Re: What does it cost for a newcomer to astronomy?
- From: tony_flanders@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 25 Jul 2005 12:03:46 -0700
reconair wrote:
> I've always liked refractors and didn't really need a light
> bucket for the light polluted, mid-Atlantic skies.
I've never really understood this statement. I greatly enjoy
using small scopes, but I find that they really come into
their own under pristine dark skies. I do use my 2.8-inch
and 4-inch refractors occasionally in the city and suburbs
as well, but the light pollution severely limits their
usefulness except when I'm observing the Moon, the planets,
and double stars. For deep-sky objects under serious light
pollution, I greatly prefer a bigger scope.
So I would say that if you live in a dark location, you can
do wonderful things with a small scope. But if you expect to
observe much in the city or suburbs, you really need a big
scope to combat the light pollution.
Of course, if you restrict yourself to the Moon and the
planets, then light pollution is a non-issue. In that
case, the tradeoff is the storability, portability, and
quick cooldown of a smaller scope versus the greater
resolution of a bigger scope.
- Tony Flanders
.
- References:
- What does it cost for a newcomer to astronomy?
- From: Cherokee
- Re: What does it cost for a newcomer to astronomy?
- From: reconair
- What does it cost for a newcomer to astronomy?
- Prev by Date: Re: Which one-power finder?
- Next by Date: Re: moon landings were a hoax
- Previous by thread: Re: What does it cost for a newcomer to astronomy?
- Next by thread: Re: What does it cost for a newcomer to astronomy?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|