*BAD-ASTRONOMY ADVICE from NEWSWEEK (sad!) -- S&T and ASTRONOMYBEWARE!

Absolutely amazing! Sad but true! Which magazine was that?
Remind me to cancel my subscription tomorrow!
Clear Skies,
Tom Whiting
PS- thanks for the info and update, Pietro.




Pietro wrote:
Newsweeks *Tip Sheet* section had an article, "Scoping Out the
Stars," on page 56 of the July 28, 2003 issue that caught my
attention. It was supposedly advice on buying a telescope to view Mars
this summer. I was happy to see the Mars apparition enter the
mainstream, but was disappointed at the buying advice. Why a major
news weekly couldn't find a pro or amateur astronomer to write or
proof this article is a mystery to me. It was clearly written and
assembled by persons who wouldn't know an eyepiece from an objective.

To start, the article features images of three telescopes: NexStar
130GT Reflector, Meade NGC60 Refractor, and Orion 4.5" ShortTube
reflector. The caption on the refractor will immediately make a
knowledgeable amateur wince: "It's computer-controlled, but the mirror
is small, so objects may be blurry". There are three factual errors
(read on) in just one thirteen-word sentence. And that is very
representative of this piece and just the start of a trail of
misidentification and bad advice that flows throughout.

The theme of "blurry telescopes" pervades the article. I'm guessing
that the author ran across the concept of resolving power/useful
magnification vs. size and price. That somehow was translated into a
fiat that smaller low-priced instruments could only show blurry views.
We've already had the example of the 60mm refractor (the one with the
"mirror") being blurry; later it is written of small Dobsonians: "but
they won't be impressed with a smaller mirror's blurry views".
Caution is also called for would-be purchasers of the NexStar 130GT:
"it may be a bit blurry" because of the low-ball price.

We're told what not to buy throughout the article, so what is the
right aperture and price recommendation Newsweek makes for the newbie
that is targeted by this piece? Well, the kicker will be found in the
final column of the first page: first we read that the NexStar 114GT
is "far too small for general use," then the ill-captioned NGC60 is
"well-priced" but too small, and then the "impressive" new Orion
ShortTube 4.5" reflector is also too small; so the final scope
recommendation is a quote from the director of the Perkins Observatory
in Ohio: "the best is Obsession's $4,895 18-incher" – really.
(To be fair, the article touched on the slightly cheaper and smaller
Meade 14" LX200 for $4,295, but didn't make a specific up or down
recommendation—just that it is a "latest wonder" in telescopes).
Yep newbie -- that’s your scope!

The author jumbles a mind-boggling number of misconceptions together
in this piece: All computerized scopes seemingly setup and find
objects on their own (no mention is made of initial alignment by us
humans) – even the ones with just digital setting circles and no
motors -- I kid you not: the "NGC60 ($200) finds stars automatically
but won't track them" – perhaps you tell it to re-find the star
each time it drifts out of view? The refractor vs. reflector debate
has been resolved by being ignorant of the existence of the former:
only the one misidentified refractor is mentioned. (No mention of the
LX200 being a SCT is made). And I got the sinking-feeling that the
writer doesn't understand what a Dobsonian is. In the first paragraph
we're told that "telescopes are hardly simple tube-and-mirror-devices
anymore" and that Dobsoniains are simply scopes that "you have to
point yourself". Also, the Orion ShortTube reflector is touted as one
of the "new Dobsonians" -- even though it's clearly pictured on a GEM
(that's German Equatorial Mount for you newbies)!

And there's more advice on what you'll see and how to record your
astronomical pursuits. The author admits you're not going to get
Hubble views of the heavens through your new scope – the stars
will look like "bigger" dots (no mention that this is a bad thing).
But you don't need the expense of a scope to start out in astronomy,
hand-held binoculars will do (ehh? some good newbie advice?) –
but make sure to buy the ones with a built-in digital camera to record
your explorations!

