Selecting a telescope

astronomy-chat.net
Promoting astronomy discussion.

Main

Date: 03 Sep 2006 10:36:52
From: Peter Clarke
Subject: Selecting a telescope

I am looking to buy a telescope but never having had one before, I am
uncertain what size (aperture) telescope to get. I would like to see some
images of planets, constellations etc taken from a selection of telescopes
in order to see what one gets for the money. Does anyone know of any web
sites containing images along with information about the telescope used.
I am presently thinking of something around 6" or 8" reflector.
Also, how worthwhile (for a beginner) are the computerised GoTo systems,
they sound good but add a lot to the cost.
Thanks

Date: 03 Sep 2006 16:05:14
From: David Nakamoto
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

The size you've selected has been, and continues to be a good beginner's
size. If you can take the time and have the patience, a GOTO can help
you to learn where the sky's fainter denizens are, but also learn where
they are manually, so when you've run out of power, you're not at the
end of an observing session, so invest in one good book for beginners on
how to find things in the sky. Look on Sky Publishings web site for those.

You do know that no image, no photograph, captures what you'll see
through a telescope, so you can't use those to get an idea of what
you'll see.

Try finding a local astronomy club, and see if they hold public star
parties, so you can see a variety of telescopes to help you make up your
mind.

Good Luck !

--- Dave

Peter Clarke wrote:
> I am looking to buy a telescope but never having had one before, I am
> uncertain what size (aperture) telescope to get. I would like to see some
> images of planets, constellations etc taken from a selection of telescopes
> in order to see what one gets for the money. Does anyone know of any web
> sites containing images along with information about the telescope used.
> I am presently thinking of something around 6" or 8" reflector.
> Also, how worthwhile (for a beginner) are the computerised GoTo systems,
> they sound good but add a lot to the cost.
> Thanks
>
>

Date: 03 Sep 2006 17:44:40
From: Peter Clarke
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Dave,
Thanks for the comments. This morning I didn't have a clue about what
telescope to get. Now after much good advice and searching through many web
sites, I think I have a much better feel for things. There is a club local
to me and I shall follow your advice to try and get a look through some
telescopes before I make a decision on what to buy.
Regards
Peter

"David Nakamoto" <david.nakamoto@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:_2DKg.2695$%k5.2688@trnddc08...
> The size you've selected has been, and continues to be a good beginner's
> size. If you can take the time and have the patience, a GOTO can help you
> to learn where the sky's fainter denizens are, but also learn where they
> are manually, so when you've run out of power, you're not at the end of an
> observing session, so invest in one good book for beginners on how to find
> things in the sky. Look on Sky Publishings web site for those.
>
> You do know that no image, no photograph, captures what you'll see through
> a telescope, so you can't use those to get an idea of what you'll see.
>
> Try finding a local astronomy club, and see if they hold public star
> parties, so you can see a variety of telescopes to help you make up your
> mind.
>
> Good Luck !
>
> --- Dave
>
> Peter Clarke wrote:
>> I am looking to buy a telescope but never having had one before, I am
>> uncertain what size (aperture) telescope to get. I would like to see some
>> images of planets, constellations etc taken from a selection of
>> telescopes in order to see what one gets for the money. Does anyone know
>> of any web sites containing images along with information about the
>> telescope used.
>> I am presently thinking of something around 6" or 8" reflector.
>> Also, how worthwhile (for a beginner) are the computerised GoTo systems,
>> they sound good but add a lot to the cost.
>> Thanks

Date: 04 Sep 2006 03:14:10
From: David Nakamoto
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Good Luck Peter !

--- Dave

Oh, and welcome to the society of amateur astronomers !
(^_^)

Peter Clarke wrote:
> Dave,
> Thanks for the comments. This morning I didn't have a clue about what
> telescope to get. Now after much good advice and searching through many web
> sites, I think I have a much better feel for things. There is a club local
> to me and I shall follow your advice to try and get a look through some
> telescopes before I make a decision on what to buy.
> Regards
> Peter
>
> "David Nakamoto" <david.nakamoto@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:_2DKg.2695$%k5.2688@trnddc08...
>> The size you've selected has been, and continues to be a good beginner's
>> size. If you can take the time and have the patience, a GOTO can help you
>> to learn where the sky's fainter denizens are, but also learn where they
>> are manually, so when you've run out of power, you're not at the end of an
>> observing session, so invest in one good book for beginners on how to find
>> things in the sky. Look on Sky Publishings web site for those.
>>
>> You do know that no image, no photograph, captures what you'll see through
>> a telescope, so you can't use those to get an idea of what you'll see.
>>
>> Try finding a local astronomy club, and see if they hold public star
>> parties, so you can see a variety of telescopes to help you make up your
>> mind.
>>
>> Good Luck !
>>
>> --- Dave
>>
>> Peter Clarke wrote:
>>> I am looking to buy a telescope but never having had one before, I am
>>> uncertain what size (aperture) telescope to get. I would like to see some
>>> images of planets, constellations etc taken from a selection of
>>> telescopes in order to see what one gets for the money. Does anyone know
>>> of any web sites containing images along with information about the
>>> telescope used.
>>> I am presently thinking of something around 6" or 8" reflector.
>>> Also, how worthwhile (for a beginner) are the computerised GoTo systems,
>>> they sound good but add a lot to the cost.
>>> Thanks
>
>

Date: 03 Sep 2006 08:16:06
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord

Read this first.

--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/

"Peter Clarke" <pbclarke@btopenworld.com > wrote in message
news:puGdnT9VyJQpPGfZRVnyqA@bt.com...
>I am looking to buy a telescope but never having had one before, I am
>uncertain what size (aperture) telescope to get. I would like to see some
>images of planets, constellations etc taken from a selection of telescopes
>in order to see what one gets for the money. Does anyone know of any web
>sites containing images along with information about the telescope used.
> I am presently thinking of something around 6" or 8" reflector.
> Also, how worthwhile (for a beginner) are the computerised GoTo systems,
> they sound good but add a lot to the cost.
> Thanks
>

Date: 03 Sep 2006 16:51:38
From: Peter Clarke
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Mr Starlord,
The previous reply mentioned your site, so I have already found it and read
it. I congratulate you on producing such an informative yet concise
discussion on telescopes, it was just what I needed. It answered most of my
questions so I guess all I have to do now is make a decision.
Regards
Peter

"Starlord" <starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info > wrote in message
news:cP2dnVyitb2HaWfZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@inreach.com...
> Telescope Buyers FAQ
> http://home.inreach.com/starlord
>
> Read this first.
>
>
> --
> The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
>
> Telescope Buyers FAQ
> http://home.inreach.com/starlord
> Sidewalk Astronomy
> www.sidewalkastronomy.info
> Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
> http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
> In Garden Online Gift Shop
> http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
> Blast Off Online Gift Shop
> http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
> Astro Blog
> http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/
>
>
>
>
> "Peter Clarke" <pbclarke@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:puGdnT9VyJQpPGfZRVnyqA@bt.com...
>>I am looking to buy a telescope but never having had one before, I am
>>uncertain what size (aperture) telescope to get. I would like to see some
>>images of planets, constellations etc taken from a selection of telescopes
>>in order to see what one gets for the money. Does anyone know of any web
>>sites containing images along with information about the telescope used.
>> I am presently thinking of something around 6" or 8" reflector.
>> Also, how worthwhile (for a beginner) are the computerised GoTo systems,
>> they sound good but add a lot to the cost.
>> Thanks
>>
>
>

Date: 03 Sep 2006 08:30:00
From: starburst
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Peter Clarke wrote:
> I am looking to buy a telescope but never having had one before, I am
> uncertain what size (aperture) telescope to get. I would like to see some
> images of planets, constellations etc taken from a selection of telescopes
> in order to see what one gets for the money. Does anyone know of any web
> sites containing images along with information about the telescope used.
> I am presently thinking of something around 6" or 8" reflector.
> Also, how worthwhile (for a beginner) are the computerised GoTo systems,
> they sound good but add a lot to the cost.
> Thanks
>
>

Hi Peter,

Starlord will jump in here quickly with a link to his FAQ, and you
should take a look at it.

To look at images on the internet taken of planets and stars won't do a
lot for you, because they are usually either long exposure or summed
composites of short exposures. Some comparatively small (but very
expensive) refractors produce breathtaking photographs. If you were to
look through one of these scopes you'd be impressed by the sharpness of
the view and the high contrast, but you still wouldn't see anything like
a long-exposure image.

Your best bet would be to find a club in your area and attend one of
their public viewings. Where are you located?

As for goto, two astronomers will have three opinions. It's ultimately a
trade-off. Some people would prefer to put the extra money into
aperture, and find things manually. There's one mindset that argues that
such training is good for you as you get to know the sky better.
Others, on the other hand, argue that aperture makes no difference if
you can't find anything to look at. Personally, after a long time in the
first camp, would now grudgingly admit that goto is awfully convenient,
but only on a telescope with an aperture big enough to show you
something. Having goto on a three inch scope is a waste of money, IMHO.
If I were just starting out, I'd likely go for an Orion 8" intelliscope.

Good luck - Chris

Date: 03 Sep 2006 14:03:15
From: Peter Clarke
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

"starburst" <nope@nospam.net > wrote in message
news:edehs6$fhu$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> Peter Clarke wrote:
>> I am looking to buy a telescope but never having had one before, I am
>> uncertain what size (aperture) telescope to get. I would like to see some
>> images of planets, constellations etc taken from a selection of
>> telescopes in order to see what one gets for the money. Does anyone know
>> of any web sites containing images along with information about the
>> telescope used.
>> I am presently thinking of something around 6" or 8" reflector.
>> Also, how worthwhile (for a beginner) are the computerised GoTo systems,
>> they sound good but add a lot to the cost.
>> Thanks
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> Starlord will jump in here quickly with a link to his FAQ, and you should
> take a look at it.
>
> To look at images on the internet taken of planets and stars won't do a
> lot for you, because they are usually either long exposure or summed
> composites of short exposures. Some comparatively small (but very
> expensive) refractors produce breathtaking photographs. If you were to
> look through one of these scopes you'd be impressed by the sharpness of
> the view and the high contrast, but you still wouldn't see anything like a
> long-exposure image.
>
> Your best bet would be to find a club in your area and attend one of their
> public viewings. Where are you located?
>
> As for goto, two astronomers will have three opinions. It's ultimately a
> trade-off. Some people would prefer to put the extra money into aperture,
> and find things manually. There's one mindset that argues that such
> training is good for you as you get to know the sky better. Others, on
> the other hand, argue that aperture makes no difference if you can't find
> anything to look at. Personally, after a long time in the first camp,
> would now grudgingly admit that goto is awfully convenient, but only on a
> telescope with an aperture big enough to show you something. Having goto
> on a three inch scope is a waste of money, IMHO. If I were just starting
> out, I'd likely go for an Orion 8" intelliscope.
>
> Good luck - Chris
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Thanks Chris for your response. It is very helpful. Since posting the
question, I have looked at the Meade and Celestron web sites and found user
produced photos on them. But as you say, many of these are long exposture
and it is still difficult to determine what you would actually see looking
through the eyepiece. That said, I think you are right that an 8" is about
the right size for me. I have not checked out Orion telescopes up to now, so
that is my next move.

I live near Ross on Wye so have good dark skies. I believe there is a club
in Monmouth (near by) and will check this out.

Regards

Date: 03 Sep 2006 18:10:52
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Date: 04 Sep 2006 18:31:49
From: Peter Clarke
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Greg,
Thanks for the post. I shall study your web site.

Regards
Peter

"Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:ee4d8$44fb6f09$4212a5f6$13655@TULAROSA.NET...
> Peter Clarke wrote:
>> I am looking to buy a telescope but never having had one before, I am
>> uncertain what size (aperture) telescope to get. I would like to see some
>> images of planets, constellations etc taken from a selection of
>> telescopes in order to see what one gets for the money. Does anyone know
>> of any web sites containing images along with information about the
>> telescope used.
>> I am presently thinking of something around 6" or 8" reflector.
>> Also, how worthwhile (for a beginner) are the computerised GoTo systems,
>> they sound good but add a lot to the cost.
>
> If you are interested in deep sky observing I have some pages that might
> help you decide:
>
> http://www.skyhound.com/sh/dso_1.html
>
> Clear skies,
> Greg
>
> --
> Greg Crinklaw
> Astronomical Software Developer
> Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
>
> SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
> Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
> Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
>
> To reply take out your eye

Date: 03 Sep 2006 16:28:15
From: John Banister
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Peter try this web page: http://www.belmontnc.4dw.net/Beginners.htm

It has good stuff about scopes and also has some photos which do a pretty
good job of showing what stuff actually looks like at the scope. The only
thing I would add to the site is in the area of Go-To systems. They leave
out the Celestron CG-5 go-to mount, which is a good performer, visually, and
priced quite reasonably. I started last Dec with the C10-NGT (10" newtonian
on CG-5 go to mount) and have been pleased. If you lean to an 8" scope, I
would think that the C8-NGT would be worthy of consideration.

-John

"Peter Clarke" <pbclarke@btopenworld.com > wrote in message
news:puGdnT9VyJQpPGfZRVnyqA@bt.com...
>I am looking to buy a telescope but never having had one before, I am
>uncertain what size (aperture) telescope to get. I would like to see some
>images of planets, constellations etc taken from a selection of telescopes
>in order to see what one gets for the money. Does anyone know of any web
>sites containing images along with information about the telescope used.
> I am presently thinking of something around 6" or 8" reflector.
> Also, how worthwhile (for a beginner) are the computerised GoTo systems,
> they sound good but add a lot to the cost.
> Thanks
>

Date: 04 Sep 2006 18:30:31
From: Peter Clarke
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

John,
Thanks for the advice, I have been thinking about a Celestron so your
comments are welcome.
Regards
Peter

"John Banister" <banister@9plus.net > wrote in message
news:edfi1m01gps@enews4.newsguy.com...
> Peter try this web page: http://www.belmontnc.4dw.net/Beginners.htm
>
> It has good stuff about scopes and also has some photos which do a pretty
> good job of showing what stuff actually looks like at the scope. The only
> thing I would add to the site is in the area of Go-To systems. They leave
> out the Celestron CG-5 go-to mount, which is a good performer, visually,
> and priced quite reasonably. I started last Dec with the C10-NGT (10"
> newtonian on CG-5 go to mount) and have been pleased. If you lean to an
> 8" scope, I would think that the C8-NGT would be worthy of consideration.
>
> -John
>
> "Peter Clarke" <pbclarke@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:puGdnT9VyJQpPGfZRVnyqA@bt.com...
>>I am looking to buy a telescope but never having had one before, I am
>>uncertain what size (aperture) telescope to get. I would like to see some
>>images of planets, constellations etc taken from a selection of telescopes
>>in order to see what one gets for the money. Does anyone know of any web
>>sites containing images along with information about the telescope used.
>> I am presently thinking of something around 6" or 8" reflector.
>> Also, how worthwhile (for a beginner) are the computerised GoTo systems,
>> they sound good but add a lot to the cost.
>> Thanks
>>
>
>

Date: 04 Sep 2006 13:14:46
From: John Banister
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Just a dissenting voice from a new guy who went the Go-to route. I have
found Celestron's system easy to understand and implement and very, very
accurate. While this cost a bit more money (about $300, if I remember) it
has been well worth it. The ability to actually see neat stuff the first
time out and every time since has really peaked my interest in the hobby.
In fact, in my first few sessions I was looking at so much stuff that I had
to slow myself down and concentrate on a few good objects each session.

For me, one of the best aspects of go-to was the automatic tracking. That
way the object stayed in the field of view when I put in the wrong eyepiece
or had to run back into the house to get something that I had forgotten --
all new guy tendencies. The other night I centered up Jupiter in the
twilight and looked for the Great Red Spot and Red Spot Jr while it was
still light outside. When they had rotated out of good view, I just left
the scope on Jupiter and went back in the house for a couple of hours until
it got dark. When I came back Jupiter was still in view of a low power
eyepiece.

