, through-axis wiring, a DC power/accessory rail, and easy to program PEC. Perhaps build one mount to undercut the Paramount MX+ at $7000, and another at $10,000. People are still upset that Bisque raised the price of the ME mounts from $12k to $15k. I would seek to exploit that.
I would explore direct-drive technology in these upper-tier mounts for near error-less performance. This would promote the "halo effect," giving a huge lift to how all Celestron products are perceived.
I would also consider bringing back a newly designed fork-mount option, one which allows any OTA to be attached to it. This provides a solution for those wanting a fork-setup while giving them the flexibility to interchange all their OTAs with all of their mounts. Allow it to use standard Vixen or Losmandy rails. This does not sound completely diffierent from the current one-arm NexStar Evolution scopes, but Celestron does not offer that mount design as a stand-alone product. Imagers would love a good sturdy fork mount (more than the current NexStar version of it) for imaging with the ability to hold their own OTAs, especially since it does not suffer from the meredian flip of a German equatorial. This seems to permit only a single-fork arm design, but I would be curious if a two-fork design could be produced? With adapters, I would think it's a possiblity where multiple types of OTAs are concerned. While perhaps impractical, imagers will always favor a two-fork design over the single fork design.
Such new high-end mounts, if possible, could be worthy of some of the best competitor scopes on the market today and could be mated to Celestron's larger RASAs, large Edge SCTs, or even a halo scope to be determined. A large apochromatic refractor in the 7" or 8" apertures seem long overdue.
Most importantly, the new mount considerations about give consumers that logical upgrade path I talked about earlier. Keep your customers in the family by offering them some continuity.
Again, lacking the virtue of knowing specifically why telescope makers offer the products they do, it does not keep me from wondering about it. Based on the three broad points or "convictions" mentioned above, I have often questioned this concerning Celestron's product lineup. Having the mind of an advanced amateur and already being intimate with Celestron (and Sky-Watcher) products, please allow me to make some observations. These prompt questions in my mind. While the answers might come down to simple market research information, logistics, or manufacturing limitations of which I am not familiar, perhaps the following thoughts might give Celestron some perspectives they have not considered...and in the least, perhaps it lets you see into the heart and mind of a guy who's thought long and hard about his hobby.
Products placed toward beginners...
You currently have 35 telescopes priced under $250 directed toward a market that lacks the understanding of the differences in those products. Refractors and reflectors, EQ mounts and dobs; it's all the same to them. Informed first time buyers know that scopes in this price tier aren't recommended by the amateurs who are advising them, which means that these sourced, consumer products are directed at impulse, one-time buyers...the "Walmart crowd." But why so many? Why risk negative perception among loyal consumers by selling telesopes with questionable marketing and product packaging?
None of those "under $250 products" are sold by Sky-Watcher, presumably in an attempt to position Sky-Watcher products toward intermediate or advanced hobbyists. Celestron has succeeded there; Sky-Watcher value and quality are well regarded. However, the parent company's reputation suffers because it cannot compete with similar Celestron-branded products of its own. Certainly Celestron is placing products in the same markets as Meade, which makes sense, but their reputation does not suffer by virtue of the fact that they appear to have products in all market segments.
My overall impression is that the parent company ends up with a bad perception among amateurs, as if they are "selling" out, mostly because consumers do not know that Sky-Watcher is also Celestron. Meade gets the "selling out" label too, but they appear to have more cool stuff up and down the product line...a "something for everybody" kind of reputation.
As part of the solution, I feel that Celestron could trim down some of the lower tier items. If such were a possibility, I'd keep quality instruments like the FirstScope tabletop series (especially the Reeves lunar version), a wide-field 80mm refractor on azimuth tripod mount, a longer focal focal length option of the same and the 114mm newt on the CG-3 mount. I would market these heavily toward lunar and planetary observing, with white-light solar-filters as a ready option. Complex and cheap EQ mount should be avoided. As such, as an informed buyer, I would avoid a scope like the 127mm newt on the CG-1 mount. I would make sure that EQ mounts in this segment have drive motors, ideally CG-3 quality or better. This might price EQ mounts out of this tier, but altaz or tripod-head mounts are much more user-friendly here anyway.
Another way to solve the reputation issue would be to place more quality products in the middle market tiers, even if Sky-Watcher is supposed to fill that market space with so many of the practical and innovative scopes and accessories. And truthfully, while the SCTs are always wonderful, there seems very little else offered by the parent company that gets our attention, except for the RASA, a scope with a very limited market.
