Department Store Telescopes Are Great!

On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 11:16:55 PM UTC-4, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:

The government doesn't interfere in my daily life.

Surely it does interfere and many of those currently running it would prefer to interfere even more.

You said people who are rude and opinionated are fascists. That definition is new to me.

Nazis were quite rude and not only had strong opinions, but inflicted them on others by force, much as the current crop of Demonrats wish to do.

Come back when you are in a better mood, poisonberry.

On Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 8:00:11 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
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!

http://www.notsoboringlife.com/list-of-hobbies/

How many of those do you do?

On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 8:19:14 PM UTC-7, wrote:

Sorry, that would completely against his nature...


Hey, ****head, what do you think about "Department Store Telescopes?"

Well, a$$hole, I had a department telescope in 1955. It was from Montgomery Wards, it was perhaps 5 or 6 feet long, maybe 3 inches in diameter, mounted on a tall and extremely wobbly tripod, and it could show the craters of the moon, the rings of Saturn and the moons of Jupiter... and that's about it, for a 9-year-old. I knew practically nothing of the sky at that time and simply pointed it at whatever was brightest in the sky. I readily admit that it took maybe 10 minutes to locate any object in the sky, and that goes for the moon, too! It was a very frustrating experience for a little kid whose parents hadn't a clue what was in the sky other than the sun and the Moon. I spent endless hours and hours trying to make sense of the universe, but it was a trying experience, at a minimum. This was my ONLY experience with a department store telescope, and it was not a good one. It did not, however, kill my curiosity about astronomy.

Perhaps it was a different experience for you.

It wasn't until 1974 that I bought my next telescope, a C-8, and this was well after getting a B.A. degree in astronomy. I should clarify that I used the University's telescopes while a student and became proficient in navigating the sky, in general. I observed perhaps 4,000 NGC objects with my C-8, and would have added to that C-8 total had I not acquired a 25" dob. Now I'm up to about 10,000 or 12,000 objects observed, and look forward to observing several thousands more before I'm done.

So, I guess it would be fair to say that, as a 9-year-old, I didn't think much of my department store telescope. If anyone else had a bad experience like this, well, I can relate.

Of course, there are certainly "small" telescopes on good mounts that can't really be compared to "department store" telescopes, and can be employed to provide stunning wide-field views and even deep-sky views of hundreds of objects. For example, who would believe that a 55 mm telescope, in the hands of an expert experienced observer, could do this...

http://www.jayreynoldsfreeman.com/Au...RSaga.text.pdf

Jay Reynolds Freeman is a monster observer who is an idol of mine, and his persistence just shows what can be accomplished if one were to persevere at the eyepiece.

Of course, it is completely against your nature to agree with just about anything I have to say, so let's hear it...

On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 8:40:19 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, 17 March 2016 11:57:54 UTC-4, wrote:
On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 11:22:14 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

[manufacturer's product] is rancid

Unless you can prove that (and you cannot) then you have just committed libel and a product disparagement. Contact your lawyer for advice.

vomit flavoured

That is, or course, merely an opinion.

It is NOT an opinion. American mainstream chocolate is TRASH. Brown candle-wax. Chocolate is like paint. The more the solids contained (cocoa) the better the product. America has the lowest level of solids. You can get good chocolate, if you know which kind.

My most recent discovery is that I can buy French dark chocolate, 74%, at the local $.99 store, and it is pretty good! At less than a dollar each, I buy 10 at a time!

On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 1:12:03 AM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 8:19:14 PM UTC-7, wsne... wrote:

Sorry, that would completely against his nature...


Hey, ****head, what do you think about "Department Store Telescopes?"

Well, a$$hole,

That's twice you've tried to insult me, ****head, for no reason other than it's in your nature to be a ****head.

deleted

Of course, it is completely against your nature to agree with just about anything I have to say, so let's hear it...

My early astronomy experience, using a department store telescope, was quite positive, but then I was probably a faster learner than you were.

On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 10:29:02 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 1:12:03 AM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 8:19:14 PM UTC-7, wsne... wrote:

Sorry, that would completely against his nature...


Hey, ****head, what do you think about "Department Store Telescopes?"

Well, a$$hole,

That's twice you've tried to insult me, ****head, for no reason other than it's in your nature to be a ****head.

deleted

Of course, it is completely against your nature to agree with just about anything I have to say, so let's hear it...

My early astronomy experience, using a department store telescope, was quite positive, but then I was probably a faster learner than you were.