Others seem to disagree, but I'm a dedicated Go-To guy.

-John

"Peter Clarke" <pbclarke@btopenworld.com > wrote in message
news:0cKdnc-V1Lao_2HZnZ2dnUVZ8qOdnZ2d@bt.com...
> John,
> Thanks for the advice, I have been thinking about a Celestron so your
> comments are welcome.
> Regards
> Peter
>
> "John Banister" <banister@9plus.net> wrote in message
> news:edfi1m01gps@enews4.newsguy.com...
>> Peter try this web page: http://www.belmontnc.4dw.net/Beginners.htm
>>
>> It has good stuff about scopes and also has some photos which do a pretty
>> good job of showing what stuff actually looks like at the scope. The
>> only thing I would add to the site is in the area of Go-To systems. They
>> leave out the Celestron CG-5 go-to mount, which is a good performer,
>> visually, and priced quite reasonably. I started last Dec with the
>> C10-NGT (10" newtonian on CG-5 go to mount) and have been pleased. If
>> you lean to an 8" scope, I would think that the C8-NGT would be worthy of
>> consideration.
>>
>> -John
>>
>> "Peter Clarke" <pbclarke@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:puGdnT9VyJQpPGfZRVnyqA@bt.com...
>>>I am looking to buy a telescope but never having had one before, I am
>>>uncertain what size (aperture) telescope to get. I would like to see some
>>>images of planets, constellations etc taken from a selection of
>>>telescopes in order to see what one gets for the money. Does anyone know
>>>of any web sites containing images along with information about the
>>>telescope used.
>>> I am presently thinking of something around 6" or 8" reflector.
>>> Also, how worthwhile (for a beginner) are the computerised GoTo systems,
>>> they sound good but add a lot to the cost.
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Date: 04 Sep 2006 20:06:32
From: Peter Clarke
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

John,
Thanks for telling me your experiences. The GoTo system sounds really good
but without experience of use it is not possible to tell just how helpful it
really is. Your experience indicates that it is a worthwhile purchase.

Regards
peter

"John Banister" <banister@9plus.net > wrote in message
news:edhqf202kl6@enews4.newsguy.com...
> Just a dissenting voice from a new guy who went the Go-to route. I have
> found Celestron's system easy to understand and implement and very, very
> accurate. While this cost a bit more money (about $300, if I remember) it
> has been well worth it. The ability to actually see neat stuff the first
> time out and every time since has really peaked my interest in the hobby.
> In fact, in my first few sessions I was looking at so much stuff that I
> had to slow myself down and concentrate on a few good objects each
> session.
>
> For me, one of the best aspects of go-to was the automatic tracking. That
> way the object stayed in the field of view when I put in the wrong
> eyepiece or had to run back into the house to get something that I had
> forgotten -- all new guy tendencies. The other night I centered up
> Jupiter in the twilight and looked for the Great Red Spot and Red Spot Jr
> while it was still light outside. When they had rotated out of good view,
> I just left the scope on Jupiter and went back in the house for a couple
> of hours until it got dark. When I came back Jupiter was still in view of
> a low power eyepiece.
>
> Others seem to disagree, but I'm a dedicated Go-To guy.
>
> -John
>
>
> "Peter Clarke" <pbclarke@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:0cKdnc-V1Lao_2HZnZ2dnUVZ8qOdnZ2d@bt.com...
>> John,
>> Thanks for the advice, I have been thinking about a Celestron so your
>> comments are welcome.
>> Regards
>> Peter
>>
>> "John Banister" <banister@9plus.net> wrote in message
>> news:edfi1m01gps@enews4.newsguy.com...
>>> Peter try this web page: http://www.belmontnc.4dw.net/Beginners.htm
>>>
>>> It has good stuff about scopes and also has some photos which do a
>>> pretty good job of showing what stuff actually looks like at the scope.
>>> The only thing I would add to the site is in the area of Go-To systems.
>>> They leave out the Celestron CG-5 go-to mount, which is a good
>>> performer, visually, and priced quite reasonably. I started last Dec
>>> with the C10-NGT (10" newtonian on CG-5 go to mount) and have been
>>> pleased. If you lean to an 8" scope, I would think that the C8-NGT
>>> would be worthy of consideration.
>>>
>>> -John
>>>
>>> "Peter Clarke" <pbclarke@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>>> news:puGdnT9VyJQpPGfZRVnyqA@bt.com...
>>>>I am looking to buy a telescope but never having had one before, I am
>>>>uncertain what size (aperture) telescope to get. I would like to see
>>>>some images of planets, constellations etc taken from a selection of
>>>>telescopes in order to see what one gets for the money. Does anyone know
>>>>of any web sites containing images along with information about the
>>>>telescope used.
>>>> I am presently thinking of something around 6" or 8" reflector.
>>>> Also, how worthwhile (for a beginner) are the computerised GoTo
>>>> systems, they sound good but add a lot to the cost.
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Date: 04 Sep 2006 16:07:49
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Peter Clarke wrote:
> John,
> Thanks for telling me your experiences. The GoTo system sounds really good
> but without experience of use it is not possible to tell just how helpful it
> really is. Your experience indicates that it is a worthwhile purchase.

Let's be candid here. The reason some people suggest not going the GOTO
route as a newbie is that it can create an atmosphere of instant
gratification, buzzing quickly from one object to the next.

Most astronomers who have been in the hobby for a very long time know
that visual observing is all about patience and taking the time to look.
It has often been noted that some newbies with GOTO scopes go from one
object to another hastily, like flipping channels on the TV. And it has
also been noted that for many of these people their interest in
astronomy is just as fleeting...

Now that does not mean that using GOTO will eventually lead you to only
a fleeting interest in visual astronomy--there are many examples to the
contrary. But it does mean that should you go the GOTO route you should
be aware of the instant gratification trap.

Clear skies,
Greg

P.S. To the usual GOTO people with low self esteem who may think I just
made a personal attack against them: whine and throws verbal fits all
you want, I'm not going to be pulled into an argument. I'll just
silently add you to my kill file.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 05 Sep 2006 10:52:22
From: Roger Hamlett
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

"Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:b36a8$44fca395$4212a5f6$10485@TULAROSA.NET...
> Peter Clarke wrote:
>> John,
>> Thanks for telling me your experiences. The GoTo system sounds really
>> good but without experience of use it is not possible to tell just how
>> helpful it really is. Your experience indicates that it is a worthwhile
>> purchase.
>
> Let's be candid here. The reason some people suggest not going the GOTO
> route as a newbie is that it can create an atmosphere of instant
> gratification, buzzing quickly from one object to the next.
>
> Most astronomers who have been in the hobby for a very long time know
> that visual observing is all about patience and taking the time to look.
> It has often been noted that some newbies with GOTO scopes go from one
> object to another hastily, like flipping channels on the TV. And it has
> also been noted that for many of these people their interest in
> astronomy is just as fleeting...
>
> Now that does not mean that using GOTO will eventually lead you to only
> a fleeting interest in visual astronomy--there are many examples to the
> contrary. But it does mean that should you go the GOTO route you should
> be aware of the instant gratification trap.
>
> Clear skies,
> Greg
>
> P.S. To the usual GOTO people with low self esteem who may think I just
> made a personal attack against them: whine and throws verbal fits all
> you want, I'm not going to be pulled into an argument. I'll just
> silently add you to my kill file.
It is perhaps also worth asking what sort of skies the original poster
has?. A 'non goto' scope, running under nice dark skies is one thing, but
in many areas suffering from light pollution, goto becomes increasingly
useful.
Star hopping, in a country site, can be a real pleasure, bringing the
thrill of identiying the object, and with well dark adjusted vision, the
'magic' of just how much can be seen. The same scope bought into a
semi-urban enviroment, becomes somewhat less thrilling.... :-(

Best Wishes

Date: 05 Sep 2006 08:26:07
From: Richard Adams
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Roger Hamlett wrote:

> "Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:b36a8$44fca395$4212a5f6$10485@TULAROSA.NET...
>
>>Peter Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>John,
>>>Thanks for telling me your experiences. The GoTo system sounds really
>>>good but without experience of use it is not possible to tell just how
>>>helpful it really is. Your experience indicates that it is a worthwhile
>>>purchase.
>>
>>Let's be candid here. The reason some people suggest not going the GOTO
>>route as a newbie is that it can create an atmosphere of instant
>>gratification, buzzing quickly from one object to the next.
>>
>>Most astronomers who have been in the hobby for a very long time know
>>that visual observing is all about patience and taking the time to look.
>>It has often been noted that some newbies with GOTO scopes go from one
>>object to another hastily, like flipping channels on the TV. And it has
>>also been noted that for many of these people their interest in
>>astronomy is just as fleeting...
>>
>>Now that does not mean that using GOTO will eventually lead you to only
>>a fleeting interest in visual astronomy--there are many examples to the
>>contrary. But it does mean that should you go the GOTO route you should
>>be aware of the instant gratification trap.
>>
>>Clear skies,
>>Greg
>>
>>P.S. To the usual GOTO people with low self esteem who may think I just
>>made a personal attack against them: whine and throws verbal fits all
>>you want, I'm not going to be pulled into an argument. I'll just
>>silently add you to my kill file.
>
> It is perhaps also worth asking what sort of skies the original poster
> has?. A 'non goto' scope, running under nice dark skies is one thing, but
> in many areas suffering from light pollution, goto becomes increasingly
> useful.
> Star hopping, in a country site, can be a real pleasure, bringing the
> thrill of identiying the object, and with well dark adjusted vision, the
> 'magic' of just how much can be seen. The same scope bought into a
> semi-urban enviroment, becomes somewhat less thrilling.... :-(
>
> Best Wishes
>
>

Roger, I'm certian to add myself to Greg's killfile, but I don't see the
problem with GOTO he does. Without a lot of bias I can't align myself
with the anti-GOTO crowd. I started with a GOTO scope and my current
one has the feature, but I tend away from jumping from object to object
like a cosmic tourist.

One night I teamed up with a newbie at a star party and we went through
all the Messier clusters in Sagittarius, only using the tracking
feature. He was trying to view with binos, but left a the tripod
adapter home and some small, faint objects weren't resolving.

I tried the GOTO for one faint object, once and it pointed at the ground
so something was off kilter - I'll sort that and in the end will
probably use the GOTO feature again at some points, but not as my
primary observation mode. It's like having a spare tyre in the boot,
nice to know it's there if you need it, but that doesn't mean I nip out
and rotate my tyres every few miles down the road.

IMHO jeering at those who like GOTO isn't going to win amateur astronomy
and fans. If someone wants to chart their evening view with a computer
or simply use Autostar and have the scope slew from object to object who
the hell am I to tell them they are wrong? Sounds a bit fascist to go
about dictating how people should properly observe the cosmos or not at
all. If GOTO gets them into it and they stay, one more winner. If they
don't, it probably was never meant to be. Either way I'll still be out
there at star parties setting up my scope for people to gawp at Jupiter
until the queue has wound down and then shift to what I'm there for.
It's all a bit of fun sharing and hearing oohs and aahs. And a bit
rewarding when some hang back from the crowd and wish to see M13, the
Ring or Eagle nebulas.

Date: 05 Sep 2006 08:33:54
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Richard Adams wrote:
> IMHO jeering at those who like GOTO isn't going to win amateur astronomy
> and fans. I

I DID NO SUCH THING.

PLONK.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 05 Sep 2006 12:22:14
From: Richard Adams
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Greg Crinklaw wrote:

> Richard Adams wrote:
>
>> IMHO jeering at those who like GOTO isn't going to win amateur
>> astronomy and fans. I
>
>
> I DID NO SUCH THING.
>
> PLONK.

Really now.

Your generalisations and assumptions would lead one to think the GOTO is
what makes lazy, instant gratification-seeking "astronomers" Rather
than pose the theory that people may initially be lured into astronomy
by such quick and easy features, who wouldn't enter such a realm.

To whit:

"P.S. To the usual GOTO people with low self esteem who may think I just
made a personal attack against them: whine and throws verbal fits all
you want, I'm not going to be pulled into an argument. I'll just
silently add you to my kill file."

Your bias shows, Greg.

As much as the neophite needs to steer clear of "gimmicks" and "hype",
he or she need also beware the idealist who only knows one true path and
slanders others. i.e. "You're not a real astronomer unless you only use
a Dob" or "If you expect pretty pictures in a 90mm from Discovery Store
you should just stick to Hubble pictures."

We all start somewhere and go where we will.

Date: 05 Sep 2006 10:58:24
From: John Banister
Subject: Usenet Astronomy (was Re: Selecting a telescope)

Slightly changing the subject, one wonders if you forgot your previous
commitment to silence, kill file-wise? In any case, if I merit the same
fate, please stick to your original guns and keep quiet about it. If I must
endure a fate worse than death, please allow me to remain blissfully
ignorant. ;-).

More below the quotes.

"Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:b36a8$44fca395$4212a5f6$10485@TULAROSA.NET...

> P.S. To the usual GOTO people with low self esteem who may think I just
> made a personal attack against them: whine and throws verbal fits all you
> want, I'm not going to be pulled into an argument. I'll just silently add
> you to my kill file.

And

"Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:8ed2$44fd8ab0$4212a5f6$32504@TULAROSA.NET...

> Richard Adams wrote:
>> IMHO jeering at those who like GOTO isn't going to win amateur astronomy
>> and fans. I
>
> I DID NO SUCH THING.
>
> PLONK.

Which brings me to the new subject. Or maybe it's just an observation.

I've been on S.A.A. for a number of months and have enjoyed it, as I have
other Internet astronomy forums. I have gotten lots of help, which I
continue to appreciate. I have been on Usenet for well over a decade in
other areas, mostly forums having to do with guns and military aviation.
During that time I endured trolls, flame wars, and just plain impolite
folks. My guess is that all Usenet disciplines have this type of activity in
about the same proportion. This is certainly true with SAA.

What seems to be different here is the low quality of repartee. The
comebacks, "flames", and other rejoinders are hardly worth reading. I have
yet to hear anything innovative or at least interesting. The way you (or,
more accurately, some of you) "dis" each other is really of poor quality,
and I must say that I am disappointed. Most of it seems to be in the
"you're an idiot" class with the occasional name calling ("atheist",
"religious zealot", "nonscientific", etc.) interspersed. It is really very
bush league and hardly worth reading. And these kill file threats really
belong on the play ground. Can't you come up with something witty,
intelligent, or new?

I enjoy a good flame war as much as the next guy, as long as folks are
interesting in what they say and how they say it. Sadly, SAA if failing in
this. I've heard better on alt.trucks.chevy. If you need a guide, join
tx.guns and wait for the next flame war there. You will see a much higher
class of crassness and incivility.

So, I encourage everyone to raise the level of discourse. Try to be
interesting. If you want to be
nasty, take some time and work at it. You can do better
(or is it worse?).

-John

Date: 05 Sep 2006 12:46:05
From: Richard Adams
Subject: Re: Usenet Astronomy (was Re: Selecting a telescope)

John Banister wrote:
[snip]
>
> I enjoy a good flame war as much as the next guy, as long as folks are
> interesting in what they say and how they say it. Sadly, SAA if failing in
> this. I've heard better on alt.trucks.chevy. If you need a guide, join
> tx.guns and wait for the next flame war there. You will see a much higher
> class of crassness and incivility.
>
> So, I encourage everyone to raise the level of discourse. Try to be
> interesting. If you want to be
> nasty, take some time and work at it. You can do better
> (or is it worse?).
>
> -John

John,

By and large I find s.a.a. a very interesting and informative group.
One does need to filter out the political, religious and 'hoax' threads
(mostly instigated and crossposted by the same perpetrator Daniel
wossname) It's amusing in small doses, but gets tiring and is a waste
of bandwidth to argue (two reasones never argue with an idiot: 1) you'll
never win 2) they'll enjoy it more than you will.)

