Refractor telescope

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:26:11 +0100, EllieMar
wrote:

Hey guys!
Planning to buy a scope for the city. Which one can you recommend?

If your city has brightly lit skies, any scope is going to be very
limited. For astronomy inside a bright city, consider imaging. It
allows you to easily see things that are impossible to view through an
eyepiece, and an imaging system can be set up very inexpensively.

Alternatively, if visual astronomy is your real interest, think in
terms of a telescope that you can easily get outside the city with. If
you can drive, that might be something like an 8-inch Dob or an 8-inch
SCT. If you're limited to public transportation, something like a 5 or
6-inch SCT or Mak might be a good choice.

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:26:11 +0100, EllieMar
wrote:

Hey guys!
Planning to buy a scope for the city. Which one can you recommend?

If your city has brightly lit skies, any scope is going to be very
limited. For astronomy inside a bright city, consider imaging. It
allows you to easily see things that are impossible to view through an
eyepiece, and an imaging system can be set up very inexpensively.

Alternatively, if visual astronomy is your real interest, think in
terms of a telescope that you can easily get outside the city with. If
you can drive, that might be something like an 8-inch Dob or an 8-inch
SCT. If you're limited to public transportation, something like a 5 or
6-inch SCT or Mak might be a good choice.

What would be your suggestion for an inexpensive imaging system and how
much would it cost?

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:55:37 +0100, EllieMar
wrote this crap:


Thanx a lot

You're welcome.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:28:46 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:26:11 +0100, EllieMar
wrote:

Hey guys!
Planning to buy a scope for the city. Which one can you recommend?

If your city has brightly lit skies, any scope is going to be very
limited. For astronomy inside a bright city, consider imaging. It
allows you to easily see things that are impossible to view through an
eyepiece, and an imaging system can be set up very inexpensively.

Alternatively, if visual astronomy is your real interest, think in
terms of a telescope that you can easily get outside the city with. If
you can drive, that might be something like an 8-inch Dob or an 8-inch
SCT. If you're limited to public transportation, something like a 5 or
6-inch SCT or Mak might be a good choice.

What would be your suggestion for an inexpensive imaging system and how
much would it cost?

A beginner might consider an integrating video camera, which can be
had for as low as $100 (and up to several hundred dollars). Another
camera option would be a DSLR- ones quite good for astronomical
imaging can be found used for $100, and it's quite possible that
somebody might already have one available.

Any small telescope- refractor, SCT, Mak would be suitable. There's a
need for a tracking mount, but since good imaging can be performed
with exposure times measured in a few tens of seconds or less, no high
performance tracking or guiding is required. Small table-top goto
mounts will work, as will inexpensive trackers designed to mount on
photo tripods. Indeed, impressive astronomical imaging requires
nothing more than a camera and telephoto lens along with such a
tracking mount.

Of course, if the interest in imaging continues to develop, there is
ample opportunity to spend a lot of money on equipment! But it's not
necessary for somebody just starting out, interested in exploring the
subject.

I'd say the cost of a visual system or an imaging system are likely to
be comparable. For the visual, you probably want a little more
aperture and a few nice eyepieces. For imaging, you can make do with
less aperture and you don't need the eyepieces, so you can put the
difference into a camera. Either way, I'd probably hope a beginner
could invest about $500 to get started. Much less than that, and we're
probably limited to a Dob, which is fine for many visual observers,
but isn't a good choice for use inside a bright city.

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 10:53:56 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 06:09:35 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 8:37:11 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

edit

It is heresy here but for a beginner a goto mount makes life a lot
easier for finding astronomical objects. There is a heck of a lot of
empty sky between the interesting bits.

But tracking down and finding those objects is half the fun! GOTO might have ruined my interest in astronomy.

I always hated tracking things down.

I never had much problem with it. There are plenty of easy-to-find objects for those who have bothered to learn the constellations.

I built my own goto mount in the
1970s to avoid that chore.

I put setting circles on a home-made equatorial and found them boring.

And I know many people who lost interest in
astronomy because of the problem of finding things, and who regained
it when goto commercial goto systems became common and inexpensive.

IOW, they bought their way into the hobby. And they'll be more likely to drop out again, once they've GOTOed most of the brighter objects in the database.

People need to consider every angle of their own interests when
deciding on equipment.

Orion's cheapest GOTO is 60mm and $260 plus shipping. The same money will get a beginner at least a 100mm non-GOTO. A non-GOTO 60mm can be obtained for much less.

If GOTO were to be considered a standard, then far fewer newbies will join the hobby, and attrition might rise.

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 11:01:08 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:26:11 +0100, EllieMar
wrote:

Hey guys!
Planning to buy a scope for the city. Which one can you recommend?

If your city has brightly lit skies, any scope is going to be very
limited.

ROTFLMAO!

For astronomy inside a bright city, consider imaging. It
allows you to easily see things that are impossible to view through an
eyepiece, and an imaging system can be set up very inexpensively.

Oh, that's right, I forgot... amateur astronomy is for the UPPER middle class, right, peterson?

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:58:12 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I always hated tracking things down.

