Department Store Telescopes Are Great!

They provide a cheap and accessible way for a newbie to gauge his or her interest in amateur astronomy!

(This is not a troll.)

On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 06:55:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

They provide a cheap and accessible way for a newbie to gauge his or her interest in amateur astronomy!

Or, alternatively, they turn people off of astronomy completely.

Most of the people I know who got into astronomy and stayed there
started with either Dobs or goto SCTs. Most of the people I know who
explored astronomy starting with a department store telescope now have
a department store telescope in their closet (or have given it to
Goodwill) and don't observe.

On Sunday, 13 March 2016 11:02:57 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 06:55:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

They provide a cheap and accessible way for a newbie to gauge his or her interest in amateur astronomy!

Or, alternatively, they turn people off of astronomy completely.

Most of the people I know who got into astronomy and stayed there
started with either Dobs or goto SCTs. Most of the people I know who
explored astronomy starting with a department store telescope now have
a department store telescope in their closet (or have given it to
Goodwill) and don't observe.

I'd be the exception to that and I believe anyone truly interested (as opposed to those who saw a Hubble Jupiter shot and wanted a quick thrill) will keep at it. Having said that, I think parents who spend thousands a year on their cellphones and who balk at spending few hundred on a scope for a truly interested kid either don't have the money or are too cheap to spend it wisely.

On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 09:00:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Sunday, 13 March 2016 11:02:57 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 06:55:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

They provide a cheap and accessible way for a newbie to gauge his or her interest in amateur astronomy!

Or, alternatively, they turn people off of astronomy completely.

Most of the people I know who got into astronomy and stayed there
started with either Dobs or goto SCTs. Most of the people I know who
explored astronomy starting with a department store telescope now have
a department store telescope in their closet (or have given it to
Goodwill) and don't observe.

I'd be the exception to that and I believe anyone truly interested (as opposed to those who saw a Hubble Jupiter shot and wanted a quick thrill) will keep at it. Having said that, I think parents who spend thousands a year on their cellphones and who balk at spending few hundred on a scope for a truly interested kid either don't have the money or are too cheap to spend it wisely.

There are many exceptions. Especially among older, lifelong amateur
astronomers. But not so much among those in the 40-and-under crowd,
and not so much among adults who took up astronomy well into their
lives.

I know a number of kids whose parents had no problem buying them nice
goto SCTs when they got interested in astronomy. There are a great
many people who don't have a problem with spending $1K - $2K on
something like that. As you say, many are spending similar amounts for
phones and video games.

On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 12:00:57 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 13 March 2016 11:02:57 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 06:55:30 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

They provide a cheap and accessible way for a newbie to gauge his or her interest in amateur astronomy!

Or, alternatively, they turn people off of astronomy completely.

Most of the people I know who got into astronomy and stayed there
started with either Dobs or goto SCTs. Most of the people I know who
explored astronomy starting with a department store telescope now have
a department store telescope in their closet (or have given it to
Goodwill) and don't observe.

I'd be the exception to that and I believe anyone truly interested (as opposed to those who saw a Hubble Jupiter shot and wanted a quick thrill) will keep at it.

Ding, ding, ding! Winnah! Winnah!

Correct!!

And you're not the only exception to that.






Having said that, I think parents who spend thousands a year on their cellphones and who balk at spending few hundred on a scope for a truly interested kid either don't have the money or are too cheap to spend it wisely.

On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 12:00:57 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 13 March 2016 11:02:57 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 06:55:30 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

They provide a cheap and accessible way for a newbie to gauge his or her interest in amateur astronomy!

Or, alternatively, they turn people off of astronomy completely.

Most of the people I know who got into astronomy and stayed there
started with either Dobs or goto SCTs. Most of the people I know who
explored astronomy starting with a department store telescope now have
a department store telescope in their closet (or have given it to
Goodwill) and don't observe.

I'd be the exception to that and I believe anyone truly interested (as
opposed to those who saw a Hubble Jupiter shot and wanted a quick thrill) will keep at it. Having said that, I think parents who spend thousands a year on their cellphones and who balk at spending few hundred on a scope for a truly interested kid either don't have the money or are too cheap to spend it wisely.

I would suggest that the other poster's sample is decidedly biased, not representative of reality.