I was particularly put off by Greg's swipe as that was within character
of amateur astronomy, emphasis on amateur may be added as it was in
reply to someone looking to enter the field. Like all fields it's good
to obtain information when getting started (as I was requesting while
considering a Barlow option recently.) If someone offers good
experience with equipment, that's helpful. If someone offers negative
experience with equipment, that's very helpful. If someone just comes
in and says XXX is garbage and only attractive to cretins, that's not
helpful.

Clear skies,
Richard

Date: 06 Sep 2006 10:38:38
From: John Banister
Subject: Re: Usenet Astronomy (was Re: Selecting a telescope)

Richard, I tend to agree. I'm mostly a listener here and must admit that
the majority of posts responding to new guys seem (and I emphasise the word
"seem") to come from a preconceived bias on the part of the responder.
This is not always the case, but it does appear quite often, IMHO. Rare
indeed are those who can fairly give both sides of a telescope issue,
indicating the pluses and minuses of both. Those are the folks I listen
to.

-John

"Richard Adams" <ackthpt@concentric.net > wrote in message
news:edk9kd$j1o@dispatch.concentric.net...
> John Banister wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> I enjoy a good flame war as much as the next guy, as long as folks are
>> interesting in what they say and how they say it. Sadly, SAA if failing
>> in
>> this. I've heard better on alt.trucks.chevy. If you need a guide, join
>> tx.guns and wait for the next flame war there. You will see a much higher
>> class of crassness and incivility.
>>
>> So, I encourage everyone to raise the level of discourse. Try to be
>> interesting. If you want to be
>> nasty, take some time and work at it. You can do better
>> (or is it worse?).
>>
>> -John
>
> John,
>
> By and large I find s.a.a. a very interesting and informative group. One
> does need to filter out the political, religious and 'hoax' threads
> (mostly instigated and crossposted by the same perpetrator Daniel
> wossname) It's amusing in small doses, but gets tiring and is a waste of
> bandwidth to argue (two reasones never argue with an idiot: 1) you'll
> never win 2) they'll enjoy it more than you will.)
>
> I was particularly put off by Greg's swipe as that was within character of
> amateur astronomy, emphasis on amateur may be added as it was in reply to
> someone looking to enter the field. Like all fields it's good to obtain
> information when getting started (as I was requesting while considering a
> Barlow option recently.) If someone offers good experience with
> equipment, that's helpful. If someone offers negative experience with
> equipment, that's very helpful. If someone just comes in and says XXX is
> garbage and only attractive to cretins, that's not helpful.
>
> Clear skies,
> Richard

Date: 06 Sep 2006 21:49:24
From: Richard Adams
Subject: Re: Usenet Astronomy (was Re: Selecting a telescope)

John,

I find there are decent enough people on these groups who can easily
offer a fair assessment, pro and con of equipment. I'm put off by
anyone who chides another for their choice. We all invest money and
time into our hobbies and the last thing any of us want to see is
someone berating our choices. I took considerabl exception with Greg's
post because his style of prose was heavy on generalisation and
predisposition. I mentally file that sentiment under, "see what other's
say."

As for my personal choices of equipment, I'm somewhere along the
learning curve, further than I was with my first telescope. Aside from
Starlord's 3 Minutes and he's all-systems-go, I find larger apperature
and/or greater sophistication leads to more care and logistics in
getting packed, to the site and getting set up, taking down,
transporting home in the wee hours and stowing before sweet slumber.
This alone may be found daunting to a novice.

You really have to want to go out and risk clouds, fog, wind, dew and
other pitfalls to pack up everything and head for the hills around here.
A few times now I've been sent packing too early. If I was still new
to astronomy I might be easily put-off by the thin return of some nights.

Ah, but on a clear night it can all be so much worth it.

Clear skies,
Richard

John Banister wrote:
> Richard, I tend to agree. I'm mostly a listener here and must admit that
> the majority of posts responding to new guys seem (and I emphasise the word
> "seem") to come from a preconceived bias on the part of the responder.
> This is not always the case, but it does appear quite often, IMHO. Rare
> indeed are those who can fairly give both sides of a telescope issue,
> indicating the pluses and minuses of both. Those are the folks I listen
> to.
>
> -John
>
> "Richard Adams" <ackthpt@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:edk9kd$j1o@dispatch.concentric.net...
>
>>John Banister wrote:
>>[snip]
>>
>>>I enjoy a good flame war as much as the next guy, as long as folks are
>>>interesting in what they say and how they say it. Sadly, SAA if failing
>>>in
>>>this. I've heard better on alt.trucks.chevy. If you need a guide, join
>>>tx.guns and wait for the next flame war there. You will see a much higher
>>>class of crassness and incivility.
>>>
>>>So, I encourage everyone to raise the level of discourse. Try to be
>>>interesting. If you want to be
>>>nasty, take some time and work at it. You can do better
>>>(or is it worse?).
>>>
>>>-John
>>
>>John,
>>
>>By and large I find s.a.a. a very interesting and informative group. One
>>does need to filter out the political, religious and 'hoax' threads
>>(mostly instigated and crossposted by the same perpetrator Daniel
>>wossname) It's amusing in small doses, but gets tiring and is a waste of
>>bandwidth to argue (two reasones never argue with an idiot: 1) you'll
>>never win 2) they'll enjoy it more than you will.)
>>
>>I was particularly put off by Greg's swipe as that was within character of
>>amateur astronomy, emphasis on amateur may be added as it was in reply to
>>someone looking to enter the field. Like all fields it's good to obtain
>>information when getting started (as I was requesting while considering a
>>Barlow option recently.) If someone offers good experience with
>>equipment, that's helpful. If someone offers negative experience with
>>equipment, that's very helpful. If someone just comes in and says XXX is
>>garbage and only attractive to cretins, that's not helpful.
>>
>>Clear skies,
>>Richard
>
>
>

Date: 05 Sep 2006 11:37:54
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: Usenet Astronomy (was Re: Selecting a telescope)

John Banister wrote:
> I enjoy a good flame war as much as the next guy, as long as folks are
> interesting in what they say and how they say it. Sadly, SAA if failing in
> this. I've heard better on alt.trucks.chevy. If you need a guide, join
> tx.guns and wait for the next flame war there. You will see a much higher
> class of crassness and incivility.
>
> So, I encourage everyone to raise the level of discourse. Try to be
> interesting. If you want to be
> nasty, take some time and work at it. You can do better
> (or is it worse?).

Do you have anything worthwhile to contribute about astronomy, or are
you simply the resident posting critic?

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 05 Sep 2006 07:20:25
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

I feel it depends on the person themselves and what they want to do. Myself
I do sidewalk astronomy, I also enjoy just slowly moving threw the star
fields and using a map to maybe pick up a few objects and I'm also a Dob
user too. When I set up on the sidewalk, the north star is almost unseeable
from that spot and only the brightest objects can be seen.

I say each to their own.

--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/

"Richard Adams" <ackthpt@concentric.net > wrote in message
news:edjqcv$iv5@dispatch.concentric.net...
> Roger Hamlett wrote:
>
>> "Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:b36a8$44fca395$4212a5f6$10485@TULAROSA.NET...
>>
>>>Peter Clarke wrote:
>>>
>>>>John,
>>>>Thanks for telling me your experiences. The GoTo system sounds really
>>>>good but without experience of use it is not possible to tell just how
>>>>helpful it really is. Your experience indicates that it is a worthwhile
>>>>purchase.
>>>
>>>Let's be candid here. The reason some people suggest not going the GOTO
>>>route as a newbie is that it can create an atmosphere of instant
>>>gratification, buzzing quickly from one object to the next.
>>>
>>>Most astronomers who have been in the hobby for a very long time know
>>>that visual observing is all about patience and taking the time to look.
>>>It has often been noted that some newbies with GOTO scopes go from one
>>>object to another hastily, like flipping channels on the TV. And it has
>>>also been noted that for many of these people their interest in astronomy
>>>is just as fleeting...
>>>
>>>Now that does not mean that using GOTO will eventually lead you to only a
>>>fleeting interest in visual astronomy--there are many examples to the
>>>contrary. But it does mean that should you go the GOTO route you should
>>>be aware of the instant gratification trap.
>>>
>>>Clear skies,
>>>Greg
>>>
>>>P.S. To the usual GOTO people with low self esteem who may think I just
>>>made a personal attack against them: whine and throws verbal fits all you
>>>want, I'm not going to be pulled into an argument. I'll just silently
>>>add you to my kill file.
>>
>> It is perhaps also worth asking what sort of skies the original poster
>> has?. A 'non goto' scope, running under nice dark skies is one thing, but
>> in many areas suffering from light pollution, goto becomes increasingly
>> useful.
>> Star hopping, in a country site, can be a real pleasure, bringing the
>> thrill of identiying the object, and with well dark adjusted vision, the
>> 'magic' of just how much can be seen. The same scope bought into a
>> semi-urban enviroment, becomes somewhat less thrilling.... :-(
>>
>> Best Wishes
>
> Roger, I'm certian to add myself to Greg's killfile, but I don't see the
> problem with GOTO he does. Without a lot of bias I can't align myself
> with the anti-GOTO crowd. I started with a GOTO scope and my current one
> has the feature, but I tend away from jumping from object to object like a
> cosmic tourist.
>
> One night I teamed up with a newbie at a star party and we went through
> all the Messier clusters in Sagittarius, only using the tracking feature.
> He was trying to view with binos, but left a the tripod adapter home and
> some small, faint objects weren't resolving.
>
> I tried the GOTO for one faint object, once and it pointed at the ground
> so something was off kilter - I'll sort that and in the end will probably
> use the GOTO feature again at some points, but not as my primary
> observation mode. It's like having a spare tyre in the boot, nice to know
> it's there if you need it, but that doesn't mean I nip out and rotate my
> tyres every few miles down the road.
>
> IMHO jeering at those who like GOTO isn't going to win amateur astronomy
> and fans. If someone wants to chart their evening view with a computer or
> simply use Autostar and have the scope slew from object to object who the
> hell am I to tell them they are wrong? Sounds a bit fascist to go about
> dictating how people should properly observe the cosmos or not at all. If
> GOTO gets them into it and they stay, one more winner. If they don't, it
> probably was never meant to be. Either way I'll still be out there at
> star parties setting up my scope for people to gawp at Jupiter until the
> queue has wound down and then shift to what I'm there for. It's all a bit
> of fun sharing and hearing oohs and aahs. And a bit rewarding when some
> hang back from the crowd and wish to see M13, the Ring or Eagle nebulas.

Date: 07 Sep 2006 09:54:02
From: Bob G.
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

>It is perhaps also worth asking what sort of skies the original poster
>has?. A 'non goto' scope, running under nice dark skies is one thing, but
>in many areas suffering from light pollution, goto becomes increasingly
>useful.
>Star hopping, in a country site, can be a real pleasure, bringing the
>thrill of identiying the object, and with well dark adjusted vision, the
>'magic' of just how much can be seen. The same scope bought into a
>semi-urban enviroment, becomes somewhat less thrilling.... :-(
>
>Best Wishes
>
=================
Like many of Us I own more then one scope ...I own 4 one a very small
grab and go really cheap 60 mm Meade Refractor...mostly plastic that I
keep in my pickup truck...Hey when the wife is shopping in the Mall I
can be outside just enjoying myself with it...

My main scope is an 8 inch Go-To SCT (Celestron).. and I love the
Go-To "deal"... simply because at home I suffer from a Southern Sky
that is "lite up" to say the least...

I honestly enjoy the hunt of star hopping BUT like the above poster
noted... poor skies make it hard to do sometimes..

Bob G.

Date: 08 Sep 2006 22:38:36
From: Peter Clarke
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Bob,
You asked about my skies. I live in the country so get pretty dark skies.
The scope that seems most appealing to me at the moment is the Celestron CPC
8" with twin fork mount. The reason I like this model is that it appears to
be very user friendly, compact, easy and quick to set up and light(ish). The
GoTo system would appear to be a great time saver, although according to
some of the posts, these systems do not always work that well. I would like
any comments anyone has.
Regards
Peter

"Bob G." <rg327_remove_@adelphia.net > wrote in message
news:nh80g2dgm24f1m2cp6hh3u302otflfr6ch@4ax.com...
>
>>It is perhaps also worth asking what sort of skies the original poster
>>has?. A 'non goto' scope, running under nice dark skies is one thing, but
>>in many areas suffering from light pollution, goto becomes increasingly
>>useful.
>>Star hopping, in a country site, can be a real pleasure, bringing the
>>thrill of identiying the object, and with well dark adjusted vision, the
>>'magic' of just how much can be seen. The same scope bought into a
>>semi-urban enviroment, becomes somewhat less thrilling.... :-(
>>
>>Best Wishes
>>
> =================
> Like many of Us I own more then one scope ...I own 4 one a very small
> grab and go really cheap 60 mm Meade Refractor...mostly plastic that I
> keep in my pickup truck...Hey when the wife is shopping in the Mall I
> can be outside just enjoying myself with it...
>
> My main scope is an 8 inch Go-To SCT (Celestron).. and I love the
> Go-To "deal"... simply because at home I suffer from a Southern Sky
> that is "lite up" to say the least...
>
> I honestly enjoy the hunt of star hopping BUT like the above poster
> noted... poor skies make it hard to do sometimes..
>
> Bob G.

Date: 09 Sep 2006 00:12:33
From: David Knisely
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Peter Clarke wrote:

> You asked about my skies. I live in the country so get pretty dark skies.
> The scope that seems most appealing to me at the moment is the Celestron CPC
> 8" with twin fork mount. The reason I like this model is that it appears to
> be very user friendly, compact, easy and quick to set up and light(ish). The
> GoTo system would appear to be a great time saver, although according to
> some of the posts, these systems do not always work that well. I would like
> any comments anyone has.

Well, a decent 8 inch CPC will work pretty well, but again, in the
altazimuth mode, they will have a pointing accuracy of around 10 to 20
arc minutes from the desired object. While with some care with the
alignment, these scopes may occasionally put the target close to the
center of the field of view, but you should not expect them to do this
consistently. Thus, you will need at least one good eyepiece with a
true field of view width of 40 arc minutes or more for the "finding"
part of the Go-To operation. Once you have the object in the field of
view, it is quite easy to "tweak" things and get it centered. Clear
skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely KA0CZC@navix.net
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 13th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 23-28, 2006, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

Date: 08 Sep 2006 21:22:51
From: Richard Adams
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Peter,

Though I do not have that particular scope I think you will be quite
pleased with what is available to such an apperature. I have GoTo with
my 10" Schmidt-Newtonian, but use it for the tracking ability, which is
rather a nice feature, particularly at higher magnifications.

Your next feat will be sorting out eyepieces, a starter set of Plossls
is a good beginning. I have moved up a few eyepieces to wider views, 65
degrees are lovely for higher magnification of wide objects, such as
nebulas as an example.

Get used to a basic set first to see how much you use the scope and
where your interests take you to determine where you'd like to add
emphasis to your viewing. If you like nebulas I recommend getting an
Oxygen 3 (O-III) filter.

Winter is coming to the northern hemisphere and along with the cooler
temperatures will come clearer nights. Orion, with it's wonders awaits
just around the corner.

