Department Store Telescopes Are Great!

They provide a cheap and accessible way for a newbie to gauge his or her interest in amateur astronomy!

(This is not a troll.)

On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 06:55:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

They provide a cheap and accessible way for a newbie to gauge his or her interest in amateur astronomy!

Or, alternatively, they turn people off of astronomy completely.

Most of the people I know who got into astronomy and stayed there
started with either Dobs or goto SCTs. Most of the people I know who
explored astronomy starting with a department store telescope now have
a department store telescope in their closet (or have given it to
Goodwill) and don't observe.

On Sunday, 13 March 2016 11:02:57 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 06:55:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

They provide a cheap and accessible way for a newbie to gauge his or her interest in amateur astronomy!

Or, alternatively, they turn people off of astronomy completely.

Most of the people I know who got into astronomy and stayed there
started with either Dobs or goto SCTs. Most of the people I know who
explored astronomy starting with a department store telescope now have
a department store telescope in their closet (or have given it to
Goodwill) and don't observe.

I'd be the exception to that and I believe anyone truly interested (as opposed to those who saw a Hubble Jupiter shot and wanted a quick thrill) will keep at it. Having said that, I think parents who spend thousands a year on their cellphones and who balk at spending few hundred on a scope for a truly interested kid either don't have the money or are too cheap to spend it wisely.

On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 09:00:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Sunday, 13 March 2016 11:02:57 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 06:55:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

They provide a cheap and accessible way for a newbie to gauge his or her interest in amateur astronomy!

Or, alternatively, they turn people off of astronomy completely.

Most of the people I know who got into astronomy and stayed there
started with either Dobs or goto SCTs. Most of the people I know who
explored astronomy starting with a department store telescope now have
a department store telescope in their closet (or have given it to
Goodwill) and don't observe.

I'd be the exception to that and I believe anyone truly interested (as opposed to those who saw a Hubble Jupiter shot and wanted a quick thrill) will keep at it. Having said that, I think parents who spend thousands a year on their cellphones and who balk at spending few hundred on a scope for a truly interested kid either don't have the money or are too cheap to spend it wisely.

There are many exceptions. Especially among older, lifelong amateur
astronomers. But not so much among those in the 40-and-under crowd,
and not so much among adults who took up astronomy well into their
lives.

I know a number of kids whose parents had no problem buying them nice
goto SCTs when they got interested in astronomy. There are a great
many people who don't have a problem with spending $1K - $2K on
something like that. As you say, many are spending similar amounts for
phones and video games.

On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 7:55:34 AM UTC-6, wrote:

(This is not a troll.)

You could have fooled me.

Actually, there's nothing wrong with an inexpensive telescope for a beginner to
stick his toe into astronomy with.

The proverbial "department store telescope" gets abuse partly because it tends
to be oversold - the packaging boasts of magnification far in excess of what
the aperture will permit.

Some magnification in excess of the diffraction limit, though, makes it easier
to see the finest possible detail a telescope can provide, so I'm not entirely
in league with the purists on the more general issue.

Even a four-inch telescope, though, offers only limited views of the planets,
and they're the easiest targets of obvious interest after the Moon.

John Savard

On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 12:00:57 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 13 March 2016 11:02:57 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 06:55:30 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

They provide a cheap and accessible way for a newbie to gauge his or her interest in amateur astronomy!

Or, alternatively, they turn people off of astronomy completely.

Most of the people I know who got into astronomy and stayed there
started with either Dobs or goto SCTs. Most of the people I know who
explored astronomy starting with a department store telescope now have
a department store telescope in their closet (or have given it to
Goodwill) and don't observe.

I'd be the exception to that and I believe anyone truly interested (as opposed to those who saw a Hubble Jupiter shot and wanted a quick thrill) will keep at it.

Ding, ding, ding! Winnah! Winnah!

Correct!!

And you're not the only exception to that.






