|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on why companies can't or won't produce a reasonablepriced telescope?
On Feb 3, 3:54*am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
I was talking to a group of parents recently where the subject of introducing their kids to science specifically astronomy came up. Much was made about the fact that one either has to buy junk or pay a significant price for a starter scope. They had a good point. No, they didn't. You must first define what they meant by "junk" and "significant price." The fact that the mags couldn't do a real review if they had to doesn't help. We have also seen prices drop *for what one can buy since the Chinese has entered the market...evidence there has been price fixing in place. You should start a telescope company and undercut the competition. Show us the way. I had one mother discuss her experiences on CN where she sought advice as to which scope to buy for her son...what a train wreck. The advice of serveral CNers was to spend several thousand dollars on a scope...anything else was deemed inferior. You should provide a link to that discussion on CN, if possible. Since the parents wanted to introduce their kids to science, they could consider building telescopes as a family project. There are books, magazine articles and Web sites giving plans, details and ideas for such projects. They could start with a Galileoscope or build something similar from lenses bought separately. Of course, one does not always save money when building from parts. However, that would only help these parents appreciate what a good deal they would be getting if they bought a ready-made scope in today's market. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on why companies can't or won't produce a reasonablepriced telescope?
On Feb 4, 3:16*am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 3, 2:54*am, Too_Many_Tools wrote: I was talking to a group of parents recently where the subject of introducing their kids to science specifically astronomy came up. Much was made about the fact that one either has to buy junk or pay a significant price for a starter scope. They had a good point. The fact that the mags couldn't do a real review if they had to doesn't help. We have also seen prices drop *for what one can buy since the Chinese has entered the market...evidence there has been price fixing in place. I had one mother discuss her experiences on CN where she sought advice as to which scope to buy for her son...what a train wreck. The advice of serveral CNers was to spend several thousand dollars on a scope...anything else was deemed inferior. Well for a dollar amount let's try this... http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_d...rican_family_s... http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_...n_family_spend... So $800 - $935 for a family for Christmas. Average family of 4 so $200 - 233. I believe this is on the high side since the amounts they show would be for all gifts for all people the family gives to. So...what telescope can one buy for $200 - 233 ...no more...for a child? The Orion Funscope 76mm and SkyScanner 100mm are well below that amount, the Starblast 4.5 roughly that amount. Since you gave an _average_ budget of $233 there must be many families who can even afford the XT-6 ($279.95 + S&H as of Feb 2011.) Those on a strict budget could wait to see if the Firstscope goes on sale for $19 again, buy one, and let Santa keep it hidden away until next Christmas. Any more questions? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on why companies can't or won't produce a reasonablepriced telescope?
On 2/3/2011 8:58 PM, Davoud wrote:
"Significant price" has greatly differing meanings in a Third-World country like the USA. Show me someone under the age of 30 who isn't a Liberal and I'll show you someone that has no Heart. Show me someone over the age of 40 that isn't Conservative and I'll show you someone who has no Brain. Bill -- William R. Mattil http://www.celestial-images.com |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on why companies can't or won't produce a reasonablepriced telescope?
A few years ago I could recommend the $15, 50mm aperture Galileoscope
as a usable first telescope for those on a tight budget. Unfortunately, a recent search revealed that this telescope is now available for $50! At the new price I can no longer recommend the Galileoscope (which I've used to observe lunar craters, Jupiter's moons, Saturn's ring, Uranus, Neptune and a surprising number of deepsky objects). Yet, as others have noted, there are far more options available today as far as price and quality go than there was when I got my first 'real' telescope (a 60 or 65mm, single-element, plastic objective refractor in a heavy cardboard tube) in 1967 or '68. For $100 to $150 one can easily find a better telescope than the one I started with. Unfortunately, most modern day newbies are likely to be far more ignorant concerning astronomy and telescopes than I was. Prior to getting my first telescope (as a Christmas present) I had read everything I could find pertaining to amateur astronomy and telescopes. I knew about reflectors and refractors. I knew how to tell the difference between a planet and a star via naked-eye observations alone. I even knew not to expect to see things as they appeared in photographs. In other words I knew what I could realisticly expect from a modest, beginner's telescope. For a beginner (at any age) that has sufficient drive and interest to educate themselves I seriously doubt that there exists a telescope that could be called 'junk'! A determined, educated newbie could manage to use even the most unusable telescope out there -- even if it means making design modifications first. When it comes to recommending a first telescope to someone who lacks any 'real' interest in astronomy (hasn't bothered to try to read all he/she can about the subject) one ends up pretty close to the old no- win situation. No matter what telescope they get, they're not going to see those bright, colorful, highly-detailed images they are expecting. Thus most will quickly place the telescope (even if it costed a few thousand dollars) into the nearest closet and forget about the telescope and astronomy. Perhaps we need to forget about recommending telescopes to newbies. Instead we could simply suggest that they spend some quality time in the nearest library and/or find a willing mentor. Sketcher, To sketch is to see. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on why companies can't or won't produce a reasonablepriced telescope?
On Feb 3, 3:54*am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
I was talking to a group of parents recently where the subject of introducing their kids to science specifically astronomy came up. I don't think the quality of the telescope is nearly as important as the interest level of the child. My parents probably spent about $50 for my first telescope, a 3-inch reflector made by Edmund Scientific. It had a plastic tube, a wobbly tripod mount, and cardboard tubes for the eyepieces, but I absolutely loved it and the objects that I could find and observe with it. I tracked down about 80 of the Messier objects as a 10 or 11-year-old; the rest were a little too faint. In other words a kid (today) with a $100 telescope and a high-level of interest is going to get a lot more use out of his or her instrument than another kid with a $1000 telescope and only a passing interest in astronomy. I would advise concerned parents to purchase a cheap telescope and see if the kid's interest holds up. If it does, then purchase or build a more substantial instrument a couple of years later. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on why companies can't or won't produce a reasonablepriced telescope?
On Feb 4, 2:16*am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 3, 2:54*am, Too_Many_Tools wrote: I was talking to a group of parents recently where the subject of introducing their kids to science specifically astronomy came up. Much was made about the fact that one either has to buy junk or pay a significant price for a starter scope. They had a good point. The fact that the mags couldn't do a real review if they had to doesn't help. We have also seen prices drop *for what one can buy since the Chinese has entered the market...evidence there has been price fixing in place. I had one mother discuss her experiences on CN where she sought advice as to which scope to buy for her son...what a train wreck. The advice of serveral CNers was to spend several thousand dollars on a scope...anything else was deemed inferior. Well for a dollar amount let's try this... http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_d...rican_family_s... http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_...n_family_spend... So $800 - $935 for a family for Christmas. Average family of 4 so $200 - 233. I believe this is on the high side since the amounts they show would be for all gifts for all people the family gives to. So...what telescope can one buy for $200 - 233 ...no more...for a child? TMT Trying reading Sky and Telescope! The latest issue contains a review of 3 scopes costing about $100. The SpaceProbe 3" f9 reflector got very high marks as did the SkyScanner 100mm. As pointed out by another poster some of started with the Edmund 3" reflector and were able to find most of the Messier objects. This sounds like an attempt to smear CN rather than a real complaint |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on why companies can't or won't produce a reasonablepriced telescope?
On Feb 3, 8:54*am, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
I was talking to a group of parents recently where the subject of introducing their kids to science specifically astronomy came up. Much was made about the fact that one either has to buy junk or pay a significant price for a starter scope. Astronomy does not begin and end with magnification equipment as that can hinder the multi-faceted aspect of astronomy as it does for so many readers here.A parent acting as a parent and not having an allegiance to anything but their children's welfare introduces to astronomy without telescopes in imitation of the actual history of astronomy,for instance,using time lapse footage of the Earth overtaking the planets,then taking the teenager out and showing them the respective planets and how it was actually done - http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html Of course,as many here owe more to empiricism and Newton in particular than they do to their children,kids never get to enjoy the context of what they see in the celestial arena - "For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct,..." Newton I will speak for those who have no voice and suffer limitations imposed on them by people who have no love of astronomy or much else,many good kids who can't find their way through the obfuscation that block some of the clean and clear insights of astronomy. They had a good point. The fact that the mags couldn't do a real review if they had to doesn't help. We have also seen prices drop *for what one can buy since the Chinese has entered the market...evidence there has been price fixing in place. I had one mother discuss her experiences on CN where she sought advice as to which scope to buy for her son...what a train wreck. The advice of serveral CNers was to spend several thousand dollars on a scope...anything else was deemed inferior. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on why companies can't or won't produce a reasonablepriced telescope?
I (Brian Tung) wrote:
So the advice of a few goldeneyes was unreasonable. John Savard wrote: Generally speaking, the difference between a 75mm aperture refractor and a 150mm aperture reflector are reproducible and objective, due to the diffraction limit. Look at my quote in its context and you'll see that I was talking about advice that any scope less than several thousand dollars was not worth it. You can get a good 150 mm reflector for far less than that. -- Brian Tung (posting from Google Groups) The Astronomy Corner at http://www.astronomycorner.net/ Unofficial C5+ Page at http://www.astronomycorner.net/c5plus/ My PleiadAtlas Page at http://www.astronomycorner.net/pleiadatlas/ My Own Personal FAQ at http://www.astronomycorner.net/reference/faq.html |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on why companies can't or won't produce a reasonablepriced telescope?
In article ,
wrote: On Feb 3, 3:54*am, Too_Many_Tools wrote: I was talking to a group of parents recently where the subject of introducing their kids to science specifically astronomy came up. I don't think the quality of the telescope is nearly as important as the interest level of the child. Also, access to dark skies is important. I see people growing up in the city in disbelief about seeing Jupiter so strongly once put in a rural location all the time. My parents probably spent about $50 for my first telescope, a 3-inch reflector made by Edmund Scientific. It had a plastic tube, a wobbly tripod mount, and cardboard tubes for the eyepieces, but I absolutely loved it and the objects that I could find and observe with it. I tracked down about 80 of the Messier objects as a 10 or 11-year-old; the rest were a little too faint. In other words a kid (today) with a $100 telescope and a high-level of interest is going to get a lot more use out of his or her instrument than another kid with a $1000 telescope and only a passing interest in astronomy. I would advise concerned parents to purchase a cheap telescope and see if the kid's interest holds up. If it does, then purchase or build a more substantial instrument a couple of years later. Also some guidance and some literature. Even the monthlies in "astronomy" go a long way. -- mrr |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on why companies can't or won't produce a reasonablepriced telescope?
In article ,
oriel36 wrote: On Feb 3, 8:54*am, Too_Many_Tools wrote: I was talking to a group of parents recently where the subject of introducing their kids to science specifically astronomy came up. Much was made about the fact that one either has to buy junk or pay a significant price for a starter scope. Astronomy does not begin and end with magnification equipment as that can hinder the multi-faceted aspect of astronomy as it does for so many readers here.A parent acting as a parent and not having an allegiance to anything but their children's welfare introduces to astronomy without telescopes in imitation of the actual history of astronomy,for instance,using time lapse footage of the Earth overtaking the planets,then taking the teenager out and showing them the respective planets and how it was actually done - Good advice. And as an add-on, a set of good binoculars that gather light well is a good next step. You should be able to make out M51, Jupiters moons and the crescent of Venus in these. -- mrr ... agreeing with oriel for the second time in a week |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Companies have been racing to produce technology to mass producehybrids | [email protected] | SETI | 3 | April 20th 08 06:04 PM |
Companies have been racing to produce technology to mass producehybrids | [email protected] | Policy | 7 | March 13th 08 07:01 PM |
Companies have been racing to produce technology to mass producehybrids | [email protected] | History | 2 | March 7th 08 02:41 AM |
Companies have been racing to produce technology to mass producehybrids | [email protected] | FITS | 0 | March 6th 08 07:01 PM |
Companies have been racing to produce technology to mass producehybrids | [email protected] | CCD Imaging | 0 | March 6th 08 06:25 PM |