Clear skies,
Richard

Peter Clarke wrote:

> Bob,
> You asked about my skies. I live in the country so get pretty dark skies.
> The scope that seems most appealing to me at the moment is the Celestron CPC
> 8" with twin fork mount. The reason I like this model is that it appears to
> be very user friendly, compact, easy and quick to set up and light(ish). The
> GoTo system would appear to be a great time saver, although according to
> some of the posts, these systems do not always work that well. I would like
> any comments anyone has.
> Regards
> Peter
>
> "Bob G." <rg327_remove_@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:nh80g2dgm24f1m2cp6hh3u302otflfr6ch@4ax.com...
>
>>>It is perhaps also worth asking what sort of skies the original poster
>>>has?. A 'non goto' scope, running under nice dark skies is one thing, but
>>>in many areas suffering from light pollution, goto becomes increasingly
>>>useful.
>>>Star hopping, in a country site, can be a real pleasure, bringing the
>>>thrill of identiying the object, and with well dark adjusted vision, the
>>>'magic' of just how much can be seen. The same scope bought into a
>>>semi-urban enviroment, becomes somewhat less thrilling.... :-(
>>>
>>>Best Wishes
>>>
>>
>>=================
>>Like many of Us I own more then one scope ...I own 4 one a very small
>>grab and go really cheap 60 mm Meade Refractor...mostly plastic that I
>>keep in my pickup truck...Hey when the wife is shopping in the Mall I
>>can be outside just enjoying myself with it...
>>
>>My main scope is an 8 inch Go-To SCT (Celestron).. and I love the
>>Go-To "deal"... simply because at home I suffer from a Southern Sky
>>that is "lite up" to say the least...
>>
>>I honestly enjoy the hunt of star hopping BUT like the above poster
>>noted... poor skies make it hard to do sometimes..
>>
>>Bob G.
>
>
>

Date: 05 Sep 2006 20:15:36
From: Mark D
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Let's be candid here. The reason some people suggest not going the GOTO
route as a newbie is that it can create an atmosphere of instant
gratification, buzzing quickly from one object to the next.
Most astronomers who have been in the hobby for a very long time know
that visual observing is all about patience and taking the time to look.
=A0=A0=A0=A0It has often been noted that some newbies with GOTO scopes
go from one object to another hastily, like flipping channels on the TV.
And it has also been noted that for many of these people their interest
in astronomy is just as fleeting...
Now that does not mean that using GOTO will eventually lead you to only
a fleeting interest in visual astronomy--there are many examples to the
contrary. But it does mean that should you go the GOTO route you should
be aware of the instant gratification trap.
Clear skies,
Greg
P.S. To the usual GOTO people with low self esteem who may think I just
made a personal attack against them: whine and throws verbal fits all
you want, I'm not going to be pulled into an argument. I'll just
silently add you to my kill file.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Howdy Greg, you made a good point here to the original poster, and I'd
like to add a couple also.

Agreed about the "Instant gratification" part, but also at times GOTO
can be an "Instant PITA" too, especially for the new amateur.

I've seen our own club members who've been playing with GOTO for quite
some time (Bob U, Chris J) and while setting up, can take a considerable
amount of time just to get calibrated-aligned-etc.

For some, if you're versed, and knowledgeable in "computer-speak", GOTO
may be a breeze to understand, and use. Perhaps for some others, it may
be an excersize in total frustration, and failure, particularly with
many of these cheaper chinese made Meade, Celestron, etc. "toys"
available now in the large department stores.

We'll all agree GOTO can be a wonderful aid, and "teacher" to the
heavens. Take our club president Bob U. for example of this: At our
Messier Marathon last spring, what did Bob claim he bagged that evening
with his Celestron-8 with GOTO? 101 Messier Objects?

That IMO, is quite a feat for one person in one evening. (even with a
GOTO scope). Could you imagine the time needed to find these by older
conventional means?
Mark.

Date: 05 Sep 2006 15:16:27
From: David Knisely
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Greg Crinklaw posted:

> Let's be candid here. The reason some people suggest not going the GOTO route as a newbie is that it can create an atmosphere of instant gratification, buzzing quickly from one object to the next.

No, that is not why I would tend to refrain from recommending beginners
get a Go-To telescope. The low-end "beginners" Go-To's tend to be not
all that great, with both some quality and design issues. This is
especially true of some of the Celestron low-end stuff like the GT and
SLT series, as well as some of the Meade TeleStar series. For a
detailed analysis of one (the Celestron 130GT), I might suggest reading
its review on Cloudynights.com, but there are just so many little quirks
and limitations to these low-end Go-To scopes that I just can't really
recommend many of them to the newbie.

With the novice amateur, there is the ever-present set of
unrealistic expectations when it comes to exactly how well the Go-To
scope actually works. Even with some of the better more expensive Go-To
instruments, there can be the issues of alignment procedures and Go-To
accuracy, both of which can sometimes cause a few beginners to crash and
burn when it comes to Astronomy. The aligment procedures often require
the knowledge of where certain named stars are in the sky (as well as
the ability to get a finder properly aligned), and without such
knowledge, the beginner can be somewhat lost. With the exception of
some fairly high-end Go-To systems, the Go-To rarely puts objects
dead-center in the field of view every single time they are used
(especially true of Go-To's operating in altazimuth mode). This can
also add to the frustration of the beginner using the narrower-field
SCT, Mak-Cassegrain, or long-focus refractors when the desired object
ends up either just outside the field or at the edge of it.

There are also a lot of technical "gotcha's" which, although
expected and managable to the experienced amateur, can tend to be
extremely frustrating to the beginner. Things like poorly-written
manuals (the norm rather than the exception), power supply
interruptions, someone kicking the tripod, an aperture which is
insufficient for seeing many of the objects in the telescope's database,
and other little things can ruin the beginner's day when it comes to
using these scopes. Experienced amateurs are used to dealing with these
little frustrations, but the beginner is another story. Even as a 30+
year veteran of our hobby, I ran into this with my first Go-To telescope
(NexStar 9.25GPS), and for a while, it almost kept me from seeing the
real value to the instrument. With the rank beginner, it might cause
them to bail out of the hobby altogether.

For the beginner, I will still generally recommend a fairly small
(4 to 6 inch aperture) telescope like a Dobsonian or a decent refractor
as a first scope. This keeps the initial expense low while still giving
some decent performance. Later on, if the interest is maintained and a
little experienced is achieved, a Go-To is definitely an option for
those who want to "let the telescope do the walking". Clear skies to
you.
--
David W. Knisely KA0CZC@navix.net
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 13th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 23-28, 2006, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

Date: 05 Sep 2006 15:22:46
From: Pat O'Connell
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

David Knisely wrote:
> Greg Crinklaw posted:
>
>> Let's be candid here. The reason some people suggest not going the GOTO route as a newbie is that it can create an atmosphere of instant gratification, buzzing quickly from one object to the next.
>
> No, that is not why I would tend to refrain from recommending beginners
> get a Go-To telescope. The low-end "beginners" Go-To's tend to be not
> all that great, with both some quality and design issues. This is
> especially true of some of the Celestron low-end stuff like the GT and
> SLT series, as well as some of the Meade TeleStar series. For a
> detailed analysis of one (the Celestron 130GT), I might suggest reading
> its review on Cloudynights.com, but there are just so many little quirks
> and limitations to these low-end Go-To scopes that I just can't really
> recommend many of them to the newbie.

I'll humbly disagree. I have a Celestron 114GT, the 130's little
brother. It was collimated when it came out of the box and has held its
collimation. It's a scope that I bought for $160 at Costco (special
sale), and which I'll probably keep even if I get a much larger scope,
especially since I can set it up in about 15-20 minutes (and the big
ones--any brand--take longer). It's a "grab and go" scope. I don't like
the 114's internal "Barlow," but the scope is adequate for my needs.

> With the novice amateur, there is the ever-present set of
> unrealistic expectations when it comes to exactly how well the Go-To
> scope actually works. Even with some of the better more expensive Go-To
> instruments, there can be the issues of alignment procedures and Go-To
> accuracy, both of which can sometimes cause a few beginners to crash and
> burn when it comes to Astronomy. The aligment procedures often require
> the knowledge of where certain named stars are in the sky (as well as
> the ability to get a finder properly aligned), and without such
> knowledge, the beginner can be somewhat lost.

Somewhat true for my GT (until I change out my hand control), but not so
much anymore, with the newer Celestron and Meade software. Your
information is old.

> There are also a lot of technical "gotcha's" which, although
> expected and manageable to the experienced amateur, can tend to be
> extremely frustrating to the beginner. Things like poorly-written
> manuals (the norm rather than the exception), power supply
> interruptions, someone kicking the tripod, an aperture which is

What happens when someone kicks the tripod (or Dob base) of non-goto
scopes? Same thing--the scope moves off its target.

Poorly written manuals are common with telescopes, including very
expensive ones. That's why there's an aftermarket for books explaining
how to use those telescopes, by brand name and model, including
Dobsonians and other ones that aren't GoTo scopes.

> For the beginner, I will still generally recommend a fairly small
> (4 to 6 inch aperture) telescope like a Dobsonian or a decent refractor
> as a first scope. This keeps the initial expense low while still giving
> some decent performance. Later on, if the interest is maintained and a
> little experienced is achieved, a Go-To is definitely an option for
> those who want to "let the telescope do the walking". Clear skies to
> you.

Most of us relative beginners want to look at stuff, not attempt to
learn to star hop when we can't even see the guide stars, let alone our
target objects, because we live in cities and suburbs. GoTo really does
help in these circumstances.

--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...

Date: 05 Sep 2006 20:03:09
From: David Knisely
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Pta O'Connell wrote:

> I'll humbly disagree. I have a Celestron 114GT, the 130's little brother. It was collimated when it came out of the box and has held its collimation. It's a scope that I bought for $160 at Costco (special sale), and which I'll probably keep even if I get a much larger scope, especially since I can set it up in about 15-20 minutes (and the big ones--any brand--take longer). It's a "grab and go" scope. I don't like the 114's internal "Barlow," but the scope is adequate for my needs.

I was not referring to its optical performance or its ease in setup. I
was referring to the Go-To. The 130 has a big problem in that, as it is
set up now, the tube hits the base of the mount for altitudes much
greater than about 70 degrees. This leaves a *huge* Dobson's hole in
the sky. Now, you can set the internal slew limits to something less
than 70 degrees, but if you have gone-to an object which you are
tracking and after a while, you hit that slew limit, the alignment of
the scope is now fried and you have to start over! The clutches of the
scope have also not been changed, so if you force the scope at all, you
lose the aligment (it can happen by putting in an eyepiece sometimes).
This is not a problem for a wide-field scope, but for higher power use,
there can be a real problem. Even when operating the scope, occasional
clutch slips can cause an increasing amount of mis-aligment resulting in
what I like to call "the NexStar Gremlin". Also, if you hit the tripod
or bump it in a non-guided scope, all you do is re-center the object.
However, in a Go-To scope, you can again cause a misalignment problem
which means going back to square one and doing the alignment all over
again. The newer models (SLT) have *only* changed the way the alignment
is done by getting rid of the "level and point north" mode. Otherwise,
the scope is pretty much the exact same scope. Even the little
power-plug problem hasn't been adequately dealt with. The fork arm
could have easily been redesigned or a counterweight added in the back
end of the OTA so the scope would *never* hit the base, but did
Celestron do that? Nope, sorry, that would have cost too much.

As for the rest of the scope, the scope is just plain a little on the
cheap side, and for a little extra money could have been made a lot
better (read the review for all the quirks). Is the scope useless? Not
at all, but for the beginner, the number of Go-To problems might mean a
lot of extra frustration, and that can be avoided until the new amateur
"gets his feet wet" in the hobby. Clear skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely KA0CZC@navix.net
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 13th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 23-28, 2006, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

Date: 05 Sep 2006 14:42:32
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

>I can set it up in about 15-20 minutes (and the big ones--any brand--take
>longer). It's a "grab and go" scope.

Psss, Don't tell him that it only takes 3 mins to set up my 10inch F5 Dob.

--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/

Date: 05 Sep 2006 20:39:26
From: Pat O'Connell
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Starlord wrote:
>>I can set it up in about 15-20 minutes (and the big ones--any brand--take
>>longer). It's a "grab and go" scope.
>
> Psss, Don't tell him that it only takes 3 mins to set up my 10inch F5 Dob.

I'm told that Dobs often have to be recollimated once they're moved. No
experience with that, as the 114 GT has so far stayed in collimation
(which means the next time I take it out, it'll need collimation of course).

And how long does it take for you to find a nebula that you're
unfamiliar with the location of (so you don't know how to starhop to
that nebula)? Especially if you're near Roseamond and there's a lot of
light pollution? Goto can be handy, because you do all the fiddling up
front, then just select objects from a hand controller list, or enter
coordinates for objects not on the controller.

By the way, your website's actually pretty good, I like.

--
Pat O'Connell
[note munged EMail address]
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...

Date: 05 Sep 2006 19:47:43
From: Richard Adams
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Starlord wrote:

>>I can set it up in about 15-20 minutes (and the big ones--any brand--take
>>longer). It's a "grab and go" scope.
>
>
> Psss, Don't tell him that it only takes 3 mins to set up my 10inch F5 Dob.
>
>

Howso? You travel with it assembled?

Date: 05 Sep 2006 17:02:16
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Lets see, Take rockerbox off front seat and sit down at viewing spot, take
ota out of carry bag and sit on rockerbox, ready for viewing, as I leave
EP's in the holder on the rockerbox and one in the EP holder on the ota. 3
mins MAX.

--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/

"Richard Adams" <ackthpt@concentric.net > wrote in message
news:edl2av$j1o@dispatch.concentric.net...
> Starlord wrote:
>
>>>I can set it up in about 15-20 minutes (and the big ones--any brand--take
>>>longer). It's a "grab and go" scope.
>>
>>
>> Psss, Don't tell him that it only takes 3 mins to set up my 10inch F5
>> Dob.
>>
>>
>
> Howso? You travel with it assembled?

Date: 05 Sep 2006 15:22:15
From: Mij Adyaw
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

"Starlord" <starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info > wrote in message
news:SZ-dnfk12MhEcmDZnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@inreach.com...
> >I can set it up in about 15-20 minutes (and the big ones--any brand--take
> >longer). It's a "grab and go" scope.
>
> Psss, Don't tell him that it only takes 3 mins to set up my 10inch F5 Dob.
>
>
> --

Can you really collimate it that quickly? Collimation takes 5 minutes for me
on my 10 inch Dob.

Date: 05 Sep 2006 19:49:28
From: Richard Adams
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Mij Adyaw wrote:

> "Starlord" <starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info> wrote in message
> news:SZ-dnfk12MhEcmDZnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@inreach.com...
>
>>>I can set it up in about 15-20 minutes (and the big ones--any brand--take
>>>longer). It's a "grab and go" scope.
>>
>>Psss, Don't tell him that it only takes 3 mins to set up my 10inch F5 Dob.
>>
>>
>>--
>
>
> Can you really collimate it that quickly? Collimation takes 5 minutes for me
> on my 10 inch Dob.
>
>

It equalises to outdoor temp that quickly?

Date: 05 Sep 2006 17:03:54
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

I have a hole drilled in the top of the ota and 3 holes in the metal plate
behind the mirror and because it's outdoors 24/7, it, like my old Babylon 8
Dob and my SG4 DOB is at the ready 24/7.

--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords
Astro Blog
http://starlord.bloggerteam.com/

"Richard Adams" <ackthpt@concentric.net > wrote in message
news:edl2e8$j0f@dispatch.concentric.net...
> Mij Adyaw wrote:
>
>> "Starlord" <starlord@sidewalkastronomy.info> wrote in message
>> news:SZ-dnfk12MhEcmDZnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d@inreach.com...
>>
>>>>I can set it up in about 15-20 minutes (and the big ones--any
>>>>brand--take longer). It's a "grab and go" scope.
>>>
>>>Psss, Don't tell him that it only takes 3 mins to set up my 10inch F5
>>>Dob.
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>
>>
>> Can you really collimate it that quickly? Collimation takes 5 minutes for
>> me on my 10 inch Dob.
>>
>>
>
> It equalises to outdoor temp that quickly?

