peterson thinks astronomy is for the wealthy only

peterson recently wrote in another thread (Expensive, high-end scopes and mounts. Aimed at the rich, or the morons?) :

"...astronomy is largely a hobby of the upper middle class, for whom investments of several thousand dollars (even with teenagers) isn't that big a deal..."


The upper middle class represents perhaps 15% or so of the US population. So the other ~85% need not apply?

Anybody can enjoy some observational astronomy with their naked
eyes and even binoculars... doesn't cost much and is available
to all economic classes.

However, most "amateur astronomers" tend to invest in thousands
of dollars of equipment to pursue observational/photograph
astronomy. Peterson was correctly pointing that out.

No mater what level you are at, I encourage you to share the
night sky with your neighbors and friends.

On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 9:02:09 AM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
Anybody can enjoy some observational astronomy with their naked
eyes and even binoculars... doesn't cost much and is available
to all economic classes.

However, most "amateur astronomers" tend to invest in thousands
of dollars of equipment to pursue observational/photograph
astronomy. Peterson was correctly pointing that out.

You and peterson are both out to lunch.

What you meant to say is that -some- amateur astronomers might spend "thousands" on equipment. If you look at the twenty-five "best sellers" on Orion's site you will see that the most expensive is at about $500, and most are much less than that.

Clearly, there is a large population of amateurs (ie, "most") who own and presumably use modest telescopes; it's just that you and peterson have no way to know about them, or else simply dismiss their existence. You assume that your club members or star party attendees are representative of amateur astronomy.

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 01:37:37 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

peterson recently wrote in another thread (Expensive, high-end scopes and mounts. Aimed at the rich, or the morons?) :

"...astronomy is largely a hobby of the upper middle class, for whom investments of several thousand dollars (even with teenagers) isn't that big a deal..."


The upper middle class represents perhaps 15% or so of the US population. So the other ~85% need not apply?

Once again, your argument depends upon misstating the words of others.

On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 9:55:20 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 01:37:37 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

peterson recently wrote in another thread (Expensive, high-end scopes and mounts. Aimed at the rich, or the morons?) :

"...astronomy is largely a hobby of the upper middle class, for whom investments of several thousand dollars (even with teenagers) isn't that big a deal..."


The upper middle class represents perhaps 15% or so of the US population.. So the other ~85% need not apply?

Once again, your argument depends upon misstating the words of others.

He's on a mission, so don't interrupt him. He's already worked himself up to a froth. You can almost see the spittle forming on his chinny chin chin.

On another note, NEAF is just a couple weeks away. There will be tens of thousands of amateurs of all ages attending. Most will be from the North-East states, but many attendees will be coming from Canada, Mexico, Europe and Asia. You will see bargains from $4 eyepieces to luxury $40,000 astrographs.. There will also be lots of seminars on telescope use, as well as a whole separate imaging conference. Amateurs also will be setting up their scopes for daytime views of the sun in visible and narrowband wavelengths.

NEAF is put on by amateur astronomers who volunteer their time and energy to bring astronomy to the public. It is a celebration of our hobby. Check it out:

http://www.rocklandastronomy.com/neaf.html

On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 10:55:20 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 01:37:37 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

peterson recently wrote in another thread (Expensive, high-end scopes and mounts. Aimed at the rich, or the morons?) :

"...astronomy is largely a hobby of the upper middle class, for whom investments of several thousand dollars (even with teenagers) isn't that big a deal..."


The upper middle class represents perhaps 15% or so of the US population. So the other ~85% need not apply?

Once again, your argument depends upon misstating the words of others.

I changed none of your words.

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 09:31:35 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 10:55:20 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 01:37:37 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

peterson recently wrote in another thread (Expensive, high-end scopes and mounts. Aimed at the rich, or the morons?) :

"...astronomy is largely a hobby of the upper middle class, for whom investments of several thousand dollars (even with teenagers) isn't that big a deal..."


The upper middle class represents perhaps 15% or so of the US population. So the other ~85% need not apply?

Once again, your argument depends upon misstating the words of others.

I changed none of your words.

No. But point me to where I said that "astronomy is for the wealthy
only". Because that's sure as hell not what a reasonable person would
find in my words.

You all make good points [including Snell] but how many enjoy the luxury of a dark, rural garden to set up their instruments? Street lights and light pollution are a scourge to astronomy. They make city astronomy far more difficult than merely dragging the whole kit and caboodle out of doors.

It has already been mentioned that many fine instruments moulder away in sheds and cupboards unused. I think many amateurs would happily trade quite a few inches of aperture for a permanent set-up. Not just the matter of lugging all that awkward size and weight from indoors. There's allowing time for the optics to cool before the moment of enthusiasm has gone.

The cost per hour of actual observing time must rise incredibly steeply beyond the first flush of enthusiasm after an instrument purchase. The high cost and the nagging feeling that enthusiasm might return one night makes selling or giving it all away too painful to bear. It would mean acceptance of failure.

Oh, to be able to go out, open up the instrument shelter and immediately start observing! Out of the wind and under dark skies, this would have most amateurs think they were truly wealthy.

Constant reinforcement within a group, with similar interests, is a great stimulus to activity. The lone amateur, who has never even met a fellow enthusiast, must plough a solitary furrow. There are so many other distractions to consume disposable time, usually in the warmth of one's home, these days.

It is incredibly fortunate that the constant bickering on s.a.a. is not the only source for the amateur to reinforce their enthusiasm for observational astronomy. Any newcomer to astronomy finding this shattered bomb shelter would think that astronomy was only for raving megalomaniacs and humourless, career pedants.

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:07:10 -0700 (PDT), "Chris.B"
wrote:

You all make good points [including Snell] but how many enjoy the luxury of a dark, rural garden to set up their instruments? Street lights and light pollution are a scourge to astronomy. They make city astronomy far more difficult than merely dragging the whole kit and caboodle out of doors.

This is one of the reasons why imaging has seen such huge success. You
can do really nice work under very poor skies.

On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 9:31:36 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 10:55:20 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 01:37:37 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

peterson recently wrote in another thread (Expensive, high-end scopes and mounts. Aimed at the rich, or the morons?) :

"...astronomy is largely a hobby of the upper middle class, for whom investments of several thousand dollars (even with teenagers) isn't that big a deal..."


The upper middle class represents perhaps 15% or so of the US population. So the other ~85% need not apply?

Once again, your argument depends upon misstating the words of others.

I changed none of your words.

Well, in the naming of this thread you certainly didn't quote Chris Peterson accurately... which, in this case, clearly makes you a liar!