|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on why companies can't or won't produce a reasonablepriced telescope?
On Feb 4, 1:51*am, "Androcles"
wrote: "Dan Birchall" wrote in message ...| (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. | | Eh, what age kids, and what's "significant?" *I've taught plenty of 3-4 | year olds how to use a Telrad-equipped Orion XT 4.5 Dobs at the visitor | station here on Mauna Kea, and anything much bigger than that is too | tall for them to reach the eyepiece when it's near zenith anyway. | | A $200 scope like that is enough to see the Moon, phases of Venus, | color difference of Mars, Galilean Moons of Jupiter, rings of Saturn, | colors of Uranus and Neptune (if you can find them), and extended | things like M42, clusters like the Pleiades or Omega Centauri, any | reasonably bright comets, etc. *If seeing that kind of variety of | targets doesn't make someone think astronomy is interesting, I'm | not sure spending extra money would. | | Sure, spending $500 or $5,000 or $50,000 or $350,000,000 (see .sig) | buys more aperture, better optics, better CCDS, better tracking, | guiding, adaptive optics, nice enclosures, and all those goodies. | But you don't have to _start_ with that. | | -Dan | $200 for 400-year-old technology when one can buy a smart phone for $50, both the kid and the parent will go for the phone every time. Yeah, that's right, telescopes from the 17th century had aluminized mirrors, Plossl eyepieces and Teflon bearings. Here's some 120-year-old tech: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toilet Do us a favor, give it a try. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on why companies can't or won't produce a reasonablepriced telescope?
On Feb 4, 11:16*am, 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. 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. Now you're making sense. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on why companies can't or won't produce a reasonablepriced telescope?
On Feb 4, 10:34*am, Sketcher wrote:
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. I think to key is trying to figure out how much the newbie really wants to spend and then trying to steer them to the best scope at that price. It's too bad the Galileoscope went up in price. The 76mm Funscope (reflector) looks more powerful and more complete, at the same price. Refractors do tend to cost more than reflectors even at the low-end, and it is an achromat. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on why companies can't or won't produce a reasonable priced telescope?
In sci.astro.amateur message 3730cd0f-ae90-4ce2-97b6-b2ed52022d9b@o14g2
000prb.googlegroups.com, Fri, 4 Feb 2011 07:34:37, Sketcher posted: 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! Half that (+P&P) if you have enough children to give them to. -- (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME. Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links; Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc. No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on why companies can't or won't produce a reasonablepriced telescope?
On Feb 4, 6:05*pm, wrote:
On Feb 4, 10:34*am, Sketcher wrote: 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. I think to key is trying to figure out how much the newbie really wants to spend and then trying to steer them to the best scope at that price. It's too bad the Galileoscope went up in price. The 76mm Funscope (reflector) looks more powerful and more complete, at the same price. Refractors do tend to cost more than reflectors even at the low-end, and it is an achromat.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I already told you....$200. Too bad vendors decided to gouge customers instead of keeping a beginner's scope affordable. And then they complain when the number of people interested in astronomy continues to drop.... TMT TMT |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on why companies can't or won't produce a reasonablepriced telescope?
On Feb 4, 11:15*am, yourmommycalledandsaidbehave
wrote: 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- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - CN needs no help in smearing its reputation. Take some time and read the many discussions where "you ain't no one" unless you have thousands invested in astro toys. Then read on and on all the taglines where posters list the thousands and thousands of dollars of equipment. CN is not the environment a beginning amateur astronomer feels welcome to participate. I would argue CN years ago was a much more inviting environment before it was overrun by Mod Nazis and Golden Eyes. TMT |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on why companies can't or won't produce a reasonablepriced telescope?
On Feb 4, 11:15*am, yourmommycalledandsaidbehave
wrote: 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- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I should point out that the latest issue of S&T was not available for the holiday buying season. TMT |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on why companies can't or won't produce a reasonablepriced telescope?
On 09/02/2011 03:23, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 4, 6:05 pm, wrote: On Feb 4, 10:34 am, wrote: 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. I think to key is trying to figure out how much the newbie really wants to spend and then trying to steer them to the best scope at that price. It's too bad the Galileoscope went up in price. The 76mm Funscope (reflector) looks more powerful and more complete, at the same price. Refractors do tend to cost more than reflectors even at the low-end, and it is an achromat.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I already told you....$200. OK then I will take you on at face value. They are out there, but you have to know where to look. Even in rip-off UK where US$ = GB£ there are still telescope bargains to be had. The best candidates for a really cheap but acceptable quality starter scope are targetted at birders and sold through cut price chain storse like Aldi and Lidl. They buy a batch of relatively well spec'd 66mm scopes and sell them for £30 or 80mm scopes and sell them for roughly £100 which is about $160. The metal tripod stabilising strut isn't too bad either. Review on the birders list of the smaller version he http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/fo...ing-scope.html It is OK for magnifications in the range 20-40x but a bit soft after that. I got one myself as a sacrificial scope for public events. If you think you can do better quit whining and start importing and selling these mythical cheap high quality starter telescopes. If you are serious about value for money and on a tight budget you should buy second hand. It is crazy to waste 40% of your purchasing power for a brand new telescope on a restricted budget. Too bad vendors decided to gouge customers instead of keeping a beginner's scope affordable. And then they complain when the number of people interested in astronomy continues to drop.... The number of people interested in astronomy continues to drop because playing mindless shoot-em-up computer games is all kids want to do these days. And also we haven't had an exciting NASA mission to anywhere other than that useless orbital tin can now in living memory. Most of them are tremendously disappointed when faint fuzzies through a real telescope look nothing like the brilliant colourful Hubble shots in their coffee table books. The moon, saturn, jupiter, some of the brighter planetary nebulae and globular clusters are OK as demos. Regards, Martin Brown |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on why companies can't or won't produce a reasonablepriced telescope?
On Feb 8, 10:23*pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 4, 6:05*pm, wrote: On Feb 4, 10:34*am, Sketcher wrote: 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. I think to key is trying to figure out how much the newbie really wants to spend and then trying to steer them to the best scope at that price. It's too bad the Galileoscope went up in price. The 76mm Funscope (reflector) looks more powerful and more complete, at the same price. Refractors do tend to cost more than reflectors even at the low-end, and it is an achromat.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I already told you....$200. The Starblast is about that price, as I already said. Too bad vendors decided to gouge customers instead of keeping a beginner's scope affordable. The Starblast qualifies as a beginner's scope and it is affordable, according to the $200-$233 budget you specified. And then they complain when the number of people interested in astronomy continues to drop.... Provide some numbers and sources. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Thoughts on why companies can't or won't produce a reasonablepriced telescope?
On Feb 8, 10:28*pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 4, 11:15*am, yourmommycalledandsaidbehave wrote: 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- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - CN needs no help in smearing its reputation. Take some time and read the many discussions where "you ain't no one" unless you have thousands invested in astro toys. Join the discussions and present opposing viewpoints. That's why they are called "discussions." Discussion involves argument. Confront the elitists with a question such as: "What type of telescope did you have when you were a beginner?" Then read on and on all the taglines where posters list the thousands and thousands of dollars of equipment. Yeah, one guy even listed a Firstscope 60AZ ! CN is not the environment a beginning amateur astronomer feels welcome to participate. Some astronomy clubs are like that, but clubs might be of help to some beginners. You should participate in CN and make the beginners feel welcome. I would argue CN years ago was a much more inviting environment before it was overrun by Mod Nazis and Golden Eyes. No mods here, although there are some would-be communists, fascists and other such leftist, "progressive" types skulking about. |
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 |