MIddle-tier products...
As such, Celestron currently offers only 11 complete telescopes in the $500 to $1000 segment. These are mostly 5" to 6" SCTs, a couple of newts, achro refractors, and a small Mak, all on non-GOTO CG-4s or GOTO altaz mounts. Other than the SkyProdigy (StarSense) technology itself, these are uninspiring when compared to the Sky-Watcher offerings.
Celestron is currently missing a computerized mount option between $299 and $899...and thus you have nothing good to mate with setups that end up in the $500 to $1000 range. Celestron once offered a computerized CG-5, which seems to be discontinued now (although it's essentially your AVX), but even that would be priced out of this segment once the OTA is added. Logically, the Sky-Watcher EQM-35 (a computerized CG-4 mount) at $725 might be a solution at the top end of the segment, but that would be pushing it with starting imagers and hobbyists who want a lower price point.
Consequently, a low-cost EQ imaging mount with GOTO fits here, if you can innovate one at around $500. Sky-Watcher carries a couple such mounts, though they somewhat lack imaging capacity with a small telescope. Competitor products like the $500 iOptron SmartEQ or the $400 Custom Scientific iEXOS-100 seems to be what you are missing. I know that Sky-Watcher in Europe has a CG-3/5 SynScan upgrade kit. Either way, I feel that such a mount is more important to Celestron than to others because they lack great products at that entry point.
Astronomy Mounts
Celestron astronomy mounts are an interesting mix. At the lower end, you only offer a CG-4, for which I do not see a market. Sky-watcher carries two terrific mounts, the AllView and the Star-Adventurer, set toward casual and advanced DSLR users, but they lack the payload to do long-exposure photography though a telescope with any meaningful size. I've already mentioned that I would strive to produce a low-cost EQ mount with GOTO aimed for entry-level imaging at the $400 or $500 price point.
Among the middle-tier mounts, Celestron has the AVX that is well-priced, but it does not inspire much confidence in me (I have one at home). Perhaps it's the plastic cover? A good performer though. The CGEM-II seems a bit redundant, a duplication of the EQ-6 types of mounts carried under the Sky-Watcher brand. It is nice looking, however. The AVX and CGEM-II do seem to be well thought out and other than a few cosmetic things on the AVX, I do not see a need for change there.
At the high-end, which I consider "middle-tier" mounts, Celestron has the CGX and CGX-L. They, like their predecessors, the CGE (I've owned 2) and CGE-Pro (I've owned 1), are solid mounts, but not without some issues. While the natural periodic error is quite respectable, I am skeptical of the belt drive system and gear-box on the CGX mounts, which would appear to lend itself to some drive noise, making the PEC feature less effective. User results on the Internet seem to indicate that my skepticism is correct. I do like the hardware fixed stops, home encoders, and PWI software integration, however. These are nice features, great improvements over the CGE family.
I feel that these mounts are under-priced, that astronomers who pay $3500 to $14,000 for large SCTs and RASAs are prepared to pay slightly more for mounts that handle these great OTAs. With a slight price increase, you can freshen the look a little bit, making it look as awesome as it performs. As a seller of large telescopes, Celestron needs mounts with large payload capacities and these seem to be feature-rich, yet cost-effective. So keeping these mounts is logical, with some evolution in regard to refinement and look.
And speaking of the look, my only issue with the CGX and CGX-L is that they aren't very pretty. It seems like these mounts are unable to shake the Losmandy GM-8 and G-11 legacy, in cosmetics, payload, and price point. Maybe it is because the mounts are black, like the Losmandys, but these CGX mounts seem old, despite the nice tech. Even so, I understand why these mounts have been designed the way they are.
I would work toward a fresh redesign, however, with a less evolutionary look. The target consumer should be those who are looking at the iOptron, Takahashi and Software Bisque mounts in the $3000 to $6000 price range. Freshen it up, making it partly (or mostly) out of orange aluminum extrusion. Make it lighter, to off-set the cost of the materials (reduce payload capacity slightly). Install a quick and accurate through axis polar-alignment scope. Rethink the drive system and strive for smooth gears, more suitable for PEC correction, which Tak doesn't offer in their mounts. Save money on the NexStar controller and use only a simple hand-pad with slew arrows and a speed adjustment. Make all features controllable by TheSkyX and an iOS app (SkyPortal), or via PWI-technology minus the NexStar. At that point, make the PWI-tech a stand-alone product, if possible.