Having said that, I think parents who spend thousands a year on their cellphones and who balk at spending few hundred on a scope for a truly interested kid either don't have the money or are too cheap to spend it wisely.

On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 2:16:55 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 7:55:34 AM UTC-6, wsne... wrote:

(This is not a troll.)

You could have fooled me.

(If you think it's a troll then you were fooled.)

Actually, there's nothing wrong with an inexpensive telescope for a beginner to stick his toe into astronomy with.


Which is basically what I said.


The proverbial "department store telescope" gets abuse partly because it tends
to be oversold - the packaging boasts of magnification far in excess of what
the aperture will permit.


The longer focal length eyepieces are certainly usable. Usually the worst problem is with shaky or inadequate mounts, but those who are truly interested in the first place will figure out how to fix those.


Some magnification in excess of the diffraction limit, though, makes it easier
to see the finest possible detail a telescope can provide, so I'm not entirely
in league with the purists on the more general issue.


Even a four-inch telescope, though, offers only limited views of the planets,
and they're the easiest targets of obvious interest after the Moon.


I dove right into deep sky observing once I obtained my second scope. The first scope was good for the Moon and it whetted my interest. The ergonomics of the second scope were better, overall. Both scopes were less than four-inch aperture. Either of them could be carried out to the yard in one hand while charts and flashlight were carried in the other.

If you look around you will see that very often the immediate family members of an avid amateur astronomer will develop little or no interest in astronomy or the scopes that live on site, not matter how fancy those scopes are or how much those scopes sit idle.

In article ,
Quadibloc wrote:
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 7:55:34 AM UTC-6, wrote:

(This is not a troll.)

You could have fooled me.

Actually, there's nothing wrong with an inexpensive telescope for a beginner to
stick his toe into astronomy with.

The proverbial "department store telescope" gets abuse partly because it tends
to be oversold - the packaging boasts of magnification far in excess of what
the aperture will permit.

Yes, it isn't just about the magnification; it is about the light gathering too.

Some magnification in excess of the diffraction limit, though, makes it easier
to see the finest possible detail a telescope can provide, so I'm not entirely
in league with the purists on the more general issue.

Even a four-inch telescope, though, offers only limited views of the planets,
and they're the easiest targets of obvious interest after the Moon.

Yep. I got a cheap dobsonian 8-inch scope 10 years ago, and now that
I live outside the city glare I have picked it up. It is very good for
the price.

And it was a "department store telescope", one that got to the year sale
at 50% reduced price. They probably didn't have a clue.

Now I am looking for a cheap camera mount for a CCD SLR; a cheap samsung.

The SLR mount got some real good pictures but on film. That age is
pretty much gone now.

-- mrr

In article ,
Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 06:55:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

They provide a cheap and accessible way for a newbie to gauge his or her
interest in amateur astronomy!

Or, alternatively, they turn people off of astronomy completely.

Most of the people I know who got into astronomy and stayed there
started with either Dobs or goto SCTs. Most of the people I know who
explored astronomy starting with a department store telescope now have
a department store telescope in their closet (or have given it to
Goodwill) and don't observe.

I borrowed my brothers 60mm Tasco that had been sitting in his closet,
and that got me interested enough to buy a Celestron U2K. So it works
both ways.

On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 9:55:26 AM UTC-4, Mark Storkamp wrote:
In article ,
Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 06:55:30 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

They provide a cheap and accessible way for a newbie to gauge his or her
interest in amateur astronomy!

Or, alternatively, they turn people off of astronomy completely.

Most of the people I know who got into astronomy and stayed there
started with either Dobs or goto SCTs. Most of the people I know who
explored astronomy starting with a department store telescope now have
a department store telescope in their closet (or have given it to
Goodwill) and don't observe.

I borrowed my brothers 60mm Tasco that had been sitting in his closet,
and that got me interested enough to buy a Celestron U2K. So it works
both ways.

Another thing that can happen is that a DST can end up at a garage sale and become the catalyst for a unsuspecting newbie's interest. $5 telescopes can do that to people.