Let's say that two million telescopes are sold each year in the US. Most of those would be small, basic scopes well under $100. Using the dogma that a "decent scope should cost at least $400," if everyone spent that much then the amount of extra money spent would be 2x10^6 * ~$350 = ~$700 million per year. That doesn't seem like much but that would be money diverted from other purposes.

If two million scopes are sold per year then perhaps we would have two million newbies asking questions of existing amateur astronomers. Assuming that
there might be only about 50,000 active astronomy club members in the US, each such member would be called upon to attend to the needs of forty or so newbies each year! That might triple the clubs' meeting attendance each month. Where are all of those newbies going to park?

After all of that, how many newbies will even stick with the hobby despite the hand-holding?

Admittedly, the above is a sort of "worst-case" scenario, but still.

On 3/15/2016 7:41 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 12:00:57 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 13 March 2016 11:02:57 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 06:55:30 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

They provide a cheap and accessible way for a newbie to gauge his or her interest in amateur astronomy!

Or, alternatively, they turn people off of astronomy completely.

Most of the people I know who got into astronomy and stayed there
started with either Dobs or goto SCTs. Most of the people I know who
explored astronomy starting with a department store telescope now have
a department store telescope in their closet (or have given it to
Goodwill) and don't observe.

I'd be the exception to that and I believe anyone truly interested (as
opposed to those who saw a Hubble Jupiter shot and wanted a quick thrill) will keep at it. Having said that, I think parents who spend thousands a year on their cellphones and who balk at spending few hundred on a scope for a truly interested kid either don't have the money or are too cheap to spend it wisely.

I would suggest that the other poster's sample is decidedly biased, not representative of reality.

Let's say that two million telescopes are sold each year in the US. Most of those would be small, basic scopes well under $100. Using the dogma that a "decent scope should cost at least $400," if everyone spent that much then the amount of extra money spent would be 2x10^6 * ~$350 = ~$700 million per year. That doesn't seem like much but that would be money diverted from other purposes.

If two million scopes are sold per year then perhaps we would have two million newbies asking questions of existing amateur astronomers. Assuming that
there might be only about 50,000 active astronomy club members in the US, each such member would be called upon to attend to the needs of forty or so newbies each year! That might triple the clubs' meeting attendance each month. Where are all of those newbies going to park?

After all of that, how many newbies will even stick with the hobby despite the hand-holding?

Admittedly, the above is a sort of "worst-case" scenario, but still.



It's not the cheap telescope that discourages the newbie. It's the
cheapskate advanced observer that uses the minimum of equipment but
tries to convince himself and others into believing his skills allow him
to see more than what is really there. He goes on and on about the
spectacular views he has of an almost invisible smudge of light. One
exaggeration after another. Think about it, the only way to spoil a good
story is to tell the truth.

Most of those new to the hobby are still open minded enough to realize
there is more to astronomy than gushing over a smudge in an eyepiece or
a scribble on a piece of paper. The newcomers may eventually discover
there is more viewing done in the minds of the expert's than with their
eyes. That or sadly, the newcomer becomes one of them.

It's not hand holding that's being done by the so called experts, all
they are doing is holding back others. Newcomers are stonewalled by
experts that discourage modern ideas and methods at every opportunity
simply because the experts are unable to understand them.

Those traditional experts will selfishly do all they can to prevent the
use of modern equipment anywhere within sight of their space. "My night
vision, my night vision, those devices will destroy my night vision!"

Selfish is correct. As long as those new devices are not within a few
yards and directly illuminating the expert's space he looses very little
if any of his precious night vision. He could possibly loose a percent
or two of his view but will selfishly try to prevent the modern
astronomers from seeing one hundred percent of what they can view.

It wasn't cheap equipment that discourage me, it was those know it all
pompous asses that claimed they were better than others because they had
the skills to see more that ordinary mortals. It took quite some time to
realize I had the same skills as them but rather than the desire to
impress others my only desire was for a better view.

Technology finally came through for me. I got what I desired and
deserved. A view of the sky that is unprecedented by anything seen with
traditional equipment. As for those so narrow minded they view through
an eyepiece with both eyes at the same time, they get what they deserve.
A smudge in an eyepiece or a smear on a piece of paper and of course,
all the time in the world to quibble with each other on the Internet.

