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 !

If you're not afraid to do a bit of research on your own, this book 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

Dave Mitsky (and others) included some good telescope advice in this thread.

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

http://skyandtelescope.com/printable/howto...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

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

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 )

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

Dave Mitsky

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

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?ViewI...item=3827871179

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...item=3830824347

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...item=3829381391

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...item=3826090900

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

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 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.

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.

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.

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

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

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

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

__________________
Fraser Cain
Publisher
Universe Today - Free space news delivered by email every weekday.

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?]