Have refractors hurt the hobby?

RichA wrote in message . ..

I used to have the view that if someone couldn't maintain their
interest enough to "live" with a 60mm for a few years until they
sought out something better, maybe they didn't deserve to be in the
hobby, that their interest was not genuine. But, after having
watched the behaviour of amateurs over the past 35 years, I realize
that some (more now than before) come into the hobby and can be
turned off by bad equipment. Whether they "deserve" to be in the
hobby is purely a judgment call on people's part.

So if most agree that the lowly cheapo 60mm refractor (or worse,
the fully plastic 40 or 50mm trashfractor) has turned away potential
devotees, what can be done about it?



Hi Rich:

This is a question that's been asked a lot over the years in our
community. But I think it is always appropriate at this time of year,
with the holiday season creeping up.

Does the Department Store Scope hurt amateur astronomy?

Certainly there are some insanely horrible telescopes out there. Some
that only barely quality to be called "telescope" at all. As you
mention, plastic single-element objectives ain't exactly unheard of.
These plastic-lensed wonders are mostly found in toy stores (Toys 'R
Us), however, and don't bear the usual Tasco-Bushnell logos of the
"true" department store 700x60 special. These toy scopes have been
around forever, and are really sold as just that, _toys_. Probably a
few parents think they can get a good scope for li'l Suzie for 10
bucks, but I'd guess most are aware that telescopes of this type are
just toys, nothing more, and will not help Junior get into college.

BTW, in the "good old days," not all "toy" telescopes were junk. I
fondly remember the Gilbert sub-3-inch reflectors. I REMEMBER them as
being able to do a good job on the Moon, at least. Is this just a
warm, fuzzy memory? I can find out. I've recently got my hands on a
Gilbert (who, BTW, used to be THE name in chemistry sets) complete
with case and original documentation. When I get some time, I'll see
what this silly little thing can really do.

The Department Store Scope (DSS) as we think of it is alive and well.
60mm refractors, 4.5 inch reflectors, and, increasingly it seems, 3
inch reflectors (and even a 3 inch refractor or two), are prominent at
Wal-Mart at this time of year. How are they these days? Better or
worse than they used to be? Both. They are all a little better in that
MOST use 1.25" eyepieces now, which tend to be slightly superior to
the .965s of yore. That also means that a person with real interest
can buy a few inexpensive Chinese eyepieces and improve the scope
quite a bit. As in the past, those I've seen have pretty good
objectives and (spherical) primary mirrors).

OTOH, all of 'em are more heavily laden plastic than they used to be.
There's nothing wrong with plastic if it's done right. An example is
the Orion StarBlast. It uses a plastic tube ring and focuser, and
these items work very well. But in a DSS, plastic often translates as
"cheap and flimsy." Instead of giving the user the decent cast
aluminum of a 70s Tasco 4.5 inch reflector's focuser and mount, the
DSS makers are using their resources to dazzle the prospective buyer
with digital settting circles and goto. Can goto or DSCs work on such
cheap scopes? I dunno. I've not had the chance to use a DSS with these
features yet, but I have my doubts. Certainly, Meade was able to
implement reliable goto for a low price for its ETX 60 and 70, but at
the 100 dollar level? I have my doubts.

Not all DSSes are the same, of course. A few dollars seems to make far
more difference here than it does with more expensive telescopes--even
the amateur level Chinese imports. There can be and usually is a big,
BIG difference between a 50 dollar scope and a 100 dollar scope.

Nothing I've seen is as good or useable as the old Tasco 11TR red tube
4.5 inch Newtonian. I bought one in the BX in the mid 70s, and it was
surprisingly good despite having a spherical mirror. OTOH, even in an
AF BX, I paid considerably more for it than the 79 dollars most
current DSSes command.

Expectations play a part too. Most kids and parents will be AMAZINGLY
HAPPY AND ASTOUNDED to be able to see craters on the Moon, the moons
of Jupiter, or just the appearance of a bright star. Most of the DSS
scopes can certainly satisfy in this regard.

One thing that needs to go? Now that the evil little eyepiece Solar
filters are gone, the next candidate is the putrid barlows included
with these scopes. They really don't work, and provide the single
largest source of confusion for DSS owners. They just _assume_ they
should start out with the barlow and that 4mm Huygens. ;-)

One good thing today as opposed to the 1960s? There are good
alternatives to the DSS for informed buyers. I try to steer interested
people to the Orion catalog, which is a godsend, since Orion sells
quite a few scopes that are close to the DSS price range--and which
are much better than the usual WallyWorld Bushnell. Back in the 60s,
if you couldn't affort or didn't know about Edmund or Criterion (or
Unitron or Cave), there really wasn't much of an alterative to Tasco
or Sears.

