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