I would target such a mount at $3000 to $3300 for refractor users and 11" SCTs or smaller, which undercuts the Tak EM-11 and iOptron CEM-60EC, both of which I feel are superior, more accurate mounts than Celestron's current offerings. I would position another mount at $5000 to $5500 for larger RASA and C-14 users, to under-cut Meade's LX850 and the Paramount MY-T.
Then, I would carry the same look with the redesigned mounts from above into some "halo" products, mounts that will rival Software Bisque and Astro-Physics, intended for remote observatory use, technology you already have in the CGX mounts. To the above traits, add bulletproof integration with TheSkyX, including hardware fixed encoders, through-axis wiring, a DC power/accessory rail, and easy to program PEC. Perhaps build one mount to undercut the Paramount MX+ at $7000, and another at $10,000. People are still upset that Bisque raised the price of the ME mounts from $12k to $15k. I would seek to exploit that.
I would explore direct-drive technology in these upper-tier mounts for near error-less performance. This would promote the "halo effect," giving a huge lift to how all Celestron products are perceived.
I would also consider bringing back a newly designed fork-mount option, one which allows any OTA to be attached to it. This provides a solution for those wanting a fork-setup while giving them the flexibility to interchange all their OTAs with all of their mounts. Allow it to use standard Vixen or Losmandy rails. This does not sound completely diffierent from the current one-arm NexStar Evolution scopes, but Celestron does not offer that mount design as a stand-alone product. Imagers would love a good sturdy fork mount (more than the current NexStar version of it) for imaging with the ability to hold their own OTAs, especially since it does not suffer from the meredian flip of a German equatorial. This seems to permit only a single-fork arm design, but I would be curious if a two-fork design could be produced? With adapters, I would think it's a possiblity where multiple types of OTAs are concerned. While perhaps impractical, imagers will always favor a two-fork design over the single fork design.
Such new high-end mounts, if possible, could be worthy of some of the best competitor scopes on the market today and could be mated to Celestron's larger RASAs, large Edge SCTs, or even a halo scope to be determined. A large apochromatic refractor in the 7" or 8" apertures seem long overdue.
Most importantly, the new mount considerations about give consumers that logical upgrade path I talked about earlier. Keep your customers in the family by offering them some continuity.
Image taken from CCBHO near Newcastle, Wyoming - 1st Quarter Moon - Image is shot with 11" Celestron RASA and Nikon D810a camera
Further innovations...
Amateurs regard Sky-Watcher as a great value in telescopes and accessories. The Esprit line of apochromatic refractors, which I LOVE, are still considered "poor man's" Takashashis and Astro-Physics scopes, even if they are great performers. As such, there is nothing Sky-Watcher has that would be deemed to lead the market, as nice as the big truss dobs and apo refractors might be. I firmly believe Celestron needs to be a market leader with a few of their upper-end products. I know you tried this with the 20" RC around a decade ago. But, like the 14" RASA, its market is too limited. I think Celestron is on the right path with the RASA, but I would look to produce other such "halo" products.
Celestron binoculars are great. There are some obvious accessories that seem missing, like a binocular chair or mount. This is an area of astronomy that really isn't pushed in the industry. Most such mounts (tripod mounts are ineffective with tripods) are left to be built DIY by the hobbyists, or sold to other by amateurs themselves. A company needs to step forward and manufacture a good binocular mount, either as a parallelogram-style, or an observing chair.
For a potental "halo" product, why not consider a pair of 5" or 6" binoculars to go against Fujinon? Perhaps even a "Starchair" with drives and a joystick controller? Then, get them placed in schools, or in places where kids will be able to use them.
I see a lot of potential in the camera market. The NextImagers and Skyris planetary imagers are nice, but that is all Celestron currently offers. A few years ago, a one-shot color long-exposure camera was offered based on the KAF-8300 chipset, the Nightscape. I actually beta tested that product and I know why it was discontinued (bad design and fragile construction). Unfortunately, everytime Celestron sells a RASA telescope, a competitor gets to sell the camera. Certainly Celestron can rethink the design and give a zero-footprint, dedicated imager for the RASAs. Makers like QHY, ZWO, QSI, and even Meade have cameras available that would fill this need. I believe you need at least one such digital camera to compete there, marketed to mate perfectly with the RASA, SCT, and even the Sky-Watcher Esprit refractors.