Date: 06 Sep 2006 10:56:13
From: Wade A. Hilmo
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

"Pat O'Connell" <gypkap@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:N8ydna_UE_g2d2DZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> David Knisely wrote:
> > Greg Crinklaw posted:
> >

> I'll humbly disagree. I have a Celestron 114GT, the 130's little
> brother. It was collimated when it came out of the box and has held its
> collimation. It's a scope that I bought for $160 at Costco (special
> sale), and which I'll probably keep even if I get a much larger scope,
> especially since I can set it up in about 15-20 minutes (and the big
> ones--any brand--take longer). It's a "grab and go" scope. I don't like
> the 114's internal "Barlow," but the scope is adequate for my needs.
>

15 to 20 minutes seems like a long time to me. I can get my CGE with 14"
OTA set up, polar aligned, and goto aligned in about 20 minutes. I can get
my NexStar 5 set up and aligned in less than 5 minutes. I can get my 6" dob
set up in about as much time as it takes to carry the scope to the place I'm
observing.

>
> > There are also a lot of technical "gotcha's" which, although
> > expected and manageable to the experienced amateur, can tend to be
> > extremely frustrating to the beginner. Things like poorly-written
> > manuals (the norm rather than the exception), power supply
> > interruptions, someone kicking the tripod, an aperture which is
>
> What happens when someone kicks the tripod (or Dob base) of non-goto
> scopes? Same thing--the scope moves off its target.

When someone kicks the base of an alt-az mount like a dob, you just repoint
at the object. When someone kicks the base of a goto scope, you generally
need to redo the alignment before you can repoint at the object. In the
case of an EQ mount, goto or otherwise, you may need to redo the polar
alignment, depending on how far the tripod was moved.

For what it's worth, I generally recommend to newbies that I talk to that
they get a 4.5" to 6" dob as a first scope and put a telrad on it. For cost
and simplicity, this is hard to beat. No batteries in the mount, no
alignment, no complicated setup, and some telrad finder charts for some of
the brighter objects gives them a good list of easy targets to start with.

In my opinion, the biggest drawback with goto scopes (outside the problem of
needing to have power to drive them), is that they work much better when you
actually understand how the alignment works and what details are important
to pay attention to. The documentation with goto scopes rarely tells you
anything more than a cookbook like list of steps to get them set up.
Without understanding how they work, the frustration level can get really
high when they don't point the way you expect them to.

The information necessary to take all the mystery out of them just adds more
"up front" knowledge that a newbie observer needs to take in. With a simple
mount, there is just less stuff that you have to know. This allows them to
focus on actually looking through the telescope, instead of fiddling around
with alignment procedures and such.

To be sure, I also tell people about the benefits and drawbacks of goto when
they ask my advice. If, after looking at the alternatives, they want to get
a goto scope, I usually offer to help them with it the first time out or two
and explain how and why things need to be done during set up.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 22:03:17
From: Stephen Paul
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> Now that does not mean that using GOTO will eventually lead you to only
> a fleeting interest in visual astronomy--there are many examples to the
> contrary. But it does mean that should you go the GOTO route you should
> be aware of the instant gratification trap.

Possibly more importantly...

Knowledge of how to find things in the sky without electronics means
your choices are less limited in as much as it opens the door to buying
(or building) more affordable large aperture solutions.

But if you got the bucks, a 10" or 11" aperture scope with GoTo can be a
blast.

Rock on,
Steve Paul

Date: 06 Sep 2006 21:59:22
From: Richard Adams
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Stephen Paul wrote:

> Greg Crinklaw wrote:
>
>> Now that does not mean that using GOTO will eventually lead you to
>> only a fleeting interest in visual astronomy--there are many examples
>> to the contrary. But it does mean that should you go the GOTO route
>> you should be aware of the instant gratification trap.
>
>
> Possibly more importantly...
>
> Knowledge of how to find things in the sky without electronics means
> your choices are less limited in as much as it opens the door to buying
> (or building) more affordable large aperture solutions.
>
> But if you got the bucks, a 10" or 11" aperture scope with GoTo can be a
> blast.
>
> Rock on,
> Steve Paul

I love the bloke on Sky at Night with the 3 GOTO scopes in his back lot.
He's found 100 super novas. Now there's an Amateur Astronomer, with
capital A's.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 18:36:51
From: lal_truckee
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

John Banister wrote:
>
> For me, one of the best aspects of go-to was the automatic tracking.

Your statement caught my eye - there is a possible misunderstanding
reflected therein.

"go-to" and tracking are independent.

Tracking is available without "go-to."
AFAIK, all "go-to" systems will track but not all tracking systems
include "goto." (My mounts both track, while neither has go-to.)

For purposes of this thread, there is another system available,
sometimes called "push-to," wherein the mount cum electronics will tell
the user when the telescope is pointed at an object; but it's up to the
user to so point the telescope by manual adjustments. Again, tracking is
independent. (One of my mounts is so equipped.)

IMO, the price of inexpensive GEM "go-to" mounts has dropped so rapidly
in recent years that anyone contemplating purchase of an inexpensive GEM
mounted telescope should pay the extra couple hundred dollars for the
"go-to" - nothing says you have to use it, but sometimes it may be
convenient.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 16:05:05
From: John Banister
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Is it Lal? In any case, thanks for the reply. I understand that one can
buy motorized mounts that are not go-to.

But is there a real go-to system for beginners which does not have tracking?
Maybe there is and I don't know about it. That excepted, my point was that
if you get a real go-to, part of the deal is that the scope stays "on
target", and that is a major plus. IMO. When one is a fumble fingered
newbie, it is common to foul things up and have to go away from the scope
for a while and sort things out. It is a pain to have to relocate a small
object via star hoping each time this happens.

Does the Orion IntelliScope system include automatic tracking? I was under
the impression that it did not. Or did you add tracking yourself?

My hope is that someone will make an affortable true go-to system for the
popular dobs, such as the Orions. I would think that a good 14"-16" dob
with real go-to for less than $2000 would be a big seller. I would have
bought one.

-John

"lal_truckee" <lal_truckee@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:7zELg.25217$gY6.3911@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
> John Banister wrote:
>>
>> For me, one of the best aspects of go-to was the automatic tracking.
>
> Your statement caught my eye - there is a possible misunderstanding
> reflected therein.
>
> "go-to" and tracking are independent.
>
> Tracking is available without "go-to."
> AFAIK, all "go-to" systems will track but not all tracking systems include
> "goto." (My mounts both track, while neither has go-to.)
>
> For purposes of this thread, there is another system available, sometimes
> called "push-to," wherein the mount cum electronics will tell the user
> when the telescope is pointed at an object; but it's up to the user to so
> point the telescope by manual adjustments. Again, tracking is independent.
> (One of my mounts is so equipped.)
>
> IMO, the price of inexpensive GEM "go-to" mounts has dropped so rapidly in
> recent years that anyone contemplating purchase of an inexpensive GEM
> mounted telescope should pay the extra couple hundred dollars for the
> "go-to" - nothing says you have to use it, but sometimes it may be
> convenient.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 15:50:38
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

John Banister wrote:
> My hope is that someone will make an affortable true go-to system for the
> popular dobs, such as the Orions.

Your terminology is a bit off from the norm. Tracking and GOTO are two
different things. Any telescope that can be targeted at an object in
the sky is a "real GOTO." There isn't any other kind! ;-)

Greg

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 07 Sep 2006 08:10:32
From: John Banister
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

IMO, a real go-to has to be able to go. <G > When I use the term it has to
be motorized, not pushed like the Orion Intelliscope. Orion does not claim
that Intelliscope is go-to and their catalog even differentiates that system
from go-to. My point was that a real (i.e. motorized) go-to on the Orion
12" dob, or something similar (and bigger) at an affordable price would be
gratifying.

-John

"Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:28b1d$44ff42a4$4212a5f6$9895@TULAROSA.NET...
> John Banister wrote:
>> My hope is that someone will make an affortable true go-to system for the
>> popular dobs, such as the Orions.
>
> Your terminology is a bit off from the norm. Tracking and GOTO are two
> different things. Any telescope that can be targeted at an object in the
> sky is a "real GOTO." There isn't any other kind! ;-)
>
> Greg
>
> --
> Greg Crinklaw
> Astronomical Software Developer
> Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
>
> SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
> Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
> Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
>
> To reply take out your eye

Date: 07 Sep 2006 09:38:53
From: Richard Adams
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

I read in the last (Sept) S & T there are a number of disused euro
telescopes in the Andes. ;-)

John Banister wrote:
> IMO, a real go-to has to be able to go. <G> When I use the term it has to
> be motorized, not pushed like the Orion Intelliscope. Orion does not claim
> that Intelliscope is go-to and their catalog even differentiates that system
> from go-to. My point was that a real (i.e. motorized) go-to on the Orion
> 12" dob, or something similar (and bigger) at an affordable price would be
> gratifying.
>
> -John
>
> "Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:28b1d$44ff42a4$4212a5f6$9895@TULAROSA.NET...
>
>>John Banister wrote:
>>
>>>My hope is that someone will make an affortable true go-to system for the
>>>popular dobs, such as the Orions.
>>
>>Your terminology is a bit off from the norm. Tracking and GOTO are two
>>different things. Any telescope that can be targeted at an object in the
>>sky is a "real GOTO." There isn't any other kind! ;-)
>>
>>Greg
>>
>>--
>>Greg Crinklaw
>>Astronomical Software Developer
>>Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
>>
>>SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
>>Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
>>Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
>>
>>To reply take out your eye
>
>
>

Date: 07 Sep 2006 14:25:04
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

John Banister wrote:
> IMO, a real go-to has to be able to go. <G> When I use the term it has to
> be motorized, not pushed like the Orion Intelliscope. Orion does not claim
> that Intelliscope is go-to and their catalog even differentiates that system
> from go-to. My point was that a real (i.e. motorized) go-to on the Orion
> 12" dob, or something similar (and bigger) at an affordable price would be
> gratifying.

Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought you were suggesting that only
"real" GOTOs have the ability to track. That's not always the case.

Clear skies,
Greg

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 08 Sep 2006 18:52:13
From: John Banister
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Greg, what I mean was that, given the recommendations for beginners (mainly
Dobs with a spattering of others) the Go-To's allowed them to have a
tracking telescope. I don't remember anyone recommending something like an
Eq mount with tracking but no go-to.

-John

"Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:f0cd0$45008013$4212a5f6$23624@TULAROSA.NET...
> Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought you were suggesting that only "real"
> GOTOs have the ability to track. That's not always the case.
>
> Clear skies,
> Greg

Date: 08 Sep 2006 20:39:32
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

John Banister wrote:
> Greg, what I mean was that, given the recommendations for beginners (mainly
> Dobs with a spattering of others) the Go-To's allowed them to have a
> tracking telescope. I don't remember anyone recommending something like an
> Eq mount with tracking but no go-to.

But I think what is missing is that Dobs can be GOTO without tracking;
GOTO does not in all cases also mean an ability to track.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 08 Sep 2006 20:34:11
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> But I think what is missing is that Dobs can be GOTO without tracking;
> GOTO does not in all cases also mean an ability to track.

Historically, you're right. However, I think that just about all
commercially available goto telescopes do indeed track, typically (I
believe) by using the dual motors themselves.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 09 Sep 2006 07:35:18
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Brian Tung wrote:
> Greg Crinklaw wrote:
>> But I think what is missing is that Dobs can be GOTO without tracking;
>> GOTO does not in all cases also mean an ability to track.
>
> Historically, you're right. However, I think that just about all
> commercially available goto telescopes do indeed track, typically (I
> believe) by using the dual motors themselves.

I think if we try to put a finer point on this that split hair is going
to be no more. ;-)

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 09 Sep 2006 09:18:06
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> I think if we try to put a finer point on this that split hair is going
> to be no more. ;-)

I'm not trying to split any hairs. I'm actually trying to join them by
observing that the exceptions to the rule (that goto scopes track) are
not really sold anymore, so they can safely be ignored.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 09 Sep 2006 10:29:41
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Brian Tung wrote:
> Greg Crinklaw wrote:
>> I think if we try to put a finer point on this that split hair is going
>> to be no more. ;-)
>
> I'm not trying to split any hairs. I'm actually trying to join them by
> observing that the exceptions to the rule (that goto scopes track) are
> not really sold anymore, so they can safely be ignored.

No... it seems to me that you are simply trying to be a Usenet smartass.

Fine. I give up. I'm a complete idiot who knows absolutely nothing
about astronomy. Feel better?

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 09 Sep 2006 09:29:33
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> No... it seems to me that you are simply trying to be a Usenet smartass.
>
> Fine. I give up. I'm a complete idiot who knows absolutely nothing
> about astronomy. Feel better?

Uh no. Gee whiz, Greg, what about my comment was an attack on you? You
stated an exception to a general rule. I don't think that my comment on
your exception was any more of an attack than your exception was an
attack on the general rule. It's just back-and-forth discussion on what
goto and tracking really mean, isn't it? We can do that without calling
each other names, can we not?

I'm not sure why you seem predisposed to think that a minor disagreement
on terminology implies that I'm trying to be a smartass. I think that's
unfair.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 09 Sep 2006 10:48:51
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Brian Tung wrote:
> Greg Crinklaw wrote:
>> No... it seems to me that you are simply trying to be a Usenet smartass.
>>
>> Fine. I give up. I'm a complete idiot who knows absolutely nothing
>> about astronomy. Feel better?
>
> Uh no. Gee whiz, Greg, what about my comment was an attack on you? You
> stated an exception to a general rule. I don't think that my comment on
> your exception was any more of an attack than your exception was an
> attack on the general rule. It's just back-and-forth discussion on what
> goto and tracking really mean, isn't it? We can do that without calling
> each other names, can we not?
>
> I'm not sure why you seem predisposed to think that a minor disagreement
> on terminology implies that I'm trying to be a smartass. I think that's
> unfair.

Because you unkindly pressed the point even when I suggested we were
done. Not very gracious.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 09 Sep 2006 10:06:15
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> Because you unkindly pressed the point even when I suggested we were
> done. Not very gracious.

I don't know what I can say to that, except that I didn't realize you
had decided we were both done, and in light of that, I don't see how my
post could be interpreted as unkind pressing. Sorry.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 09 Sep 2006 00:30:03
From: David Knisely
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Greg Crinklaw posted:

> But I think what is missing is that Dobs can be GOTO without tracking; GOTO does not in all cases also mean an ability to track.

Very few Dobs are true Go-To (not "push-to" or DSCs), and very few of
those which are Go-To do not also have the built-in ability to track the
object. Some of the low-end small scopes (not true Dobsonians, but
small refractors or Newtonians) did have a sort of rough "Go-To" without
the tracking ability, but I would not recommend one of these to my worst
enemy. We did see them occasionally at some of our "New Scope User's
Night" sessions at Hyde Observatory, and they were a real headache for
the newbies to use. Clear skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely KA0CZC@navix.net
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 13th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 23-28, 2006, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

Date: 07 Sep 2006 22:59:23
From: Stephen Paul
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

John Banister wrote:
> My hope is that someone will make an affortable true go-to system for the
> popular dobs, such as the Orions. I would think that a good 14"-16" dob
> with real go-to for less than $2000 would be a big seller. I would have
> bought one.

Why not a 12" F5 Intelliscope (well, probably something a bit nicer) on
a tracking platform?

Electronic finding system, reasonable eyepiece height at zenith, and
tracking.

Date: 08 Sep 2006 19:03:31
From: John Banister
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

If they put that out as a package, it might be worthwhile: One vendor, one
warranty, one set of instructions, one computer interface, etc. Of course,
if they could do a 12" why not a 16"?

