Wat does a telescope cost?

In article 2doNb.1892$_H5.1234@lakeread06,
(Glenn Woodell) wrote:

In article ,
says...

Why is it that amateur astronomers can't design web sites worth a damn....If
you don't use PhotoShop for web design then you have
no business putting up a web site period.

Troll

On the other hand, using Photoshop for web design *could* go a ways to
explaining some of his problems.

19.95.

Best regards,
Bill

"Passero" wrote in message
...
I'm new to astronomy and i'm very interested in it but i don't have a
telescope. I do look at the sky and try to find most of the constalaions
but
that's it. I would like to have a telescope so i would see more of the
sky,
perhaps even planets and there moons, some nebula's, open clusters...
I don't have a very large budget so i don't need the best of the best.
What
would a telescope cost so i could see some of the things i said?

"Shawn Grant" wrote in message
...

"Starlord" wrote in message
...
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord


Why is it that amateur astronomers can't design web sites worth a damn.
The
above is nothing but unformatted text and you scroll and scroll and scroll
and scroll and scroll and scroll buy a new mouse because mouse wheel is
broke scroll and scroll.
The index at the top, allows you to jump to the part that matters.

Here are some tips: Web sites can have more then one page. Put long
articles
on multiple pages. Use margins so the text doesn't go to one end of the
browser to the other side. Add to graphics. You know how eye catching
great
photos, graphic and layout S&T and Astronomy magazines make their articles
make your web articles the same way. You can make great graphics that
download super fast. If you don't use PhotoShop for web design then you
have
no business putting up a web site period.

Here is a better way to make articles look nice on the web.

http://www.knoxvilleobservers.org/be...oolsreview.htm

http://www.knoxvilleobservers.org/be...snpreview1.htm

http://www.knoxvilleobservers.org/ds...pring/m101.htm

http://www.knoxvilleobservers.org/ds...mer/scutum.htm
Seriously, I'd prefer the 'unformatted text' approach, to that of many
supposedly professional web designers, who use tools that make pages bulky
and slow. Though the pages you post are good in this regard, they still run
to over 30KB, for a single page, against the text FAQ, running to 80KB, for
over 20 pages of data at the same scale. The single page can also be
downloaded for reference offline, while doing the same for multiple pages is
cumbersome.
At the end of the day, unless somebody has a reasonable amount of time to
reformat the page to make it both good looking, and still keep it small, it
is better to leave the text alone.
If you dislike it so much, then offer to spend your time to reformat the
page. I'm sure that if a good quality job was 'offered' to Starlord, he
would jump at having the page reformatted. If you are not prepared to spend
the time, then don't complain about others, who are providing useful data.

Best Wishes

On the other hand, using Photoshop for web design *could* go a ways to
explaining some of his problems.

Thank you for sharing your ingnorance. Did you know that PhotoShop is a
standard in web graphics?

they still run
to over 30KB, for a single page, against the text FAQ, running to 80KB,
for
over 20 pages of data at the same scale.

News flash. No one uses 9600 modems any more. Both pages load at the same
time. Oops I forgot. I can download at 3 megs a second.

"Shawn Grant" wrote in message
...
they still run
to over 30KB, for a single page, against the text FAQ, running to 80KB,
for
over 20 pages of data at the same scale.

News flash. No one uses 9600 modems any more. Both pages load at the same
time. Oops I forgot. I can download at 3 megs a second.
Er. You are missing the point. The individual pages do load in about the
same time, but the text page contains the equivalent of about 20 pages the
size of the other one. At 30KB/page, modifying the original page to this
format, makes the whole 'set', come out at about 600KB. Using a 56K modem,
which typically gives perhaps 5K/second, the whole 'set', then takes 120
seconds, against just 10 seconds for the text based page. This is a
significant amount, and the attitude that 'size doesn't matter', is one
reason that the whole web at times slows down.

Best Wishes

wolfhedd wrote:

passero. im not sure about dobsonian reflectors and maybe others can tell
you how they compare with newtonian reflectors, but you can get your self
the most common type of reflector, a newtonian, around the 4-6 inch
aperature dipending on your final budget decision,

[snip]

A Dobsonian telescope *is* a Newtonian. Its distinctive feature is
its simple and inexpensive altazimuth mounting, consisting of a
"rocker box" on a turntable. Take the same OTA (Optical Tube
Assembly) and stick it on a GEM ("German" Equatorial Mount) and you
have a 'standard' Newtonian. A good GEM, including a solid tripod and
precision-machined gears & bearings, will cost roughly the same
amount as (or even more than) the OTA it supports, while most of the
price of a Dobsonian goes toward the optical components.

--
Odysseus

In article ,
says...

On the other hand, using Photoshop for web design *could* go a ways to
explaining some of his problems.

Thank you for sharing your ingnorance. Did you know that PhotoShop is a
standard in web graphics?

Sure but not required unless everyone in the world wants all web pages to look
like yours. Sure, some people may not want to scroll all day but others may
not want to click all day either. That's the beauty of web design. Something
for everyone.

Glenn

Sure but not required unless everyone in the world wants all web pages to
look
like yours.

So what you are saying is PhotoShop restricts your artistic freedom.

thankyou.

i poor my heart out in this mail, and where the hell is passero? HELLLO?
did you get it?
wolf

lol


"Odysseus" wrote in message
...
wolfhedd wrote:

passero. im not sure about dobsonian reflectors and maybe others can
tell
you how they compare with newtonian reflectors, but you can get your
self
the most common type of reflector, a newtonian, around the 4-6 inch
aperature dipending on your final budget decision,

[snip]

A Dobsonian telescope *is* a Newtonian. Its distinctive feature is
its simple and inexpensive altazimuth mounting, consisting of a
"rocker box" on a turntable. Take the same OTA (Optical Tube
Assembly) and stick it on a GEM ("German" Equatorial Mount) and you
have a 'standard' Newtonian. A good GEM, including a solid tripod and
precision-machined gears & bearings, will cost roughly the same
amount as (or even more than) the OTA it supports, while most of the
price of a Dobsonian goes toward the optical components.

--
Odysseus