I would also market an easy to use long-exposure camera to not only take nice images, but marketed to actual observers. Have it connect to their phones directly via WiFi. Have app settings for image capture that automatically "stretches" images to look like eyepiece views or better. Let non-imagers know that a simple camera can replace the eyepiece, give great views despite light polluted skies, and even record the event to their "camera roll" for posterity. The industry has attempted to market "electronic eyepieces' in the past, but they were based on video-cam technology and not on actual CCD or CMOS imaging chips.
And because imaging is the future in many regards, both as a gateway to all forms of astronomical science and as a way to combat light pollution, Celestron should not give up on the notion of a top-notch imaging camera with a large chip. I would be curious what might be possible in that regard, as current cameras based on larger silicon chips are prohibitively expensive. While Celestron is an "optics" company, it might not make much sense to diversify into such product markets, but more and more, cameras are becoming synonymous with the optics themselves.
Beyond cameras, I see where Celestron could add new features to the computerized telescopes. For example, a telescope with a built-in sky quality meter (SQM) could evaluate sky conditions, suggest objects for viewing based on aperture, sky darkness, object position, and angle of view. In the least, a GPS-equipped telescope could make sky evaluations based on known SQM measurements of areas on the globe, adjusted also with the lunar phase. It would simply be a matter of a firmware update.
Temperature sensors and variable DC fans (controlled through the software) are critical for imaging and should be standard with a lot of OTAs. A camera derotator/rotatiing visual back is another feature that seems overdue. I would likely market these as a add-on product to existing OTAs in the form of a "telescope control system" or black-box (e.g. RCOS and Planewave) that can control many of the OTA's functions, such as fans, auto-focusers, rotators (for both camera postiioning and alt-azimuth long exposure "derotation") and dew heaters. These would save consumers from needing third-party solutions and Celestron would have a great selling point on the single integrated solution.
Random product thoughts...
Among other products, Celestron has many that seem curious. While the zoom eyepieces are actually a terrific product, nobody in the amateur community knows they exist. And first telescope buyers have little idea how powerful such a simple solution would be. I would put one of those as a bundle for many of your new scopes...it's intuitive, akin to pinching on a iPhone to resize the display. This would offset the additional complexity and frustration among those users while also giving them more control over an observation.
As for regular eyepieces, that's a tough call. I own TeleVue. Most of us own TeleVue. I do not know how many Celestron sells. I have several Celestron plossls and even a Luminos that I somehow acquired during a consulting job for a fellow hobbyist. They are good eyepieces and represent good values. I believe that eyepiece customers are under a lot of wrong impressions, namely that you need wide effective fields (Naglers and Ethos) and complex lens designs beyond a typical plossl. My advice in this regard would be to demonstrate and educate the market that when it comes to eyepieces, perfect is often the enemy of good-enough. While the general consensus with the Luminos is that it suffers at the edges of the field on scopes with a steeper light cone, which matches my observation as well, I believe Celestron has to attack the perception that people NEED to pay $500 or more for a comparative eyepiece. This simply isn't true, but I hear little in the community that debunks that perception.
As for telescopes, Celestron is all about SCTs, which are historically wonderful. Same with the 11" RASA (I own it). I haven't tested the 8" or 14" yet. Anything sold as OTA-only is great. It may be useful to seek other products to join them, albeit Sky-Watcher fills that gap with many such products, like the Esprit Refractors (I have a 120mm and beta tested the 150mm) and their imaging Newtonians. Celestron has some Maksukov designs in the middle-price tiers, and Sky-Watcher has the larger versions, but I feel that these scopes are not marketed well within the community as the superior optical, high-contrast scopes that they are. I would remind consumers that they are good instruments, despite their perceived "slow" speed. They are also great scopes to mate with Celestron eyepieces and work very well for portable observing setups.
The elephant in the room would be the importance of the basic dobsonian to beginners and expert hobbyists alike, yet Celestron does not sell one. This leaves Sky-Watcher positioned to sell these critically important scopes. Specifically, the Sky-Watcher Classic dobsonians cover the most important scopes recommended to beginners by most amateurs. These include dobs in the 6" to 10" range.
Interestingly, I am not aware of a 4.5" dob...neither from Celestron or Sky-Watcher. That's the single most important telescope to sell to first-time buyers as its GETS and then KEEPS them in hobby.
Finally, and curiously, I wonder why Celestron scopes are marketed in millimeters? Nothing communicates "non-American" like metric measures. 3.5" is much better than 90mm. 4.5" is better than 114mm. The name Cometron 114AZ seems fine, but I would keep all the other labeling and documentation as 4.5". While it might seem a strange point to make, it seems inconsistent with Celestron's history of selling C8, C-9.25, C-11, and C14 scopes, all of which indicate the scope's aperture in inches.