-John

"Stephen Paul" <smarshallpaul@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:2ZGdnUUIYr4dQZ3YnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> John Banister wrote:
>> My hope is that someone will make an affortable true go-to system for the
>> popular dobs, such as the Orions. I would think that a good 14"-16" dob
>> with real go-to for less than $2000 would be a big seller. I would have
>> bought one.
>
> Why not a 12" F5 Intelliscope (well, probably something a bit nicer) on a
> tracking platform?
>
> Electronic finding system, reasonable eyepiece height at zenith, and
> tracking.

Date: 03 Sep 2006 15:32:58
From: Richard Adams
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Date: 03 Sep 2006 21:13:23
From: Peter Clarke
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Richard,
Thanks for the tip. Other people have also suggested this, so I will make
enquiries into my local club.

Regards
Peter

"Richard Adams" <ackthpt@concentric.net > wrote in message
news:edfala$hgl@dispatch.concentric.net...
> Peter Clarke wrote:
>
>> I am looking to buy a telescope but never having had one before, I am
>> uncertain what size (aperture) telescope to get. I would like to see some
>> images of planets, constellations etc taken from a selection of
>> telescopes in order to see what one gets for the money. Does anyone know
>> of any web sites containing images along with information about the
>> telescope used.
>> I am presently thinking of something around 6" or 8" reflector.
>> Also, how worthwhile (for a beginner) are the computerised GoTo systems,
>> they sound good but add a lot to the cost.
>> Thanks
>
> Aside from what you've read on Starlord's site. An excellent practice is
> to attend a star party. Having a look through others scopes and finding
> out what they have to endure (transporation, storage, expense, etc.) helps
> fill in your personal scorecard.

Date: 03 Sep 2006 19:23:53
From: Gareth Slee
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Peter Clarke <pbclarke@btopenworld.com > wrote:

> I am looking to buy a telescope but never having had one before, I am
> uncertain what size (aperture) telescope to get. I would like to see some
> images of planets, constellations etc taken from a selection of telescopes
> in order to see what one gets for the money. Does anyone know of any web
> sites containing images along with information about the telescope used.
> I am presently thinking of something around 6" or 8" reflector.
> Also, how worthwhile (for a beginner) are the computerised GoTo systems,
> they sound good but add a lot to the cost.
> Thanks

Peter
Try the newsgroup uk.sci.astronomy as well. Ther may be someone who
lives near you and will let you take a peep through their scope.

--
Gareth Slee

Date: 03 Sep 2006 21:12:08
From: Peter Clarke
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Gareth.
Thanks for the Newsgroup tip.
Peter

"Gareth Slee" <gax.slee@ntlworld.com > wrote in message
news:1hl3sh7.gl56l1oouyjmN%gax.slee@ntlworld.com...
> Peter Clarke <pbclarke@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>> I am looking to buy a telescope but never having had one before, I am
>> uncertain what size (aperture) telescope to get. I would like to see some
>> images of planets, constellations etc taken from a selection of
>> telescopes
>> in order to see what one gets for the money. Does anyone know of any web
>> sites containing images along with information about the telescope used.
>> I am presently thinking of something around 6" or 8" reflector.
>> Also, how worthwhile (for a beginner) are the computerised GoTo systems,
>> they sound good but add a lot to the cost.
>> Thanks
>
> Peter
> Try the newsgroup uk.sci.astronomy as well. Ther may be someone who
> lives near you and will let you take a peep through their scope.
>
> --
> Gareth Slee

Date: 04 Sep 2006 17:40:44
From: Paul Winalski
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Welcome to the hobby!

I suggest contacting your local astronomy club to see if there are any
public observing sessions, sky watches, or star parties coming up in
your area. These events give you the opportunity to see and observe
through a wide variety of different types, makes, and sizes of
telescopes, and to talk to their owners. You can then decide which
scope is for you based on some first-hand knowledge.

For a beginner, I would advise you to get a Dobsonian-mounted
Newtonian reflector (colloquially called a "Dob"). That combination
of mount and optical configuration gives you the most aperture for the
money, combined with high portability. Orion (www.telescope.com)
makes a very good and affordable range of scopes of this type. For a
beginner I recommend the Sky Quest XT6 Classic. Portable, easy to set
up and use, good optics, 6" will let you see all kinds of cool stuff,
and the price is low enough that should you decide you don't like the
hobby after all, you haven't sunk your life's savings in it. If
you've decided you are committed to the hobby, consider its larger
brother, the XT8.

I would advise against getting one of the computerized GoTo systems.
Instead, spend that extra cash on more aperture.

Clear skies,

-Paul W.

On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 10:36:52 +0100, "Peter Clarke"
<pbclarke@btopenworld.com > wrote:

>I am looking to buy a telescope but never having had one before, I am
>uncertain what size (aperture) telescope to get. I would like to see some
>images of planets, constellations etc taken from a selection of telescopes
>in order to see what one gets for the money. Does anyone know of any web
>sites containing images along with information about the telescope used.
>I am presently thinking of something around 6" or 8" reflector.
>Also, how worthwhile (for a beginner) are the computerised GoTo systems,
>they sound good but add a lot to the cost.
>Thanks
>
----------
Remove 'Z' to reply by email.

Date: 04 Sep 2006 20:10:24
From: Peter Clarke
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Paul,
Thanks for your comments. Other people have also suggested joining a club,
so I intend to do just that.
There appears to be two schools of thought on the GoTo system. Some say its
good, others like you suggest spending the money on a larger aperature. Food
for much thought.

Regards
Peter

"Paul Winalski" <prune@ZAnkh-Morpork.mv.com > wrote in message
news:98oof2taup9gukrvdplh3fdftq4msnp8js@4ax.com...
> Welcome to the hobby!
>
> I suggest contacting your local astronomy club to see if there are any
> public observing sessions, sky watches, or star parties coming up in
> your area. These events give you the opportunity to see and observe
> through a wide variety of different types, makes, and sizes of
> telescopes, and to talk to their owners. You can then decide which
> scope is for you based on some first-hand knowledge.
>
> For a beginner, I would advise you to get a Dobsonian-mounted
> Newtonian reflector (colloquially called a "Dob"). That combination
> of mount and optical configuration gives you the most aperture for the
> money, combined with high portability. Orion (www.telescope.com)
> makes a very good and affordable range of scopes of this type. For a
> beginner I recommend the Sky Quest XT6 Classic. Portable, easy to set
> up and use, good optics, 6" will let you see all kinds of cool stuff,
> and the price is low enough that should you decide you don't like the
> hobby after all, you haven't sunk your life's savings in it. If
> you've decided you are committed to the hobby, consider its larger
> brother, the XT8.
>
> I would advise against getting one of the computerized GoTo systems.
> Instead, spend that extra cash on more aperture.
>
> Clear skies,
>
> -Paul W.
>
> On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 10:36:52 +0100, "Peter Clarke"
> <pbclarke@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>>I am looking to buy a telescope but never having had one before, I am
>>uncertain what size (aperture) telescope to get. I would like to see some
>>images of planets, constellations etc taken from a selection of telescopes
>>in order to see what one gets for the money. Does anyone know of any web
>>sites containing images along with information about the telescope used.
>>I am presently thinking of something around 6" or 8" reflector.
>>Also, how worthwhile (for a beginner) are the computerised GoTo systems,
>>they sound good but add a lot to the cost.
>>Thanks
>>
> ----------
> Remove 'Z' to reply by email.

Date: 05 Sep 2006 06:57:50
From: David Nakamoto
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Hi Paul,

There is an old school that grew up without the aid of computers to move
your telescope, and had to learn the art of finding objects with just
the aid of a chart and a finder, and are of the opinion that if it's
good enough for them it's good enough for you.

The other school believes that if such aids are available through
technology, why limit your choices?

And then there are some that see it as an aid, and IF you can learn to
find objects just using a finder and moving the scope yourself, then why
not use a GOTO to make your life easier while you learn? I'm of that
school now. Also, some objects are just plain difficult to find even if
you're good at star hopping, at least for me, so a GOTO means more time
actually observing the object and less time fiddling to try and find it.
So if observing time is precious to you from time to time, then a GOTO
is definitely money well spent in my books.

GOTO definitely takes money away from aperture, needed as always for
faint stuff, and puts it into the GOTO. Something to think about.

Good Luck !

Clear and Steady Nights !
--- Dave

Peter Clarke wrote:
> Paul,
> Thanks for your comments. Other people have also suggested joining a club,
> so I intend to do just that.
> There appears to be two schools of thought on the GoTo system. Some say its
> good, others like you suggest spending the money on a larger aperature. Food
> for much thought.
>
> Regards
> Peter
>
> "Paul Winalski" <prune@ZAnkh-Morpork.mv.com> wrote in message
> news:98oof2taup9gukrvdplh3fdftq4msnp8js@4ax.com...
>> Welcome to the hobby!
>>
>> I suggest contacting your local astronomy club to see if there are any
>> public observing sessions, sky watches, or star parties coming up in
>> your area. These events give you the opportunity to see and observe
>> through a wide variety of different types, makes, and sizes of
>> telescopes, and to talk to their owners. You can then decide which
>> scope is for you based on some first-hand knowledge.
>>
>> For a beginner, I would advise you to get a Dobsonian-mounted
>> Newtonian reflector (colloquially called a "Dob"). That combination
>> of mount and optical configuration gives you the most aperture for the
>> money, combined with high portability. Orion (www.telescope.com)
>> makes a very good and affordable range of scopes of this type. For a
>> beginner I recommend the Sky Quest XT6 Classic. Portable, easy to set
>> up and use, good optics, 6" will let you see all kinds of cool stuff,
>> and the price is low enough that should you decide you don't like the
>> hobby after all, you haven't sunk your life's savings in it. If
>> you've decided you are committed to the hobby, consider its larger
>> brother, the XT8.
>>
>> I would advise against getting one of the computerized GoTo systems.
>> Instead, spend that extra cash on more aperture.
>>
>> Clear skies,
>>
>> -Paul W.
>>
>> On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 10:36:52 +0100, "Peter Clarke"
>> <pbclarke@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I am looking to buy a telescope but never having had one before, I am
>>> uncertain what size (aperture) telescope to get. I would like to see some
>>> images of planets, constellations etc taken from a selection of telescopes
>>> in order to see what one gets for the money. Does anyone know of any web
>>> sites containing images along with information about the telescope used.
>>> I am presently thinking of something around 6" or 8" reflector.
>>> Also, how worthwhile (for a beginner) are the computerised GoTo systems,
>>> they sound good but add a lot to the cost.
>>> Thanks
>>>
>> ----------
>> Remove 'Z' to reply by email.
>
>

Date: 05 Sep 2006 08:37:51
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

David Nakamoto wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> There is an old school that grew up without the aid of computers to move
> your telescope, and had to learn the art of finding objects with just
> the aid of a chart and a finder, and are of the opinion that if it's
> good enough for them it's good enough for you.

Gee, it must be nice to so easily put everyones views into stereotypical
boxes.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 06 Sep 2006 05:41:59
From: David Nakamoto
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> David Nakamoto wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> There is an old school that grew up without the aid of computers to
>> move your telescope, and had to learn the art of finding objects with
>> just the aid of a chart and a finder, and are of the opinion that if
>> it's good enough for them it's good enough for you.
>
> Gee, it must be nice to so easily put everyones views into stereotypical
> boxes.

Which shows that you haven't met some of the people in my astronomy
group, which do display this attitude. Not everyone, but the reason for
the stereotype is that some people do fit it.

Also, if you had read my message further, you'd have found out that I
don't agree with this viewpoint, but then that would upset your tidy
view of the world, and of my message, wouldn't it?

--- Dave

Date: 06 Sep 2006 08:39:16
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

David Nakamoto wrote:
> Greg Crinklaw wrote:
>> David Nakamoto wrote:
>>> Hi Paul,
>>>
>>> There is an old school that grew up without the aid of computers to
>>> move your telescope, and had to learn the art of finding objects with
>>> just the aid of a chart and a finder, and are of the opinion that if
>>> it's good enough for them it's good enough for you.
>>
>> Gee, it must be nice to so easily put everyones views into
>> stereotypical boxes.
>
> Which shows that you haven't met some of the people in my astronomy
> group, which do display this attitude. Not everyone, but the reason for
> the stereotype is that some people do fit it.
>
> Also, if you had read my message further, you'd have found out that I
> don't agree with this viewpoint, but then that would upset your tidy
> view of the world, and of my message, wouldn't it?

No. I simply think it a bad idea to go around characterizing other
people's views in terms of stereotypes. The moment you cross that line
you invite "us vs. them" derision based on that stereotype, which is the
lowest for of human behavior.

People are individuals and individuals deserve more respect than that.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 06 Sep 2006 15:47:37
From: David Nakamoto
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> David Nakamoto wrote:
>> Greg Crinklaw wrote:
>>> David Nakamoto wrote:
>>>> Hi Paul,
>>>>
>>>> There is an old school that grew up without the aid of computers to
>>>> move your telescope, and had to learn the art of finding objects
>>>> with just the aid of a chart and a finder, and are of the opinion
>>>> that if it's good enough for them it's good enough for you.
>>>
>>> Gee, it must be nice to so easily put everyones views into
>>> stereotypical boxes.
>>
>> Which shows that you haven't met some of the people in my astronomy
>> group, which do display this attitude. Not everyone, but the reason
>> for the stereotype is that some people do fit it.
>>
>> Also, if you had read my message further, you'd have found out that I
>> don't agree with this viewpoint, but then that would upset your tidy
>> view of the world, and of my message, wouldn't it?
>
> No. I simply think it a bad idea to go around characterizing other
> people's views in terms of stereotypes. The moment you cross that line
> you invite "us vs. them" derision based on that stereotype, which is the
> lowest for of human behavior.
>
> People are individuals and individuals deserve more respect than that.
>
Fine. When I'm speaking about an individual, I will address that
individual's idiosyncrasies, faults, and merits, but no individual was
mentioned in my message, and generalizations are permitted in discussion
when discussing groups.

And you haven't addressed the fact that in my original post, I actually
discussed three general viewpoints.

--- Dave

Date: 06 Sep 2006 10:48:52
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

David Nakamoto wrote:
>> People are individuals and individuals deserve more respect than that.
>>
> Fine. When I'm speaking about an individual, I will address that
> individual's idiosyncrasies, faults, and merits, but no individual was
> mentioned in my message, and generalizations are permitted in discussion
> when discussing groups.
>
> And you haven't addressed the fact that in my original post, I actually
> discussed three general viewpoints.

Yes I have. I wryly suggested that, "it must be nice to so easily put
everyones views into stereotypical boxes." ;-)

I simply don't think stereotypes are helpful and should be avoided.
When it comes to opinions I believe it better to stick to one's own and
let other people speak for themselves.

But then I prefer reasonable respectful discourse to debate, which is
why I despise Usenet. The Usenet culture is all about debating points,
as if there is some gallery keeping track. Thanks, but no thanks.

In my opinion the root of most nasty arguments you see on Usenet doesn't
lie in the dissenting opinions, but rather in the way people unfairly
characterize each other's arguments in their own terms rather than
listen to what the other person is saying. If you think about it, this
is the basis for all forms of ridicule. Stereotypes are simply an
example of this phenomenon. Stereotypes inevitably invite ridicule so I
personally try to avoid them. It's a low form of communication. When I
see others resort to stereotypes I am always disappointed. Thus my
comment.

Agree or not, it doesn't really matter. This is simply my own point of
view. I am expressing that point of view in the hope that it be
understood. I am not engaging in ridicule, as it might at first seem,
nor am I necessarily expecting you to agree. Just throwing in my 2
cents, as it were.

Clear skies (and Peace),
Greg

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 07 Sep 2006 19:49:04
From: Paul Winalski
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Can we please get back to discussion the merits/demerits of DSCs and
GOTO systems for beginners, rather than criticizing each others'
posting style?

Nobody is ridiculing anyone else's opnion. I was very careful when I
brought the subject up in my initial posting to observe that there are
differing viewpoints on whether GOTOs are suitable from beginners, and
made it clear that my recommendation was merely my own personal
opinion on the subject.

Clear skies,

-Paul W.

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 10:48:52 -0600, Greg Crinklaw
<theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com > wrote:

>
>Yes I have. I wryly suggested that, "it must be nice to so easily put
>everyones views into stereotypical boxes." ;-)
>
>I simply don't think stereotypes are helpful and should be avoided.
>When it comes to opinions I believe it better to stick to one's own and
>let other people speak for themselves.
>
>But then I prefer reasonable respectful discourse to debate, which is
>why I despise Usenet. The Usenet culture is all about debating points,
>as if there is some gallery keeping track. Thanks, but no thanks.
>
>In my opinion the root of most nasty arguments you see on Usenet doesn't
>lie in the dissenting opinions, but rather in the way people unfairly
>characterize each other's arguments in their own terms rather than
>listen to what the other person is saying. If you think about it, this
>is the basis for all forms of ridicule. Stereotypes are simply an
>example of this phenomenon. Stereotypes inevitably invite ridicule so I
>personally try to avoid them. It's a low form of communication. When I
>see others resort to stereotypes I am always disappointed. Thus my
>comment.
>
>Agree or not, it doesn't really matter. This is simply my own point of
>view. I am expressing that point of view in the hope that it be
>understood. I am not engaging in ridicule, as it might at first seem,
>nor am I necessarily expecting you to agree. Just throwing in my 2
>cents, as it were.
>
>Clear skies (and Peace),
>Greg
----------
Remove 'Z' to reply by email.

Date: 06 Sep 2006 09:53:30
From: Richard Adams
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

David Nakamoto wrote:

> Greg Crinklaw wrote:
>
>> David Nakamoto wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Paul,
>>>
>>> There is an old school that grew up without the aid of computers to
>>> move your telescope, and had to learn the art of finding objects with
>>> just the aid of a chart and a finder, and are of the opinion that if
>>> it's good enough for them it's good enough for you.
>>
>>
>> Gee, it must be nice to so easily put everyones views into
>> stereotypical boxes.
>
>
> Which shows that you haven't met some of the people in my astronomy
> group, which do display this attitude. Not everyone, but the reason for
> the stereotype is that some people do fit it.
>
> Also, if you had read my message further, you'd have found out that I
> don't agree with this viewpoint, but then that would upset your tidy
> view of the world, and of my message, wouldn't it?
>
> --- Dave

Dave,

We have a rule at our star parties: No discussion of politics. It's a
very sound rule because there are people from all strips in our club,
from very liberal to very conservative. As this behaviour tends with
regard to national policies, etc., it can be at a complete 180 degree
turn from where individuals stand on telescope choice, optics, etc.

There are purists who swear by their dobs. There are others who have
every gadget but the kitchen sink. Where everyone can find common
ground is when someone has a particularly good view of something in
their eyepiece and everyone will flock for a peek. And there's nothing
quite like the teamwork I saw, one night months back, when everyone was
trying to identify what someone saw in their scope.

Each has it's merits and demerits, which is why I suggested to the
original poster to visit a star party to see which most suits his
interest. It's also very important to ask lots of questions (as long as
you aren't driving people crazy) I find amateur astronomers on the whole
enjoy talking about their hobby (/obsession) and equipment.

Clear skies,
Richard

Date: 07 Sep 2006 19:41:06
From: Paul Winalski
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

I have a DSC setup on my large dob (push-to rather than GOTO). I
find them useful when sky conditions are such that finding the guide
stars for star-hopping is difficult, and also useful when observing
new objects and learning how to star-hop to them. So I'm definitely
not one of the "it was good enough for me--it's good enough for you"
anti-GOTO traditionalists.

But I still think that, for most beginners, the money would be better
spent on more aperture or other gear. It's a matter of priorities.

-Paul W.

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 06:57:50 GMT, David Nakamoto
<david.nakamoto@verizon.net > wrote:

>Hi Paul,
>
>There is an old school that grew up without the aid of computers to move
>your telescope, and had to learn the art of finding objects with just
>the aid of a chart and a finder, and are of the opinion that if it's
>good enough for them it's good enough for you.
>
>The other school believes that if such aids are available through
>technology, why limit your choices?
>
>And then there are some that see it as an aid, and IF you can learn to
>find objects just using a finder and moving the scope yourself, then why
>not use a GOTO to make your life easier while you learn? I'm of that
>school now. Also, some objects are just plain difficult to find even if
>you're good at star hopping, at least for me, so a GOTO means more time
>actually observing the object and less time fiddling to try and find it.
> So if observing time is precious to you from time to time, then a GOTO
>is definitely money well spent in my books.
>
>GOTO definitely takes money away from aperture, needed as always for
>faint stuff, and puts it into the GOTO. Something to think about.
>
>Good Luck !
>
> Clear and Steady Nights !
> --- Dave
>
>
>
>Peter Clarke wrote:
>> Paul,
>> Thanks for your comments. Other people have also suggested joining a club,
>> so I intend to do just that.
>> There appears to be two schools of thought on the GoTo system. Some say its
>> good, others like you suggest spending the money on a larger aperature. Food
>> for much thought.
>>
>> Regards
>> Peter
>>
>> "Paul Winalski" <prune@ZAnkh-Morpork.mv.com> wrote in message
>> news:98oof2taup9gukrvdplh3fdftq4msnp8js@4ax.com...
>>> Welcome to the hobby!
>>>
>>> I suggest contacting your local astronomy club to see if there are any
>>> public observing sessions, sky watches, or star parties coming up in
>>> your area. These events give you the opportunity to see and observe
>>> through a wide variety of different types, makes, and sizes of
>>> telescopes, and to talk to their owners. You can then decide which
>>> scope is for you based on some first-hand knowledge.
>>>
>>> For a beginner, I would advise you to get a Dobsonian-mounted
>>> Newtonian reflector (colloquially called a "Dob"). That combination
>>> of mount and optical configuration gives you the most aperture for the
>>> money, combined with high portability. Orion (www.telescope.com)
>>> makes a very good and affordable range of scopes of this type. For a
>>> beginner I recommend the Sky Quest XT6 Classic. Portable, easy to set
>>> up and use, good optics, 6" will let you see all kinds of cool stuff,
>>> and the price is low enough that should you decide you don't like the
>>> hobby after all, you haven't sunk your life's savings in it. If
>>> you've decided you are committed to the hobby, consider its larger
>>> brother, the XT8.
>>>
>>> I would advise against getting one of the computerized GoTo systems.
>>> Instead, spend that extra cash on more aperture.
>>>
>>> Clear skies,
>>>
>>> -Paul W.
>>>
>>> On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 10:36:52 +0100, "Peter Clarke"
>>> <pbclarke@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am looking to buy a telescope but never having had one before, I am
>>>> uncertain what size (aperture) telescope to get. I would like to see some
>>>> images of planets, constellations etc taken from a selection of telescopes
>>>> in order to see what one gets for the money. Does anyone know of any web
>>>> sites containing images along with information about the telescope used.
>>>> I am presently thinking of something around 6" or 8" reflector.
>>>> Also, how worthwhile (for a beginner) are the computerised GoTo systems,
>>>> they sound good but add a lot to the cost.
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>> ----------
>>> Remove 'Z' to reply by email.
>>
>>
----------
Remove 'Z' to reply by email.

Date: 05 Sep 2006 13:49:37
From:
Subject: Re: Merits / Demerits of GOTO and the open mind

Richard Adams wrote:
> I read
> that Postscript as GOTO people are to be looked down upon.

Then I have two suggestions for you:

(1) Learn simple english, like how to discern the true subject of a
sentence.

(2) Stop telling me what the *really* meant.

The gall! You don't even know me.

Done beating your chest yet?

I'm going to stop using Google to defeat my kill file now. Go right
ahead, tell everyone what a jerk I am behind my back. I'm sure it will
make you feel better.

Date: 05 Sep 2006 16:45:29
From: Richard Adams
Subject: Re: Merits / Demerits of GOTO and the open mind

capellasoft@yahoo.com wrote:

> Richard Adams wrote:
>
>> I read
>>that Postscript as GOTO people are to be looked down upon.
>
>
> Then I have two suggestions for you:
>
> (1) Learn simple english, like how to discern the true subject of a
> sentence.
>
> (2) Stop telling me what the *really* meant.
>
> The gall! You don't even know me.
>
> Done beating your chest yet?
>
> I'm going to stop using Google to defeat my kill file now. Go right
> ahead, tell everyone what a jerk I am behind my back. I'm sure it will
> make you feel better.
>

What is it with you and straw men?

Date: 06 Sep 2006 19:58:34
From: W8MJE
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Peter Clarke wrote:
> I am looking to buy a telescope ..

..and from the anti-goto brigade,:

http://findascope.com

Yes, goto makes it easy to find objects when you don't know the sky,
but if all you want to do is look at great images, buy a book of Space
Telescope photos. Seriously.

Part of the fun of *amateur* astornomy is the thrill of the chase. The
first time I found the ring nebula by star hopping with with my 3"
scope I was excited beyond belief. Sure, all I saw was a faint grey
donut, and if I had gotten there by pushing a button, that's all it
would have been. But seeing that faint image pop into the field as I
slewed the scope was a magical moment.

I find that people who start out by buying large, fully automated goto
scopes play with them a while, until they get bored pushing buttons,
and then move on to another hobby.

mike

Date: 09 Sep 2006 03:02:36
From: Hanta-Yo-Yo
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

On 6 Sep 2006 19:58:34 -0700, W8MJE wrote:

> Peter Clarke wrote:
>> I am looking to buy a telescope ..
>
> ..and from the anti-goto brigade,:
>
> http://findascope.com
>
> Yes, goto makes it easy to find objects when you don't know the sky,
> but if all you want to do is look at great images, buy a book of Space
> Telescope photos. Seriously.
>
> Part of the fun of *amateur* astornomy is the thrill of the chase. The
> first time I found the ring nebula by star hopping with with my 3"
> scope I was excited beyond belief. Sure, all I saw was a faint grey
> donut, and if I had gotten there by pushing a button, that's all it
> would have been. But seeing that faint image pop into the field as I
> slewed the scope was a magical moment.
>
> I find that people who start out by buying large, fully automated goto
> scopes play with them a while, until they get bored pushing buttons,
> and then move on to another hobby.
>
> mike

IAWTP!

I started chasing sightings a few years ago, 1st scope I bought was
Meade 114 w/go-to (Thanks, eBay). I found the view frustrating, and
the mechanics even more frustrating, and I like to think I am
mecanically inclined, and able to read manuals and related books.
Programming computers and getting everything lined up, and eventually
I would actually look at some stars?????

I luckily had a friend encouraging me to not give up, and instead
encouraged me to get some good binoculars designed for astronomy, and
start by learning more about the night sky. Being a typical city
dweller, I knew very little to begin with, so that was a good
investment in my time if nothing else. As Mike pointed out, the thrill
of the chase is a big part of the hobby, and after all it is a hobby,
not a race. So if it takes more than 5 minutes to set up my scope, who
is counting, and in the meantime it is just getting darker. As far as
that goes, my 12x60's can be raised to my eyes in about 3 seconds.

Since that time I have picked up some other hardware, including
numerous 50mm, with really cheap EP and tripods, Thanks again eBay!
10 in Meade Starfinder, 90mm Meade Alt/Az, 6in Apogee w, tracking EQ,
and find that the best scope is the one I use, and the easiest to use
is still my bino's. I have picked up some 20x80 Provision, built a
parallel mount, w Telrad, and micro adjust for elevation, and can
spend many cool nights checking out the sights.

I have learned that EP's and mounts are as important as the scope you
put on them. The best scope on a cheap mount is worthless! What sky
charts and books have you bought and poured over? Or are you just
looking to push some buttons?

So I would ask you, have you bought a pair of good bino's yet -- they
will become a good friend that you carry all the time, everynight,
that you spend looking through that dream scope! HYY

Date: 09 Sep 2006 11:08:46
From: Richard Adams
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Hanta-Yo-Yo wrote:
> On 6 Sep 2006 19:58:34 -0700, W8MJE wrote:
>
>
>>Peter Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>I am looking to buy a telescope ..
>>
>>..and from the anti-goto brigade,:
>>
>>http://findascope.com
>>
>>Yes, goto makes it easy to find objects when you don't know the sky,
>>but if all you want to do is look at great images, buy a book of Space
>>Telescope photos. Seriously.
>>
>>Part of the fun of *amateur* astornomy is the thrill of the chase. The
>>first time I found the ring nebula by star hopping with with my 3"
>>scope I was excited beyond belief. Sure, all I saw was a faint grey
>>donut, and if I had gotten there by pushing a button, that's all it
>>would have been. But seeing that faint image pop into the field as I
>>slewed the scope was a magical moment.
>>
>>I find that people who start out by buying large, fully automated goto
>>scopes play with them a while, until they get bored pushing buttons,
>>and then move on to another hobby.
>>
>>mike
>
>
> IAWTP!
>
> I started chasing sightings a few years ago, 1st scope I bought was
> Meade 114 w/go-to (Thanks, eBay). I found the view frustrating, and
> the mechanics even more frustrating, and I like to think I am
> mecanically inclined, and able to read manuals and related books.
> Programming computers and getting everything lined up, and eventually
> I would actually look at some stars?????

[snip]

I've found Meade's manuals are not exactly straightforward. If you are
the sort who can sit down and read the entire thing, from end to end and
understand what they are saying and can stand the hopping around (i.e.
reading page 20, "refer to fig 6", which happens to be on page 3) you
have it made.

I tend to read the manual, go through the procedure and then jot down a
summary. Alas, I have searched and searched and can't find the one I
used for my ETX.

Date: 09 Sep 2006 14:57:03
From: Peter Clarke
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

As yet, I have not got any books or sky charts although do intend to get
some, any recommendations?
Many of the posts have indicated that the chase is part of the fun, so GoTo
systems are in fact a disadvantage. This is something I had not previously
thought of. And now having thought a bit about it I am not sure if I would
enjoy the chase or not. One thing I am certain about, I do not want several
telescopes cluttering up my house, so would prefer to get a decent telescope
straight away (rather than buy a starter scope then a bigger one then
another bigger one etc).
Now assuming they work well enough and do not keep breaking down and do not
cause more work then they save, I still think a GoTo system is worth having
as I assume you could still manually control the telescope if desired.