So, you think that "****head" is not an attempt to insult?

You are one totally crazy mother****er!

On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 1:32:46 AM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 10:29:02 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Friday, March 18, 2016 at 1:12:03 AM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 8:19:14 PM UTC-7, wsne... wrote:

Sorry, that would completely against his nature...


Hey, ****head, what do you think about "Department Store Telescopes?"

Well, a$$hole,

That's twice you've tried to insult me, ****head, for no reason other than it's in your nature to be a ****head.

deleted

Of course, it is completely against your nature to agree with just about anything I have to say, so let's hear it...

My early astronomy experience, using a department store telescope, was quite positive, but then I was probably a faster learner than you were.

So, you think that "****head" is not an attempt to insult?

No, I think it IS an insult, ****head.

You are one totally crazy deleted!

You started it with:

"Sorry, that would completely against his nature... "

Try keeping a civil tone, ****head.

On 17/03/2016 17:19, wrote:
On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 12:25:40 PM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

It is well known that the stuff tastes and smells of butyric acid.

It tastes like chocolate. I have tasted many brands of chocolate.

How many were non-American made chocolate though? All the US makers
imitate the rubbish that Hershey make because it sells to the suckers.

It tastes like vomit but Americans have been conned into thinking that
Hershey make chocolate when in fact then make rancid milk fat with a
brown colour and a trace of cocoa added. 10% real content is typical in
the usual US rancid "Milk chocolate" - about half what is expected in
the ROW and they have the usual substitute any old fat or sweetener too.
See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_...#United_States

It isn't chocolate at all by any global recognised definition it is
rancid brown coloured over sweetened fat approved by the FDA.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 16/03/2016 17:14, wrote:
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.

LsD might be but here is an example of someone with 50 years of
experience in all forms of astrophotography and working form a highly
light polluted location in the UK doing deep sky imaging rather well.

http://www.deep-sky.co.uk/

The Bolton club also have some very keen ATMs and some of the other
links from this page are worth a look at too.

Basically his trick is to model the variable sky brightness and subtract
off a baseline to reveal faint nebulosity in the post processing. I saw
him give a talk on his methods last week in Salford.

Direct link to some of his CCD pictures (the DSLR ones are good too):

http://www.deep-sky.co.uk/imaging/ccd/ccd.htm

He is observing from a very heavily light polluted region - I doubt if
even on his best nights 5th magnitude stars would be naked eye visible.
Despite the handicaps of his location he is still able to image details
that naked eye observers would never ever be able to see.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

wrote:
On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 6:26:40 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 1:36:19 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 12:47:01 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

All young people in the UK and I assume in the USA have access to Facebook
on their phones. There are good Facebook groups for second hand
astronomical gear and the going rate is about 50% of new price.

That used equipment goes for a fraction of new price is most certainly not news.

If there are two million new scopes (mostly small refractors) sold in the
US each year, then one thousand astronomy clubs would EACH have to have
about TWO THOUSAND loaner telescopes available to meet such a demand. Do
the classifieds sell anywhere near that number?



They also have access to Auction sites where all kinds of telescope are
available new and used. I agree with you about department store scopes but
the young people of today are much more sophisticated and have more
choices.

Let me clue you in on something. There have always been good scopes
bought/sold and less-good scopes bought/sold. However, available "good
scopes" are not numerous enough, never have been and never will be, to
meet the demand for scopes by those who think that they -might- be
interested in astronomy and who need a reasonable way to find out.

The number of "proper" scopes is in the few tens of thousands. The
number of potential newbies is in the many tens of millions. Your
numbers are off by several orders of magnitude.


Brush up your comprehension skills I wrote "All kinds of telescopes. I also
wrote that I agree with you about dept store telescopes.

My comprehension skills are fine, but your math skills could use some work.

There are ~four million people born in the US each year, far more than
the number of "good scopes" produced each year, so most of the potential
newbies from that cohort will end up with cheaper scopes whether by
choice or necessity, when/if they become interested in astronomy. Buying
on auction sites and facebook has no bearing on that and doesn't affect
the prices. Before a scope can be bought used it had to have been bought new.



Brush up on your comprehension skills.
Whatever fraction of those four million bought telescopes of whatever kind
there will be a good fraction who outgrow or don't like their telescopes.
Many of them will give away, sell or throw away their telescopes. So the
second hand market will grow with the new market. I'm surprised, or maybe
not, of your ignorance of the working of a "free" market.
And try not to pick arguments when people agree with the subject of youth
thread.