Summary of the Products...
In summary, much of the items I discuss above would have the intent of putting together a more logical and cohesive product line, the success of which can be monitored not only in an increase of sales, but an increase in repeat customers. With these efforts, I would advertise some upgrade "tracks" for buyers, such as for those wanting to go up a visual path and another group who wants to climb an imaging path. Show how the systems work together and give consumers a road-map to future Celestron products they will likely want.
People who LAST in the hobby don't just buy one telescope, they eventually buy several. I would build brand-loyalty by offering such people a good starting point followed by a logical "upgrade" path, even if those are Sky-Watcher products. The current entry products do not have logical follow-ups in your product line. Thus, people eventually jump to gear from other makers. I would promote product continuity, both in marketing and in design philosophy.
Additionally, the existing products do not seem to build consumer confidence and I strongly believe the user is truly not supported as they could be. At the risk of sounding like Steve Jobs, most would-be consumers do not know what they need. They need to be told (by a brand they trust). Instead, the only thing they hear from the marketplace is that astronomy is both expensive and difficult. This message has to be changed. Products need to be simple to use, but also supported in a way that answers their questions when they arise. Today, there is no reason buyers should not be able to take successful, long-exposure, unguided images with a DSLR within 30 minutes of pulling up their car. With the right products and the right information, I can demonstrate that!
TEACH THE CONSUMER
As such, I would attempt to Teach the Consumer...to not only show that we care about the consumers' needs, but also to lessen consumer uncertainty in such a confusing market place. In education, when we want our consumers (the students) to learn something, we "scaffold," or build a lesson up through sequential steps to assure their understanding of the deeper learning. For the consumer of a telescope, it is no different. We lead the consumer through the questions to find the telescope that is right for them. And then once they get the telescope home, it's the responsibility of the teacher (in this case Celestrron) to get users through the difficult learning so they can experience the joy of why the telescope exists in the first place. Doing so gets the user past all the conflicting information they are likely to hear and allows the equipment to work at its maximum potential. Importantly, I believe that this builds loyalty and the potential for future sales, especially when your "curriculum" discusses upgrades and supporting equipment to enhance their experience or build their skills.
While Celestron currently has aspects of this online with the setup videos and a knowledgebase, neither is very thorough, and really not very well known to consumers unless they run into a question and seek solutions online. In my view, the packaging should indicate where such questions can be answered when they arise. Videos, especially on YouTube, should be posted with such frequency, that "subscribers" have something new to watch weekly, providing not only product highlights and setup, but also tutorials on how to use them. It informs them of what they might need in a telescope before the purchase. It also reminds them that they own a Celestron telescope and more importantly, reminds them that Celestron cares. This would seem a logical place to put your "Team Celestron" to work. Currently, that campaign, while well conceived, is not thoroughly carried out. In short, I would update all consumer references with great frequency and consistency, and provide an online forum for anybody to discuss the products and the hobby directly.
And this same Teach the Consumer philosophy is not only for the consumers, but for the overall markets in general. Those markets that you feel cannot be penetrated, like education, require industry leaders to TELL them what they are missing. Currently, educators do not buy telescopes because they cannot really afford them. Those who do struggle with them. By now, one would think that there would be some teacher, some program in place using consumer telescopes in education, but there is not. There are no existing models for motivated educators to follow because they do not exist.
Furthermore, district curriculum people within the sciences are not astronomers themselves. Astronomy is a suborbinate class to Biology, Chemistry, and Physics, all of which have labs for student learning and practice. I would be outlining a program for schools to follow, with example lessons that can be performed, aligned to learning objectives, and linking Celestron equipment into the curriculum. I would seek schools to pilot such programs for free and then provide other schools with incentives and discounts for the products. Furthermore, teachers could be trained into the program, giving them "continuing education" credits required of all teachers. At a minimum, the goal would be for all students to use or at least look through a telescope each year, something that can easily be monitored. In the best of cases, students meet the requirements of "field time" as designated by state standards. For example, in Texas, the State Board of Education requires 80% of total astronomy exposure to be actual lab time at the elementary level, approaching 40% at the high school level for astronomy students. All such requirements are ignored by educators because they feel such field time is too difficult, both logistically and functionally. I would want to push all educators to be mindful of those requirements and then be there to show them how they can do it.
Side-benefits to promoting educational programs in astronomy would by that students and parents would get excited about the value of this eduation and Celestron could be there to offer student discounts on such purchases, specifically for equipment designed and marketed for those programs. In total, Celestron could be creating a market that didn't previously exist, all because of putting some extra information and effort into teaching both the consumer and the education market.
CONCLUSION
My goal here has not been to tell Celestron, or any other telescope maker for that matter, what to do, I would have to believe that the industry is full of energetic and intelligent people who have thought a lot about the subject matter I have discussed here.
My hope is that I can communicate a perspective and an image of what your consumers truly are. Moreover, I hope that my own perspective demonstrates that there are enormous amount of potential consumers that haven't really been reached.
As an educator who sees tremendous value in teaching astronomy to children, I am dumb-founded why parents easily spend money on their kids' phones (every two years) and schools spend serious money on extra-curricular activities, but some how they do not believe there is value to purchasing telescopes to be used by their students. This needs to change. There has never been better time to push kids toward future visions of a return to the Moon or a journey to Mars or a 2024 total solar eclipse. Celestron can be a leader in such efforts. If the industry steps up and lets educators know what's possible and what modern astronomy education can look like, I firmly believe that not only will more kids fall in love with the hobby that we adore, but they will also put more money into the industry itself.
Amateurs regard Sky-Watcher as a great value in telescopes and accessories. The Esprit line of apochromatic refractors, which I LOVE, are still considered "poor man's" Takashashis and Astro-Physics scopes, even if they are great performers. As such, there is nothing Sky-Watcher has that would be deemed to lead the market, as nice as the big truss dobs and apo refractors might be. I firmly believe Celestron needs to be a market leader with a few of their upper-end products. I know you tried this with the 20" RC around a decade ago. But, like the 14" RASA, its market is too limited. I think Celestron is on the right path with the RASA, but I would look to produce other such "halo" products.
Celestron binoculars are great. There are some obvious accessories that seem missing, like a binocular chair or mount. This is an area of astronomy that really isn't pushed in the industry. Most such mounts (tripod mounts are ineffective with tripods) are left to be built DIY by the hobbyists, or sold to other by amateurs themselves. A company needs to step forward and manufacture a good binocular mount, either as a parallelogram-style, or an observing chair.
For a potental "halo" product, why not consider a pair of 5" or 6" binoculars to go against Fujinon? Perhaps even a "Starchair" with drives and a joystick controller? Then, get them placed in schools, or in places where kids will be able to use them.
I see a lot of potential in the camera market. The NextImagers and Skyris planetary imagers are nice, but that is all Celestron currently offers. A few years ago, a one-shot color long-exposure camera was offered based on the KAF-8300 chipset, the Nightscape. I actually beta tested that product and I know why it was discontinued (bad design and fragile construction). Unfortunately, everytime Celestron sells a RASA telescope, a competitor gets to sell the camera. Certainly Celestron can rethink the design and give a zero-footprint, dedicated imager for the RASAs. Makers like QHY, ZWO, QSI, and even Meade have cameras available that would fill this need. I believe you need at least one such digital camera to compete there, marketed to mate perfectly with the RASA, SCT, and even the Sky-Watcher Esprit refractors.
I would also market an easy to use long-exposure camera to not only take nice images, but marketed to actual observers. Have it connect to their phones directly via WiFi. Have app settings for image capture that automatically "stretches" images to look like eyepiece views or better. Let non-imagers know that a simple camera can replace the eyepiece, give great views despite light polluted skies, and even record the event to their "camera roll" for posterity. The industry has attempted to market "electronic eyepieces' in the past, but they were based on video-cam technology and not on actual CCD or CMOS imaging chips.
And because imaging is the future in many regards, both as a gateway to all forms of astronomical science and as a way to combat light pollution, Celestron should not give up on the notion of a top-notch imaging camera with a large chip. I would be curious what might be possible in that regard, as current cameras based on larger silicon chips are prohibitively expensive. While Celestron is an "optics" company, it might not make much sense to diversify into such product markets, but more and more, cameras are becoming synonymous with the optics themselves.
Beyond cameras, I see where Celestron could add new features to the computerized telescopes. For example, a telescope with a built-in sky quality meter (SQM) could evaluate sky conditions, suggest objects for viewing based on aperture, sky darkness, object position, and angle of view. In the least, a GPS-equipped telescope could make sky evaluations based on known SQM measurements of areas on the globe, adjusted also with the lunar phase. It would simply be a matter of a firmware update.
