I'm Finding A Telescope....

[Bunhia]

Hi all,
I'm a new member of this forum. I want to say Hi to everybody in here :) :) :)
.....I'm looking for a telescope, but I don't know which one is good for me. ( I've ever onwed one before). So....Could you give me some advices to find a good telescope ?

Thanks in advance !

[The Meal]

If you're not afraid to do a bit of research on your own, this book (http://www.philharrington.net/sw2.htm) comes highly recommended. I'm still in my pre-telescope phase (spending a year with 10x50 binos to evaluate my own level of interest {EXTREMELY HIGH!}, abilities, and desires {deep-sky objects vs. double stars and lunar/planetary views, EQ vs. Alt-Az mounting, etc.}) so I haven't picked Star Ware up yet (fearing, of course, that purchasing that book will result in me blowing my budget on a scope), but it does come nearly universally recommended.

Best of luck!

~The Meal

[galaxygirl]

Dave Mitsky (and others) included some good telescope advice in this (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3606) thread.

[DisinterestedThirdParty]

Much to the dismay of others, I recommend the "Goto" telescopes to new astronomers. Yes, the Dobs will give you a better view, but what's the point of a clear, sharp image if you can't find anything to look at?

Basically, the "Goto" scopes have computer databases of celestial objects. After a calibration procedure, the computer is used to select a viewable object. The telescope then moves to the location in the sky, and you get to look.

The downside is these are mostly small (<90mm) aperature refractors. This greatly limits the objects you can view.

If the "Goto" scope wets your whistle for better images, you can then move up to a larger reflector or SCT. Of course, you'll have to find the objects in the sky (on your own), but by then you'll have a lot more positive experiences and finding things won't be as frustrating.

Also, Orion now markets a reportedly decent "Goto" package for their Dobs. So, you can consider that too.

Hope this helps.

[Dave Mitsky]

Originally posted by DisinterestedThirdParty@Jul 22 2004, 06:54 PM
Much to the dismay of others, I recommend the "Goto" telescopes to new astronomers.  Yes, the Dobs will give you a better view, but what's the point of a clear, sharp image if you can't find anything to look at?

Basically, the "Goto" scopes have computer databases of celestial objects.  After a calibration procedure, the computer is used to select a viewable object.  The telescope then moves to the location in the sky, and you get to look.

The downside is these are mostly small (<90mm) aperature refractors.  This greatly limits the objects you can view. 

If the "Goto" scope wets your whistle for better images, you can then move up to a larger reflector or SCT.  Of course, you'll have to find the objects in the sky (on your own), but by then you'll have a lot more positive experiences and finding things won't be as frustrating.

Also, Orion now markets a reportedly decent "Goto" package for their Dobs.  So, you can consider that too.

Hope this helps.
For untold years amateur astronomers have been capable of locating both shallow and deep-sky objects via manual setting circles or star-hopping, without the use of digital electronics and GoTo drives. If one wants instant gratification and doesn't care about the satisfaction and usefulness of learning the sky then GoTo is just the ticket. However, I have seen many inexpensive (and some expensive ones) GoTo telescopes fail in the field for one reason or another.

In my experience, as paltry as it may be to some, when it comes to astronomical observing aperture and good optics trump gimmicks every night of the week.

The Orion Intelliscope Dobs are NOT GoTo, BTW. They merely have DSC or digital setting circle devices. They must be "pushed to" the location indicated by the DSC and then pushed some more to track the object. Dobs can be outfitted with equatorial (Poncet) platforms or stepper motor drives like the Dob Driver II. Outboard GoTo drives like the ServoCat are available now too. Starmaster has offered its Sky Tracker GoTo drive for some time as an option, albeit a very expensive one.

Here are some worthwhile web sites to consult regarding telescope purchases. In recent years I've learned to keep my mouth shut about what I feel is the single best beginner instrument.

http://stupendous.rit.edu/richmond/answers.../telescope.html (http://stupendous.rit.edu/richmond/answers/telescope.html)

http://www.scopereviews.com/begin.html

http://skyandtelescope.com/printable/howto...article_244.asp (http://skyandtelescope.com/printable/howto/scopes/article_244.asp)

http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=ss&id=9

http://www.r-clarke.org.uk/starting_astro.htm

http://observers.org/beginner/

Keep in mind that there is no such thing as a perfect telescope. All optical designs have their pros and cons so one must decide just what type of observing (or, shudder, imaging) one is most interested in and plan accordingly. Many observers own more than one scope to provide observational flexibility.

Any prospective buyers are urged to attend a public observing session at a local observatory or a club star party if possible to see just what the true capabilities, as opposed to advertising hype, of the various designs are.

Dave Mitsky

[Bunhia]

I'm a beginner.
Is it a good ideal if I get an old telescope ?
Anybody here have a old one, could you sell it for me ?
I'm living in Canada ( Ontario). Hopefully, some people live in the same place with me ( Ontario is huge :D )

[Dave Mitsky]

You might try looking for a used telescope on one of the online astronomy classifieds such as Astromart or Astronomy-Mall.

Dave Mitsky

[Manchurian Taikonaut]

i'm sure if you look around you get somethings there are plenty of stuff online or linked to sites, you should also check magazines
Meade has an oline ebay store

some good items for cheap

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...item=3829823458 (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=28181&item=3829823458)

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...item=3827871179 (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=28181&item=3827871179)

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...item=3830824347 (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=28181&item=3830824347)

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...item=3829381391 (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=28181&item=3829381391)

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...item=3826090900 (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=28181&item=3826090900)

[Lomitus]

Hi Bunhia,
I recently went thru this dilema myself...as you can see if you follow those links mentioned. No offence to anyone else here, but some of the info that was given to me may simply be too much for a newbie to deal with (it was for me)...kinda like asking the question, "what do I need to learn how to drive?" and someone gives you the anatomy of how a car is engineered (LOL). You are of course encouraged to read it all, as well as anything else you can find out there, but if it's too much info for just getting started, here's what I have learned so far...

First and foremost, how much are you looking to spend? If your just getting started, I wouldn't recommend going over $1000 for your first scope, but do plan to spend at least $300-$600 for something decent. Now you ask, "what -is- decent?"...

Well aperature -is- king...the more "light gathering" capabilities you scope has, the more you will see. Does this mean you need to go out and dump $20,000 on a 22" truss style dobson with a mirror better then 1/10 of a light wave? Hardly... If you read around, there are various types of scope available from Dobsonian reflectors to Acromatic refractors to Schmidt and Matsutov cassagrains. Each has their good points and their bad points and I'll let you do a little more research on the web to get that info. I will say this though...a basic "reflector" type scope such as a Dobson is going to give you the most aperature for your money, however the downside is they are large, bulky (i.e. not easy to transport if you have a large one and plan to do a lot of remote viewing sessions) and from my meager expereince at least, seem to need a little more maintnance such as collimation then other scopes do. If your planning to do most of your viewing from your backyard (i.e. don't have too much light pollution in your area) and are interested in DSO's (Deep Space Objects...nebula, galaxies, etc) and are a pretty good "tinkerer", then a 10" or 12" Dob is simply a great scope! Ya just roll it out of your garage or shed, point it at whatever you want to look at (once you learn where everthing is...thats a different issue I'll cover in a bit) add an eye piece and focus :D

Now if this isn't what you want to do, for any of the reasons listed, you may wish to get something a little smaller and more compact. The sacrifice here is simply how much you will see and how well you will be able to see it. Cassagrain type scopes, both Schmidt's and Mak's are quite compact and -for a newbie- are really great scopes! Despite Mr. Mitsky's claims to the contrary, I've looked thru scopes such as Meade and Celestron cassagrains ranging in size from 8" to 14" and to someone who -doesn't- have decades of experience, the view -is- quite breath-taking to say the least. Unfotunatly, here we start to get back into that money situation...I really would not suggest going out and dumping $3000-$6000 (or more) for your first scope...at least not until you've been doing it long enough to warrent it. This raises the question of "what can I actually see with a smaller scope?". Now here's the point of contention with that other thread...I purchased a 127mm (5") Mak-Cass from Orion. Now, from the barage of info I got from that other thread, I got the impression I should not have been able to see anything other then planets and the moon....guess what? It's a great little scope! On a recent outting to a dark sky site in Ohio with this Orion Mak, my wife and I were able to see open clusters, globular's, the Andromeda galaxy, nebula's, etc., etc.. -No- the view didn't compair with something like a 12" or 16" Dobson, but we were able to see them and with a little help from a sky chart in "Astronomy" were able to identify everything we looked at :) Basically what I'm saying here is that small doesn't nessacarily mean useless....especially if your just learning. There are of course, -many- factors to weigh here, but if your just getting started, I would honestly go for something that's of a managable size, but will still give you a decent view. The only other real issue with a smaller scope is the dreaded disease "aperature fever"...but I think that comes with just about any size scope...If I had a 16" scope that could see eternity, I'd probably already be making plans to by a 24" truss or something! LOL! You'll learn about that soon enough though....

Also, I honestly wouldn't worry too much about stuff like "the mirror is 1/10 of a light wave" or "Daw's limit" and all the techincal stuff right now. Yes that stuff is important...very important, but the mathmatics can be a bit over-whelming for someone just getting started and can turn you off of the joys of star gazing if your not careful. Stick with a decent "name brand" scope (which I'll also cover in a bit) with a reasonable size and chances are you will be pretty happy with what you can see!

Mounts...
Now this in and of itself is interesting to deal with. My first scope was a low end Meade "GOTO" computerized scope...I hated it. The freakin thing wouldn't point at anything accuratly and wouldn't track well at all. I'm sure the higher end scopes find and track much better then this Meade did, but I found it quite frustrating that not only I couldn't find what I was looking for, but neither could the scope! I ended up picking up a basic EQ mount and tripod off of Ebay for around $50 and that is in fact the mount I have the Orion Mak setup on. Now there is an belief amoungst the "old timers" that learning astronomy this way is the best because you actually learn how to find things and you learn the sky as apposed to pushing a button...and I have to say I agree whole-heartedly here. I will say that, for me at least, I have learned it is quite an advantage to have a set of half-way decent binoculars with your setup...it made things much easier for me to find. Either way, I would definaly suggest a decent "manual" mount over a cheap computer controlled one. Dobson's are the ultimate in simplicity...basically the scope sits (balanced) on a "box" and you just push the scope where ever you want to look. This is hardly ideal if your goals include stuff like astrophotography or long term observing sessions, but those are different issues for a different thread :) The one thing I will adimantly suggest you avoid is those department store style alt/azimuth mounts such as you find on Bushnell's and other "cheap" brands...their virtually useless as are the scope...which leads me to my next point....brands.

If you should decide on a Dobson, then you may wish to check out Orion or Hardin Optical. I'm sure there are many other decent brands of Dobson's out there (including home build rigs), but these are two of the more major dealers and I haven't really seen any issues regarding either company. If you have a little more cash to spend, you may also want to check out Celestron...they have some really nice "toys" as well, but tend to be a little more pricey. Meade...ok...now first I will admit I am very biased against Meade. I know there are -a lot- of people that swear by Meades products, but the scope I got from them (a DS 2114 ATS) was a piece of crap right out of the box. More over, when I had problems, half the time I couldn't even get ahold of them and when I did I found them to be -very- snotty and rude. The only thing they ever offered to resolved was a bent tripod leg -after- I had already replaced them myself at my own cost. If you are interested in Meade products, I would -strongly- advise you to do a search on the web and read other peoples reviews and opinions about the product(s) your looking at first. As I said before, -avoid- department store telescopes...like the freakin plague! Brands such as Bushnell, Tasco, Edu-Science, Galalio, etc., are worthless for anything other then low power observing of the moon! Between the useless mounts and the -really- crappy little .96 eye pieces, you won't see a thing other then blurr. These are the scopes that someone will recieve as a Christmas or birthday present and they end up sitting in the closet because the person can't see anything with them. Better to buy something that you can see with and will actually use to keep the interest going.

Now with all of that said, I'm going to digress here for a moment. Orion telescopes has a fan....me :D Again, my little Orion Starmax/Apex 127mm scope has been just wonderful! The quality of the construction is supurb, it's easy to use, it stays aligned and even the accesories, to me at least, were first rate (that 25mm Sirius Plossl that came with it blows the Meade RA25mm to pieces and even the view finder stays aligned!!!). Even the nice little padded carry bag was great! LOL! More importantly, their people we -very- nice to me and answered -all- of my questions! In one instance, I even asked the guy what the music was that was playing while I was on hold and the guy took the time to pop the CD out of the machine and check for me....talk about service! LOL!!! Seriously, these folks were simply great and I would not hesitate to buy another Orion product in the future....good quality products, great customer service and affordable prices...what more could anyone ask?

I would also like to add that I have one of those little Bushnell "425x Deep Space somethingorothers" that I did a little work on. I got if off Ebay for $10 and picked up a semi-decent 1 1/4" focuser for it and have slapped it on my EQ mount from time to time. Suprisingly it actually does work pretty well. For a $20 investment (not counting the mount of course) you can actually see a few things with it and I currently have it rigged to use as a "guide scope" for astrophotography endevors. I will say though that again if your just getting started, this is probably -not- the way to go, but I just wanted to add this as an option for your future efforts...you can do quite a bit for a little bit of cash if you have a little inginuity :)

The last major thing I will say in regards to equipment is about eye pieces. Books could and have been written on this subject alone. Chances are you will get one or two eye pieces with your telescope purchase and the quality of these does seem to vary with brands....plan your budget to buy more and buy decent quality! I won't go into too much detail here, but there are a number of concern's when puchasing eye pieces you will want to be aware of. First and foremost, do you wear eye glasses? If so you might want eye pieces with a larger field of view and a rather generious amount of "eye relief" (how far your eye has to be from the eye piece in order for the image to come to a focus). Are you planning to "study" various sky objects or just "star hop"? Many eye pieces are better suited for one then the other. The main thing to remember really is that your viewing chain is only going to be as good as it's weakest link. If you get a great (or even decent) scope but have crappy eye pieces, your still not going to see very much at all. This subject alone is well worth reading up a little on before you make your purchase.

I'll wrap this up here in hopes that I've answered your question a little :-) Theres so many other things I could add to this, but I've ready writting a book here so I'll leave the rest to others and to yourself. Please forgive anything that may have come out a little hostile in regards to certain issues...some people get so hung up on science and specifics that they seem to have forgotten that astronomy is supposed to be a -fun- activity. Whats the point of having a 69' Dodge Charger R/T with a seriously pumped up 440 cu hemi with a blower, 4/11 gears and a Dana tranny if you can't drive it anywhere and don't even know what all that stuff means? Sometimes all you need to go site seeing is a decent Chevy Cavalier that runs well! LOL! Also, please forgive my spelling and/or any typos...certain folks have made an issue of this...I'm a musician, not an english teacher and when I'm writting on forums or emails and such, -to me- it's more important to express my ideas and thoughts and to convey information than it is to worry about grammerical concerns. Lastly please don't make the mistake I did and get so caught up in the idea of owning a scope the you make a poor decision and purchase....read read read! There is a -ton- of info on the internet about telescopes and astronomy. Had I of read up first, I -never- would have purchased the crappy little Meade and probably would have ended up getting the Orion that I now own in the first place (hence saving 4 months of waisted effort and frustration!). It's all a bit confusing for someone just getting started, but seriously...read all you can about the scopes in your price range. Forums such as this are a great start (oh...welcome to the crew by the way!), but there's plenty more...just my biased opinion speaking here again, but you may even want to check out www.telescope.com (Orion's website) as they have quite a bit of info for someong just getting started and they explain things without getting too techincal.

[slotdrag]

i bought a celestron 76gt. it is 3 inch. goto scope. i love it as my first real scope. it works great. we were seeing double stars and clusters and nebulas. sure they are not big in the site. i seen jupiter you can see the stripes accross it and i seen 4 of its moons. i even found uranus it was a blue dot but i seen it. my kids love it. im happy for 325 dollars now if the sky will clear up.

[Dave Mitsky]

What I actually said was that the Schmidt-Cassegrain is the most compromised of all the common telescope designs. Any text on the subject will state the same. A larger aperture will mask the optical shortcomings of this design to a certain extent, of course.

However, I'm sure that in your mind at least, with all your vast experience in the field of amateur astronomy, you know better.

BTW, the relationship between aperture and resolution is know as Dawe's Limit.

Dave Mitsky

For the record here is my response concerning SCTs in the "aperture is king" thread:

It's no surprise that you were impressed when you had a chance to use a larger aperture. Raw aperture is impressive, but large aperture with quality optics is even better. If you had been able to compare the views of that C14 SCT with, for instance, a 14.5 inch Starmaster Sky Tracker Newtonian Dob with a Carl Zambuto mirror you'd choose the Starmaster in a heartbeat.

If you refuse to believe me regarding the inherently compromised optics of the catadioptric SCT (I suppose that's what you meant by SMC) design as manufactured by Celestron and Meade perhaps you'll take noted amateur astronomer and author Phil Harrington's word for it. Here's what he has to say concerning the Schmidt-Cassegrain design on pages 39 and 40 of the latest edition of his book _Star Ware_ (see http://www.philharrington.net/sw2.htm for further information), the "bible" of astronomy gear:

"What about optical performance? Here is where the Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope begins to teeter. Due to the comparatively large secondary mirrors required to reflect light back toward their eyepieces, SCTs produce images that are fainter and show less contrast than other telescope designs of the same aperture. This can prove especially critical when searching for fine planetary detail or hunting for faint deep-sky objects at the threshold of visibility."

Four paragraphs later Phil (I use his first name since I happen to know the man) goes on to state:

"Image sharpness in a Schmidt-Cassegrain is not as precise as that obtained through a refractor or reflector. Perhaps this is due to the loss of contrast mentioned above or because of optical misalignment, another problem of Schmidt-Cassegrains."

All this is in addition to the inferior optics (wavefront errors far worst than diffraction limited) of many of the mold-formed spherical primary mirrors that Schmidt-Cassegrains employ. These mirrors can be mass produced far easier than parabolic or hyperbolic mirrors, which made the SCT design very attractive indeed to Meade and Celestron. The onset of widespread light pollution back in the 1970's helped to make catadioptrics very popular. During the time of Comet Halley numerous SCTs with terrible mirrors were pumped out to meet the comet craze induced demand. Enough that potential purchasers of used SCTs are warned not to buy them if they were made in 1985 or 1986. Takahashi at one time manufactured a high quality Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope with good optics but it was very expensive.

Let's not forget the dreaded SCT mirror shift during focusing.

At the end of the section on the SCT, Phil relates:

"But for exacting views of celestial objects, SCTs are outperformed by other types of telescopes."

and finally in summation:

"I guess you can say that Schmidt-Cassegrains are the jack-of-all-trades-but-master-of-none telescopes."

That last statement is spot-on. SCTs are relatively portable, come with drives, have numerous available accessories (which means juicy after-market profits for Celestron and Meade), and most importantly make good platforms for astrophotography, so they are certainly worth considering for these reasons. The 9.25 inch Celestron SCT has consistently better optics than other makes and models and is often used very successfully for astrophotography. It is the only SCT that I would consider buying.

[Lomitus]

Fine Dave...lets hash this out again....

First and foremost, I do not question your "facts" or your sources or your experience...I never have and as I have state on several occasions now, I -am- a newbie. You seem totally unable to bear this in mind. it's not my "vast experience in the field of amature astronomy" that I see as the issue here...it's your looking down your nose and your attitude that if anyone uses anything that doesn't meet -your- expectations, then they have no right to be in astronomy at all, let alone enjoy what they see. Aparently you also feel that a newbie trying to help another newbie is some sort of crime here. I have no doubt what so ever that if you compair something like a Celestron CGE1400 with whatever godly piece of scope you own that most people, even at my clearly insuficient level would see a difference...I do not debate this either. However what I have taken issue with, and continue to take issue with is your snotty arogant attitude, your cramming your 10,000 years of astronomy experience down other peoples throats and your assumption that everyone should be able to afford the same equipment that you apparently own otherwise their not worthy of the term amature astronomer! Once again you have taken my words completely out of context...for someone so hung up on spelling and so hung up on quoting me, I would think that you would be a better reader as well! I do not and have never said anything to the effect stating that cassagrain telescopes are superiour to anything other then some of the other crappy scopes I've looked thru!!!

Now before you reply to -any- of this...I want you to take a Meade DS 2114 ATS (perferably one with the collimation whacked), a Bushnell 425x Deep Space and a Celestron C14 or CGE 1400 out to a field on a dark starry night (Do -not- bring any of your scopes...only these), set them all up next to each other and look thru them progressivly and then come back here and tell me -why- the C14 Schmidt-Cassagrain is sooooo inferiour to these other scopes!!!! If I handed you my Orion 127mm and my Bushnell 60mm crap-o-fractor and said you can only have one or the other for the rest of your life...honestly....be truthful...would you -really- take the Bushnell? No, a Schmidt is obviously not going to be up to -your- expectations for anything other then a door stop...you've made that painfully clear, but if someone else actually enjoys what they are able to see with one of these scopes, why are you so unable to simply let them enjoy what they see????? There is no "text" in the world that will convince me that I did not enjoy what I saw thru a couple of various makes and models of Schmidts...compromised or not!

You sir have in essence called me a liar directly and on more then one occasion now! I looked in a Celestron C 14 at my local observatory and I saw some very nice images of planets, nebulas and a galaxy or two. Perhaps I am the simple idiot that you try to make me out to be, but I sincerly believe that a person who is also -just getting started- would be equally impressed by such a view. You obviously wouldn't even condisend to something like this, but we all do not have your years of experience and some of us simply enjoy looking at the stars! It is people like yourself and all your facts, figures and quotes that suck all the fun right out of star gazing.

Since you've quoted me on occasion, let me return the favor..."If the OP is interested primarily in deep-sky observing I'm sorry to say that an Orion 127mm Maksutov-Cassegrain is not the answer. This is a fine little scope for lunar, planetary, and double star observing but will ultimately be disappointing on the vast majority of deep-sky objects because of its small aperture (note correct spelling) and somewhat limited maximum field of view"...well guess what Dave? It wasn't disappointing at all! Obviously with all your facts, figures, text and -your- vast experience, you do -NOT- know everything! I just had that scope down in the Wayne National Forest and with it my wife and I were able to see open and globular clusters, nebulas M8, M22, M57 (the ring...a Mag 9.something), M31 (The Andromeda galaxy) and many other things. Oh, I have no doubt a person such as yourself would have simply shrugged and walked away unimpressed, but this is -the first time in my life- I have been able to see such things and I, as well as my wife were absolutly tickled silly!!!

Daw vs. Dawe....who freakin gives a flyin hoot???? You -knew- what I meant and it was close enough that I'm sure anyone who would have cared or known about it would have figured it out as well! Further more, I already apologized for my poor spelling and typing errors.....there -are- far more important things in the universe then spelling!!! If bad spelling bothers you that much, then perhaps you might want to give up on the internet altogether.

It seems to me that the problem here is that I simply have not bowed down before the great Dave Mitsky and his years of experience and his vast plethora of knowledge. I apologize to the other fine people of this forum for this rant, but I'm very sick of Mr. Mitsky and his holy'er then thou attitude. I felt that his comments on things I have said have verged on personal attacks...I'm just learning astronomy and I do -NOT- need him talking down to me or treating me as an idiot simply because I or the equipment I've used do not live up to -his- expectations. I'm sure that others probably do find your advice helpful or even insiteful Dave, but I find you to be rude, arrogant and -extremely- presumptuous.

To anyone else interested in a telescope, regardless of make, model, specifications, or "Dawe's limit", I suggest this...find one and take a look thru it (maybe at a local star party). If you are pleased with what you can see, then buy it...if you don't like it, then try something else.

Lastly, I came to this forum to learn a little and perhaps share what I've learned with others, not to be spoken down to simply because I have opinions of my own let alone having those opinions rebutted simply because I was foolish enough to enjoy the views thru a telescope that does not meet one individuals standards. Since Mr. Mitsky is clearly the only person that is allowed to share knowledge or opinions, despite the fact that even with all of his vast years of knowledge, reading, texts, expensive toys, yadda yadda yadda, he -has been wrong- on more then one occasion, I shall simply withdraw from this forum. It's all yours Dave...say what you will...I -won't- be back. I shall respond to personal mesages or emails sent to me (from anyone other then Dave), but I shall not use this forum again thanks to Mr. Mitsky. I've developed a love of astronomy that is too precious to me to let a person such as Dave and all of his years of experience destroy.....enjoy your laurals.

Good-bye,
Jim Walczak

[Dave Mitsky]

Originally posted by lomitus1@Jul 30 2004, 05:44 AM
Fine Dave...lets hash this out again....

First and foremost, I do not question your "facts" or your sources or your experience...I never have and as I have state on several occasions now, I -am- a newbie.  You seem totally unable to bear this in mind. it's not my "vast experience in the field of amature astronomy" that I see as the issue here...it's your looking down your nose and your attitude that if anyone uses anything that doesn't meet -your- expectations, then they have no right to be in astronomy at all, let alone enjoy what they see.  Aparently you also feel that a newbie trying to help another newbie is some sort of crime here.   I have no doubt what so ever that if you compair something like a Celestron CGE1400 with whatever godly piece of scope you own that most people, even at my clearly insuficient level would see a difference...I do not debate this either.  However what I have taken issue with, and continue to take issue with is your snotty arogant attitude, your cramming your 10,000 years of astronomy experience down other peoples throats and your assumption that everyone should be able to afford the same equipment that you apparently own otherwise their not worthy of the term amature astronomer!  Once again you have taken my words completely out of context...for someone so hung up on spelling and so hung up on quoting me, I would think that you would be a better reader as well!  I do not and have never said anything to the effect stating that cassagrain telescopes are superiour to anything other then some of the other crappy scopes I've looked thru!!! 

