Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot Asks: Cheap But Reasonable Telescopes for Kids?
I am interested in a telescope for the use of some elementary and middle school aged relatives. Older and younger siblings, and parents, would no doubt get some scope time, too. Telescopes certainly come in a range of prices, from cheap to out of this world, and I am purely a duffer myself. But I enjoy looking at the moon and stars with magnification, and think they would, too. What I'm trying to find might be phrased like this: "the lowest priced scope that's reasonably robust, reasonably accurate, and reasonably usable for kids" -- meaning absolute precision is less important than a focus that is easy to set and doesn't drift. Simplicity in design beats tiny, ill-labeled parts or an incomprehensible manual, even if the complicated one might be slightly better when perfectly tuned. I'd be pleased if some of these kids decide to take up astronomy as a hobby, but don't have any strong expectation that will happen -- besides, if they really get into it, the research for a better one would be another fun project. That said, while I'm price sensitive, I'm not looking *only* at the price tag so much as seeking insight about the cluster of perceived sweet spots when it come to price / performance / personality. By "personality" I mean whether it's friendly, well documented, whether it comes intelligently packaged, whether it's a crapshoot as to whether a scope with the same model name will arrive in good shape, etc -- looking at online reviews, it seems many low-end scopes have a huge variance in reviews. What scopes would you would consider giving to an intelligent 3rd or 4th grader? As a starting point, Google has helped me find some interesting guides that list some scopes that sound reasonable, including a few under or near $100. (Here's one such set of suggestions.) What would you advise buying, from that list or otherwise? (There are some ideas that sound pretty good in this similar question from 2000, but I figure the state of the art has moved on.) I'm more interested in avoiding awful junk than I am expecting treasure: getting reasonable views of the moon is a good start, and getting at least some blurry rings around Saturn would be nice, too. Simply because they are so cheap, I'd like to know if anyone has impressions (worth it? pure junk?) of the Celestron FirstScope models, which are awfully tempting for under $50.
Toilet paper roll.
Paper towel roll as an upgrade.
See the web-page
www.RobertMartinAyers.org/choosing-a-telescope.html
which discusses exactly that.
Here you go, http://store.astronomerswithoutborders.org/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=5&products_id=4. This is a nice 5" dobsonian with excellent optics that gets fantastic reviews, $199. It's light, small enough for a young person to use and move around, has a good sized mirror that's high quality. A portion of the profits goes to buy telescopes for schools in developing countries.
I would say to check out thrift stores and yard/garage sales to see what you can find. It's amazing what gems you might discover for $10!
Get a 4.5" or maybe a 6" Newtonian reflector on an EQ mount. Be sure you spend at least 5x on the mount than you do on the Optical Tube. The mount is 80% of the telescope. Do not, I repeat, DO NOT cheap out on a telescope by getting a shitty mount.
The EQ mount need not be motorized nor have a computer - in fact it's nice to learn about the RA/Dec axes and how to dial them in and track objects manually, but an RA motor would be necessary if you want to do any photography. (An RA motor does not necessarily require a full computer rig)
Eyepieces are also important, and pay no attention to "max power" capabilities, as they are always way overstated. A 4.5-6" Newtonian will be best at powers up to but not exceeding about 60-90X. Make sure you get a range of eyepieces to have variable power, but focus on field of view rather than magnification. Field of view is WAY more important than magnification.
The objects you will look at most with a 4.5-6" scope are the moon, planets, and nebulae. Nebulae are really cool, but you'll need the larger apertures to really appreciate them, or the photography setup so you can collect the light.
If you foresee going far with this as a hobby, you will want to go 8-10" at some point. It's better to decide now as telescopes are utterly worthless on the used market.
Hope this helps..
My college astronomy teacher told us, on our last day of class, you're always better off with an expensive pair of binoculars verses a cheap telescope. This was several years ago but he seemed to be of the opinion that if your budget was less than $200, you were better off with binoculars. He also pointed out that if your child loses interest in astronomy, binoculars have a wide variety of other uses.
Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here
Don't buy a telescope. Instead, get a good pair of 10x50 binoculars and an intro astronomy book with pictures.
A telescope will always take some setup and you'll be less likely to go to the effort as time goes on. With binoculars, you just grab them and go. That's a much better way to keep beginners interested.
No. Absolutely not. Alt-az mounts are horrible, especially for beginning astronomers as there is a complete disconnect between the telescope axis and reality. An alt-az mount almost has to be motorized to be useful, and it drives up cost. People hocking dobs love to talk about how cheap the "dollars per inch" of the optics are, but the fail to mention you can look at something under high magnification for a few seconds before it disappears, and then you have to figure out how to track RA with an alt-az mount under high power and find the object again.
There's no better way to get an astronomy newbie to QUIT the hobby than to set them up with a dob.
The telescopes listed in your "one set of suggestions" link are good. To get a telescope that's intended for real amateur astronomers rather than cheap junk for hopeful clueless parents, get a small reflector, not a refractor. I teach at a college: in our class for nonmajors, we introduce them to the sky with Orion Starblast 4.5s, which are cheap, compact and easy to carry, bulletproof, and easy to use. The magnification is low for planets, but that means it's easier to find things, and easier to track them manually through the sky. Orion also sells the SkyScanner 100mm, a slightly smaller, significantly cheaper version of the same thing. Their XT4.5 dobsonian is a little bigger and more expensive, and will give a better view of the planets but be more difficult to use for deep sky objects.
What I'm saying is, buy a small reflector from Orion.
I found one for $80 with computer go-to controller. Optics seem very good. Check Craig's List for stuff for sale in your area.
Most of the optics in low end scopes are pretty disappointing. A good pair of binoculars is the best bet if you have a small budget and are just getting your feet wet in Astronomy.
A decent small spotting scope that has the ability to change eyepieces is a nice alternative. The Celestron 39-100x90mm Maksutov Angled Spotting Scope is a nice scope for beginners and can be had new for under $200 if you shop around. Used market is even cheaper. Folks are always upgrading their gear, so you might get lucky. That scope come with a couple of decent eyepieces that work great for moon observation. You can always buy additional eyepieces and Barlows as your budget allows in the future. It's a versatile, small scope that can be added and expanded for even photographic and terrestrial use.
No. Absolutely not. Alt-az mounts are horrible, especially for beginning astronomers as there is a complete disconnect between the telescope axis and reality. An alt-az mount almost has to be motorized to be useful, and it drives up cost. People hocking dobs love to talk about how cheap the "dollars per inch" of the optics are, but the fail to mention you can look at something under high magnification for a few seconds before it disappears, and then you have to figure out how to track RA with an alt-az mount under high power and find the object again.
There's no better way to get an astronomy newbie to QUIT the hobby than to set them up with a dob.
Exactly the opposite ... You're going to expect an 11y to polar align?
No. Absolutely not. Alt-az mounts are horrible, especially for beginning astronomers as there is a complete disconnect between the telescope axis and reality. An alt-az mount almost has to be motorized to be useful, and it drives up cost. People hocking dobs love to talk about how cheap the "dollars per inch" of the optics are, but the fail to mention you can look at something under high magnification for a few seconds before it disappears, and then you have to figure out how to track RA with an alt-az mount under high power and find the object again.
There's no better way to get an astronomy newbie to QUIT the hobby than to set them up with a dob.
A perponderance of users contradicts what you are writing. The concept of an EQ mount is completely at odds with the way people - especially noobs, think. Where is X? This many degrees up and that many over with the alt-az mount. So now with the EQ mount, you have to first align it, then moving it around can be "interesting", and by the time you get things moved around, the kids have lost interest.
You might like the EQ mount better, but that's personal preference not shared by a lot of others, except thos that like to do imaging. Even then, with a drive and a eyepiece rotator, you can do just as well. What is especially problematic with the EQ mounts is how they scale in mass with the size of the scope. They get really big and heavy, really quickly.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
This advice is almost exactly the opposite of "good". You might be interested to learn that James Dobson, of Dobsonian fame, specifically designed the telescope to be simple to construct and use. The OP talked about the moon and Saturn. Both of those objects are very easy to see with the naked eye, and therefore very easy to point an alt-azimuth telescope at. An equatorial mount or motor drive is actually harder for a beginner to use than just a simple push-to-go-to alt-az mount. And any motorized drive you could get for anywhere near $100 is just junk.
All that said, you probably won't find a new Dobsonian scope for $100. There are some inexpensive alt-az refractors for about $120 - the Orion StarBlast 70mm for example. It has a finderscope, an erect-image diagonal, and a standard 1.25"-diameter focuser and two eyepieces. Might be worth a peek.
Alternatively, if you are interested in really learning a lot about telescopes, you could build one, starting with grinding your own mirror. You might get that done for about $100 for a 4.25" reflector.
Get the best (Ha-Dec) mount you can. (I would not get an Alt-Az mount for a beginner on a budget.) Most department store type scopes have adequate optics, but very crappy mounts, and that makes for a miserable viewing experience. Get a very sturdy mount with a cheap scope,and then if the kid wants to move up, they have the mount for it.
I have had five scopes. My current primary scope is Celestron CGE 1100.
First, get a good set of binocs and a star atlas. I recommend either "Turn Right at Orion" and/or Sky & Telescope's Pocket Sky Atlas. I have the Orion Mini-giants 9x63 and they are wonderful for astronomy. They are also light enough to be used without a tripod. It really helps to know the basic constellations when starting. Also get http://www.stellarium.org/
Craigslist has used scopes all the time. You could pick up a Celestron C5, C6, or C8 for a few hundred and prob. not lose too much on resale. Stay away from "department store" scopes!
Check out your local astronomy club. Our club has 20+ scope for loaning and at a star party you could check out a bunch of scope live.
Finally, the is a great resource: http://www.cloudynights.com/to...
Clear Skies!
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Go to your local observatory on an open-house night and get a free look through the lens. There are usually amateurs set up with their own equipment outside and will allow viewers too.
If your kids can stay up late and stand in the cold without complaining, they're ready for a telescope.
I think you mean John Dobson
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
You shouldn't be using high magnification with a dobsonian. In fact, at the price point we're discussing here, you shouldn't be using high magnification at all.
Through a 4.5" f/6 Dobsonian with a decent wide-angle eyepiece, you can see Saturn's rings and Jupiter's moons plus a hint of cloud patterns, you can see open and globular clusters, and you'll have to push the telescope to re-center the object once every couple of minutes tops.
A plossl or super plossl (dont spend too much). Adding a barlow to the mix helps.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
I just worked thru this same project with my MS/HS kids. For us, the answer was not a specific scope, but the best one we could find for cheap secondhand. It worked out very well to involve the kids not just with the content viewable thru the scope, but with the mechanics of assembling a working setup. Now they're interested in the optics and process, not just the results.
After several crappy new ones (thanks, woot...) we happened upon a Celestron Astromaster 90 for $25 at the local Goodwill (1000mm focal length/which they advertise as "dual-purpose telescope appropriate for both terrestrial and celestial viewing" -- but the most important thing for us was the stable tripod. Even a great scope will be frustrating and a turnoff for the kids if it's wobbly and hard to see something cool at the outset, like craters on the moon. For the CA90, I picked up an eyepiece-to-Tmount adapter and T-to-DSLR for $30, allowing us to swap naked-eye viewing and digital photography (face it, if you succeed and the kids go 'oo shiny' the next question is 'can i put this on tumblr?'), all for under $100 and the whole setup fits into the car trunk.
An alternate which we also enjoy, while not strictly a "telescope": I picked up a 500mm F6.5 camera lens for under $50 (I have both a refractor http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/opteka-500mm-mirror-f8.html and long-tube/telescope style http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/quantaray-500mm-f8-f32.html) and slapped a 2x matched doubler on it, giving us an effective 1000mm telescope with a t-mount end. We dropped an additional $8 on a t-mount adapter for a DSLR, and $30 for a manfrotto lens holder for a tripod (optional). For under $100 total, this gave us some pretty sharp digital-only viewing that fits into a messenger bag. Again, this is a win not because it's the best optical setup, but because it pulls the kids into the process AND the result is shareable.
Oh... and one other cheap trick that is a huge help with viewing using budget (but not crap) optics: Attaching about 8in of 1in link chain (just the standard hardware store proof chain) to the objective end of your long telescope makes an excellent vibration damper. With this chain damper and a 2- or 10-sec delay on your camera, you can snap no-touch/super-clear pictures thru the scope with most excellent results.
YMMV. Good luck!
I think not...(*poof*)
When I was 9 an uncle of mine gave me a "Halleyscope" (a not bad 40mm refractor on a tragic little tripod). I was a geek of course so it did immediately stir my interest, so a month later on my birthday I asked for a pair of binoculars. I had not read a recommendation anywhere, it just seemed that it was what I could find for observing based on my low birthday budget. Well, the Binoculars were more useful than the Halleyscope and I learned the sky and saw enough things to want to see more. So then it was certain that by giving me a bigger budget my parents would not be throwing away money (it was also tied to academic achievement) and it is how I got my Soviet TAL 1 4.5" reflector and it served me for years.
So, the advice is get binoculars (probably 7x50). If they show an interest and they want more, I would say stay away from alt-azimuth mounts (because they are usually crap), except dobsonians. I am not a dobsonian fan since I like to spend some time polar-aligning in order to get a more comfortable viewing experience afterwards, but it is a personal preference. Usually people who are more geeky and have patience will not consider spending time to try and align a mount to the earth's rotational axis as a bad thing. But dobsonians are also cheaper per aperture. So... overall your example link of suggestions seems ok, except as a second step after Binoculars and avoid Alt-Az mounts.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
He means the late John Dobson.
I was pretty sure he was immortal. I was wrong.
they may be happy to loan you a decent scope or two. Some members may even join you and you could experience several scopes. The person advising on binoculars gave solid advice as well. Try and get glimpse of a space station passover as well. Very popular with the kids. Stay away from all those department store refractors promising 500x magnification. They are garbage. Magnification is less important than a scopes ability to gather light. DOBS are the best bang for your buck.
It's like buying a Ducati for a kid who hasn't had her training wheels removed. Amateur astronomy involves a lot of time spent in the cold and a lot of prerequisite knowledge. If you don't want to waste money, you should actually make sure that the person is truly interested in astronomy before buying a scope, and you shouldn't go cheap on the scope. Any telescope under $500 is probably not a good investment. I suggest the following.
1) Go to an observatory open night (try universities, colleges, and professional and public observatories) or an amateur astronomy star party with the kids. See what they think about it.
2) Actually go backyard observing with the people in question with the naked eye, if they are interested, buy them astronomical binoculars. A pretty good pair will start at under $100 and, unlike a $100 telescope, will be very portable and useful (even if the kid never really sticks with amateur astronomy).
3) If they stick with it, get them a subscription to some amateur astronomy magazines like "Sky and Telescope" and "Astronomy".
4) If they're still interested, buy them the best scope you can afford, either a ground-mounted Newtonian (or similar design) on the cheap range (you can actually get a good aperture size (which tends to be the most important measure) for pretty cheap, or if you have the money, go with a Schmidt-Cassegrain (or similar style) telescope with at least an 8" aperture (you might actually be able to find a good one used for well under $1000 if you look hard).
There are a lot of other people and institutions out there with better equipment than you can afford, so no point in breaking the bank until you are sure that a good quality amateur scope is really worth the money, and no point in getting a low end scope when a pair of binoculars will serve you better in the long run.
I keep hearing about how 3D printing is the next industrial revolution and a total game changer. I mean we're 3D printing cars, houses and rockets now.
He should go to a maker space and 3D print the best telescope possible, right?
I'd go with the Orion SpaceProbe 3 Altazimuth Reflector Telescope. It's a more modernized version of the one I first used as a youngster. I think I still have it somewhere but will have to look. Aiming the thing is probably the hardest to learn with any telescope and I'd stress that to the children you are going to give this to. That's the number one thing that turns children off to telescopes is trying to find the desired object in the sky. It takes a lot of patience and practice and if the child doesn't have the personality characteristics they will lose interest quickly. Sky watching can be amazing good fun, especially now that there are good apps that can help you find things in the sky easily. That might be another thing you spring for, a good app (desktop or mobile) for them to use to help them find things to look at.
Unless you are willing to invest a lot of money in a good refractor, or lens based scope, you are better off with a mirror. Lenses have a quality called chromatic aberration, which can be mostly eliminated, but you'll be buying an expensive scope that isn't all that big, and need to take special care of it.
An equatorial mount needs to be rock steady. This means it has to have a lot of mass usually a lot more than the Optical tube.
This is why unless you plan on doing a lot of photography from a fixed location, an alt az mount is preferable for rmost folks. It also allows you to use a relatively large mirror.
The Dobsonian version of alt-az mounts uses a base bearing, the azimuth portion, and altitude bearing, that usually consists of a teflon surface placed against a formica type surface. The idea is that when the scope is balanced, it will stay where it's placed, yet will move without jerkiness when you need to move it. The scopes I have made allow me to move them smoothly while viewing. It has a quality we refer to as "stiction"
As for the size of the telescope, I recommend a 6 inch for beginners, or maybe an 8 inch. A focal ratiot of somewhere between F6 and f8 is also good.
A note that the longer the focal length, the larger the magnification of any given object is for a given eyepiece, , and the narrower the field of view is. The shorter focal ratios, like f4 have a wider field of view which can make for some awesome views of the Milky way, but they have an aberration known as coma, which means the center of the image will be sharp, but not the edges. This too can be corrected, but with an expensive coma corrector.
Next the really important part is Eyepieces.
Very popular today is the Plössl, which have a pretty decent apparent field of view, which is to say it doesn't look like you are viewing through a porthole from 5 feet away.
You should get a few different sizes. I would recommend a 32 mm, a 25 or 20 mm, and perhaps a 15 mm. There are shorter eyepieces available, but are only useable when the atmosphere seeing is very good, otherwise they give a pretty elnarged fuzzy image, which is not the lenses fault, but the conditions.
Note there is a type of eyepiece called a "Nagler", which is a very good but very expensive eyepiece. Stick with the Plössls to start with, Naglers are awesome, but can empty your bank account pretty quickly.
So let's say you are looking at a 6 inch scope. Orion has their skyquest scopes for either $299 or $349 a version with a barlow lens which will double the magnification of any eyepiece.
I'd go for the $299 model. It's an F8 which should be a good compromise height for kids or adults - more on that in a moment.
A Sirius Plössl eyepiece is in the roughly 50 dollar range each.
Some things to think about:
A chair for the adults, especially handy for viewing things at lower Alt settings.
A step ladder with a railing for the young'uns.
Both should wait unti you have a scope in hand. I have an infinitely adjustable chair that makes viewing a lot more pleasant, and the railing is just something for leaning against instead of the telescope.
A Telrad. This is a cool - if ugly - device that projects a bulls-eye image on glass that you look through to find objects. Works great. There are also "red dot BB finders that are Okay but not much better than the regular finder. A cool feature is that there are Telrad finder charts that allow you to set your scope with a better chance of finding what you are looking for.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
https://store.astronomerswithoutborders.org/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=4&zenid=ivsojs1sjlgpf0aqaosc5echo4
I second, or third or seventeenth the binoculars recommendation. Great for celestial observations, birding, plane spotting, live theater, sight seeing, etc. No set up, control in hands of user, each may have their own instead of taking turns, etc.
Note you don't need a scope for good astrophotography, there are pictures on Wikipedia I've taken just with a manual digital camera with good lens (and cheap tripod). Long exposure settings and proper image processing (combining multiple exposures to minimize background noise) provide incredible results.
Thanks for posting this link. Like the OP I am interested in getting a telescope but know nothing about them really.
http://www.celestron.com/browse-shop/astronomy/telescopes/firstscope-telescope
I once won a Celestron FirstScope as a door prize at an astronomy club meeting. Its size and shape might make it a nice instrument for a child to call their own. However, the view it provided was about what you'd expect for $49 retail -- not particularly good. When I donated it to a friend for his kids to use, I wondered afterward if I did him a disservice by giving it to him. His kids might take a look through the thing and think "that's it??" and lose interest in the hobby. Then again, maybe an inquisitive child wouldn't mind. I'm a jaded old geezer and my sense of wonder isn't what it used to be.
In my opinion, good steps are:
- Don't buy a cheap telescope.
- Find a local astronomy club and go to one of their outings. Every club I've encountered has enthusiastically welcomed visitors and new members. I was hooked when I got my first view of M42 through an 18" Obsession. Clubs are a great way to see what the hobby offers and experience a lot of nice equipment without spending any of your hard-earned money first. A lot of clubs even offer free loaner scopes to members.
- Buy "NightWatch: A Practical Guide to Viewing the Universe" and/or "Turn Left at Orion"
- Get a pair of decent binoculars. You'll have them forever and they have uses beyond astronomy if interest wanes.
- The "Zero Gravity" folding lawn chairs that you can get at Walmart and other places are awesome for using binoculars. You can lay almost flat with them and they are very comfortable. It's much easier to hold heavy binoculars and avoid straining your neck when you're reclined that far.
- Get several *red* LED flashlights. They'll preserve your night vision when you're in the field, and kids might think it's neat to have their own to use. You can find cheap plastic ones that have a dimmer built in and run off 9V batteries, with a lanyard to wear around your neck. They're great.
- Warm clothes and boots. You'd be surprised how cold you can get when sitting motionless in an empty field at night.
After that I'd look at buying a basic 6" dobsonian. It's big enough to see some interesting things but still relatively easy to manage. The largest piece in an Orion XT6 weighs less than 21 pounds. Personally I would skip the fancy add ons like digital setting circles. Spend your money on good eyepieces instead. Hunting through the sky without assistance can be a lot of fun. With a 6" dob you might also want to get an "astronomy observing chair"; these specialty chairs can quickly adjust their height and make it easy to sit close to the eyepiece and observe comfortably.
Dobs in the 5" - 10" range are perfect.
I recommend 8-10.
when they out grow the Dob mount you can buy some rings and put them on an equatorial mount.
it gives you an upgrade path.
some good links:
great for comparing prices
http://www.optcorp.com/
AWB offers a great little scope for the price.
http://store.astronomerswithou...
It's hard to beat a lot of their prices.
http://www.telescope.com/
For $10, you can pick up a very very basic refractor with a flimsy tripod mount at any CVS. This will let you look at the Moon, Jupiter, and Saturn, which are the most interesting things to look at without going up several orders of magnitude in price. It's dead simple to set up and focus, and the challenge of wrestling it into position so you can see the planets, and see them move away as the Earth rotates, will give you the chance to teach reasonably mature kids about basic astronomy and to gauge their interest without spending a lot of money. If you live in particularly dark country, you can just barely begin to see things like the Orion Nebula with this kind of scope (though it looks like a smudge--we've all been spoiled by nice pictures from 2m+ telescopes mated to CCD cameras).
I use a Pentax 20x50 Binocular more than my low/mid priced refractor telescope. Also Stellarium www.stellarium.org is a good free planetarium for win/mac/linux PCs.
A beginner telescope should always be a EQ mount and a reasonable priced optical assembly. So, maybe a 6" Newtonian is fine. Then you add 2 or 3 eyepieces and you are done.
*EVERY* beginner (or not beginner) looks at things called star charts. These charts have only 2 coordinates on them. Right ascension and Declination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
And since Earth rotates, *EVERY* beginner knows that all you need is move R.A. and objects will stay beautifully in one spot in your scope.
Your "objections" to not using EQ mounts are completely wrong when it comes to beginning scopes. And by beginning, I don't mean auto-tracking mounts.
1. Their size (due to counterbalance) is irrelevant for small scopes.
2. Alignment is almost elementary to be "good enough". Even if you miss polaris by 5-10 degrees, you are close enough such that declination adjustments to keep your scope pointed are minimal.
When I used my very beginner "walmart grade" 60mm refractor to view Venus transit, its cheap EQ mount was very useful to track the sun. I just aligned the mount to general north and it Just Worked (BTW, it's not motorized or anything, 100% manual operation).
On the other hand, dobs are not appropriate for high magnification (at least for beginners). On low magnification, in dark conditions, sure, get a dob. If you want to look at Saturn or Jupiter or even the Moon or the Sun, EQ mount is far far superior.
So now with the EQ mount, you have to first align it, then moving it around can be "interesting", and by the time you get things moved around, the kids have lost interest.
The question says "reasonable telescope for kids" not "reasonable telescope to wow kids".
PS. Practicing star hopping when using standard charts without EQ mount, is kind of complicated too if your next star is not in the same field of view. Or you don't know which direction is which because your chart is completely out of whack.
Sure, you can just use an "app" to calculate these things for you. But then you might as well get computerized mount and learn nothing. You know, the "easy button" way.
Derp. Yes.
As penance, here is a $65 mirror grinding kit, for a 4.25" mirror: http://firsthanddiscovery.com/...
To make your own Dobsonian, just add a diagonal and stalk, a cardboard tube, plywood, a bit of Ebony Star formica, and some teflon pads and miscellaneous hardware.
I agree - a 6" or 8" Dobsonian scope will give you much better views for the dollar as a starter scope. Don't get a computerized aiming device. Instead, spend about $50 above the cost of the scope to get a Telrad finder and a copy of A Field Guide to the Stars and Planets. Set up the Telrad with an easy target like a streetlight or the moon - it's very easy to adjust, and once adjusted it makes finding things in the sky easy and fun. Finder scopes mounted on the sides of telescopes are almost worthless, and even worse for beginners. A paper towel tube would be better. But a Telrad finder puts a reticle on a good-sized patch of sky and makes it very easy to see the object you're aiming for.
Start off with easy summer sights: Start off with the moon. You can also easily find the globular cluster in Orion, the Ring Nebula in Lyra, and the double star Albireo for starters, as these are fairly easy to find. The M31 galaxy in Andromeda is easy to find too - just find the Great Square of Pegasus and you can find M31. Use the Field Guide. Those are the items I started on with my first scope - a Dobsonian - about 15 years ago. You'll never regret learning the sky.
A Dobsonian is not sealed, so make sure you have two good dust covers, and store the scope upside down, with the mirror at the top facing down, so the dust doesn't settle on it. Learn the sky with the Dobsonian, then if you get the bug, later on you can buy something with an Equatorial mount for photography (or you're a maker, you can build a mount and clock drive for your Dob. Once more, a Dobsonian is more fun for less money.
Reflectors with an effective collecting area under 4" are worthless. That's everything from the aperture to mirror. That's going to put you well over $50. Adequate reflectors don't exist under $250, except on special clearance.
You are better off buying a remotely controllable reflector with a webcam fitted to the eyepiece and having a group of kids take turns steering it. Firstly, it's cheaper overall. Secondly, you don't have breakages to worry about. Third, kids prefer nice, warm rooms to freezing pitch-black country parks well away from light pollution, hot drinks, facilities, ...
Not only is this more likely to be attractive to kids, parents who invest $50 in a group effort are much more likely to make sure they get their money's worth than if they spent the same amount just on their kid. It's all about the attitude of not wanting to pay for someone else's stuff. It's a vulgar, uncouth attitude, but that makes it easily exploitable for everyone's gain.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Let's assume you got a cheap telescope. What can you do to make it work better for you?
1. Get astronomy software. Someone else mentioned Stellarium; I guess that's the go-to PC software now. I don't know what's available for phones. But make sure it shows an object's altitude in degrees.
