Dave Mitsky wrote: > Steve, > > Obviously, small aperture instruments have certain advantages just as do large ones. snip Sorry, I meant to send this to the Shallow Sky list. Dave
-- BEGIN included message
- To: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
- Subject: [SHALLOW] Options for Beginners, etc.
- From: Dave Mitsky <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 03:52:20 -0500
- Organization: PSGHSSteve, Obviously, small aperture instruments have certain advantages just as do large ones. I certainly don't agree that at least a 12" is required to do serious observing. Remember what Galileo and Messier used to make their historic observations. Consider the exploits of noted Californian observer Jay Reynolds Freeman who recently completed the Herschel 400 with a 55mm Vixen refractor! Also, there are a number of DSO's that are too large to appreciate with the typical field of view of larger instruments. Here a rich-field telescope works wonders. However, for every large object there are thousands of small, dim objects that require large apertures and high magnifications. On the other hand, planetary and lunar observing don't require a 30" Dob. As far as high end equipment goes, it is a fact that telescope manufacturers make their real profits in the low end market through high volume. Beginners do have other options than buying department store junk. They can join an astronomy club and use club scopes if available. They can learn the sky with binoculars. They can build their own telescopes. And there are a few good inexpensive starter scopes available. If magazine subscriptions are any indication there are more amateur astronomers today than ever before. Dave Mitsky
-- END included message