I'll bet I've spent more hours observing since my last visit here than
the total done by all the s.a.a expert obsnivelers.

LdB

On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 4:27:09 PM UTC-4, LsD wrote:

nothing

"There are no live broadcasts at this time."

On Tuesday, 15 March 2016 16:27:09 UTC-4, LdB wrote:
On 3/15/2016 7:41 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 12:00:57 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 13 March 2016 11:02:57 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 06:55:30 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

They provide a cheap and accessible way for a newbie to gauge his or her interest in amateur astronomy!

Or, alternatively, they turn people off of astronomy completely.

Most of the people I know who got into astronomy and stayed there
started with either Dobs or goto SCTs. Most of the people I know who
explored astronomy starting with a department store telescope now have
a department store telescope in their closet (or have given it to
Goodwill) and don't observe.

I'd be the exception to that and I believe anyone truly interested (as
opposed to those who saw a Hubble Jupiter shot and wanted a quick thrill) will keep at it. Having said that, I think parents who spend thousands a year on their cellphones and who balk at spending few hundred on a scope for a truly interested kid either don't have the money or are too cheap to spend it wisely.

I would suggest that the other poster's sample is decidedly biased, not representative of reality.

Let's say that two million telescopes are sold each year in the US. Most of those would be small, basic scopes well under $100. Using the dogma that a "decent scope should cost at least $400," if everyone spent that much then the amount of extra money spent would be 2x10^6 * ~$350 = ~$700 million per year. That doesn't seem like much but that would be money diverted from other purposes.

If two million scopes are sold per year then perhaps we would have two million newbies asking questions of existing amateur astronomers. Assuming that
there might be only about 50,000 active astronomy club members in the US, each such member would be called upon to attend to the needs of forty or so newbies each year! That might triple the clubs' meeting attendance each month. Where are all of those newbies going to park?

After all of that, how many newbies will even stick with the hobby despite the hand-holding?

Admittedly, the above is a sort of "worst-case" scenario, but still.



It's not the cheap telescope that discourages the newbie. It's the
cheapskate advanced observer that uses the minimum of equipment but
tries to convince himself and others into believing his skills allow him
to see more than what is really there. He goes on and on about the
spectacular views he has of an almost invisible smudge of light. One
exaggeration after another. Think about it, the only way to spoil a good
story is to tell the truth.
time in the world to quibble with each other on the Internet.

You'd be dead-wrong here. It was the seasoned observers who tried to temper the expectations of novices by warning them that what was printed on the cheap telescope box is likely not what you would see. If after knowing that a new observer was still interested, perfect. Some may claim to be able to ferret-out tough galaxies that a novice would simply pass-over, but that is hardly a boast or unrealistic.

I'll bet I've spent more hours observing since my last visit here than
the total done by all the s.a.a expert obsnivelers.

LdB

So in one breath you attack seasoned observers, in the next you now claim to be one?

On Tuesday, 15 March 2016 08:41:46 UTC-4, wrote:
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 12:00:57 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 13 March 2016 11:02:57 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 06:55:30 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

They provide a cheap and accessible way for a newbie to gauge his or her interest in amateur astronomy!

Or, alternatively, they turn people off of astronomy completely.

Most of the people I know who got into astronomy and stayed there
started with either Dobs or goto SCTs. Most of the people I know who
explored astronomy starting with a department store telescope now have
a department store telescope in their closet (or have given it to
Goodwill) and don't observe.

I'd be the exception to that and I believe anyone truly interested (as
opposed to those who saw a Hubble Jupiter shot and wanted a quick thrill) will keep at it. Having said that, I think parents who spend thousands a year on their cellphones and who balk at spending few hundred on a scope for a truly interested kid either don't have the money or are too cheap to spend it wisely.

I would suggest that the other poster's sample is decidedly biased, not representative of reality.

Let's say that two million telescopes are sold each year in the US. Most of those would be small, basic scopes well under $100. Using the dogma that a "decent scope should cost at least $400," if everyone spent that much then the amount of extra money spent would be 2x10^6 * ~$350 = ~$700 million per year. That doesn't seem like much but that would be money diverted from other purposes.

Like video games and Apple Play downloads?
Boo....hooo!