Now before you reply to -any- of this...I want you to take a Meade DS 2114 ATS (perferably one with the collimation whacked), a Bushnell 425x Deep Space and a Celestron C14 or CGE 1400 out to a field on a dark starry night (Do -not- bring any of your scopes...only these), set them all up next to each other and look thru them progressivly and then come back here and tell me -why- the C14 Schmidt-Cassagrain is sooooo inferiour to these other scopes!!!!  If I handed you my Orion 127mm and my Bushnell 60mm crap-o-fractor and said you can only have one or the other for the rest of your life...honestly....be truthful...would you -really- take the Bushnell?  No, a Schmidt is obviously not going to be up to -your- expectations for anything other then a door stop...you've made that painfully clear, but if someone else actually enjoys what they are able to see with one of these scopes, why are you so unable to simply let them enjoy what they see????? There is no "text" in the world that will convince me that I did not enjoy what I saw thru a couple of various makes and models of Schmidts...compromised or not!

You sir have in essence called me a liar directly and on more then one occasion now!  I looked in a Celestron C 14 at my local observatory and I saw some very nice images of planets, nebulas and a galaxy or two.  Perhaps I am the simple idiot that you try to make me out to be, but I sincerly believe that a person who is also -just getting started- would be equally impressed by such a view.  You obviously wouldn't even condisend to something like this, but we all do not have your years of experience and some of us simply enjoy looking at the stars!  It is people like yourself and all your facts, figures and quotes that suck all the fun right out of star gazing.

Since you've quoted me on occasion, let me return the favor..."If the OP is interested primarily in deep-sky observing I'm sorry to say that an Orion 127mm Maksutov-Cassegrain is not the answer. This is a fine little scope for lunar, planetary, and double star observing but will ultimately be disappointing on the vast majority of deep-sky objects because of its small aperture (note correct spelling) and somewhat limited maximum field of view"...well guess what Dave? It wasn't disappointing at all!  Obviously with all your facts, figures, text and -your- vast experience, you do -NOT- know everything!  I just had that scope down in the Wayne National Forest and with it my wife and I were able to see open and globular clusters, nebulas M8, M22, M57 (the ring...a Mag 9.something), M31 (The Andromeda galaxy) and many other things.  Oh, I have no doubt a person such as yourself would have simply shrugged and walked away unimpressed, but this is -the first time in my life- I have been able to see such things and I, as well as my wife were absolutly tickled silly!!!

Daw vs. Dawe....who freakin gives a flyin hoot???? You -knew- what I meant and it was close enough that I'm sure anyone who would have cared or known about it would have figured it out as well!  Further more, I already apologized for my poor spelling and typing errors.....there -are- far more important things in the universe then spelling!!!   If bad spelling bothers you that much, then perhaps you might want to give up on the internet altogether.

It seems to me that the problem here is that I simply have not bowed down before the great Dave Mitsky and his years of experience and his vast plethora of knowledge.   I apologize to the other fine people of this forum for this rant, but I'm very sick of Mr. Mitsky and his holy'er then thou attitude. I felt that his comments on  things I have said have verged on personal attacks...I'm just learning astronomy and I do -NOT- need him talking down to me or treating me as an idiot simply because I or the equipment I've used do not live up to -his- expectations.   I'm sure that others probably do find your advice helpful or even insiteful Dave, but I find you to be rude, arrogant and -extremely- presumptuous.

To anyone else interested in a telescope, regardless of make, model, specifications, or "Dawe's limit", I suggest this...find one and take a look thru it (maybe at a local star party).  If you are pleased with what you can see, then buy it...if you don't like it, then try something else.

Lastly, I came to this forum to learn a little and perhaps share what I've learned with others, not to be spoken down to simply because I have opinions of my own let alone having those opinions rebutted simply because I was foolish enough to enjoy the views thru a telescope that does not meet one individuals standards.  Since Mr. Mitsky is clearly the only person that is allowed to share knowledge or opinions, despite the fact that even with all of his vast years of knowledge, reading, texts, expensive toys, yadda yadda yadda, he -has been wrong- on more then one occasion, I shall simply withdraw from this forum. It's all yours Dave...say what you will...I -won't- be back. I shall respond to personal mesages or emails sent to me  (from anyone other then Dave), but I shall not use this forum again thanks to Mr. Mitsky.   I've developed a love of astronomy that is too precious to me to let a person such as Dave and all of his years of experience destroy.....enjoy your laurals.

Good-bye,
Jim Walczak

Mr. Walczak,

You insulted me with you first reply and continue to insult me. You misrepresent my statements and fail to understand what I said. You attribute attitudes and motives to me that are simply not true, almost to the point of committing slander. It would appear that spelling and grammar are not your only communication problems. You also seem to have an inordinate problem with being corrected.

Calling me names won't compensate for your lack of knowledge on the topic of telescope performance.

Again for the record here's what I said regarding the deep-sky capabilities of the 127mm Orion MCT, a telescope that I'm familiar with since the Astronomical Society of Harrisburg owns one:

"This is a fine little scope for lunar, planetary, and double star observing but will ultimately be disappointing on the vast majority of deep-sky objects..."

And in a later post:

"Enjoy your telescope, as it is quite good for the uses that I stated, but a larger aperture would serve you far better for observing those faint fuzzies in the long run and there's no getting around that fact."

Even BobbyD, who also owns that scope, said, "I love it's portability although I'm not sure it's the best scope for spying galaxies and nebulae!"

From a dark site any telescope greater than 50mm in aperture can reveal the Messier objects (or at least most of them), which are by and large quite bright as far as deep-sky objects go. But the Messier Catalogue is only the tiniest fraction of deep-sky objects, the overwhelming percentage of which are dim galaxies, that are within the grasp of large amateur telescopes.

Dave Mitsky

[Fraser]

lomitus1, please respect the rules of this forum and stick to arguing about the issues. No personal attacks. Don't do it again.

[The Meal]

Dave, I'm sure that it's tough to listen to someone say those things about you. But I, for one, appreciate your honest posts. And while many internet denizens would disagree, I actually appreciate your spelling corrections. I strive to spell to the best of my ability, and seeing tricky words like aperture identified definitely helps me from making myself look stupid when I'm posting (the *content* of my posts, on the other hand...).

Anyway, keep on keepin' on, and clear skies to everyone.
~The Meal
[edit: picked a good post to sneak a bunch of typos into, didn't I?]

[Lomitus]

My apologies again to the good people of this forum as well as to Fraser, most of these people do not deserve what has been said from either side.

Once again Dave has not read my entire post (other then apparently the insults which I feel were more then justified considering his attitude towards me). Again Dave may say, quote, or believe whatever he wishes but it does not change the -fact- that I -have- seen some nice stuff with this Orion scope other then just the things he said I could and have enjoyed this scope tremendously. If this isn't Dave impossing his opinions, dispite what a person has actually witnessed for themselves, then I don't know what is. It also appears that Dave is the only person who is allowed to post less then dignified statements against other forum users...again, I won't be back to this forum.

Fraser, please feel free to delete my access...I have no further desire to be part of this online community as long as Mr. Mitsky is present. Please also delete any and all of my other postings as well as any pics of mine from the Astrophotography forum since apparently my opinions and what I have learned and tried to share are irrelivant. If anyone (other then Dave) wishes to contact me personally to discuss astronomy, learning, telescopes, the universe or whatever, my email addy is jtwalczak@adelphia.net

[The Meal]

lomitus, I didn't address you in my last post because it was my understanding that you wouldn't be reading it.

I think there is a communication disconnect between you and Mr. Mitsky. You understand that he's got a whole lot of experience with the scopes and that it is his opinion that a smaller aperture scope would be ultimately disappointing for DSOs. Yet when he shares that opinion you seem to have taken it personally. The internet is full of opinionated people; you shouldn't take it personally if someone else has a different opinion than yours. And you certainly shouldn't let your blood pressure rise because of it. A sage man one said that some people prefer blondes, some brunettes. That doesn't make one person more correct than the other. You're happy with 127mm views of the DSOs. Dave is encouraging folks that bigger really is better. You're taking umbrage with the manner he's stating that opinion. In a similar vein he's trying to help you with the manner you're sharing your opinion (spelling corrections, for instance). If you're unwilling to use proper spelling, then how can you try to justify being outraged at the tone of his posts? Communication is a two-way street and you don't get to have it both ways.

Anyway, I hope you can come down off the ledge and continue contributing (hopefully with a lot less ranting). The Universe Today is a great place.

~The Meal

[Duane]

Lotimus, no doubt you will be coming to read the responces your little rant has raised. I would first like to say that up until that rant I had some sympathy for you, as I thought your contributions were, on the whole, helpful.

I have read through all of the posts between you and Dave, and I have to say I do not understand why you feel Dave has been anything but honest and straightforward with you, up until you began attacking him.

Perhaps you see some arragance in his posts, but as an outside observer I have to tell you that I don't. So Dave doesn't agree with your views of telescopes and is willing to put forward his honest opinion on the types of scopes that are out there. As far as I can see, he did this without animosity or a "holier than thou" attitude. He simply stated his opinion.