-- Pietro

* - - - - - - - - - - http://www.Pietro.org - - - - - - - - - - *
*Astronomy News, BBS, Celestron, Computing, Mathcad & More*
*Nail PLUTO: http://www.pietro.org/Astro_C5/Artic...utoCurrent.htm
*Celestron 5" SCT: http://www.pietro.org/Astro_C5/c5_nexstar.htm
*Astro Book Reviews:
http://www.pietro.org/Shopping/ScienceShopping.htm

Pietro wrote:
Newsweeks *Tip Sheet* section had an article, "Scoping Out the
Stars," on page 56 of the July 28, 2003 issue that caught my

Astronomy subscribers to that particular periodical ought to
*bombard* the letter to the Editors department for that article!!

Really, the authors ought to be "fired" over an article that bad,
clearly writing about something that is way over their heads, and
giving out extreme mis-information.
Clear Skies,
Tom W.

bwhiting wrote:
Pietro wrote:

Newsweeks *Tip Sheet* section had an article, "Scoping Out the
Stars," on page 56 of the July 28, 2003 issue that caught my


Astronomy subscribers to that particular periodical ought to
*bombard* the letter to the Editors department for that article!!

Really, the authors ought to be "fired" over an article that bad,
clearly writing about something that is way over their heads, and
giving out extreme mis-information.
Clear Skies,
Tom W.


BBC Radio 4 run a semi scientific piece on Halley's Comet last week,
helpfully telling listeners that 'Halley's Comet last orbited the Earth
in 1986'!

Gerry

Pietro wrote:
Newsweeks *Tip Sheet* section had an article, "Scoping Out the
Stars," on page 56 of the July 28, 2003 issue that caught my
attention.

Hi, Pietro.

Just remember this experience next time you are reading an article about
a subject about you know very little - you are probably receiving the
same level of misinformation.

John

bwhiting wrote in message ...
Pietro wrote:
Newsweeks *Tip Sheet* section had an article, "Scoping Out the
Stars," on page 56 of the July 28, 2003 issue that caught my

Astronomy subscribers to that particular periodical ought to
*bombard* the letter to the Editors department for that article!!

Really, the authors ought to be "fired" over an article that bad,
clearly writing about something that is way over their heads, and
giving out extreme mis-information.
Clear Skies,
Tom W.

One thing that enters my mind when I see something like this is, if
they do such a botch job on a subject I know a bit about, how much
misinformation is in other stories on topics that I really know little
about? DR

Just remember this experience next time you are reading an article about
a subject about you know very little - you are probably receiving the
same level of misinformation.


Now that is scarry but very true. I wonder how many misconceptions we all
have due to crap media. Here is a common one Macs are better then PC for
photo editing and desktop publishing. Now that is a laugh.

Here's the article on the Web.

It's not _that_ bad.

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/941381.asp?0sl=-13#BODY

July 28 issue — Astronomers and astrologers don’t have much in common, but
there’s a good chance August will send both groups into a frenzy: on the
27th, Mars will loom large on the horizon, coming closer to Earth than it has
in 73,000 years. Alas, we can’t say what that means for your love life, but
we do have one prediction: a lot of folks will buy flashy new telescopes for
the event, only to be disappointed.

TELESCOPES ARE HARDLY simple tube-and-mirror devices anymore. That’s great
news for serious hobbyists, but first-timers baffled by tech talk may be best
off with basic models. So Tip Sheet, er, looked into it. Here’s our guide to
buying a telescope.
If the closest thing you already have to a scope is a pair of opera
glasses, go for a simple classic: a Dobsonian, one you have to point yourself.
Make sure it has at least a six-inch mirror. “First-timers make the mistake
of buying small computerized telescopes with a lot of doodads and knobs,�
says Tom Burns, director of the Perkins Observatory in Delaware, Ohio. But they
won’t be impressed with a smaller mirror’s blurry views. Burns also says to
stay away from department-store scopes and those that boast about
magnification—it’s a function of the eyepiece, which you can always buy
separately. Make sure the mount is steady. And remember, you’re not buying
the Hubble. The stars are still going to look like dots (albeit bigger ones).
Finally, if you pick up and drop new hobbies like J. Lo does new hubbies, just
buy a pair of binoculars. No, we mean that. Several new models take digital
photos, and any 50mm set with glass lenses and separate-focus eyepieces will
give you a nice introduction to stargazing.
The newest telescopes on the market come in a wide variety of sizes and
prices; most are heavily computerized. Meade Instruments’ latest, the LX200,
is a $4,295, 14-inch wonder that uses GPS to align itself with the stars;
Celestron’s NexStar 130GT, available at the end of the summer, is
considerably cheaper ($500) and finds objects automatically, but with
telescopes you do generally get what you pay for, and it may be a bit blurry.
(The NexStar 114GT, its predecessor, will be sold at a discount at Costco in
August, but it’s far too small for general use—if you’re going to have
only one telescope, this isn’t it.) Meade’s well-priced new NGC60 ($200)
finds stars automatically but won’t track them as they move, and Burns says
its light-gathering power is “far too small for anything but the moon and a
few bright planets.� There are also impressive new Dobsonians, like Orion’s
ShortTube 4.5 EQ Reflector ($149), which is portable and has an optional drive
for tracking heavenly bodies. Though, like the NGC60, it’s best for very
bright objects (like Mars in August), the 4.5-inch mirror is larger. Burns
thinks the best is Obsession’s $4,895 18-incher, a Dobsonian with a tracking
drive included. “I would kill for it,� he says. This from a guy with an
observatory at his command.
None of this is to say that you have to buy a new telescope to enjoy
the night sky. Many Web sites now function as virtual scopes (try
fourmilab.to/yoursky). Also fun is heavens-above.com —type in —your
longitude and latitude, and it will tell you which satellites are passing
overhead at the moment. You can do some decent astronomy with just your eyes,
too. Check rocketroberts.com/astro/naked eye.htm for tips—or go somewhere
dark on Aug. 12 or 13 and look up around 4 a.m. for the Perseid meteor shower.
It isn’t Mars, but it’s quite a show—no scope needed.
Todd

http://www.backyardastronomy.com
http://www.skynewsmagazine.com
http://www.simpleastrophotography.com

On 3 Aug 2003 21:11:49 -0700,
(Pietro) wrote:

Newsweeks *Tip Sheet* section had an article, "Scoping Out the
Stars," on page 56 of the July 28, 2003 issue that caught my
attention. It was supposedly advice on buying a telescope to view Mars
this summer. I was happy to see the Mars apparition enter the
mainstream, but was disappointed at the buying advice. Why a major
news weekly couldn't find a pro or amateur astronomer to write or
proof this article is a mystery to me. It was clearly written and
assembled by persons who wouldn't know an eyepiece from an objective.
SNIP SNIP
**************** *********
Why not take your excellent comments and submit them to NewsWeek
as an Opinion piece?
Extend it out as a "warning" for readers to be very careful when
reading comments from Columnists, magazines, even newspapers?
I thought your comments were detailed and on-target enough to be
interesting.
See what you can do.
Good Luck.
---Mac

In article , Tdcarls wrote:
Here's the article on the Web.

It's not _that_ bad.

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/941381.asp?0sl=-13#BODY

I agree -- the original poster really seems to have exaggerated this.

"... a Dobsonian, one you have to point yourself" seems like a pretty fair
and non-discouraging characterization, especially given that it's closely
followed by "First timers make the mistake of buying small computerized
telescopes...".

And I have to give them credit for

Finally, if you pick up and drop new hobbies like J. Lo does new hubbies,
just buy a pair of binoculars. No, we mean that.
and even though it goes on to say a bit bizarrely
Several new models take digital photos,
the sense of this bit is saved by what follows,
and any 50mm set with glass lenses and separate-focus eyepieces
will give you a nice introduction to stargazing.

Given that they list a number of specific models, many 'way out of
most reasonable people's price range -- which I think is the point
of listing their prices (these are gee-whiz devices, not recommendations) --
it *is* disappointing that they don't list a model or two of 6-inch-or-so
Dobsonian telescopes, which after all they did recommend in the
third paragraph.

It's also disappointing to see the "closer to earth than in X years"
without comment. It's true but only infinitesimally. What's interesting
is that we'll see Mars significantly (tens of percent) better now
than for about 15 years before or since, as several of us have said in
other threads.

But it does close with more good advice -- that you can enjoy the heavens
with just your naked eyes, and pointing to specific advice.
Given the consumerist media norm, this seems a breath of fresh air.

I'd give this author good solid B.

Stuart Levy


July 28 issue -- Astronomers and astrologers don't have much in common, but
there's a good chance August will send both groups into a frenzy: on the
27th, Mars will loom large on the horizon, coming closer to Earth than it has
in 73,000 years. Alas, we can't say what that means for your love life, but
we do have one prediction: a lot of folks will buy flashy new telescopes for
the event, only to be disappointed.

TELESCOPES ARE HARDLY simple tube-and-mirror devices anymore. That's great
news for serious hobbyists, but first-timers baffled by tech talk may be best
off with basic models. So Tip Sheet, er, looked into it. Here's our guide to
buying a telescope.
If the closest thing you already have to a scope is a pair of opera
glasses, go for a simple classic: a Dobsonian, one you have to point yourself.
Make sure it has at least a six-inch mirror. 'First-timers make the mistake
of buying small computerized telescopes with a lot of doodads and knobs,'
says Tom Burns, director of the Perkins Observatory in Delaware, Ohio. But they
won't be impressed with a smaller mirror's blurry views. Burns also says to
stay away from department-store scopes and those that boast about
magnification -- it's a function of the eyepiece, which you can always buy
separately. Make sure the mount is steady. And remember, you're not buying
the Hubble. The stars are still going to look like dots (albeit bigger ones).
Finally, if you pick up and drop new hobbies like J. Lo does new hubbies, just
buy a pair of binoculars. No, we mean that. Several new models take digital
photos, and any 50mm set with glass lenses and separate-focus eyepieces will
give you a nice introduction to stargazing.
The newest telescopes on the market come in a wide variety of sizes and
prices; most are heavily computerized. Meade Instruments' latest, the LX200,
is a $4,295, 14-inch wonder that uses GPS to align itself with the stars;
Celestron's NexStar 130GT, available at the end of the summer, is
considerably cheaper ($500) and finds objects automatically, but with
telescopes you do generally get what you pay for, and it may be a bit blurry.
(The NexStar 114GT, its predecessor, will be sold at a discount at Costco in
August, but it's far too small for general use -- if you're going to have
only one telescope, this isn't it.) Meade's well-priced new NGC60 ($200)
finds stars automatically but won't track them as they move, and Burns says
its light-gathering power is 'far too small for anything but the moon and a
few bright planets.' There are also impressive new Dobsonians, like Orion's
ShortTube 4.5 EQ Reflector ($149), which is portable and has an optional drive
for tracking heavenly bodies. Though, like the NGC60, it's best for very
bright objects (like Mars in August), the 4.5-inch mirror is larger. Burns
thinks the best is Obsession's $4,895 18-incher, a Dobsonian with a tracking
drive included. 'I would kill for it,' he says. This from a guy with an
observatory at his command.
None of this is to say that you have to buy a new telescope to enjoy
the night sky. Many Web sites now function as virtual scopes (try
fourmilab.to/yoursky). Also fun is heavens-above.com -- type in your
longitude and latitude, and it will tell you which satellites are passing
overhead at the moment. You can do some decent astronomy with just your eyes,
too. Check rocketroberts.com/astro/nakedeye.htm for tips -- or go somewhere
dark on Aug. 12 or 13 and look up around 4 a.m. for the Perseid meteor shower.
It isn't Mars, but it's quite a show -- no scope needed.
Todd

http://www.backyardastronomy.com
http://www.skynewsmagazine.com
http://www.simpleastrophotography.com

I'd give this author good solid B.

I'd agree with you. The original poster gets a D- for hyperbole too!

Todd

http://www.backyardastronomy.com
http://www.skynewsmagazine.com
http://www.simpleastrophotography.com