Temperature sensors and variable DC fans (controlled through the software) are critical for imaging and should be standard with a lot of OTAs. A camera derotator/rotatiing visual back is another feature that seems overdue. I would likely market these as a add-on product to existing OTAs in the form of a "telescope control system" or black-box (e.g. RCOS and Planewave) that can control many of the OTA's functions, such as fans, auto-focusers, rotators (for both camera postiioning and alt-azimuth long exposure "derotation") and dew heaters. These would save consumers from needing third-party solutions and Celestron would have a great selling point on the single integrated solution.
Random product thoughts...
Among other products, Celestron has many that seem curious. While the zoom eyepieces are actually a terrific product, nobody in the amateur community knows they exist. And first telescope buyers have little idea how powerful such a simple solution would be. I would put one of those as a bundle for many of your new scopes...it's intuitive, akin to pinching on a iPhone to resize the display. This would offset the additional complexity and frustration among those users while also giving them more control over an observation.
As for regular eyepieces, that's a tough call. I own TeleVue. Most of us own TeleVue. I do not know how many Celestron sells. I have several Celestron plossls and even a Luminos that I somehow acquired during a consulting job for a fellow hobbyist. They are good eyepieces and represent good values. I believe that eyepiece customers are under a lot of wrong impressions, namely that you need wide effective fields (Naglers and Ethos) and complex lens designs beyond a typical plossl. My advice in this regard would be to demonstrate and educate the market that when it comes to eyepieces, perfect is often the enemy of good-enough. While the general consensus with the Luminos is that it suffers at the edges of the field on scopes with a steeper light cone, which matches my observation as well, I believe Celestron has to attack the perception that people NEED to pay $500 or more for a comparative eyepiece. This simply isn't true, but I hear little in the community that debunks that perception.
As for telescopes, Celestron is all about SCTs, which are historically wonderful. Same with the 11" RASA (I own it). I haven't tested the 8" or 14" yet. Anything sold as OTA-only is great. It may be useful to seek other products to join them, albeit Sky-Watcher fills that gap with many such products, like the Esprit Refractors (I have a 120mm and beta tested the 150mm) and their imaging Newtonians. Celestron has some Maksukov designs in the middle-price tiers, and Sky-Watcher has the larger versions, but I feel that these scopes are not marketed well within the community as the superior optical, high-contrast scopes that they are. I would remind consumers that they are good instruments, despite their perceived "slow" speed. They are also great scopes to mate with Celestron eyepieces and work very well for portable observing setups.
The elephant in the room would be the importance of the basic dobsonian to beginners and expert hobbyists alike, yet Celestron does not sell one. This leaves Sky-Watcher positioned to sell these critically important scopes. Specifically, the Sky-Watcher Classic dobsonians cover the most important scopes recommended to beginners by most amateurs. These include dobs in the 6" to 10" range.
Interestingly, I am not aware of a 4.5" dob...neither from Celestron or Sky-Watcher. That's the single most important telescope to sell to first-time buyers as its GETS and then KEEPS them in hobby.
Finally, and curiously, I wonder why Celestron scopes are marketed in millimeters? Nothing communicates "non-American" like metric measures. 3.5" is much better than 90mm. 4.5" is better than 114mm. The name Cometron 114AZ seems fine, but I would keep all the other labeling and documentation as 4.5". While it might seem a strange point to make, it seems inconsistent with Celestron's history of selling C8, C-9.25, C-11, and C14 scopes, all of which indicate the scope's aperture in inches.
Summary of the Products...
In summary, much of the items I discuss above would have the intent of putting together a more logical and cohesive product line, the success of which can be monitored not only in an increase of sales, but an increase in repeat customers. With these efforts, I would advertise some upgrade "tracks" for buyers, such as for those wanting to go up a visual path and another group who wants to climb an imaging path. Show how the systems work together and give consumers a road-map to future Celestron products they will likely want.
People who LAST in the hobby don't just buy one telescope, they eventually buy several. I would build brand-loyalty by offering such people a good starting point followed by a logical "upgrade" path, even if those are Sky-Watcher products. The current entry products do not have logical follow-ups in your product line. Thus, people eventually jump to gear from other makers. I would promote product continuity, both in marketing and in design philosophy.
Additionally, the existing products do not seem to build consumer confidence and I strongly believe the user is truly not supported as they could be. At the risk of sounding like Steve Jobs, most would-be consumers do not know what they need. They need to be told (by a brand they trust). Instead, the only thing they hear from the marketplace is that astronomy is both expensive and difficult. This message has to be changed. Products need to be simple to use, but also supported in a way that answers their questions when they arise. Today, there is no reason buyers should not be able to take successful, long-exposure, unguided images with a DSLR within 30 minutes of pulling up their car. With the right products and the right information, I can demonstrate that!