It was you, sir, who took offence and attacked him personally. You Jim, got mad because Dave disagreed with your feelings about a certain telescope and voiced an opposing opinion. You Jim, were the one who read "arrogance" into a simple statement outlining his view of the telescopes available and the plusses and minuses of those scopes.

You over-reacted sir, I hope that after a few weeks you will come back and read the threads you made and realize that.

[Bunhia]

Originally posted by The Meal@Jul 30 2004, 04:11 PM
The Universe Today is a great place.


That's what I want to say :D :D :D

[Lomitus]

Ok...Duane, your are correct, I did come back and look. Also anyone who reads this...grab a cup of coffee...it's gonna be a long one!

I honestly do not wish to rob myself of a resource as great as Universe Today, particularly if it's based on an emotional impulse or high running emotions. It is possible that I am over-reacting to this...I am a pationate person and my emotions tend to run high to begin with (what can I say, I'm a musician and an artist) let alone when I feel I have been "wronged". I have since the very beggining stated that I -am- aware that Dave Mitsky has superiour years of experience to my own...I have said this several times now and I do not question his knowledge of astronomy or his knowledge of telescopes. As I have also said before, I have only been studying astronomy since February of this year...-of course- he is certainly going to know more then I do just as I'm sure I know infinatly more about guitars then he does (I've been a musician for over 20 years). It's not what he has said as much as how he has said it to me. Perhaps I have severly mis-judged his responses and if I have I do sincerly apologize to him as well as everyone else who has read any of my responses and to Fraser who kindly keeps this board going. I have simply felt that Dave has thrown me this attitude from the beggining that if I can't afford the equipment he suggests that I shouldn't even consider myself an astronomer and that I should just "give up". No, he has never said this directly, but this is very much the tone that I have gotten from his responses. I'm sure this was not his intent (as I have also said before in another thread), but this is very much the way he has come off to me (as well as to others who have emailed me and said the same thing).

Dave Mitsky...to you I do apologize for my previous statements. I was outwardly and directly rude and demeaning to you and I am sorry. I felt you were being the same way towards me and I imiditaly took a defensive posture that aparnetly got out of control. Again (and again and again) I do not doubt your many years of experience or your facts or your references. I felt you treated me unfairly and quite coldly and I simply felt abliged to do the same...I am sorry. Now -please- bear with me...I am not trying to be insulting here. I think that one of our problems may simply be what our "standards" are. I'm sure that thru your many years that you have viewed -many- things in the cosmos thru -many- instruments. As a result of this, I think that what you would consider to be acceptable for viewing standards, is considerably higher then mine. I think this whole mess started when I said in my original thread, "I'd like to be able to look at something like another spiral galaxy and actually see that its a spiral galaxy (not just a smudged little "blip" of light in the eye piece) or look at a star cluster and see a little definition". Now I should have made this clearer in my very first post...with my aforementioned equipment (the Meade and the Bushnell) when I tried to look at things such as galaxies or clusters, -very literally- all I saw was a smudgy pin of light that resembled a star...nothing else. With these scopes, I can not see anything darker then about a mag 3 or 5 and I certainly never would have found the Ring nebula in Lyra with either of them. Looking back now that I have this Orion scope, I probably was not even looking at a galaxy or cluster, but was in fact probably looking at a star and didn't know the difference. I looked at the Andromeda galaxy thru this Orion....I -saw- it....I could see the faint image of the outer spirals and the inner core. I'm sure you would have found the image not so great at all simply because your use to viewing -much- better. I'm also sure that someday when I look at the same galaxy thru a well tuned 16" Dobson that I will be absolutly floored by what I see and some day after that when I get to look thru a 32" scope at an observatory I will be floored again....just as I am now with being able to see it at all. I guess what I'm saying here is a view that may be less than impressive to you is going to be spectacular to someone who has never even seen it before...it's the simple joy of discovery. I truly felt that you were trying to impose your standards on me and were belittling me for not having the same standards as yourself. If you feel that I have done the same to you, I apologize for that as well.

The point on the Cassagrain telescopes.....ok...now I am still going to take a little bit of an issue here. Of course Cass scopes are a compromise...they are a trade off that offers some of the best -and- worse that both refractors and reflectors have to offer. Further more, having now owned a Meade scope, I would question the quality of any of their products (this DS 2114 ATS is -very- poorly made). Yes, there are certainly better scopes available then Cassagrains...and probably for less money. I do not and have never doubted these points. However without bringing any other kind of scope, brand or style into this and without bringing any science, mathmatics, quotes or other texts into this as well....you need to acknowledge that to a person who is use to looking thru a cheap 4 1/2" reflector or a 60mm refractor, that even an 8" Schmidt-Cass, Meade, Celestron or otherwise, is going to yield a superiour view. I honestly do not think that you can debate this point (and that is the point I have been trying to make with that). They also have the advantage of being portable. I've seen some 16" and 18" Dobson's that look like they require your 3 largest friends and a case of beer just to move them. This isn't a problem with a Cass...even a 14" SMC is reasonably portable (comparativly speaking). I'm absolutly sure that if you compair a 14" Schmidt-Cass with a good 14" Dobson with an excellent mirror, you will certainly see a better image in the Dob. What I have said all along is that the first time I looked thru an old orange tube Celestron C-14, I was blown away by what I saw and I think that -many- people at my level of experience would feel very much the same way and I don't see anything wrong with this. Schmidt-Cassagrain scopes do have some advantages and many people find them quite useful and very enjoyable. For a person who studies DSO's and such, no their certainly not going to be the -best- investment at all, but for someone buying say their second or third scope they can be a very viable option and well worth the money.

Spelling...ok...I will be the very first to admit this is something that gets under my skin...when someone constantly corrects my spelling on a web forum or in a chat room. First and foremost, to me a forum is about sharing and expressing ideas, opinions and thoughts, not about spelling and grammer (unless your on a board titled English 101 of course). People of all ages and education levels use the internet and not all of us are good spellers or typers. Further more, as in the Daw vs. Dawe situation...I was close...it was phonetically correct and anyone who would have read it that knows what Dawe's Limit is, would have known what I meant. To me it's a matter of being overly picky about the wrong things. If the forum had a spell checker, that would be a different issue, however for myself at least, I have no desire to have to grab a dictionary everytime I'm not sure how to spell something....thats not the reason I involve myself in forums. I -know- my spelling and typing sucks...you really should see how MS "Word" lights up like a Christmas tree whenever I type a letter! LOL! Again, to me forums are about sharing ideas and info and spelling is a petty issue for grammer teachers. Ideas and knowledge is -much- more important than correct spelling. If you don't understand a word I've written, then just sound it out phonetically as thats probably how I wrote it but there is no need to correct it for me.

I am trying to make amends here. Again, I am a pasionate person. Am I rather high-strung? Most definatly. Do I have a temper? Obviously. Do I take things personally? Well Duh! In addition there is a medical situation that is currently going on with my wife and while I don't think it has, it is possible that my emotions could be running a little higher then usual here. With that said, Dave, I really do think that you need to take a "less agressive" stand as well when it comes to your responses. Again, I'm not trying to be insulting here. I'm sure that in your heart you were genuinly trying to be helpful, but to me, as well as a few others that have contacted me who will remain nameless you really came off as "I know more then you and I'm going to rub your nose in it". Please remember that everyone has different opinions and different aproaches. If everyone did things the exact same way and everyone followed "expert" opinions of what can and can't be done, then there would be no invention and no creativity....after all people, including the experts used to believe that the concept of flying was an impossibilty and the idea of putting a man on the moon was absolutly ludicrous. Then there was the so-called experts that instisted the Earth was flat....then of course what would anyone ever need more then 640k of RAM on a computer for? My guess is the same is true of Dawes limit and much of the other facts and science related to astronomy...it's only a fact until someone comes along and builds a better mouse trap and proves it all wrong. While I know today is not the day, I'm sure that sometime in the future amature astronomers will simply walk out into their back yards, pull their 1 1/2" scope out of their back pockets and be able to see constillations with as much clarity as the finest observatories today offer. People -need- to be able to question governing facts and opinions and those with years of experience...it's how we make change. Theres currently a "law" that says you can't travel faster then the speed of light (something about Einstien if I'm not mistaken)...if this is the case, then why bother explore the stars, not to mention other constillations, at all? Some day someone will (hopefully) come along and say, "I don't buy it...there's -got- to be a way" and perhaps a few people with the inginuity will work with him to create a mode of travel that will allow us to travel to other stars and galaxies as fast as we travel from home to work or from Cleveland to London now a days. Just 200 years ago, if you had of told someone that they could get from Cleveland to London in less then a day, they would have laughed you right off the streets. Again please don't take this the wrong way....I'm not trying to be insulting here...I'm just asking that you perhaps in the future not be so sure of yourself despite your experience. After all, you did say that the views of DSO's in that Orion Mak "was not the answer" and "would ultimatly be disappointing" and to me, what I have seen with that scope has been simply stunning. I also felt that you had taken various things I said out of context or simply did not read everything I had said the way that it was meant (and with the way I type, I probably should not have blamed you for this). If I have mis-interpretted your interpretation of what I had said, then I am sorry for this as well (ok...don't even try to make sense of that one).

