David Levy moving to Astronomy

On Jan 4, 8:41 pm, "Curtis Croulet"
wrote:
Saying that nobody builds their own scopes any more is foolish as a
quick search on the web will prove.

Because they don't. RTMC was established to showcase amateur-built scopes,
but it's now RTMC Astronomy Expo, because the homebuilt scopes have almost
disappeared. I'd really like to see some of those extraordinary scopes from
years ago, but they aren't there.

As far as more astrophotography: I wonder just how many people can afford
a $1300 CCD camera and a $1500 mount (Orion prices) to make a 8 hour
exposure at an increasing rare dark site two hours from home .

I gather you've never actually tried any astrophotography.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33°27'59"N, 117°05'53"W

Oh Indeed I have! After some only mediocre results I spent a lot of
time talking to imagers at Astrofest over several years. The consensus
was that I had to put more money into the mount and imager. My $1500
GM-8 wasn't sturdy enough a GM-11 was suggested

On Jan 4, 2:58 pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 10:41:41 -0800 (PST), wrote:
I have 44 years bound
Sky and Telescope's on my bookshelf and I often refer to them,
particularly the Deep Sky Wonders and Telescope Making articles...

Saying that nobody builds their own scopes any more is foolish as a
quick search on the web will prove...

Of course there are still people building telescopes. But this
represents a tiny fraction of the "market" for amateur astronomy. I know
many amateur astronomers, and only a small fraction have any interest in
ATM. This has become a specialty area, and it probably makes good sense
to pare it down or eliminate it in a mainstream publication.

far as more astrophotography: I wonder just how many people can afford
a $1300 CCD camera and a $1500 mount (Orion prices) to make a 8 hour
exposure at an increasing rare dark site two hours from home...

I'd say most. Imaging is increasingly the focus of amateur astronomers.
Equipment is better and cheaper all the time. And of great importance,
imaging does not require dark sites, unlike viewing. People are getting
great results in the middle of cities. So for a popular astronomy
magazine, shifting the emphasis from visual to imaging would seem to
make good sense.

Obviously, this is going to shut out a certain percentage of
astronomers, but I think it will open up the publication to even more.
Amateur astronomy today is more popular than it ever was, and it is also
very different than it was 30 years ago. For the magazines to survive,
they need to follow the market.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com


You are obviously living in a different world than the rest of us
Quoting you "One thing I have never been all that interested in is
visual observing." Further based on the content of your website you
view yourself as a semi-professional astronomer. That puts you in a
different class from most other amateur astronomers. From the amateurs
I spend time with we all seem to build our own. Please note from
another post that $2800 is huge sum and building our own brings
quality optics brings down the cost to where we can afford it

On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 21:01:00 -0800 (PST), wrote:

You are obviously living in a different world than the rest of us

I don't think so. I belong to an ordinary astronomy club, and hang out
with ordinary amateur astronomers. I look at the postings here, on
Cloudy Nights, on a large number of Yahoo forums. And I see the trend in
equipment and technology.

Very few people are interested in ATM anymore (I'm certainly not saying
there is anything wrong with ATMs- this is just the reality of a shift
in interests). And more and more amateurs are getting involved in
imaging. You don't need more than a DSLR and a so-so mount. It doesn't
need to be very expensive to get started in imaging.

IMO the (near) future of mainstream amateur astronomy is going to be
imaging, with reasonably priced optics and mounts geared specifically
for that use. And while there will still be plenty of visual observers,
and a few ATMs, no magazine that wants to survive can afford to ignore
the mainstream.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

My $1500 GM-8 wasn't sturdy enough a GM-11 was suggested

Well, that was a choice you made when you bought the mount. Another $500
would have got you the G-11. I also considered the GM-8, but finally
realized I'd never be satisfied with it.