But, no, I don't think the DSS has hurt the pursuit of amateur
astronomy (I refuse to refer to it a just a "hobby"). Anyone, young or
old, with a grain of real interest, will at least pick up a copy of
Astronomy, Sky and Telescope, or Night Sky, or wander into a club
meeting, and will quickly realize that a 50 buck scope from Walmart
does not represent the state of the art in amateur equipment. With a
little guidance, we can ALSO educate them to the fact that it's
possible to upgrade to the much better for not too much more dough
(200 for a StarBlast or ST80 setup) if they are truly interested.

OTOH, in many cases, the DSS performs its role just fine, thank you
very much. Beyond a few peeks at the Moon and a star or two, most
purchasers are not really interested in amateur astronomy and
telescopes, and never will be. What they are buying or having bought
for them is a _totem_, an icon that represents science and education,
and if that's all that's wanted, that's OK, too. Back in the 60s, many
many working class and lower middle class parents really sacrificed to
buy the kids a set of encylodpedias. Sure, Missy could just have used
the set down at the library, but the REAL reason Mom and Dad bought
them was not as a practical purchase. No, what they were buying was
_hope_, hope for their kids to excel and better themselves. Many DSSes
are bought for the very same reason and always have been.

Not everyone is destined to live life dreaming of C14s and 30 inch
StarMasters (though I'm not sure why not) ;-).

Peace,
Rod Mollise
http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

Back in the 60s, many
many working class and lower middle class parents really sacrificed to
buy the kids a set of encylodpedias. Sure, Missy could just have used
the set down at the library, but the REAL reason Mom and Dad bought
them was not as a practical purchase. No, what they were buying was
_hope_, hope for their kids to excel and better themselves. Many DSSes
are bought for the very same reason and always have been.

This is right on the money. I remember when my family got a set of
encyclopedias, and I now appreciate that it was exactly as you say - it was
my parents investing in their hope for their kids. It is also pretty funny
to recall how some of those books were used, e.g. stacked up under a raised
car. I guess that was educational, too.

It is easy to get caught up in equipment/aperture/optical excellence. In my
experience, this is especially true of men. However, lately my sons and I,
along with some others in our club, have been doing more naked eye and bino
observing. We are enjoying taking a step back and returning to a
pre-high-quality-telescope perspective. We are lucky in that we have pretty
dark skies. And, now we have green lasers to help us to point.

Dennis

How many years went by from the invention of the telescope to the
point where telescope quality became better than a cheap department
store telescope of the 21st century? How much real science was done
with this inferior equipment?

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:58:59 +0000, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com wrote:

How many years went by from the invention of the telescope to the
point where telescope quality became better than a cheap department
store telescope of the 21st century? How much real science was done
with this inferior equipment?

Yes, but that real science was being done by real scientists, not 10-year old
kids. A scientist accepts the limitations of his equipment, and learns to work
within them (or to push them). Most kids haven't developed that kind of focus
yet; if they can't see anything interesting through their cheap telescopes, they
will probably give up trying.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Eddie Trimarchi wrote:

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but my crappy 60mm Tasco is what got me
into the hobby and created my love for it.

[ ... ]

Same here.

- Alex

Chris L Peterson wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 16:58:59 +0000, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com
wrote:

How many years went by from the invention of the telescope to the
point where telescope quality became better than a cheap department
store telescope of the 21st century? How much real science was done
with this inferior equipment?

Yes, but that real science was being done by real scientists, not 10-year
old
kids. A scientist accepts the limitations of his equipment, and learns to
work
within them (or to push them). Most kids haven't developed that kind of
focus
yet; if they can't see anything interesting through their cheap telescopes,
they
will probably give up trying.

_______________________________________________ __

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

most kids are bored to death even by Hubble like images . They've seen on tv
so much scifi , animated or not, where galaxies, black holes, wormholes,
super power rangers etc all mix up in a simple 2 minute plot that for them
instant gratification on a grand scale is the only thing that works anymore
..
Give them a 1m class scope including someone to operate the scope hassle
free and these kids would still be totally bored. The questions I hear most
are what's this dot, or why is it so small, or can't you make it closer ?
After which their attention always wonders somewhere else, as if this brief
moment of looking through the eyepiece is the end of their astro
experiences forever .
Invariably people came to expect a lot more from scopes than amateur
instruments could possibly deliver. It's due to movies and tv, science
programs, magazines, even things that have nothing to do with astronomy ,
such as calendars . Within the first 10-15 years of life one gets exposed to
these images and then all that could possibly follow is disappointment .
Statistically speaking, people who buy cheap department store scopes (and by
the way there are equally cheap reflectors as well, not just refractors) end
up being interested in astronomy in the same percentage as people who buy a
bicycle and end up becoming avid cyclists, or people who buy a pool mattress
and later become white water kayakers. The drop out percentage is very high
in any serious endeavor, the more serious it gets . I don't delude myself
that people who own better scopes are using them either . Lots of APO owners
are just watching the same few planets, the same few well known eye candy
DSO's, and that's it. No learning involved and no scientific curiosity .
Very few pursue this hobby to a higher level statistically speaking. The
same phenomenon happens in most other fields , for example boating. I live
in Florida , where millions of people convince themselves they really have
to own a boat, and then said boats sit tied to the docks forever, maybe
getting cleaned twice a year, or going out once or twice per year, then
being sold eyars later at a huge loss.
There are millions of scopes sold every year. Over 90% of them end up in
garages, basements , rotting awaiting that final garage sale. It's the same
with all other activities that require time, dedication and even sacrifice .
There is a place on the price performance curve for each market segment .
Department store scopes are just disposable items, of the fast food type
scopes, as opposed to having on staff permanently a French chef . There's a
place for each .

