Started with a 60mm Refractor?

In article ,
Jon Isaacs wrote:
I wonder how many of you who post and lurk here started with a 60mm refractor
or something similar? I would like to see a show of hands, lurkers can Email
me privately...

The first telescope was a 40 mm or so fixed eyepiece scope that I
generally used by sighting out my open bedroom window and propping the
fixed tripod on top of some books. This was enough to show Saturn
being fat, moons of Jupiter, glorius detail in the moon, and spots on
the sun. Wonders beyond compare!

This was after my first real astronomical experience of the 66-67
(whenever the big one was about then) Leonid shower, which I'd viewed
naked eye.

My second scope was several years later, and was a 60 mm. The
chromatic aberration wasn't too bad (a comment having something to
do with my standards and vision, perhaps), and the mount settled
down in only 30 seconds or so after being tapped. No finder; I
sighted things by guess and by gosh down the tube and swept in alt-az.
The really good feature was a zoom lens that took me from something
like 30x to something like 90x. Jupiter gained stripes, Saturn went
from fat to having rings and a moon, double stars opened up, some
nebulae started to appear, and glorious clusters of stars opened up.
I'd also stopped sighting out the bedroom window.

That was the last scope I owned for quite some time. It
didn't survive being loaned to a friend when I was in college.
It was more than sufficient to sustain and nurture my interest
in astronomy specifically and science generally. I wound up
earning a doctorate (diferent field) and occasionally teaching
astronomy (sufficient astronomy courses that you needn't be
gasping) in a local community college.


The concern (" ") about the department store scopes puts me in
mind of beginning runners and attitudes for and about them from
experienced runners. A different thing I do is run and coach
beginning runners. There are always a few experienced folks
(rather fewer than the dismissives here, by the way) who dismiss
beginners who aren't running 'fast enough' or beginners or
experienced runners who are alternating running and walking
in their marathon, or don't have 'serious' equipment.

My touchstone is -- does this approach produce injury or
otherwise get people out of the activity? Run/walk does not,
necessarily. (It may, if it is a couch to marathon in 4 months
program, but the problem there is too fast to the marathon, not
the run/walk.) Not using the 'serious' equipment (mostly
a matter of tech fabrics for the clothing) limits some the
weather or duration of outdooor runs, but again, not an eliminator
or necessarily injurious thing.

Wobbly as my 60 mm's mount was, it did settle down. Even
without a finder scope, I did find things. Even with some
coma and chromatic aberration, I saw Jupiter's stripes and
lunar craters. Rather like not using the tech fabrics, all
the ills of 'department store' scopes are in line of limiting
what you can do -- but not causing injury or preventing anything
constructive.

Conclusion of the analogy: The most important thing for runners
is to get them a) started b) without injury. If a 'crappy'
department store scope can satisfy those two for amateur
astronomers, then it's fine. imho of course.

Of course it's still an excellent idea to talk to an astronomy
club, to try out scopes at star parties, and to generally get as
much free 'coaching' as you can.


I've also finally acquired my first telescopes in ages, a
70 mm refractor and a 20 cm reflector. (I don't count the 20 cm
scope of the school's I used in teaching.) More in a moment or
six.

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences