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

Thoughts on why companies can't or won't produce a reasonable priced telescope?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 5th 11, 12:55 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default 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  
Old February 5th 11, 12:56 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default 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  
Old February 5th 11, 01:05 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default 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  
Old February 5th 11, 10:49 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Dr J R Stockton[_99_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default 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  
Old February 9th 11, 04:23 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Too_Many_Tools
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 621
Default 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  
Old February 9th 11, 04:28 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Too_Many_Tools
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 621
Default 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  
Old February 9th 11, 04:29 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Too_Many_Tools
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 621
Default 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  
Old February 9th 11, 09:56 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Martin Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,707
Default 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  
Old February 9th 11, 11:37 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default 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  
Old February 9th 11, 11:58 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,472
Default 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

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
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 08:01 PM
Companies have been racing to produce technology to mass producehybrids [email protected] History 2 March 7th 08 03:41 AM
Companies have been racing to produce technology to mass producehybrids [email protected] FITS 0 March 6th 08 08:01 PM
Companies have been racing to produce technology to mass producehybrids [email protected] CCD Imaging 0 March 6th 08 07:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:50 PM.


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.