Re: Have refractors hurt the hobby?

From: Rod Mollise (rmollise_at_aol.com)
Date: 11/05/04 

Date: 5 Nov 2004 08:10:18 -0800

RichA <none@none.com> wrote in message news:<8q1mo0pvj1hb6mu6g8612kgmk2gj57sjfd@4ax.com>...
>
> I used to have the view that if someone couldn't maintain their
> interest enough to "live" with a 60mm for a few years until they
> sought out something better, maybe they didn't deserve to be in the
> hobby, that their interest was not genuine. But, after having
> watched the behaviour of amateurs over the past 35 years, I realize
> that some (more now than before) come into the hobby and can be
> turned off by bad equipment. Whether they "deserve" to be in the
> hobby is purely a judgment call on people's part.
>
> So if most agree that the lowly cheapo 60mm refractor (or worse,
> the fully plastic 40 or 50mm trashfractor) has turned away potential
> devotees, what can be done about it?
>

Hi Rich:

This is a question that's been asked a lot over the years in our
community. But I think it is always appropriate at this time of year,
with the holiday season creeping up.

Does the Department Store Scope hurt amateur astronomy?

Certainly there are some insanely horrible telescopes out there. Some
that only barely quality to be called "telescope" at all. As you
mention, plastic single-element objectives ain't exactly unheard of.
These plastic-lensed wonders are mostly found in toy stores (Toys 'R
Us), however, and don't bear the usual Tasco-Bushnell logos of the
"true" department store 700x60 special. These toy scopes have been
around forever, and are really sold as just that, _toys_. Probably a
few parents think they can get a good scope for li'l Suzie for 10
bucks, but I'd guess most are aware that telescopes of this type are
just toys, nothing more, and will not help Junior get into college.

BTW, in the "good old days," not all "toy" telescopes were junk. I
fondly remember the Gilbert sub-3-inch reflectors. I REMEMBER them as
being able to do a good job on the Moon, at least. Is this just a
warm, fuzzy memory? I can find out. I've recently got my hands on a
Gilbert (who, BTW, used to be THE name in chemistry sets) complete
with case and original documentation. When I get some time, I'll see
what this silly little thing can really do.

The Department Store Scope (DSS) as we think of it is alive and well.
60mm refractors, 4.5 inch reflectors, and, increasingly it seems, 3
inch reflectors (and even a 3 inch refractor or two), are prominent at
Wal-Mart at this time of year. How are they these days? Better or
worse than they used to be? Both. They are all a little better in that
MOST use 1.25" eyepieces now, which tend to be slightly superior to
the .965s of yore. That also means that a person with real interest
can buy a few inexpensive Chinese eyepieces and improve the scope
quite a bit. As in the past, those I've seen have pretty good
objectives and (spherical) primary mirrors).

OTOH, all of 'em are more heavily laden plastic than they used to be.
There's nothing wrong with plastic if it's done right. An example is
the Orion StarBlast. It uses a plastic tube ring and focuser, and
these items work very well. But in a DSS, plastic often translates as
"cheap and flimsy." Instead of giving the user the decent cast
aluminum of a 70s Tasco 4.5 inch reflector's focuser and mount, the
DSS makers are using their resources to dazzle the prospective buyer
with digital settting circles and goto. Can goto or DSCs work on such
cheap scopes? I dunno. I've not had the chance to use a DSS with these
features yet, but I have my doubts. Certainly, Meade was able to
implement reliable goto for a low price for its ETX 60 and 70, but at
the 100 dollar level? I have my doubts.

Not all DSSes are the same, of course. A few dollars seems to make far
more difference here than it does with more expensive telescopes--even
the amateur level Chinese imports. There can be and usually is a big,
BIG difference between a 50 dollar scope and a 100 dollar scope.

Nothing I've seen is as good or useable as the old Tasco 11TR red tube
4.5 inch Newtonian. I bought one in the BX in the mid 70s, and it was
surprisingly good despite having a spherical mirror. OTOH, even in an
AF BX, I paid considerably more for it than the 79 dollars most
current DSSes command.

Expectations play a part too. Most kids and parents will be AMAZINGLY
HAPPY AND ASTOUNDED to be able to see craters on the Moon, the moons
of Jupiter, or just the appearance of a bright star. Most of the DSS
scopes can certainly satisfy in this regard.

One thing that needs to go? Now that the evil little eyepiece Solar
filters are gone, the next candidate is the putrid barlows included
with these scopes. They really don't work, and provide the single
largest source of confusion for DSS owners. They just _assume_ they
should start out with the barlow and that 4mm Huygens. ;-)

One good thing today as opposed to the 1960s? There are good
alternatives to the DSS for informed buyers. I try to steer interested
people to the Orion catalog, which is a godsend, since Orion sells
quite a few scopes that are close to the DSS price range--and which
are much better than the usual WallyWorld Bushnell. Back in the 60s,
if you couldn't affort or didn't know about Edmund or Criterion (or
Unitron or Cave), there really wasn't much of an alterative to Tasco
or Sears.

But, no, I don't think the DSS has hurt the pursuit of amateur
astronomy (I refuse to refer to it a just a "hobby"). Anyone, young or
old, with a grain of real interest, will at least pick up a copy of
Astronomy, Sky and Telescope, or Night Sky, or wander into a club
meeting, and will quickly realize that a 50 buck scope from Walmart
does not represent the state of the art in amateur equipment. With a
little guidance, we can ALSO educate them to the fact that it's
possible to upgrade to the much better for not too much more dough
(<200 for a StarBlast or ST80 setup) if they are truly interested.

OTOH, in many cases, the DSS performs its role just fine, thank you
very much. Beyond a few peeks at the Moon and a star or two, most
purchasers are not really interested in amateur astronomy and
telescopes, and never will be. What they are buying or having bought
for them is a _totem_, an icon that represents science and education,
and if that's all that's wanted, that's OK, too. Back in the 60s, many
many working class and lower middle class parents really sacrificed to
buy the kids a set of encylodpedias. Sure, Missy could just have used
the set down at the library, but the REAL reason Mom and Dad bought
them was not as a practical purchase. No, what they were buying was
_hope_, hope for their kids to excel and better themselves. Many DSSes
are bought for the very same reason and always have been.

Not everyone is destined to live life dreaming of C14s and 30 inch
StarMasters (though I'm not sure why not) ;-).

Peace,
Rod Mollise
<http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Yet another beginner scope question.
    ... LESSON 1- Small refractors are not for newbies ... My next scope was a 6 inch homebuilt newtonian. ... LESSON 2: Homebuilt has some pitfalls for the inexperienced. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: New scope with 3.2 giga pixel camera
    ... amateur comet discovery are rapidly drawing to a close. ... The LINEAR scope which is very modest compared to the LSST already has ... discovering a comet for example using the SOHO data. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Opinion on Questar telescopes
    ... easy to carry telescope would be a plus for me. ... reach of a 3.5 inch scope. ... I have a Questar, an EQ fork mounted 8" newt and a 10" dob. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Scopes that I have owned. Add your list after mine!
    ... The G after a scope means I gave it away, sometimes to a friend, ... Pirate Instruments 8 inch DOB, ... Meade ETX-70EC ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: DOB Dilema
    ... A 16 incher would be F4.7. ... A fast scope with a Paracorr will give pretty good wide field views when used ... with good quality eyepieces and it is the aperture you are after here. ... inch scope will have 63% more mirror area than a 12.5 incher. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)