I remember a day when most amateur scopes were homemade. Some of them were
excellent, some were awful. There used to be a homemade 40-inch Newtonian
that showed up at RTMC every year, but -- aside from the fact that, yes, you
could easily see the central star of M57 and the spiral arms of M51 -- the
optics were not nearly as sweet to look through as some 6-inchers, some of
which were really exquisite.

Nobody in our club makes telescopes. The only member who makes optics does
it professionally. He used to make dobs under brand names everyone here
would recognize, but now he only makes large primary mirrors and flats. The
primaries are 18 inches and larger. He says you can buy a finished 6, 8 or
10-inch mirror off eBay for less than it costs him to get one coated. The
mirror would be from China and would not be of a quality he would want to
sell, but the market isn't there for good, small mirrors at the price he
would have to charge. In my fall 2008 Edmund catalog, a finished 8-inch
paraboloid on Pyrex is $529. I wonder how many they sell. This mirror is
likely USA-made. My friend is making some for Edmund under contract while
they move some of their operation from NJ to OH.

And this is where I don't see any savings. A mere kit to make a 6 or 8-inch
mirror is, last time I checked, well over $200, and the only place I found
them was at Newport Glass Works, which is not to say that there aren't more
obscure sources that I haven't discovered. The $50 kits we used to buy from
Edmund and Telescopics are extinct. Pyrex blanks are no longer made, and
comparable substitutes are (I'm told) very expensive. If you were going to
make a lot of mirrors, maybe as a club project, I assume you'd buy the
materials in bulk, which might then bring the cost down a bit. Then there's
a tube, focuser, spider, diagonal (assuming you don't make your own), dob
mount, etc. It might be fun, educational and personally satisfying to build
a scope, but I don't see the savings in dollars.

Getting back to S&T, their content on telescope-making simply reflects where
astronomy has gone. I've seen and heard a lot of grousing about S&T's
articles and graphics recently, and I've uttered a few complaints myself,
but your comments are the first I've heard that there isn't enough stuff on
telescope-making.

You'll be delighted (?) to know that Gary Seronik is at S&T to stay, since
he's a personal friend of Bob Naeye.

My background was always visual observing. I've viewed a lot of 13th
magnitude galaxies in my time. CCD imaging, which I took up a couple of
years ago, has given a new spark of enthusiasm to my interest in astronomy,
which goes back to 1954.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33°27'59"N, 117°05'53"W

On Jan 4, 8:59*pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote:

Personally I am not worried about the $1300 CCD camera and/or the
$1500 mount ... these prices are peanuts ... but what worries me is

Peanuts for a lot of adults, yes, But unlikely to attract many
youngsters.

Yes, imaging has brought back what light pollution has taken away (and
more). But it has also raised the entry fee significantly. My
astronomical society has a 900 users base but I'd say that 75% of them
are retired, and that there are very, very few young people.

the degradation in the weather. For me personally, winters are out the
window as far as imaging is concerned which means I have a six-month
window of opportunity to do my work (April through October) each year.

Stop complaining, your winters are better than our summers ;-). It's
snowing right now, but in theory I'll have a three day window this
week. I am crossing my fingers. You are welcome to fly in if you feel
like it. But it will also be around -10C ;-)

As for S&T, I have also noted a decline in the quality and, in fact, I
find myself spending more time reading my monthly issue of Astronomy
than S&T.

What about Astro Photo Insight? It's by far the best resource at the
moment imho - and they are running a special on subscriptions right
now, a full year for less than 10 EUR (I have no connection with
them).

On 5 Éáí, 13:27, Pierre Vandevenne wrote:
On Jan 4, 8:59*pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote:

Personally I am not worried about the $1300 CCD camera and/or the
$1500 mount ... these prices are peanuts ... but what worries me is

Peanuts for a lot of adults, yes, But unlikely to attract many
youngsters.

But would a youngster pursue imaging with a $1300 CCD camera when the
family's $300 EOS Rebel will do just fine on bright nebulae and
clusters? A CCD camera is for the slightly advanced imager since it
demands some knowledge and technique.