Regards
Peter

"Hanta-Yo-Yo" <Hanta-Yo-Yo@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:v31bh6avvdix.196irasarwyfb.dlg@40tude.net...
> On 6 Sep 2006 19:58:34 -0700, W8MJE wrote:
>
>> Peter Clarke wrote:
>>> I am looking to buy a telescope ..
>>
>> ..and from the anti-goto brigade,:
>>
>> http://findascope.com
>>
>> Yes, goto makes it easy to find objects when you don't know the sky,
>> but if all you want to do is look at great images, buy a book of Space
>> Telescope photos. Seriously.
>>
>> Part of the fun of *amateur* astornomy is the thrill of the chase. The
>> first time I found the ring nebula by star hopping with with my 3"
>> scope I was excited beyond belief. Sure, all I saw was a faint grey
>> donut, and if I had gotten there by pushing a button, that's all it
>> would have been. But seeing that faint image pop into the field as I
>> slewed the scope was a magical moment.
>>
>> I find that people who start out by buying large, fully automated goto
>> scopes play with them a while, until they get bored pushing buttons,
>> and then move on to another hobby.
>>
>> mike
>
> IAWTP!
>
> I started chasing sightings a few years ago, 1st scope I bought was
> Meade 114 w/go-to (Thanks, eBay). I found the view frustrating, and
> the mechanics even more frustrating, and I like to think I am
> mecanically inclined, and able to read manuals and related books.
> Programming computers and getting everything lined up, and eventually
> I would actually look at some stars?????
>
> I luckily had a friend encouraging me to not give up, and instead
> encouraged me to get some good binoculars designed for astronomy, and
> start by learning more about the night sky. Being a typical city
> dweller, I knew very little to begin with, so that was a good
> investment in my time if nothing else. As Mike pointed out, the thrill
> of the chase is a big part of the hobby, and after all it is a hobby,
> not a race. So if it takes more than 5 minutes to set up my scope, who
> is counting, and in the meantime it is just getting darker. As far as
> that goes, my 12x60's can be raised to my eyes in about 3 seconds.
>
> Since that time I have picked up some other hardware, including
> numerous 50mm, with really cheap EP and tripods, Thanks again eBay!
> 10 in Meade Starfinder, 90mm Meade Alt/Az, 6in Apogee w, tracking EQ,
> and find that the best scope is the one I use, and the easiest to use
> is still my bino's. I have picked up some 20x80 Provision, built a
> parallel mount, w Telrad, and micro adjust for elevation, and can
> spend many cool nights checking out the sights.
>
> I have learned that EP's and mounts are as important as the scope you
> put on them. The best scope on a cheap mount is worthless! What sky
> charts and books have you bought and poured over? Or are you just
> looking to push some buttons?
>
> So I would ask you, have you bought a pair of good bino's yet -- they
> will become a good friend that you carry all the time, everynight,
> that you spend looking through that dream scope! HYY

Date: 09 Sep 2006 09:24:33
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Peter Clarke wrote:
> As yet, I have not got any books or sky charts although do intend to get
> some, any recommendations?

Sure. For general purpose astronomy books, either Dickinson's
Nightwatch or Dyer and Dickinson's Backyard Astronomer's Guide,
depending on how in depth you want to get and how much you want to
spend. For a collection of atlases, I like the recent Collins Atlas
of the Night Sky, which collects a star atlas, constellation guide,
lunar atlas, and planet finder under one set of covers. Nightwatch
and the Collins atlas are in the $20 range, I think, and BAG is about
$40 or so (?).

> Many of the posts have indicated that the chase is part of the fun, so GoTo
> systems are in fact a disadvantage. This is something I had not previously
> thought of.

I don't think it's necessarily a disadvantage. You can always use the
slewing buttons on most goto scopes directly, rather than having the
scope slew automatically to the target. Furthermore, some people are
better at star-hopping than others. Those that aren't so good at it may
get discouraged, and lose interest in the hobby. I think this
possibility is understated by those who happen to be good at star-
hopping.

I agree that goto is yet another component that is liable to break down.
However, most of the scopes seem to be reasonably reliable. People are
putting them to good use.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 09 Sep 2006 10:19:04
From: Hanta-Yo-Yo
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 14:57:03 +0100, Peter Clarke wrote:

> As yet, I have not got any books or sky charts although do intend to get
> some, any recommendations?
> Many of the posts have indicated that the chase is part of the fun, so GoTo
> systems are in fact a disadvantage. This is something I had not previously
> thought of. And now having thought a bit about it I am not sure if I would
> enjoy the chase or not. One thing I am certain about, I do not want several
> telescopes cluttering up my house, so would prefer to get a decent telescope
> straight away (rather than buy a starter scope then a bigger one then
> another bigger one etc).
> Now assuming they work well enough and do not keep breaking down and do not
> cause more work then they save, I still think a GoTo system is worth having
> as I assume you could still manually control the telescope if desired.
>
> Regards
> Peter
>
> "Hanta-Yo-Yo" <Hanta-Yo-Yo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:v31bh6avvdix.196irasarwyfb.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On 6 Sep 2006 19:58:34 -0700, W8MJE wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Clarke wrote:
>>>> I am looking to buy a telescope ..
>>>
>>> ..and from the anti-goto brigade,:
>>>
>>> http://findascope.com
>>>
>>> Yes, goto makes it easy to find objects when you don't know the sky,
>>> but if all you want to do is look at great images, buy a book of Space
>>> Telescope photos. Seriously.
>>>
>>> Part of the fun of *amateur* astornomy is the thrill of the chase. The
>>> first time I found the ring nebula by star hopping with with my 3"
>>> scope I was excited beyond belief. Sure, all I saw was a faint grey
>>> donut, and if I had gotten there by pushing a button, that's all it
>>> would have been. But seeing that faint image pop into the field as I
>>> slewed the scope was a magical moment.
>>>
>>> I find that people who start out by buying large, fully automated goto
>>> scopes play with them a while, until they get bored pushing buttons,
>>> and then move on to another hobby.
>>>
>>> mike
>>
>> IAWTP!
>>
>> I started chasing sightings a few years ago, 1st scope I bought was
>> Meade 114 w/go-to (Thanks, eBay). I found the view frustrating, and
>> the mechanics even more frustrating, and I like to think I am
>> mecanically inclined, and able to read manuals and related books.
>> Programming computers and getting everything lined up, and eventually
>> I would actually look at some stars?????
>>
>> I luckily had a friend encouraging me to not give up, and instead
>> encouraged me to get some good binoculars designed for astronomy, and
>> start by learning more about the night sky. Being a typical city
>> dweller, I knew very little to begin with, so that was a good
>> investment in my time if nothing else. As Mike pointed out, the thrill
>> of the chase is a big part of the hobby, and after all it is a hobby,
>> not a race. So if it takes more than 5 minutes to set up my scope, who
>> is counting, and in the meantime it is just getting darker. As far as
>> that goes, my 12x60's can be raised to my eyes in about 3 seconds.
>>
>> Since that time I have picked up some other hardware, including
>> numerous 50mm, with really cheap EP and tripods, Thanks again eBay!
>> 10 in Meade Starfinder, 90mm Meade Alt/Az, 6in Apogee w, tracking EQ,
>> and find that the best scope is the one I use, and the easiest to use
>> is still my bino's. I have picked up some 20x80 Provision, built a
>> parallel mount, w Telrad, and micro adjust for elevation, and can
>> spend many cool nights checking out the sights.
>>
>> I have learned that EP's and mounts are as important as the scope you
>> put on them. The best scope on a cheap mount is worthless! What sky
>> charts and books have you bought and poured over? Or are you just
>> looking to push some buttons?
>>
>> So I would ask you, have you bought a pair of good bino's yet -- they
>> will become a good friend that you carry all the time, everynight,
>> that you spend looking through that dream scope! HYY

It sounds like you have an idea of how much you are prepared to spend
on your setup. What you might try, is float the amount to the group,
and see what sort of dream setup they would come up with for the
money!

You need to realize that the scope is one component in a system, the
strength of the system is determined by the poorest component. On the
other hand, the cheapest 50mm that we have today, is going to be
better than what Gallileo had to work with, and he didn't do to badly
figuring things out. Check out all the components though, for example,
I replaced the focuser on my scopes when I realized that a part of the
problem I was having is the cheap gearing was not smooth enough to
allow controlled focus.

The chase is certainly a part of the fun, and having a few extra
scopes around is always OK! :) To say nothing of EP's, collimators,
Barlows, etc.

Also, never enough star charts and manuals! I use a

1) large 16 in. Guide to Stars, star chart, for general night sky
navigation, The little dinky ones are too small to read with
flashlight, especially since my eyes are not as good as they used to
be for reading.

2) W.Tirion, Sky Atlas. for detailed night sky navigation

3) Uranometria 2000.0 vol 1

4) 365 Starry Nights, Chet Raymo, for planning targeted viewing

5) The Monthly Sky Guide, Ian Ridpath & Wil Tirion

There are lots of other books available, and don't forget Sky &
Telescope, and other internet resourses. HYY

Date: 09 Sep 2006 07:04:26
From: Starlord
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

I've not seen a lot of goto scopes, but the guy next door has a etx70 and a
bigger refactor (I forget what brand) and the etx can be used manual, the
other one can to if he doesn't turn anything on at all, but if he turns it
on he has to do the two star alinement and no manual from then on.

--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond

Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net

"Peter Clarke" <pbclarke@btopenworld.com > wrote in message
news:ztydnegolrs7Wp_YRVnyrw@bt.com...
> As yet, I have not got any books or sky charts although do intend to get
> some, any recommendations?
> Many of the posts have indicated that the chase is part of the fun, so
> GoTo systems are in fact a disadvantage. This is something I had not
> previously thought of. And now having thought a bit about it I am not sure
> if I would enjoy the chase or not. One thing I am certain about, I do not
> want several telescopes cluttering up my house, so would prefer to get a
> decent telescope straight away (rather than buy a starter scope then a
> bigger one then another bigger one etc).
> Now assuming they work well enough and do not keep breaking down and do
> not cause more work then they save, I still think a GoTo system is worth
> having as I assume you could still manually control the telescope if
> desired.
>
> Regards
> Peter
>
> "Hanta-Yo-Yo" <Hanta-Yo-Yo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:v31bh6avvdix.196irasarwyfb.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On 6 Sep 2006 19:58:34 -0700, W8MJE wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Clarke wrote:
>>>> I am looking to buy a telescope ..
>>>
>>> ..and from the anti-goto brigade,:
>>>
>>> http://findascope.com
>>>
>>> Yes, goto makes it easy to find objects when you don't know the sky,
>>> but if all you want to do is look at great images, buy a book of Space
>>> Telescope photos. Seriously.
>>>
>>> Part of the fun of *amateur* astornomy is the thrill of the chase. The
>>> first time I found the ring nebula by star hopping with with my 3"
>>> scope I was excited beyond belief. Sure, all I saw was a faint grey
>>> donut, and if I had gotten there by pushing a button, that's all it
>>> would have been. But seeing that faint image pop into the field as I
>>> slewed the scope was a magical moment.
>>>
>>> I find that people who start out by buying large, fully automated goto
>>> scopes play with them a while, until they get bored pushing buttons,
>>> and then move on to another hobby.
>>>
>>> mike
>>
>> IAWTP!
>>
>> I started chasing sightings a few years ago, 1st scope I bought was
>> Meade 114 w/go-to (Thanks, eBay). I found the view frustrating, and
>> the mechanics even more frustrating, and I like to think I am
>> mecanically inclined, and able to read manuals and related books.
>> Programming computers and getting everything lined up, and eventually
>> I would actually look at some stars?????
>>
>> I luckily had a friend encouraging me to not give up, and instead
>> encouraged me to get some good binoculars designed for astronomy, and
>> start by learning more about the night sky. Being a typical city
>> dweller, I knew very little to begin with, so that was a good
>> investment in my time if nothing else. As Mike pointed out, the thrill
>> of the chase is a big part of the hobby, and after all it is a hobby,
>> not a race. So if it takes more than 5 minutes to set up my scope, who
>> is counting, and in the meantime it is just getting darker. As far as
>> that goes, my 12x60's can be raised to my eyes in about 3 seconds.
>>
>> Since that time I have picked up some other hardware, including
>> numerous 50mm, with really cheap EP and tripods, Thanks again eBay!
>> 10 in Meade Starfinder, 90mm Meade Alt/Az, 6in Apogee w, tracking EQ,
>> and find that the best scope is the one I use, and the easiest to use
>> is still my bino's. I have picked up some 20x80 Provision, built a
>> parallel mount, w Telrad, and micro adjust for elevation, and can
>> spend many cool nights checking out the sights.
>>
>> I have learned that EP's and mounts are as important as the scope you
>> put on them. The best scope on a cheap mount is worthless! What sky
>> charts and books have you bought and poured over? Or are you just
>> looking to push some buttons?
>>
>> So I would ask you, have you bought a pair of good bino's yet -- they
>> will become a good friend that you carry all the time, everynight,
>> that you spend looking through that dream scope! HYY
>
>

Date: 10 Sep 2006 10:37:23
From: Willie R. Meghar
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

"Peter Clarke" <pbclarke@btopenworld.com > wrote:

>As yet, I have not got any books or sky charts although do intend to get
>some, any recommendations?

I would recommend Norton's Star Atlas and Reference Handbook. The
latest edition I'm aware of is the twentieth. The 16th edition was
one of my first (and most used) astronomy books. I also have the
18th, 19th, and 20th editions.

The atlas charts cover large regions of sky simplifying the task of
matching what's seen in the sky with what's seen on the charts.
Included are lunar charts and a Mars map.

The handbook section (most of the book) contains a huge wealth of
information. Jupiter's many belts and zones are shown and named.
Lunar land forms and terminology are covered. Sections on observing
each major solar system body are covered. Filter use is covered. Deep
sky observing is covered. Galaxy as well as stellar classifications
are covered. Many informative tables containing a wide variety of
information are included.

Lacking are all the color photos and all the space addressing
equipment that are found in many of the more popular books; but in
their place is far more actual astronomy.

>Many of the posts have indicated that the chase is part of the fun, so GoTo
>systems are in fact a disadvantage. This is something I had not previously
>thought of. And now having thought a bit about it I am not sure if I would
>enjoy the chase or not.

Yes, the chase is part of the fun *for some of us.* When I started
out in this hobby go-to was not an option. I still don't own a
telescope or mount with go-to capability. Yet, there have been times
(but not very often) that if I had that capability it would have been
used! You'll have to decide this one for yourself!

>One thing I am certain about, I do not want several
>telescopes cluttering up my house, so would prefer to get a decent telescope
>straight away (rather than buy a starter scope then a bigger one then
>another bigger one etc).

Good Luck! :-)
Large and small telescopes have different strengths and weaknesses, as
do SCTs and refractors, Maksutov cassegrains and Newtonians, go-to and
non-go-to, alt-az mounts and equatorial mounts, etc., etc.

Yes, you *can* get one telescope and be reasonably happy with it for
the rest of your life -- seriously. But sooner or later you'll still
find yourself wishing you had access to a smaller telescope, a larger
telescope, a different type of telescope, a different mount, etc.

With only one telescope you'll have to bite the bullet and accept its
shortcomings (It *will* have shortcomings!) along with its strengths.

Willie R. Meghar

Date: 09 Sep 2006 22:14:28
From: laura halliday
Subject: Re: Selecting a telescope

Peter Clarke wrote:
> As yet, I have not got any books or sky charts although do intend to get
> some, any recommendations?

Nightwatch
Sky Atlas 2000
A good planisphere, like the Firefly one

> Many of the posts have indicated that the chase is part of the fun, so GoTo
> systems are in fact a disadvantage. This is something I had not previously
> thought of. And now having thought a bit about it I am not sure if I would
> enjoy the chase or not. One thing I am certain about, I do not want several
> telescopes cluttering up my house, so would prefer to get a decent telescope
> straight away (rather than buy a starter scope then a bigger one then
> another bigger one etc).
> Now assuming they work well enough and do not keep breaking down and do not
> cause more work then they save, I still think a GoTo system is worth having
> as I assume you could still manually control the telescope if desired.

FWIW, I have retrofitted DSCs to both my telescope mounts -
the fork mount for my C8 (Lumicon Sky Vector computer +
encoders), and my G-11 (Sky Commander + Losmandy
encoders), which usually carries a TOA-130. The C-8
is my grab and go scope; the TOA-130 is for more serious
observing and astrophotography.

Star hopping is fun if you have dark skies. Here in Suburbia,
it's no fun at all.

GOTO is fun for a while, but I find it uninvolving. Push the
buttons, the scope slews, you see something. I've used
other peoples' GOTO scopes, like the C-14 at Star Hill Inn,
and had a blast. But spend my own money on one? No.
Whatever-turns-your-crank notwithstanding, I *do* take
exception to tiny scopes with zillions of items in their
databases that can only produce decent views of a
hundred or so.

So I split the difference and opted for DSCs. I find them
nicely tactile and involving, and efficient for finding things.
The battery aspect is good too, since even my back yard
has no access to power.

Laura Halliday VE7LDH "That's a totally illegal,
Grid: CN89mg madcap scheme. I like it!"
ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - H. Pearce