best regards,
matt tudor

matt wrote:

[snip]
The
same phenomenon happens in most other fields , for example boating. I live
in Florida , where millions of people convince themselves they really have
to own a boat, and then said boats sit tied to the docks forever, maybe
getting cleaned twice a year, or going out once or twice per year, then
being sold eyars later at a huge loss.
[snip]

What ticks me off is people who have 12-foot Steinways in their
livingrooms as "decor".

The rest of your points are plenty valid. Overconsumerism invariably has
increased the need for instant gratification. When you *don't have* the
money to buy what you want and you *really* want it, however, *then* you
start thinking of alternate ways of enjoynment, but this usually
pressuposes some sort of residual wisdom, and such a thing comes only
after a long and painful education and usually later in life. So, you
cannot ask this of kids. They have no way to tell yet, how precious a
posession is, utilitywise or otherwise.

I still use the crappy Tasco that my mother got me when I was 14.

best regards,
matt tudor
--
I. N. G. --- http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/jgal/

My first telescope was a handheld 8x one and the tube was cardboard. I was
hooked. My next one was also made of cardboard (not the lens), had some 5
telescoping components, and it sat on a 12" tall tripod. I was still hooked.

There are people who will spend thousands on one and get bored in a month.

Howard Lester


Eddie Trimarchi wrote:

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but my crappy 60mm Tasco is what got
me
into the hobby and created my love for it.

On 05 Nov 2004 14:29:04 GMT, (Jon Isaacs) wrote:

Rich A. wrote:

About 17 years ago, Meade and Celestron tried to help out here. They
both offered only decent (not great, but workable) 60mm refractors
with reasonable 1-1/4" eyepieces and real finderscopes. This was a
noble attempt by them to "upscale" the beginner. It worked for a bit,
but ultimately, both companies for whatever reason decided to dispense
with all pretense at being the hobby saviours and started selling
the same garbage scopes Tasco and Bushnell and Swift, etc, had been
selling.

Actually, Meade does produce such a telescope, 60AZ-A and it costs $50 at
Walmart. After reading the Sky and Telescope editorial, I decided I would see
exactly how bad these scopes are.

What do you get for your $50?

A color free 60mm F11.7 objective, a metal tube, and a surprisingly smooth 1.25
inch plastic focuser. It comes with 2 decent 1.25 inch MA eyepieces, a 25mm
and a 9mm, it has a full aperture, reasonably sharp 5x24 finder (unlike finders
of the past that were stopped down), a real mirror diagonal, a chincy but
workable barlow, and a mount that takes a while to settle down, probably a true
5 second settling time.

A few months ago somebody turned up at a Practical Astronomy session
with a department store scope, some sort of Bushnell. 60mm f/11ish,
alt az mount, up to 625 magnification, the works.

If it was £50 (or $50) that would be fine, but it wasn't. It was £299!

For that price she could have got a NexStar 80 GT.

We did our best to be polite but it was awfully difficult to see this
as otherwise than a ripoff.

It isn't cheap department store scopes that are the problem as much as
expensive department store scopes.

Chris

On Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:47:18 -0500, "matt" wrote:

most kids are bored to death even by Hubble like images . They've seen on tv
so much scifi , animated or not, where galaxies, black holes, wormholes,
super power rangers etc all mix up in a simple 2 minute plot that for them
instant gratification on a grand scale is the only thing that works anymore...

Must be all those dumb little kids in Florida. No way living in a miserable
climate like that can result in anything but mental lethargy g.

Here in the Colorado mountains (where all the kids are above average) I find
that the K-8 students at the local school are quite interested in science and
astronomy. They listen to lectures, spend time at the telescope, watch eclipses,
and get up early to see meteor showers. Of course, we don't have any TV
reception here, and probably less than half the kids have satellite receivers at
home. And with a 90 minute drive to the nearest cinema, they are perhaps
slightly less contaminated by bad sci-fi.


Department store scopes are just disposable items, of the fast food type
scopes, as opposed to having on staff permanently a French chef . There's a
place for each .

As noted elsewhere, there are department store telescopes and there are
department store telescopes. Not all are complete junk.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com