*S&T and ASTRONOMY BEWA NEWSWEEK is TAKING OVER YOUR TURF!

Newsweek's *Tip Sheet* section had an article, "Scoping Out the
Stars," on page 56 of the July 28, 2003 issue that caught my
attention. It was supposedly advice on buying a telescope to view Mars
this summer. I was happy to see the Mars apparition enter the
mainstream, but was disappointed at the buying advice. Why a major
news weekly couldn't find a pro or amateur astronomer to write or
proof this article is a mystery to me. It was clearly written and
assembled by persons who wouldn't know an eyepiece from an objective.

To start, the article features images of three telescopes: NexStar
130GT Reflector, Meade NGC60 Refractor, and Orion 4.5" ShortTube
reflector. The caption on the refractor will immediately make a
knowledgeable amateur wince: "It's computer-controlled, but the mirror
is small, so objects may be blurry". There are three factual errors
(read on) in just one thirteen-word sentence. And that is very
representative of this piece and just the start of a trail of
misidentification and bad advice that flows throughout.

The theme of "blurry telescopes" pervades the article. I'm guessing
that the author ran across the concept of resolving power/useful
magnification vs. size and price. That somehow was translated into a
fiat that smaller low-priced instruments could only show blurry views.
We've already had the example of the 60mm refractor (the one with the
"mirror") being blurry; later it is written of small Dobsonians: "but
they won't be impressed with a smaller mirror's blurry views".
Caution is also called for would-be purchasers of the NexStar 130GT:
"it may be a bit blurry" because of the low-ball price.

We're told what not to buy throughout the article, so what is the
right aperture and price recommendation Newsweek makes for the newbie
that is targeted by this piece? Well, the kicker will be found in the
final column of the first page: first we read that the NexStar 114GT
is "far too small for general use," then the ill-captioned NGC60 is
"well-priced" but too small, and then the "impressive" new Orion
ShortTube 4.5" reflector is also too small; so the final scope
recommendation is a quote from the director of the Perkins Observatory
in Ohio: "the best is Obsession's $4,895 18-incher" – really.
(To be fair, the article touched on the slightly cheaper and smaller
Meade 14" LX200 for $4,295, but didn't make a specific up or down
recommendation—just that it is a "latest wonder" in telescopes).
Yep newbie -- that’s your scope!

The author jumbles a mind-boggling number of misconceptions together
in this piece: All computerized scopes seemingly setup and find
objects on their own (no mention is made of initial alignment by us
humans) – even the ones with just digital setting circles and no
motors -- I kid you not: the "NGC60 ($200) finds stars automatically
but won't track them" – perhaps you tell it to re-find the star
each time it drifts out of view? The refractor vs. reflector debate
has been resolved by being ignorant of the existence of the former:
only the one misidentified refractor is mentioned. (No mention of the
LX200 being a SCT is made). And I got the sinking-feeling that the
writer doesn't understand what a Dobsonian is. In the first paragraph
we're told that "telescopes are hardly simple tube-and-mirror-devices
anymore" and that Dobsoniains are simply scopes that "you have to
point yourself". Also, the Orion ShortTube reflector is touted as one
of the "new Dobsonians" -- even though it's clearly pictured on a GEM
(that's German Equatorial Mount for you newbies)!

And there's more advice on what you'll see and how to record your
astronomical pursuits. The author admits you're not going to get
Hubble views of the heavens through your new scope – the stars
will look like "bigger" dots (no mention that this is a bad thing).
But you don't need the expense of a scope to start out in astronomy,
hand-held binoculars will do (ehh? some good newbie advice?) –
but make sure to buy the ones with a built-in digital camera to record
your explorations!

-- Pietro

* - - - - - - - - - - http://www.Pietro.org - - - - - - - - - - *
*Astronomy News, BBS, Celestron, Computing, Mathcad & More*
*Nail PLUTO: http://www.pietro.org/Astro_C5/Artic...utoCurrent.htm
*Celestron 5" SCT: http://www.pietro.org/Astro_C5/c5_nexstar.htm
*Astro Book Reviews:
http://www.pietro.org/Shopping/ScienceShopping.htm

In article ,
says...

Why a major news weekly couldn't find a pro or amateur astronomer to write
or proof this article is a mystery to me. It was clearly written and
assembled by persons who wouldn't know an eyepiece from an objective.

Oddly enough plenty of professional astronomers are complete novices when
it comes to visual observing. I remember a decade back while on a trip to
the AAO spending a night out back of the motel where I was staying with a
couple of professional astronomers (one of whom is an astronomy faculty
head at a major university here in Australia and shall remain nameless)
and he'd never seen Mars, Jupiter or the moon through a telescope.

Needless to say it was a corker of a night and watching two professional
astronomers oohing and ahhing over the views offered to them that night.

I'd suggest a few well written words to Newsweek's letters editor, or if
they have an online forum a few posts pointing out their errors.

Cheers,
Ian

On 3 Aug 2003 21:18:25 -0700,
(Pietro) wrote:

so the final scope
recommendation is a quote from the director of the Perkins Observatory
in Ohio: "the best is Obsession's $4,895 18-incher" – really.
(To be fair, the article touched on the slightly cheaper and smaller
Meade 14" LX200 for $4,295, but didn't make a specific up or down
recommendation—just that it is a "latest wonder" in telescopes).
Yep newbie -- that’s your scope!

Having known Tom Burns, the director of Perkins Observatory for many
years, I can tell you his comment about the Odyssey was practically
tongue in cheek. The reporter asked him if money was no object, what
would he recommend. His original recommendation for the beginner
amateur was a Dob in the 6-8" range, without computer assist.
He told her this instrument is relatively cheap, offers fairly good
views, and is a great telescope to learn one's way around the sky.
According to Tom, the reporter kept pressing him to recommend a fancy
Meade or Celestron, and no matter what he said, in the end she quoted
what she wanted heard.

Kapella

I'd love to own an 18" Obsession and I don't fault Burns on any of his
quotes, I agree with them all. And he probably would have been a good
choice for Newsweek to have asked to write the article solo.

It's just that the author mixed his good advice with misinterpretation
and gaping holes (no scopes between $500 and $5k) in such a way as to
leave the uninitiated reader worse-off when they enter a telescope
store. Most of the scopes "reviewed" are sub-$500 and then Burn's
Obsession quote is used to recommend a $5k instrument that is 7- or
8-foot tall and 80+lbs -- this is not the scope for the uninitiated.

It read to me like the author was just writing to fill up the
column-inch quota for the article. Why not


-- Pietro

* - - - - - - - - - - http://www.Pietro.org - - - - - - - - - - *
*Astronomy News, BBS, Celestron, Computing, Mathcad & More*
*Nail PLUTO: http://www.pietro.org/Astro_C5/Artic...utoCurrent.htm
*Celestron 5" SCT: http://www.pietro.org/Astro_C5/c5_nexstar.htm
*Astro Book Reviews:
http://www.pietro.org/Shopping/ScienceShopping.htm


kapella Having known Tom Burns, the
director of Perkins Observatory for many
years, I can tell you his comment about the Odyssey was practically
tongue in cheek. The reporter asked him if money was no object, what
would he recommend. His original recommendation for the beginner
amateur was a Dob in the 6-8" range, without computer assist.
He told her this instrument is relatively cheap, offers fairly good
views, and is a great telescope to learn one's way around the sky.
According to Tom, the reporter kept pressing him to recommend a fancy
Meade or Celestron, and no matter what he said, in the end she quoted
what she wanted heard.

Kapella