I've used online forums and chat rooms for many years now and I should know by now not to let things get to me, but if something rubs me the wrong way, I always end up being a slave to my emotions. I'm sure another of the issues here is that I get extremely annoyed when I feel someone is being overly "fussy" about something. As my wife has kindly reminded me while I was drooling over the telescope adds, "it's just a telescope". I'll admit it...I'm a gear head. Always have been...in my youth it was cars, as I got older it was musical equipment and currently it's telescopes. With that said, I do think there is such a thing as "too much information" (ironic considering the way I tend to wright LOL!). Using music as an example...there is a "science" that explains exactly how and why a vibrating guitar string creates a certain sound and there are in depth publications down to the molecular level of -why- one wood sounds better for a guitar then another. Does this effect whether or not I can play Jimi Hendrix's version of the "Star Spangled Banner"? No. Does it effect the way it sounds when I play it? Perhaps, but its not all that important. Music, like astronomy is something I do because I enjoy it...I enjoy playing tunes like "Louie Louie" with a 5 piece rock group the way I enjoy sitting out in a field with my wife on a nice warm clear night with the telescope and seeing new things for the first time and taking second looks at things we've already seen. Not everyone needs -all- the science, mathmatics or theory in order to enjoy a chosen activity. I -know- what woods are good for guitars and what frequency strings vibrate at and how sound waves travel because I've been playing for over 20 years, but if someone said to me, "I want to buy my first guitar and learn to play", while I would certainly try and give them the essencials and point them in the right direction, I would not start explaining how electron's flow thru the plate of a vacumme tube let alone tell a new guitar player "I've been doing this for XX amount of years and I'm telling you this is the only way to get the correct sound to play Hendrix"...it's not all that nessacary to know for someone just getting started and can be very discouraging for someone new to the activity. There is a difference between being encouraging and helpful and being intimidating (deliberatly or not). This is kind of an anology of what I feel Dave did...I honestly hope that makes sense to everyone. Dave, I'm not tryin to plug you here...honestly. I very sincerely hope you read this in the spirit that it was meant to avoid a situation similar to what has risen between you and I from happening again (with myself or anyone else).

I have tried to be resectful with this post and I have tried to make my points as clear as I can in hopes that everyone will understand why I reacted the way I did and why (at the time at least) I felt it was justified. Please keep in mind that it is also now 4:22 a.m. so if any of these thoughts are a little jumbled or disorganized, please take them with stride. Also I have not reviewed this post with too much scrutiny, so any spelling or grammer issues, please please please just let them go. I will apologize once again to Dave and everyone else for my rant...I felt I had been wronged and I took it very personally...I'm sorry and at the very least I should have issued it as a private message and not posted it within the forum itself. I do still feel strongly that Dave needs to work on his communication skills, but I am willing to work on my own as well...maybe we can meet half way :) I am sure that Dave and I will most likly lock horns again sometime in the future as we are both aparently rather passionate people with differing opinions, but for my part I will try to be more calm about it from now on.

I wish you all Bright Blessings and Gentle Breezes,
Dave Mitsky....Peace
Jim Walczak

(p.s. After looking at how long this post is, I guess I should probably look at getting a real life other then the internet huh? LOL!!!)

[Josh]

Bravo Jim,

It takes a big man to apologise and admit where and when he may have been wrong. This is a problem with the internet ... it's so impersonal. You guys have very differing styles of typing and i think that has caused the bulk of this problem. But now, we can get on with the job at hand and give 'opinions' on telescopes for someone starting out. peace, love and harmony!

Josh.

[The Meal]

Jim, for what it's worth, I really appreciated your response. But even more, I appreciate knowing that you didn't get chased off of the Universe Today forum. Keep on postin' and keep on looking upwards with wonder.

And just what they heck is Louie, Louie about anyway? ;)

Clear skies,
~The Meal

PS My MSME thesis involved determining the equations of motion for the vibration patterns on a guitar string that had a time-invarient (moving) positional constraint (and then I extended this from strings to beams for the specific case of an overhead finger-follower cam-shaft model operating at high rpms). So don't be dissin' on the science of how vibrations get turned into acoustics! :P

[Lomitus]

Hehehehe....maybe the lyrics will help :D

Louie Louie - The Kingsmen

Fine little girl she waits for me
Me catch the ship for cross the sea
Me sail the ship all alone
Me never think me make it home

Louie, Louie, me gotta go
Louie, Louie, me gotta go

Three nights and days me sail the sea
Me think of girl constantly
On the ship I dream she there
I smell the rose in her hair

Louie, Louie, me gotta go
Louie, Louie, me gotta go

Me see Jamaica moon above
It won't be long, me see my love,
I take her in my arms and then
Me tell her I never leave again

Louie, Louie, me gotta go
Louie, Louie, me gotta go



I guess you could say it's a love song! Either way, to me at least, it's one of the greatest rocks songs...at least to play as a guitarist, drummer and even on bass...of all time. The tune is just incredibly -fun- to play! Also I've played this tune -many- times over the years and everytime people at bars still get up and dance to it.

I didn't mean to be crackin on the science of acoustical physics. :) In addition to being a musician, I also have a small private recording studio here in Lorain (Midnight Sound) of which I'm head engineer. Just setting up the studio alone, I got a huge education on the properties of sound. Having an understanding of how sound waves travel is essencial to stuff like mic placements on drums, guitars, bass, etc., as well as using natural reverb, mixing, the whole shabang really. As person who has built a few guitars (and currently working on a bass for my wife) I not only have developed knowledge of sting vibrations and such, but I also read up on my magnetic theory as well (electric guitars use magnetic pickups as transducers). In order to get a proper sound (more or less) specific vibration patterns have to be vibrating in specific places over the pickup otherwise you can get anything from some really funky tones (which may or may not be desireable) to the vibrations simply cancelling themselves out...i.e. no sound at all. To be quite honest though...at least when it comes to guitars...with all this knowledge and all the proper equations and such, I've found the best way is still simply doing it by ear. :) The same goes for recording and mixing...while I certainly keep the "science" in the back of my head, for me the best way is simply to move things around, experiment and find what sounds best and go from there. A very smart man once said, "If it sounds good, it -is- good" - Louie Armstrong. My point with that was just simply that while all that info is obviously quite relevant and important, it's not nessacary to play "Louie Louie" if your just learning guitar (a great tune to start with by the way...ya can't beat those 3 chord wonders!) and if anything tends to detract from the fun (let alone stuff like inspiration and being caught in the moment) of actually playing the tune. There are of course many superiour guitar players that would disagree with this... people like John McLaughlin and Al DeMeola come to mind that aproach music from a very methodical and scientific point of view (and either of those guys could smoke my playing in their sleep while whacked out on morphine!), but for me it's more about the feeling and simply having fun! If I'm not enjoying myself, then I know I'm doing something wrong...this is one of the very first things I always try to convey to a student or someone just learning to play music...if you don't enjoy it and don't have fun doing it, your not going to do it for very long and I feel the very same way about astronomy :)

Thanks so much for the words of encouragement! I truly am grateful! I will certainly keep on posting here on UT...more astronomy related stuff next time I promise, and will (hopefully) in the future try to keep my temper a little more in check!

To keep this thread more or less relivant, it's always been a dream of mine to be the first rock guitar player in space! I would love to fly up in a shuttle, have them crank open the bay doors with me in a modified space suit (so my fingers could work the fretboard...not sure how we'd do that yet) and have a wall of Fender or Marshall amps lining the cargo bay! LOL! Ok...now I know that sound isn't supposed to carry in space, but the way I see it, ain't no harm in giving it a try! Maybe I could someday do for the Also sprach Zarathustra (2001 theme) what Hendrix did for the Star Spangled Banner!

Rock on my astro brothers and sisters and keep looking up!
Bright Blessings & Gentle Breezes,
Jim

[zeldaboy101]

lomitus1,

I own a SCT. Its a great all around scope, but its got flaws. I no it does, and while it may not exceed on DSOs, it does well. However, an 8" reflector would perform well and show a brighter image. The corrector and 2 mirrors lost more light then just the 2 mirrors of a reflector.

You keep mentioning a C14. My observatory has a C14 as well. yes, the views are incredible. Now looking at the negative side, the focal length is ridiculously long, cool down would be a nightmare, and it needs to be on a good mount. I wouldnt want a C14 as my DSO telescope. Large open clusters and nebula wouldnt stand a chance at fitting into the FOV. Its a nice telescope, but there are better ones for DSOs.

