A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Training report (observing report)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old August 8th 14, 05:23 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default Red dot finders (was: Training report (observing report) )

On Friday, August 8, 2014 11:08:30 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 07:40:55 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 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.


One thing that IS broken here is your lack of logic and reading comprehension.

I think it's likely that a greater percentage of people who buy higher
quality equipment stick with astronomy.


I think that such people were more interested in astronomy in the first place, their interest generated perhaps by a small, cheap scope they used years earlier.

Partly because it's easier to
use and provides better results, and partly because a greater
investment often means greater motivation.


Or their interest was simply great enough for them to justify spending more.

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.


Then obviously they aren't really very interested.

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.


There are ten or twenty (or many more) department store scopes in use for every SCT or 8-inch Dob in use. Chew on that.

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.


So we are to take it that every 12-year-old newbie astronomer has a "computerized SCT" or "high quality Dob" these days?

Older astronomers often started with simpler
equipment. The culture of amateur astronomy is very different today
than it was 30 years ago.


There has been no change at all in the culture, just some fancier equipment for those interested in spending money on it.

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.


Given some of the dodgy advice being dispensed by some of their members, that's probably a good thing.

Almost every
amateur I know got serious only when they joined a club.


But those are only the ones you know or who joined your club.


  #42  
Old August 8th 14, 06:48 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Mike Collins[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,824
Default Red dot finders (was: Training report (observing report) )

wrote:
On Friday, August 8, 2014 11:08:30 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 07:40:55 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 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.


One thing that IS broken here is your lack of logic and reading comprehension.

I think it's likely that a greater percentage of people who buy higher
quality equipment stick with astronomy.


I think that such people were more interested in astronomy in the first
place, their interest generated perhaps by a small, cheap scope they used years earlier.

Partly because it's easier to
use and provides better results, and partly because a greater
investment often means greater motivation.


Or their interest was simply great enough for them to justify spending more.

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.


Then obviously they aren't really very interested.

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.


There are ten or twenty (or many more) department store scopes in use for
every SCT or 8-inch Dob in use. Chew on that.

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.


So we are to take it that every 12-year-old newbie astronomer has a
"computerized SCT" or "high quality Dob" these days?

Older astronomers often started with simpler
equipment. The culture of amateur astronomy is very different today
than it was 30 years ago.


There has been no change at all in the culture, just some fancier
equipment for those interested in spending money on it.

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.


Given some of the dodgy advice being dispensed by some of their members,
that's probably a good thing.

Almost every
amateur I know got serious only when they joined a club.


But those are only the ones you know or who joined your club.


I think you're both partly right. I've known lots of people who have bought
small telescopes and then given up but also some who moved from their
department store scopes on to better things. Most of those who carried on
with the hobby were members of astronomical societies who had initially
come to star parties.
I also knew (in the 1980s) a woman who decided she wanted to take up
astronomy and bought the largest Celestron then made and a large fully
equipped observatory including lots of photographic equipment which she
installed in her suburban garden.
She then had no idea what to do with the equipments so she contacted the
local astronomical society and asked us to help.
We spent 4 days gently drying out inside of the telescope, which was full
of ice, using a hair dryer on warm setting and then set the scope up
properly. One of our members wrote a sidereal time program for her
Commodore 64 so she could use the setting circles and we showed her how to
use the equipment - some of which we had only seen in the adverts of US
magazines.
She wanted to leave the drive running all the time but we convinced her
that it wasn't a good idea to allow the telescope to turn itself upside
down every day.
Eventually she decided that the location was not good enough and said she
would probably move it to a house she was buying in the Canary Islands.
I this had happened today she could have bought a goto scope and used it
immediately with software to show what to observe starting with Stellarium
which is free on PC and cheap on tablets and phones.
My suggestion these days would be for people to buy a cheap table top
dobsonian and move to a goto scope if they were still interested in a
year's time.
Imaging can come later to those who are interested.
But contact your local club.
  #43  
Old August 8th 14, 10:06 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default Red dot finders (was: Training report (observing report) )

On Saturday, August 2, 2014 11:15:58 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:

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


Did you even read this article. it pointed out that the sun and stars

appear to move in a circle around the pole. What part of appear do you not

understand?

As Paul Alsing wrote it's a brilliant explanation for those who had never

thought about this before.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys1w9A4DrO4

It is not that you want to run away from this one, you can't face it for the only allowable apparent arcs of the Sun are the daily and seasonal variations in those arcs which lengthen and shorten for the same latitudes across the orbital cycle of the Earth.

http://img.dnaindia.com/sites/defaul...oncalendar.jpg


You hapless people have the Sun widen its arc across latitudes so you can then try to justify the apparent angle of descent of the Sun between Equatorial and mid latitudes and then on to shorten circuits at the polar latitude. It is not a lapse of reason insofar as the normal daily arc of the Sun doesn't move around Polaris at the center so what it must take for you creeps to continue to push a celestial sphere notion, it has nothing to do with reason much less astronomy.

This thread is useful because it was started by somebody who gets paid by the American taxpayer on the basis that they are responsible for astronomy and terrestrial sciences. I don't care how much he makes, that students are subject to that celestial sphere cult and its horrific notions that are fit for nobody is the only point.;



  #44  
Old August 8th 14, 11:09 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Lord Androcles[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 575
Default Red dot finders (was: Training report (observing report) )



"oriel36" wrote in message
...

On Saturday, August 2, 2014 11:15:58 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:

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


Did you even read this article. it pointed out that the sun and stars

appear to move in a circle around the pole. What part of appear do you not

understand?

As Paul Alsing wrote it's a brilliant explanation for those who had never

thought about this before.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys1w9A4DrO4

It is not that you want to run away from this one, you can't face it for the
only allowable apparent arcs of the Sun are the daily and seasonal
variations in those arcs which lengthen and shorten for the same latitudes
across the orbital cycle of the Earth.
================================================== ==========
Oh, the agony... I can't face it! The only allowable arcs of the Sun are the
daily and seasonable variations... whatever shall I do? It is intolerable,
there should be more arcs allowed. Oh gloom! O despondency! How do others
live, knowing the only allowable arcs of the Sun are the daily and
seasonable variations?


-- The Reverend Lord Androcles, Archbishop of Ballistic Light.
(H. God Wilson thinks he's the God of Ballistic Light and can tell it what
to do.)

  #45  
Old August 9th 14, 07:55 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
oriel36[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,478
Default Red dot finders (was: Training report (observing report) )

On Friday, August 8, 2014 11:09:12 PM UTC+1, Lord Androcles wrote:
"oriel36" wrote in message

...



On Saturday, August 2, 2014 11:15:58 PM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:



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





Did you even read this article. it pointed out that the sun and stars




appear to move in a circle around the pole. What part of appear do you not




understand?




As Paul Alsing wrote it's a brilliant explanation for those who had never




thought about this before.






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys1w9A4DrO4



It is not that you want to run away from this one, you can't face it for the

only allowable apparent arcs of the Sun are the daily and seasonal

variations in those arcs which lengthen and shorten for the same latitudes

across the orbital cycle of the Earth.

================================================== ==========

Oh, the agony... I can't face it! The only allowable arcs of the Sun are the

daily and seasonable variations... whatever shall I do?


The feeble-minded never understood nor wanted to know what Sir Isaac tried to do when the Sun,planets, stars and everything else were put in circumpolar motion of the RA/Dec system or what became the clockwork solar system of empiricists -

"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun.This proportion, first observed by Kepler, is now received by all astronomers; for the periodic times are the same, and the dimensions of the orbits are the same, whether the sun revolves about the earth, or the earth about the sun." Newton

I don't mind you as you flounder around with a 100 year old wordplay based on absolute/relative space and motion without having the intelligence or talent to work with the observations of the Sun's apparent annual motion through the Zodiac as the only view known to astronomers with a new and more productive modified view made available in this forum recently.







It is intolerable,

there should be more arcs allowed. Oh gloom! O despondency! How do others

live, knowing the only allowable arcs of the Sun are the daily and

seasonable variations?



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


That 'explanation' goes to show that even the daily apparent motion of the Sun can be doctored to suit a conclusion. That is where astronomy ends and your celestial sphere cult wrapped up in empiricism begins.

Go back to your pathetic 'Einstein was wrong' pursuit, those poor people 100 years ago tried to escape the clockwork solar system of Flamsteed/Newton but just made things worse by chanting voodoo and bluffing.
















-- The Reverend Lord Androcles, Archbishop of Ballistic Light.

(H. God Wilson thinks he's the God of Ballistic Light and can tell it what

to do.)

  #46  
Old August 9th 14, 02:14 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default Red dot finders (was: Training report (observing report) )

On Friday, August 8, 2014 1:48:02 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:


I think you're both partly right. I've known lots of people who have bought
small telescopes and then given up but also some who moved from their
department store scopes on to better things. Most of those who carried on
with the hobby were members of astronomical societies who had initially
come to star parties.

I also knew (in the 1980s) a woman who decided she wanted to take up
astronomy and bought the largest Celestron then made and a large fully
equipped observatory including lots of photographic equipment which she
installed in her suburban garden.

She then had no idea what to do with the equipments so she contacted the
local astronomical society and asked us to help.
We spent 4 days gently drying out inside of the telescope, which was full
of ice, using a hair dryer on warm setting and then set the scope up
properly. One of our members wrote a sidereal time program for her
Commodore 64 so she could use the setting circles and we showed her how to
use the equipment - some of which we had only seen in the adverts of US
magazines.

She wanted to leave the drive running all the time but we convinced her
that it wasn't a good idea to allow the telescope to turn itself upside
down every day.

Eventually she decided that the location was not good enough and said she
would probably move it to a house she was buying in the Canary Islands.
I this had happened today she could have bought a goto scope and used it
immediately with software to show what to observe starting with Stellarium
which is free on PC and cheap on tablets and phones.

My suggestion these days would be for people to buy a cheap table top
dobsonian and move to a goto scope if they were still interested in a
year's time.
Imaging can come later to those who are interested.
But contact your local club.


The current crop of table top Dobs do away with at least two of the objections that purists have had with low-priced scopes. They have stable, easily slewed mounts and they have easy-to-use focusers that accept 1.25-inch eyepieces. Also, their short focal ratios help keep magnifications at a practical level.

The cheapest ones seem to have spherical mirrors, which is not a problem for a 4-inch f/10 but ultimately a limitation for an f/4. However, these are starter scopes, remember.

Your example of the newbie SCT owner illustrates that there are a variety of ways to attempt to enter the hobby. She tried to buy her way in, but still needed help from those who had undoubtedly took a cheaper route.

I had been observing for years before ever going to a club meeting, much less joining. I hadn't really needed their help. The chances are that one or two of the snootier members would have derided my cheap telescope. I joined after I found out that the magazine subscription was slightly cheaper via the club, and I went to as many meetings as I could.



  #47  
Old August 9th 14, 03:16 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default Red dot finders (was: Training report (observing report) )

On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 08:37:54 -0700 (PDT), Uncarollo2
wrote:

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


Even when it isn't an argument!
  #48  
Old August 30th 14, 10:38 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Stephen Paul[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Red dot finders

On 8/8/2014 1:48 PM, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Friday, August 8, 2014 11:08:30 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 8 Aug 2014 07:40:55 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:


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.



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.


Given some of the dodgy advice being dispensed by some of their members,
that's probably a good thing.

Almost every
amateur I know got serious only when they joined a club.


But those are only the ones you know or who joined your club.


I think you're both partly right. I've known lots of people who have bought
small telescopes and then given up but also some who moved from their
department store scopes on to better things. Most of those who carried on
with the hobby were members of astronomical societies who had initially
come to star parties.



My suggestion these days would be for people to buy a cheap table top
dobsonian and move to a goto scope if they were still interested in a
year's time.
Imaging can come later to those who are interested.
But contact your local club.


I'm not convinced that anyone, anywhere has a clue what turns other
people on for any endeavor. All we really do is share our stories and
look for patterns. But more importantly we need to be honest about
whether we are amateur astronomer, or merely hobbyist star gazers.

After years of poking around the sky, doing some imaging, and trying
every type of mount and finding system there is, I don't presume myself
an astronomer. I'm just a mere mortal sky-watcher, who in the infamous
words of someone here in SAA years ago, "just likes to look at stuff and
say 'neato'".

I started around the year 2000 at age 40, all by my lonesome with a
rickety 80mm refractor. I couldn't get Jupiter to come to focus, so i
sent the scope back on the 30 day guarantee and bought a JC Penney
version of the Celestron Starguide 4 GoTo scope. I'm not going to run
the list of equipment I've used over the years since then because it
reveals much foolishness (although not without merit), but when the bus
finally stopped, I got off with a 10" F5 Dob, a 6" F5 Newtonian on an
cobbled together CG-5 with RA drive, a 66mm F6.5 ED doublet that I put
on light duty alt-az mount, and a couple different binoculars. I take
the Dob out about twice a year, once in Spring once in Autumn to look at
DSOs. I use the little refractor to look at the moon, regularly, and the
6"F5 to look at sunspots, Saturn and Jupiter, occassionaly. The
binoculars are my most used because I can step out onto the south facing
deck, sit back in a deck chair and scan the sky from Cygnus down to
Sagittarius before the skeeters find me and become too much of a
nuisance. But also, I find that's enough of a trip into outer space for
me most of the time now that I've seen DSOs in a large aperture and done
some imaging. The memories are sufficient. When I do take out my big
gun, I go straight for the globulars and brighter galaxies using a green
laser pointer and a RACI 50mm finder, because I know where most of the
cool ones live, and they still make me say 'neato'.

-Steve
  #49  
Old August 30th 14, 11:34 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default Red dot finders

On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 17:38:28 -0400, Stephen Paul
wrote:

After years of poking around the sky, doing some imaging, and trying
every type of mount and finding system there is, I don't presume myself
an astronomer.


I would disagree. You are very much an amateur astronomer, given that
you've stuck with observing, invested in a variety of tools, and tried
different things.
  #50  
Old August 31st 14, 12:38 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default Red dot finders

On Saturday, August 30, 2014 5:38:28 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul wrote:

I'm not convinced that anyone, anywhere has a clue what turns other
people on for any endeavor. All we really do is share our stories and
look for patterns. But more importantly we need to be honest about
whether we are amateur astronomer, or merely hobbyist star gazers.


http://www.amazon.com/From-Casual-St.../dp/146148765X

(I haven't read it but I find the title and the blurb rather pretentious and off-putting.)

After years of poking around the sky, doing some imaging, and trying
every type of mount and finding system there is, I don't presume myself
an astronomer. I'm just a mere mortal sky-watcher, who in the infamous
words of someone here in SAA years ago, "just likes to look at stuff and
say 'neato'".


You should probably think back and try to identify the "Aha!" moment that you consider to mark your transformation into an amateur astronomer. Or perhaps that moment hasn't arrived for you yet, or never will?




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Observing Report - Icehouse Observing Plateau (Sierra foothills,California) Shneor Amateur Astronomy 1 August 5th 08 10:58 PM
Astronaut Soichi Noguchi's Training Report for STS-114 Mission, #17 Jacques van Oene Space Shuttle 0 July 27th 05 01:50 PM
Astronaut Soichi Noguchi's Training Report for STS-114 Mission, #17 Jacques van Oene News 0 July 27th 05 01:50 PM
Observing report 22-2-04 Jim UK Astronomy 20 February 24th 04 12:42 PM
Observing report... Martin Frey UK Astronomy 17 December 24th 03 01:19 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.