I never had much problem with it. There are plenty of easy-to-find objects for those who have bothered to learn the constellations.

Sure. And that's just fine for those interested in learning the
constellations. But many don't. And if you live in a bright city, star
hopping to objects can be nearly impossible. There just aren't enough
visible landmarks.


I built my own goto mount in the
1970s to avoid that chore.

I put setting circles on a home-made equatorial and found them boring.

And I know many people who lost interest in
astronomy because of the problem of finding things, and who regained
it when goto commercial goto systems became common and inexpensive.

IOW, they bought their way into the hobby. And they'll be more likely to drop out again, once they've GOTOed most of the brighter objects in the database.

Many people continue with the hobby because they don't have to deal
with finding objects. And many who get bored with objects through the
eyepiece move on to imaging. There are ample opportunities in amateur
astronomy for people with all manner of interest, all manner of
motivation, all manner of capability.

To deprecate those who choose the tools most suitable to their own
interests is just pathetic.

People need to consider every angle of their own interests when
deciding on equipment.

Orion's cheapest GOTO is 60mm and $260 plus shipping. The same money will get a beginner at least a 100mm non-GOTO. A non-GOTO 60mm can be obtained for much less.

If GOTO were to be considered a standard, then far fewer newbies will join the hobby, and attrition might rise.

You are very focused on money. Most people interested in pursuing any
given hobby are not destitute, are not limited to using the most
inexpensive equipment available.

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 2:26:01 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:58:12 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

I always hated tracking things down.

I never had much problem with it. There are plenty of easy-to-find objects for those who have bothered to learn the constellations.

Sure. And that's just fine for those interested in learning the
constellations. But many don't. And if you live in a bright city, star
hopping to objects can be nearly impossible. There just aren't enough
visible landmarks.

You are overstating the problem tremendously.

I built my own goto mount in the
1970s to avoid that chore.

I put setting circles on a home-made equatorial and found them boring.

And I know many people who lost interest in
astronomy because of the problem of finding things, and who regained
it when goto commercial goto systems became common and inexpensive.

IOW, they bought their way into the hobby. And they'll be more likely to drop out again, once they've GOTOed most of the brighter objects in the database.

Many people continue with the hobby because they don't have to deal
with finding objects.

And many of them can't identify constellations either.

To deprecate those who choose the tools most suitable to their own
interests is just pathetic.

People need to consider every angle of their own interests when
deciding on equipment.

Orion's cheapest GOTO is 60mm and $260 plus shipping. The same money will get a beginner at least a 100mm non-GOTO. A non-GOTO 60mm can be obtained for much less.

If GOTO were to be considered a standard, then far fewer newbies will join the hobby, and attrition might rise.

You are very focused on money. Most people interested in pursuing any
given hobby are not destitute,

Nobody said they were, but amateur astronomy must compete with many other hobbies and interests, especially among the younger crowd. There are only so many dollars to go around.

are not limited to using the most
inexpensive equipment available.

Most of today's amateurs started out with some very inexpensive equipment.

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 16:57:19 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 2:26:01 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:58:12 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

I always hated tracking things down.

I never had much problem with it. There are plenty of easy-to-find objects for those who have bothered to learn the constellations.

Sure. And that's just fine for those interested in learning the
constellations. But many don't. And if you live in a bright city, star
hopping to objects can be nearly impossible. There just aren't enough
visible landmarks.

You are overstating the problem tremendously.

Problem? I don't see any problem.

Many people continue with the hobby because they don't have to deal
with finding objects.

And many of them can't identify constellations either.

So what? Who cares?

Most of today's amateurs started out with some very inexpensive equipment.

Only if you're talking about people who got into astronomy 30 or 40
years ago or more. Most people who get into the hobby now start by
buying equipment- frequently fairly decent stuff that isn't cheap.

On Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 12:26:00 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 16:57:19 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, September 11, 2015 at 2:26:01 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 09:58:12 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

I always hated tracking things down.

I never had much problem with it. There are plenty of easy-to-find objects for those who have bothered to learn the constellations.

Sure. And that's just fine for those interested in learning the
constellations. But many don't. And if you live in a bright city, star
hopping to objects can be nearly impossible. There just aren't enough
visible landmarks.

You are overstating the problem tremendously.

Problem? I don't see any problem.

Exactly, starhopping with a simple telescope is quite feasible from a brightly-lit city.

Many people continue with the hobby because they don't have to deal
with finding objects.

And many of them can't identify constellations either.

So what? Who cares?

GOTO doesn't work with binos, for example.

If a newbie asks "What is that little star over there?" the GOTO-only user will simply give the newbie a deer-in-the-headlights look. After a few minutes of fumbling around he MIGHT be able to aim his GOTO scope at the star and then read what the star's name is.

This actually reminds me of a book I found when I was young called "Stars by Clock and Fist" or (something like that.) The premise was that one could refer to some charts and tables in the book, and then "identify" a star by counting out how many hand widths it was from the horizon and some compass direction. Of course this activity wouldn't help much when looking for the star (WITHOUT the book) a few months later UNLESS one had bothered to learn the constellations.

Most of today's amateurs started out with some very inexpensive equipment.