Yes, imaging has brought back what light pollution has taken away (and
more). But it has also raised the entry fee significantly. My
astronomical society has a 900 users base but I'd say that 75% of them
are retired, and that there are very, very few young people.

This is something I can very easily believe but I think there is a
strong generational effect to astronomy these days. We are all
children of the space program in one way or another. For me
personally, it is NASA who opened up my eyes to the sky overhead and
probably the same applies to many others here as well.


the degradation in the weather. For me personally, winters are out the
window as far as imaging is concerned which means I have a six-month
window of opportunity to do my work (April through October) each year.

Stop complaining, your winters are better than our summers ;-). It's

This does not mean very much. Yes, we have mild temperatures (anything
under 10d C is a national crisis) but this means very little if the
clear skies are not there for someone to do his work.

snowing right now, but in theory I'll have a three day window this
week. I am crossing my fingers. You are welcome to fly in if you feel
like it. But it will also be around -10C ;-)

Although I am not a big fan of frigid temperatures, I have paid my
dues when such opportunities materialized locally (last winter I
caught the flu five times for this specific reason). Anyway, I do envy
your three-day window ... right now, I would be delighted with even a
single day of opportunity.


As for S&T, I have also noted a decline in the quality and, in fact, I
find myself spending more time reading my monthly issue of Astronomy
than S&T.

What about Astro Photo Insight? It's by far the best resource at the
moment imho - and they are running a special on subscriptions right
now, a full year for less than 10 EUR (I have no connection with
them).

I agree that AstroPhoto Insight is quite good. I do have all of the
(electronic) issues and do welcome each new issue when it becomes
available.

As for Levy taking over the online blog for S&T, this is something
that should have been done a LONG time ago. I find it very silly to
waste one or two printed pages on someone's rumblings each month
(incoherent from month to month) when a blog is the perfect medium for
such excursions.

At the same time, Astronomy Magazine is light-yrs ahead of S&T when it
comes to the web. For anyone taking a peek at the websites for the two
magazines will immediately see the difference. S&T's pages are
designed and look as if HTML V0.0.0.1 was used. Very poor design, no
interaction or multi-media, archaic menus, lack of colour etc. and in
contrast to Astronomy Magazine.

Anthony.

"Curtis Croulet" wrote in
:

The magazines are doomed. They've failed to make the transition to
the net. In 10 years, the only magazines left will be women's
fashion an scandal sheets.

A home theater magazine that I subscribed to for several years
abandoned print to go web-only. I rarely visit the website. Does
anybody? From my standpoint, they may as well have simply folded.

Which magazine? I used to follow a few of them.

wrote in news:fa6b0ec5-3b1d-4d56-bc8c-
:

On Jan 4, 2:59*pm, Anthony Ayiomamitis wrote:
Personally I am not worried about the $1300 CCD camera and/or the
$1500 mount ... these prices are peanuts ...

Peanuts?!? Maybe for Donald Trump - $2800 is three months' pay for me.


Trust me, you are better off now than 20 years ago, at least telescope
prices are at rock bottom relative to back then. In 1978, a basic AC
powered C8 cost $900.00. Now look. And so what if a astro CCD cameras are
still a rip-off and good mount costs $1.5k? Get a used DSLR, a basic
motorized mount and a Newtonian reflector (not some overpriced, 80-100mm
apo refractor).

Which magazine? I used to follow a few of them.

"Ulimate A/V," previously known as "Stereophile Guide to Home Theater." To
finish out my uncompleted subscription, they turned me over to "Home
Theater," which I don't like nearly as much. I still get it, but every time
the renewal comes up, I think a long time about whether I want to keep it.
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33°27'59"N, 117°05'53"W

And so what if a astro CCD cameras are
still a rip-off

How did you conclude that?
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33°27'59"N, 117°05'53"W