TEACH THE CONSUMER
As such, I would attempt to Teach the Consumer...to not only show that we care about the consumers' needs, but also to lessen consumer uncertainty in such a confusing market place. In education, when we want our consumers (the students) to learn something, we "scaffold," or build a lesson up through sequential steps to assure their understanding of the deeper learning. For the consumer of a telescope, it is no different. We lead the consumer through the questions to find the telescope that is right for them. And then once they get the telescope home, it's the responsibility of the teacher (in this case Celestrron) to get users through the difficult learning so they can experience the joy of why the telescope exists in the first place. Doing so gets the user past all the conflicting information they are likely to hear and allows the equipment to work at its maximum potential. Importantly, I believe that this builds loyalty and the potential for future sales, especially when your "curriculum" discusses upgrades and supporting equipment to enhance their experience or build their skills.
While Celestron currently has aspects of this online with the setup videos and a knowledgebase, neither is very thorough, and really not very well known to consumers unless they run into a question and seek solutions online. In my view, the packaging should indicate where such questions can be answered when they arise. Videos, especially on YouTube, should be posted with such frequency, that "subscribers" have something new to watch weekly, providing not only product highlights and setup, but also tutorials on how to use them. It informs them of what they might need in a telescope before the purchase. It also reminds them that they own a Celestron telescope and more importantly, reminds them that Celestron cares. This would seem a logical place to put your "Team Celestron" to work. Currently, that campaign, while well conceived, is not thoroughly carried out. In short, I would update all consumer references with great frequency and consistency, and provide an online forum for anybody to discuss the products and the hobby directly.
And this same Teach the Consumer philosophy is not only for the consumers, but for the overall markets in general. Those markets that you feel cannot be penetrated, like education, require industry leaders to TELL them what they are missing. Currently, educators do not buy telescopes because they cannot really afford them. Those who do struggle with them. By now, one would think that there would be some teacher, some program in place using consumer telescopes in education, but there is not. There are no existing models for motivated educators to follow because they do not exist.
Furthermore, district curriculum people within the sciences are not astronomers themselves. Astronomy is a suborbinate class to Biology, Chemistry, and Physics, all of which have labs for student learning and practice. I would be outlining a program for schools to follow, with example lessons that can be performed, aligned to learning objectives, and linking Celestron equipment into the curriculum. I would seek schools to pilot such programs for free and then provide other schools with incentives and discounts for the products. Furthermore, teachers could be trained into the program, giving them "continuing education" credits required of all teachers. At a minimum, the goal would be for all students to use or at least look through a telescope each year, something that can easily be monitored. In the best of cases, students meet the requirements of "field time" as designated by state standards. For example, in Texas, the State Board of Education requires 80% of total astronomy exposure to be actual lab time at the elementary level, approaching 40% at the high school level for astronomy students. All such requirements are ignored by educators because they feel such field time is too difficult, both logistically and functionally. I would want to push all educators to be mindful of those requirements and then be there to show them how they can do it.
Side-benefits to promoting educational programs in astronomy would by that students and parents would get excited about the value of this eduation and Celestron could be there to offer student discounts on such purchases, specifically for equipment designed and marketed for those programs. In total, Celestron could be creating a market that didn't previously exist, all because of putting some extra information and effort into teaching both the consumer and the education market.
CONCLUSION
My goal here has not been to tell Celestron, or any other telescope maker for that matter, what to do, I would have to believe that the industry is full of energetic and intelligent people who have thought a lot about the subject matter I have discussed here.
My hope is that I can communicate a perspective and an image of what your consumers truly are. Moreover, I hope that my own perspective demonstrates that there are enormous amount of potential consumers that haven't really been reached.
As an educator who sees tremendous value in teaching astronomy to children, I am dumb-founded why parents easily spend money on their kids' phones (every two years) and schools spend serious money on extra-curricular activities, but some how they do not believe there is value to purchasing telescopes to be used by their students. This needs to change. There has never been better time to push kids toward future visions of a return to the Moon or a journey to Mars or a 2024 total solar eclipse. Celestron can be a leader in such efforts. If the industry steps up and lets educators know what's possible and what modern astronomy education can look like, I firmly believe that not only will more kids fall in love with the hobby that we adore, but they will also put more money into the industry itself.
