Department Store Telescopes Are Great!

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 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!

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, March 15, 2016 at 6:05:04 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:

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

Well, we have someone else here who attacks all those people who get time at
Mauna Kea or on the Hubble, but who claims to be the only *real* astronomer in
the world that he knows of (continuing in the tradition of Galileo, Copernicus,
and Kepler, but not that upstart Newton), so this isn't unique.

John Savard

On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 12:40:42 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

And truly inexpensive toy telescopes, as long as they aren't pointed at the
Sun, are useful within their limits; they may not be good for astronomy, but
they can be used for birdwatching and the like, and introduce children to the
fact that a thing like a telescope is possible.

John Savard

True. They are also good at teaching amateur astronomers to stand on their head, a skill that transcends many disciplines.

http://www.richardfisher.com

On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 9:42:55 AM UTC-4, Helpful person wrote:
On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 12:40:42 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

And truly inexpensive toy telescopes, as long as they aren't pointed at the
Sun, are useful within their limits; they may not be good for astronomy, but
they can be used for birdwatching and the like, and introduce children to the
fact that a thing like a telescope is possible.


True. They are also good at teaching amateur astronomers to stand on their head, a skill that transcends many disciplines.

That would apply equally to most any astronomical telescope. However, refractors usually come with a diagonal that produces an upright, albeit reversed image, and a small Newtonian with the focuser in vertical position when scope is aimed horizontally can easily provide a more-or-less upright image..

On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 8:05:04 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 March 2016 16:27:09 UTC-4, LdB wrote:

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 suspect that LsD IS a novice from a visual observing standpoint. He doesn't have fifty years of experience, he has a couple of -days- of experience, repeated about 10,000 times.

On 13/03/2016 15:02, 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!

Especially when bought secondhand from someone who just wants rid of it.
Why pay full price when you can get one in mint condition for 60% ?

There is no compelling reason for a newbie to *buy* a scope these days -
the astro societies I know are brim full of donated smaller scopes
looking for a good home or to be loaned to younger observers.

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

A good scope on a bad sloppy mount can also turn people off.

The biggest step up is seeing the moon, Jupiter and Saturn for the first
time at a sufficient magnification to see details. Even a humble two
inch scope can do that well enough.

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.


These days I think the cost of a driven scope has come down so much that
it is feasible for someone to skip the basic department store scope. Be
wary of the ones claiming 950x magnification though!

Goto scopes may annoy the purest star hoppers but they have also made
the hobby a lot more accessible to the average person.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 10:34:10 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown 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!

Especially when bought secondhand from someone who just wants rid of it.
Why pay full price when you can get one in mint condition for 60% ?

That is a somewhat specious argument. There can't be any used scopes unless someone buys them new in the first place. The better used scopes tend to to be bought/sold within cliques. The best might never be sold used.

There is no compelling reason for a newbie to *buy* a scope these days -
the astro societies I know are brim full of donated smaller scopes
looking for a good home or to be loaned to younger observers.

Except that many young people do not have access to an astronomy club, even if said club had any loaner scopes. Remember, I specifically mentioned "accessible" as an advantage to buying a scope from a department store.


These days I think the cost of a driven scope has come down so much that
it is feasible for someone to skip the basic department store scope.

For those who can afford such things that has always been the case, so nothing new there.

On 15/03/2016 14:10, Quadibloc wrote:
On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 7:12:47 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 2:16:55 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 7:55:34 AM UTC-6, wsne... wrote:

(This is not a troll.)

You could have fooled me.

(If you think it's a troll then you were fooled.)

Ah, but since you weren't intending to fool me, who did?

Why did I make such a comment?

Well, you have made a few posts around here on... political... subjects. These
posts identify you as... a strong advocate of the free-enterprise system.

The common criticisms of "department-store telescopes", at bottom, amount to a
claim of the existence of a _market failure_.

Specifically, it is being claimed that the natural forces of the free market
have led to a counter-productive situation... where people are offered, and
purchase, useless junk labelled as "telescopes" because they don't know any
better, and because the existing landscape of competition means that it is
profitable to produce such.

But that is the essence of the "Free market" the cognoscenti rip-off
everyone else by selling them dross that they neither need nor want by
the use of sophisticated advertising and now via social media.

Next, I could talk about Hershey's chocolate bars... and butyric acid... which
have led to European chocolate fanciers taking a dim view of American
chocolates in general.

Hersheys is rancid vomit flavoured chocolate specifically made for the
US market. It is not considered fit for human consumption in the ROW.

I was told in Japan that their chocolate was rubbish by an American and
to bring plentiful supplies. When I ran out of Swiss and Belgian
chocolate I discovered the Japanese learnt their chocolate making from
the Portuguese and their quality chocolate was every bit as good.

So I suspect you of defending the proverbial department-store telescope not so
much because of its optics as to defend a whole political ideology. As if the
existence of the odd market failure here and there in a generally healthy
free-market economy would leave us no choice but to march into the waiting arms
of the kind of thinking that led to places like North Korea.

John Savard

I don't see how you can avoid problems with a free market economy. As
the head of Lloyds of London said of the suckers they signed up for
unlimited liability to the asbestos claims handling syndicates "if God
had not meant for them to be sheared he would not have made them sheep".
(a quote I think from the Seven Samurai via the Magnificent Seven)

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/publi...oyds_of_lo.pdf

Whenever there is an asymmetry of information available to the market
there is scope for the market makers to rip people off. Libor and Forex
market manipulation being recent classic examples that spring to mind.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown