Training report (observing report)

On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 16:39:34 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, August 7, 2014 5:48:55 PM UTC-4, Bill Owen wrote:

Yeah, I much prefer a real finder too, but you have to play the hand
you're dealt. And let's face it, most of the counselors (to say nothing
of their charges) will get the greatest pleasure from looking at bright
objects. Looking at faint fuzzies is an acquired taste, and using
averted vision to see them is an acquired art.

Of course a finder would add enough to the price of the scope that ultimately fewer scopes would be sold, with fewer amateur astronomers as a result.

But how many amateur astronomers are never made because their first
scopes are too hard to use- shaky or too hard to find anything with? I
run into people all the time who thought they would like astronomy,
bought an inexpensive scope, couldn't figure it out, and put it in the
closet... decades ago. And never tried out astronomical observing
again. And this is in an area with dark skies. There must be even more
in the cities.

On Thursday, August 7, 2014 10:27:59 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

But how many amateur astronomers are never made because their first

scopes are too hard to use- shaky or too hard to find anything with? I

run into people all the time who thought they would like astronomy,

bought an inexpensive scope, couldn't figure it out, and put it in the

closet... decades ago. And never tried out astronomical observing

again. And this is in an area with dark skies. There must be even more

in the cities.

Bingo! This happens all the time. There are more of these telescopes gathering dust in closets than you might think. Given a good mount, things would be different, but alas, this is not the case. This is why my advise to folks who think they might enjoy the hobby is to attend an organized star party before buying anything. You will learn a lot by doing this, being able to pick the brains of people who have 'been there, done that' and avoid mistakes. There is no substitute for experienced advise.

\Paul A

On Thursday, July 31, 2014 5:34:48 PM UTC+1, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, July 31, 2014 6:36:36 AM UTC-7, oriel36 wrote:




http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...ole-sunset.htm


Actually, that is a terrific article, its explanation is clear and concise and can be easily understood by just about everyone. ALMOST everyone...

The fact that the Sun doesn't follow a circumpolar path daily nor an unnatural arc to the local horizon yet this is the explanation found within academic circles including these guys like Owen at NASA makes it a cult rather than a 'hobby' with the education system more or less an indoctrination vehicle.

I am amazed that I haven't seen any support for the normal daily arcs and the seasonal variations in those daily arcs as these apparent motions would still have to be translated into the daily and orbital motions of the Earth -

http://www.why.do/wp-content/uploads...n-the-west.jpg


You are not even fundamentalists by what you are prepared to accept by virtue that your cult can even distort the apparent motions in order to suit a conclusion so your standard even falls below the comments of Galileo -

" I know; such men do not deduce their conclusion from its premises or establish it by reason, but they accommodate (I should have said discommode and distort) the premises and reasons to a conclusion which for them is already established and nailed down. No good can come of dealing with such people, especially to the extent that their company may be not only unpleasant but dangerous." Galileo

On Friday, August 8, 2014 1:27:59 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 16:39:34 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, August 7, 2014 5:48:55 PM UTC-4, Bill Owen wrote:

Yeah, I much prefer a real finder too, but you have to play the hand
you're dealt. And let's face it, most of the counselors (to say nothing
of their charges) will get the greatest pleasure from looking at bright
objects. Looking at faint fuzzies is an acquired taste, and using
averted vision to see them is an acquired art.

Of course a finder would add enough to the price of the scope that ultimately fewer scopes would be sold, with fewer amateur astronomers as a result.

But how many amateur astronomers are never made because their first
scopes are too hard to use- shaky or too hard to find anything with?

Nobody even knows how many amateur astronomers there are, much less how many washed out or for what exact reason.

I
run into people all the time who thought they would like astronomy,
bought an inexpensive scope, couldn't figure it out, and put it in the
closet... decades ago.

The "couldn't figure it out" part probably explains your anecdotal evidence.. The "decades ago" part indicates a lack of real interest on their part, then and now.

And never tried out astronomical observing
again. And this is in an area with dark skies. There must be even more
in the cities.

Get some of these rural non-amateur-astronomers that seem to be so numerous in your area to identify some OBSCURE stars, constellations, or asterisms on the next night you run into them. See if they can (without any hints) correctly distinguish a bright planet from a bright star. If they live under dark skies and are/were truly interested in amateur astronomy, they would never have let the lack of an expensive scope, nor the possession of a cheap one, hold them back.

On Friday, August 8, 2014 2:05:15 AM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Thursday, August 7, 2014 10:27:59 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

But how many amateur astronomers are never made because their first
scopes are too hard to use- shaky or too hard to find anything with? I
run into people all the time who thought they would like astronomy,
bought an inexpensive scope, couldn't figure it out, and put it in the
closet... decades ago. And never tried out astronomical observing
again. And this is in an area with dark skies. There must be even more
in the cities.

Bingo! This happens all the time. There are more of these telescopes
gathering dust in closets than you might think.

There are also more guitars, treadmills, tennis rackets, art supplies, cookbooks, etc., gathering dust than you night think. The quality of these items might be good or bad, but it was lack of interest that led to their abandonment.

Given a good mount, things
would be different,

Correction: things MIGHT be different.

but alas, this is not the case. This is why my advise to
folks who think they might enjoy the hobby is to attend an organized star
party before buying anything.

And when they get there, they will soon get the idea that one needs an expensive scope to get started.

You will learn a lot by doing this, being able
to pick the brains of people who have 'been there, done that' and avoid
mistakes.

How, exactly, was the department store scope that I used extensively for the first several years, under light-polluted skies, a "mistake?"

There is no substitute for experienced advise.

Not necessarily true, when that advice leads to a steep price for a newbie to enter the hobby.

And if cheap, dust-gathering scopes are as numerous as you imagine, ask yourself if you or your club members are actually willing to handle your fair share of tens of millions(?) of newbies whom you expect to come to you before doing anything.

On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 23:05:15 -0700 (PDT), palsing
wrote:

Bingo! This happens all the time. There are more of these telescopes gathering dust in closets than you might think. Given a good mount, things would be different, but alas, this is not the case. This is why my advise to folks who think they might enjoy the hobby is to attend an organized star party before buying anything. You will learn a lot by doing this, being able to pick the brains of people who have 'been there, done that' and avoid mistakes. There is no substitute for experienced advise.

Very true. I give that advice all the time. But the reality is, most
people who think they want a telescope never hear it. There aren't
enough amateur astronomers around to give it. The majority of people
who buy telescopes don't know anything about them, have never talked
to anybody knowledgeable on the subject, don't know there are clubs
and star parties. They try their scope a few times and then put it
away. This even happens when people buy good quality equipment. I know
quite a few people with quality computerized SCTs in their closets,
not just cheap department store scopes. Either they couldn't figure
out the system, or they were unimpressed with the view of most deep
sky objects.

I think the people who stick with the hobby- those who get over that
initial hump of dealing with the equipment and with disappointing
views- are the ones that get involved with other astronomers.

On Friday, August 8, 2014 10:17:52 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2014 23:05:15 -0700 (PDT), palsing

wrote:

Bingo! This happens all the time. There are more of these telescopes
gathering dust in closets than you might think. Given a good mount, things would be different, but alas, this is not the case. This is why my advise to folks who think they might enjoy the hobby is to attend an organized star party before buying anything. You will learn a lot by doing this, being able to pick the brains of people who have 'been there, done that' and avoid mistakes. There is no substitute for experienced advise.

Very true. I give that advice all the time. But the reality is, most
people who think they want a telescope never hear it. There aren't
enough amateur astronomers around to give it. The majority of people
who buy telescopes don't know anything about them, have never talked
to anybody knowledgeable on the subject, don't know there are clubs
and star parties. They try their scope a few times and then put it
away. This even happens when people buy good quality equipment. I know
quite a few people with quality computerized SCTs in their closets,
not just cheap department store scopes. Either they couldn't figure
out the system, or they were unimpressed with the view of most deep
sky objects.

So, peterson, you are back pedaling again!

You have to admit that buying a "proper" telescope doesn't ensure that a newbie will stick with the hobby any more than a cheap one will.

You also have to admit that many more cheap telescopes than expensive ones can and will be purchased by newbies.

You have to admit that most of the amateur astronomers you encounter started with cheap scopes and probably had little help when they began the hobby.

Finally you have to admit that clubs can do little to increase serious interest in amateur astronomy; that has to originate within each prospective amateur astronomer.

It's good that you are starting to see this my way, finally.


I think the people who stick with the hobby- those who get over that
initial hump of dealing with the equipment and with disappointing
views- are the ones that get involved with other astronomers.

On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 07:40:55 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

So, peterson, you are back pedaling again!

You have to admit that buying a "proper" telescope doesn't ensure that a newbie will stick with the hobby any more than a cheap one will.

I don't know what you're talking about. Back pedaling? Admit? What is
it about you that insists on turning every discussion into some kind
of argument? There's something broken in you.

I think it's likely that a greater percentage of people who buy higher
quality equipment stick with astronomy. Partly because it's easier to
use and provides better results, and partly because a greater
investment often means greater motivation. But I think that a high
percentage of people who buy any astronomical equipment, high quality
or not, expensive or cheap, don't become amateur astronomers.

You also have to admit that many more cheap telescopes than expensive ones can and will be purchased by newbies.

Almost certainly. I'll bet there are ten or twenty department store
telescopes sitting in closets for every Celestron or 8" Dob.

You have to admit that most of the amateur astronomers you encounter started with cheap scopes and probably had little help when they began the hobby.

I would say that every amateur astronomer I know under the age of 30
started with a fairly expensive scope, such as a computerized SCT or a
high quality Dob. Older astronomers often started with simpler
equipment. The culture of amateur astronomy is very different today
than it was 30 years ago.

Finally you have to admit that clubs can do little to increase serious interest in amateur astronomy; that has to originate within each prospective amateur astronomer.

No, I think clubs are immensely important. The problem is that many
prospective amateur astronomers are unaware of them. Almost every
amateur I know got serious only when they joined a club.

On Friday, August 8, 2014 10:08:30 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 07:40:55 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



So, peterson, you are back pedaling again!



You have to admit that buying a "proper" telescope doesn't ensure that a newbie will stick with the hobby any more than a cheap one will.



I don't know what you're talking about. Back pedaling? Admit? What is

it about you that insists on turning every discussion into some kind

of argument? There's something broken in you.


Pssst - he has to win every argument, (so let him).

On Friday, August 8, 2014 11:37:54 AM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Friday, August 8, 2014 10:08:30 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I don't know what you're talking about. Back pedaling? Admit? What is
it about you that insists on turning every discussion into some kind
of argument? There's something broken in you.

Pssst - he has to win every argument, (so let him).

I'm just stating facts. You and peterson are the ones arguing against those facts.