If you get that 5" mak, go look through an 8" telescope. The difference in an inch or two is quite large. An 8" and 10" will show a noticeable difference.

As for the meade compliment, i dont like meade but im not letting you say all of their product quality is questionable. The DS series suck. No doubt. The DS series are also making them lots of money at x-mas because people arent educated about what they should buy. That C14 would be very similar to the LX200 14" SCT. The LX200s are a great line, and other meade SCTs are made pretty nicely. The customer support is lacking, but they have some great instruments.

[Metalllion]

Hi everybody. B)
I'm new to the board but I've been lurking for quite a while. Now I think the time has come for me to contribute a little.
I just bought a 8" f5 Newtonian Celestron at the end of june. After doing a bit of research I came to the conclusion that it was the best value for me. It's easy to move around from one location to another, the optic is sensational and it comes from a very reputable brand. Moreover, it's a good compromise between light-gathering capability and portability.
Now that's the set-up that works for me and it may not fit everybody (or anybody else for that matter). I do a lot of observing, weather permitting, and a little astrophotography with a regular 35mm and a digicam at the eyepiece.
Now, whatever you do, don't buy any crappy scope from retail stores (aka Canadian Tire). Go to a specialized outlet, like Khan in T.O. and you will get a much better value for the same cost.
I've learned a lot from making that mistake. :(

ps. I hope you'll forgive my misspelling and such... English is a second language to me.

Marc

[Richard0802]

My Sincere apologies

[Lomitus]

Well, I thought this thread was long dead and forgotten, but I guess not...

Richard...The only reason I'm responding to this is that it popped up in my e-mail. This thread is 3 months old and up until your post, I for one, had put it behind me...however... Just for the record if you read through -all- of these posts, you will see that I did take the time to apologize to Mr. Mitsky as well as everyone else on this forum for my unpresidented rant(s). Since you seemingly chose not to read all the threads related to this, please allow me to quote myself;

""Dave Mitsky...to you I do apologize for my previous statements. I was outwardly and directly rude and demeaning to you and I am sorry. I felt you were being the same way towards me and I imiditaly took a defensive posture that aparnetly got out of control. Again (and again and again) I do not doubt your many years of experience or your facts or your references. I felt you treated me unfairly and quite coldly and I simply felt abliged to do the same...I am sorry...........""

As I stated -SEVERAL- times, I never did and still don't question Dave's knowledge of astronomy or astronomical instruments (even though I still feel the "advice" he gave me was rather poor at best)...my issue was with -how- he presented this knowledge and I felt (-at the time-) that I was simply responding to him the way I felt he had responded to me on more then one occasion...I felt that he had repeatedly not read my entire posts (as you apparently have just done), had taken several things I said out of context and was being deliberatly demeaning to me (in this as well as other threads) so I felt compelled to do the same...nothing more, nothing less. Soon after I realized that I had taken his statements too personally and took a far more agressive attitude then was warrented, I did apologize to him. As was later stated by another forum user, sometimes a person's "intent" or the "tone of their voice" get's lost in the anonymity of the internet and it's clear that I misinterpretted what Dave said, or more specifically the way he said it or was simply reading more into his words then what he had written.

As a result of this whole unpleasent affair, I have restrained myself from posting very often to this forum...whether I was wrong or right or whether my comments were even remotely warrented (which for the record a few people actually did agree with me!) has all become irrelivant...again, I felt I had been attacked, I attacked back and had -a lot- of people jump down my throat about it so I apologized repeatedly and have since refrained from participation in these forums for general conversation or even trying to pass on what I've learned to those just getting started (like you don't have to spend $10,000 to enjoy astronomy)...I simply read the news as provided on the main board (and of which I am quite grateful to Fraser for providing!)...occasionaly post a picture in the Astrophotgraphy forum, and thats it. If I have questions or ideas or opinions I wish to share, I simply take them to other astronomy forums. Despite my attempts at good will and to make ammends (which also for the record, Dave never reciprocated), here three months later, I find myself -still- getting cut down over this incident. However so as to satisfy all, AGAIN...Dave...I'm sorry! Forum users, I'M SORRY! Please forgive my having opinions that differ from the established norm, for having mis-read or mis-interpretted someone's intent that was posted on an internet forum, for being something of a hot head when I feel I've been wronged (some would call this "Passion"), for a low level of education and having poor spelling (I'm sorry but spelling is still irrelivant to me as long as my thoughts and ideas are conveyed), for not always making my thoughts, questions or ideas clear, for most of all, for having made a mistake!

I would also like to take a moment and respond to zeldaboy101's comments from a few weeks ago...
Yes, I am quite aware the the view from even a decent 8" dob is going to be far superiour to that of a 5" Mak...this was never my issue. It's also safe to say that the view thru a 24" reflector at an observatory is going to blow that 8" into stellar dust. However, as I tried to state to Dave and others, if you compair that 5" Mak to a 60mm Bushnell or a 4 1/2" Meade (that wouldn't stay collimated), I'm sorry, but I still have to firmly believe from my own experience that the 5" Orion Mak is going to win out hand down, end of story. Part of the problem I had with this thread is that people kept compairing really expensive apples to affordably priced oranges...yes, I'm sure there are many other scopes that are better suited to DSO observing then a C-14, however as I have stated before, a C-14 is going to provide -STELLAR- performance compaired with a 60mm Bushnell or the crap-o-matic Meade (which I couldn't even -see- a nebula with!), regardless of the intended viewing object. As I said to Dave (again repeatedly), without using any other brand or style of telescope for comparison, take a C-14 out to a field along with a 60mm Bushnell or a Meade that will not focus at all and then come back and tell me with a straight face that either the Bushnell or the Meade is a superiour scope! I did purchase that Orion Mak and with it I have seen some very nice views of the open and globulars in Sag as well as a couple of smokin nebula and even a galaxy or two...this was all I had wanted in the first place. I'm a star-hopper...I'm not really looking to "study" anything imparticular at this point in my endvours, I just want to look at a few things...maybe take some nice pics of them (which the 5" Mak is very well suited for!) and then move on :-) Everyone has different levels of standards...mine apparently aren't very high when it comes to astronomy :-) Someday when I'm ready and I can afford it, I will get a 10", 12" or 14" scope and I'm sure that when that day comes, I'll be as happy with it as I currently am "learning the sky" with my 5" Orion Mak.

Now...I can only assume that it's my long-windedness that causes people to not read my entire posts or that I simply don't make my thoughts and ideas clear (although I'm not really sure how many other ways there are to say "I'm sorry"). As an avid forum user (for both astronomy as well as many others interests and hobbies) I always try to read -every- thread in a post that interests me completely and on the rare occasion that I don't, I say so up front...a curtisy that seems to be seldomly returned around here. I have apologized repeatedly both to Dave Mitsky as well as the good people of these forums and I have refrained from showing my face too often in the neighborhood and shall continue to do so unless otherwise summoned again (if for no other reason then having to repeat and/or defend myself over and over and over again)...I'm not sure what more is expected of me in regards to this issue.

This thread is 3 month's old...can we ---PLEASE--- let it die now?


Sincerely,
Jim Walczak

[Higher Dimensions]

I didn't read all that controversy above, but as for this thread's subject:

Take it from someone who owns a telescope he doesn't use. Buy a very strong pair of binoculars and astronomy software like Starry Night. Take a cheap astronomy course, like at a community college, but take one that's not introductory. It's like taking a sailing course before you buy a boat. If you must buy a telescope, get one with a star finder sight and a tripod stand. I didn't and my telescope gathers dust. Get one that resolves Jupiter and Saturn no matter how far they are, or you will see nothing but the Moon and pinpoints of light. I...oh never mind. If you get one with a remote control that makes it swivel to the target, be aware that this makes a screeching noise. If you are in your back yard, the neighbors' dogs will bark and eventually the neighbors will come out to investigate. To avoid dogbites, I don't use the darn remote.

I copied this from somewhere. Good tips. I'd never be such a loser, of course.:lol:

[Dave Mitsky]

"...I'm not sure what more is expected of me in regards to this issue."

I've stayed clear of this issue for a long time now but since you asked how about a real apology, Mr. Walczak? One that isn't conditional (i.e., you claiming that you were really the injured party and were right the whole time in your misguided claim that a 5" Maksutov is a "deep-sky" telescope) and one that doesn't attribute to me statements that I never made. In other words, an apology that I can accept without any reservations.

BTW, I did indeed read all of your posts in their entirety.

Dave Mitsky

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by lomitus1@Sep 24 2004, 05:10 AM
I felt I had been attacked, I attacked back
...
let it die now?
Jim, You are right, Richard [a new guy] was out of line bringing this up again.
On the other hand, once something like this has happened, all you can really do is apologise again. I suggest that even if you see that the error involved more people than just yourself, giving Dave the unconditional apology he's asking for is probably the shortest easiest way to get what we all want, which is for the issue to go away into the forgotten past. I've enjoyed your postings that aren't in this thread. Keep up the good work.

[Josh]

Jim, I'm sure (or sincerely hope) we all accept your apology. I too have enjoyed your posts. There was no reason for anyone to bring this up again and rehash old news.

I think we should put this in the past where it belongs. I suggest that any further comments on this should be made in private message.

[Lomitus]

Hi Josie,
I don't usually come to this forum any more, but since your mesage showed up in my email, I'd be happy to help :-)

First, no you can't see color through a telescope. The problem isn't the telescope, it's the human eye. Even with really a large scope, your dealing with very small amounts of light and the human eye can't recieve enough light photons quickly enough to register what your seeing as color.

Once you get more into astronomy one thing you can check out that helps with this problem is something like a CCD imager...basically a camera that plugs into your telescope so you can view what your looking at on either a television or a computer and then you do actually see the colors :-) I've used a converted webcam hooked up to my laptop computer for this and it works pretty well (at least it did until the display on my laptop got busted from dropping fire wood on top of it! DOH!). Meade and Orion both sell basic units that work pretty well although neither is very high resolution. Either way, their still pretty cool...when I was with Black River Astronomy Society last year, we had one of the Orion units hooked into the observatories Celestron C-14 and were looking at some very nice full color views of Jupiter on a TV! Pretty neat stuff :-)

As far as to getting a new telescope, that really depends on what you're planning to look at. If your goal is planets, binaries and such, something like my little Orion 127 Mak works -fantastic-. I've also been able to see things such as the Andromeda Galaxy and a number of open and globular clusters, nebula, etc., but the detail isn't as good with the "faint fuzzys". For myself this works fine...as long as I can find it, see it and know that it's actually there, I'm usually happy :-) On the other hand, if your really looking to get into stuff like Deep Space Objects, you'd be better off getting something like an 8", 10" or even 12" Dobson. Now I will say I am a very big fan of Orion products...I owned a Meade and it was a lousy scope and their customer service was even worse. Orion on the other hand has always gone out of their way to answer any and all of my questions and their product quality has been really great! If your on a budget, Orion is definatly worth a look!

I'm sure others have even better suggestions and advice for you, but either way I hope this helps :-)

As far as anything else in this thread goes, as I've already stated, I have apoligized several times...I'm not doing it again. Either people accept my apology or they don't. As far as the rest of this thread goes, to me it is dead. I shall continue to stay away from these forums unless otherwise called on again. I shall continue to enjoy the Universe Today news as long as Fraser is willing to publish it, but the rest became to much of a headache and chore and simily is no longer worth my time. There are some -very- good people on this forum, but there are also those that I would simply rather not deal with (both in regards to this thread and others where I have posted).

Bright Blessings,
Jim

[Dave Mitsky]

"First, no you can't see color through a telescope. The problem isn't the telescope, it's the human eye. Even with really a large scope, your dealing with very small amounts of light and the human eye can't recieve enough light photons quickly enough to register what your seeing as color."

That's not quite right, Mr. Walczak. Once again your lack of experience (you've been observing for less than a year if I recall correctly) leads you to promulgate faulty information. It is rather easy to see color (blue, aquamarine, or green depending upon the color sensitivity of the observer), even with relatively small apertures (like my 101mm Tele Vue refractor, for example), in planetary nebulae such as NGC 3242, NGC 6210, NGC 6543, and NGC 7009. Why do you think NGC 6572 is called the Emerald Nebula (see http://observers.org/reports/2002.07.14.2.html ) and NGC 7662 is nicknamed the Blue Snowball Nebula (browse http://www.visualdeepsky.org/netastrocatal...g/msg00962.html (http://www.visualdeepsky.org/netastrocatalog/msg00962.html) )?

The planetary nebula IC 218 (see http://www.visualdeepsky.org/netastrocatal...g/msg02065.html (http://www.visualdeepsky.org/netastrocatalog/msg02065.html) ) has the moniker of the Raspberry Nebula since, under the right conditions, it can be seen to exhibit a peculiar pinkish color. My first view of this unique deep-sky object was at the 1995 Winter Star Party and I was quite impressed.

The Orion Nebula displays a variety of colors through a large telescope including blue, green-white, pink (some people even see red), and brown. I've witnessed this myself on a number of occasions using apertures ranging from 14.5 inches to 25 inches when the seeing and transparency were excellent.

Some observers have seen pink in M8, another bright nebula.

The Homunculus Nebula, which surrounds the star Eta Carinae, is distinctly orange in color. I've seen this for myself through a 22 inch Starmaster on the shores of Lake Titicaca in Bolivia.

A list of colorful nebulae is available for Starry Nights YahooGroup members at http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/UIvTQfModrsjF...fulnebulae.html (http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/UIvTQfModrsjFoeCjcS9Dit56ugtY5XAzPaKUoZIPHmYeC-AFf0xeyGBugH7CgnCVsR-Xx56Oki3AKyFg4vJ_fFFxow3ng/%2AObserving_Lists/colorfulnebulae.html)

The Extreme Population II stars of globular clusters take on a yellowish or reddish appearance through large apertures.

As far as galaxies are concerned, there is not much color to be seen other than a yellow hue in the cores of some of the brightest galaxies such as M31.

Children have better color vision than adults and often report seeing colors in bright nebulae that adults can't perceive. The same applies to a lesser degree to women.

Of course, Mars is orange and Jupiter displays reds (when the GRS is red and when barges are present), oranges, tans, and blues (in festoons). Saturn shows a number of pastel colors. Uranus is green and Neptune a pale blue.

Let's not forget about colorful binary stars such as Albireo, Almach, Cor Caroli, Pulcherima, Eta Persei, Iota Cassiopeiae, Omicron Cygni, 32 Eridani, 95 Herculis, 70 Ophiuchi, 6 Trianguli, and h3945 or carbon stars like V Aquilae, R Leporis, S Cephei, and T Lyrae, which can be very ruddy in hue at times.

http://www.eaglecreekobservatory.org/eco/d...s/contrast.html (http://www.eaglecreekobservatory.org/eco/doubles/contrast.html)

http://www.belmontnc.4dw.net/carbonstar.htm

"As far as to getting a new telescope, that really depends on what you're planning to look at. If your goal is planets, binaries and such, something like my little Orion 127 Mak works -fantastic-. I've also been able to see things such as the Andromeda Galaxy and a number of open and globular clusters, nebula, etc., but the detail isn't as good with the "faint fuzzys". For myself this works fine...as long as I can find it, see it and know that it's actually there, I'm usually happy :-) On the other hand, if your really looking to get into stuff like Deep Space Objects, you'd be better off getting something like an 8", 10" or even 12" Dobson. "

So you now freely admit now that your 127mm Orion Maksutov-Cassegrain leaves something to be desired in the way of deep-sky (not Deep Space) performance? You would have saved both of us a lot of trouble if you had realized that before you insulted me.

"As far as anything else in this thread goes, as I've already stated, I have apoligized several times...I'm not doing it again. Either people accept my apology or they don't. As far as the rest of this thread goes, to me it is dead. I shall continue to stay away from these forums unless otherwise called on again. I shall continue to enjoy the Universe Today news as long as Fraser is willing to publish it, but the rest became to much of a headache and chore and simily is no longer worth my time. There are some -very- good people on this forum, but there are also those that I would simply rather not deal with (both in regards to this thread and others where I have posted)."

Simply admit that everything I said in this thread and the one where the trouble began was correct and that you manufactured statements supposedly made by me and I'll accept that as a sincere apology.

Dave Mitsky

[paul f. campbell]

Hi Bunhia. I don't know if you are allowed to sell on this site but I have a Meade 4.5 alt/az reflector goto telescope for sale. It comes with:

1. 8x50 finder scope
2. electric focuser
3. 1.25 fousing barrel
4. 8mm plossl and a 25mm plossl
5. 07165 electronic eyepiece
6. a soft shell case
7. 497 autostar with the newest update


I bought the scope and did the upgrades for a project that I had in mind for my camper in the mountains. It is in great working order and looks new. If you would like to see a photo of this scope let me know and I will post one. I have a new project that I am working on and I need to sell one of my scopes to fund it. That is why I am selling it. I am asking $350.00 for the works.
Yours in the way Paul F. Campbell

Ps. In my opinion, verbal/e-mail argument is a just way to vent your ideas/frustrations if need be. But it should be done in private. The other members of this group should not have to be subject to anyone's bad temper. God knows we all have our own from time to time, and feel the need to vent. So vent but keep it one on one. I quit another group because of such behavior, I don't want to quit this one, because it's the first group that's ever let me know what they thought of what I have to offer. I am not bashing anyone here, because both of you have good ideas/debate's to the question at hand. Lets just try to keep the group moving in the right direction which is up and out there, as far as the stars go and they never stop. again yours in the way Paul F. Campbell