RE: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Go-to scopes
I don't find a goto scope at all gimmicky. As you say - it may prevent some beginners from truly learning the night sky - but if it gets them out using their telescope - I say, go for it. It also depends partly on what your emphasis is. If your greatest joy is finding a particular object - then certainly don't use a goto scope. But, if your greatest joy is looking at more objects in an evening or observing some of the real elusive stuff like dark nebulae - then a goto scope is going to be perfect. I personally don't think an amateur should feel ashamed or feel like they have to defend whatever type of scope they get (except to their spouse <g>). Goto scopes are just another arrow in the astronomer's quiver. I find the whole goto/star-hop issue a bit like GUI vs command line for computers from a few years back. When mice first became available for computers many people (including myself) thought they were a gimmick. Nowadays, do I use/create GUI's? Certainly. Do I use/create command line interfaces? Sometimes. It just depends on what works best for the application. I also find it a bit amusing that this kind of thing always seems to go one way. I hear purists decry use of goto scopes, but I never seem to hear people with goto scopes complain about purists that spend an hour or two to find one object - or that complain when a purist comes over to look through the finder of a goto scope to get some ideas about where to look for something. As I said before - whatever gets you outside (or into your observatory) is what you should use. -----Original Message----- I agree entirely with Brent (almost). There's no way one will learn the night sky without spending time star-hopping - with planisphere and unaided eye, binoculars, or a telescope. An added benefit is the myriad treasures one happens upon quite by chance while one is hunting a specific target. A couple years ago I came upon, quite by chance, a fabulous deal on a Celestron Ultima 2000, a "go-to" model capable of both alt-az and equatorial operation. I bought the scope mainly for it's optical quality but also for use at public star parties. There are two advantages for me: the scope is lighter and more compact than either of my Newtonians and I can more quickly find objects so that people waiting don't get bored and go away. "Oh, you've never seen a quadruple star? Well give me 30 seconds and I can show you one." I still use my Newtonians or my refractor for serious personal observing. Except for these and maybe other marginal advantages, I find that the go-to phenomenon is gimmicky and discourages beginners, especially, from simply scanning the sky to see what one may find. I am especially puzzled why the manufacturers promote their GPS models over all others. After all, how much trouble is it to align a scope on a couple of stars? Kim A. Hyatt, AIA SL&A Architects 331 South Rio Grande, Suite 304 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 801.322.5550 x122
Although I made the statement that the best way to learn the night sky is to NOT use a GOTO scope, my main arguement was with the image quality. They are not the most cost effective way to see the sky, and they do not produce the same image that other optical designs do. (speaking of SCTs) I have seen very good image quality from a SCT, but only very rarely. They are also slower to set AND use, in my experience. They are more compact, though. Brent --- Dale Hooper <Dale.Hooper@sdl.usu.edu> wrote:
I don't find a goto scope at all gimmicky. As you say - it may prevent some beginners from truly learning the night sky - but if it gets them out using their telescope - I say, go for it. It also depends partly on what your emphasis is. If your greatest joy is finding a particular object - then certainly don't use a goto scope. But, if your greatest joy is looking at more objects in an evening or observing some of the real elusive stuff like dark nebulae - then a goto scope is going to be perfect.
I personally don't think an amateur should feel ashamed or feel like they have to defend whatever type of scope they get (except to their spouse <g>). Goto scopes are just another arrow in the astronomer's quiver.
I find the whole goto/star-hop issue a bit like GUI vs command line for computers from a few years back. When mice first became available for computers many people (including myself) thought they were a gimmick. Nowadays, do I use/create GUI's? Certainly. Do I use/create command line interfaces? Sometimes. It just depends on what works best for the application.
I also find it a bit amusing that this kind of thing always seems to go one way. I hear purists decry use of goto scopes, but I never seem to hear people with goto scopes complain about purists that spend an hour or two to find one object - or that complain when a purist comes over to look through the finder of a goto scope to get some ideas about where to look for something.
As I said before - whatever gets you outside (or into your observatory) is what you should use.
-----Original Message-----
I agree entirely with Brent (almost). There's no way one will learn the night sky without spending time star-hopping - with planisphere and unaided eye, binoculars, or a telescope. An added benefit is the myriad treasures one happens upon quite by chance while one is hunting a specific target.
A couple years ago I came upon, quite by chance, a fabulous deal on a Celestron Ultima 2000, a "go-to" model capable of both alt-az and equatorial operation. I bought the scope mainly for it's optical quality but also for use at public star parties. There are two advantages for me: the scope is lighter and more compact than either of my Newtonians and I can more quickly find objects so that people waiting don't get bored and go away. "Oh, you've never seen a quadruple star? Well give me 30 seconds and I can show you one." I still use my Newtonians or my refractor for serious personal observing.
Except for these and maybe other marginal advantages, I find that the go-to phenomenon is gimmicky and discourages beginners, especially, from simply scanning the sky to see what one may find. I am especially puzzled why the manufacturers promote their GPS models over all others. After all, how much trouble is it to align a scope on a couple of stars?
Kim A. Hyatt, AIA SL&A Architects 331 South Rio Grande, Suite 304 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 801.322.5550 x122
ATTACHMENT part 2 application/ms-tnef name=winmail.dat
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
--- Dale Hooper <Dale.Hooper@sdl.usu.edu> wrote:
I also find it a bit amusing that this kind of thing always seems to go one way. I hear purists decry use of goto scopes, but I never seem to hear people with goto scopes complain about purists that spend an hour or two to find one object - or that complain when a purist comes over to look through the finder of a goto scope to get some ideas about where to look for something.
Dale, I have never known anyone to take an hour to find an object. In that case I'd advise a larger telescope, better knowledge of the sky, or perhaps a GoTo mount if their budget will allow. Anyone who knows the sky well will not need a GoTo database for observing suggestions. Perhaps some of those putting-down GoTo just can't afford it. Understand that (most) folks who don't see the need for a GoTo aren't against technology for it's own sake. We know the joys of knowing the sky, and are trying to tell people that there is a more interesting, more fun, more meaningful way to find objects besides instant gratification. Something they can use when the GoTo isn't available, or the batteries die, or the darned thing just stops firing-up one day. We want folks to be able to continue down the road using the bicycle in the trunk, instead of just sitting by the side of the road waiting for the tow-truck when the car breaks down. I see the analogy as similar to teaching a new pilot to use the autopilot before he learns how to fly using the stick. Why put all of your observing "eggs" in one high-tech basket? An astronomer is someone who knows how to use telescopes to study the sky. A person who can only see objects that the telescope finds for him or her is a GoTo mount operator, a spectator more than a participant. And please don't take this as an insult, for it is not intended as such. I'm not saying "GoTo is without merit", I"m saying "the GoTo user is missing out on a big part of the payoff if it's their only instrument." Someone pointed out that GPS & GoTo have merits that I hadn't even thought of initially, namely daytime alignment & tacking. This alone would make it worth the money if someone did a lot of solar work from various locations. C. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
participants (3)
-
Brent Watson -
Chuck Hards -
Dale Hooper