2. Get a red flashlight. I guess these days people use red LEDs; back when I was a kid the place to go was army surplus for those bent army flashlights with colored filters.
3. Get a protractor. It's cheap, it's plastic, it shows degrees, and it's probably on sale now for back-to-school.
4. Get a piece of thin string and a weight, such as a nut for a bolt.
Tie the piece of string through the center hole on the protractor, and tie the other end to the weight. Now tape the protractor to the body of the telescope, preferably along some piece that sticks out near the tripod so it's aligned properly. To get an object in the scope, find its current altitude on your astronomy software. Then tilt the scope so the string's position matches that altitude on the protractor, using the red flashlight to see the string and protractor. You might have to do some math to get the matching number on the protractor. (90-x degrees - see, kids, that's what math is good for!) Now you mostly have to pan the scope, which is usually easier than tilting.
One other idea that came to mind while writing this: Take the jack stand out of your car, tape it to one leg of the tripod, and you might be able to use that for fine tilt adjustments. I've never tried this idea, though.
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
I wanted to get something that my daughter and I could use to view the moon with but didn't want to spend a large amount of money in the event that she was not interested. I also wanted something that was easy to set up and portable (we live in the suburbs between two major cities, so to get a decent dark sky we need to drive a couple of hours). After doing some research I decided to go with the Celestron SkyMaster 15x70.
These have several advantages:
- They're very portable and compact
- They can be mounted on a tripod
- They can be used for non-astronomical viewing
- It's only a $60 investment
Ultimately for us, it was the best of both worlds.
Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a Q-Tip. - Homer Simpson
An alt-az mount almost has to be motorized to be useful, and it drives up cost.
Something like a Meade ETX-80 isn't terribly expensive, the alignment procedure is easier, plus you get the benefit of go-to functionality with automatic tracking which really helps those that don't know the sky yet. German equatorials really are only necessary for photography, IMO, and are a royal pain in the butt to deal with when the optical tube is of any appreciable size.
My 10" Dob works just fine with an equatorial platform, and the platform costs a LOT less than a decent German mount that can deal with a 30 pound tube.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
my daughter (now seven) began using a 4.5" dob last winter. A member of the astronomy group that I belong to was pretty blown away that she could easily find the Orion Nebula on her own. She loves scanning the sky on her own and has stumbled across a few Messier objects this way. It's on the ground so it's almost immune to being knocked over. It's a fairly solid tube, so if it's knocked over it likely won't be a big deal. It has no moving parts, it's the perfect height for her, it's easy to move and the general 'point and shoot' nature makes it very easy to use. No batteries, no electronics, no alignment needed. (I collimate it once in a while and that takes all of 5 minutes) Also, the set up is ridiculously easy. I see her outgrowing this one day. There's a 12" truss dob waiting for her when she does.
Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
I second everything in parent comment. Unfortunately, it will be difficult to get good views of the planets with anything cheap, and anything that will give you good views of the moon / planets won't give you good views of anything else (deep-sky objects).
Something worth considering is a Celestron Firstscope though. It's pretty cheap and gives nice views of the moon. You'll be able to see Jupiter's moons and just-just make out Saturn's rings with the provided eyepieces. Many of the slightly brighter star-clusters will be within view as well. Some models of it come with finder-scopes, if it doesn't a simple red-dot is cheap enough. I have one and I was quite impressed, I thought it was going to be rubbish bit I was pleasantly surprised. It's nowhere near as good as my 4.5" Orion reflector, but it's not bad.
I'm currently in the process of grinding a mirror for an 8" reflector, similar to a friend's. The endeavour is costing me the equivalent of around $150 (spread over whenever I need bits and pieces) but I'll end up with a scope of similar quality to what you can buy from $350 - $500.
One thing I know, and that is that I am ignorant...
I own a Parks 20X80 giant binocular and a decent tripod. Versatile and portable, easy to set up and use. From my suburban location I can see the planets as a disc not a speck, craters and lunar maria on our moon and Saturn's rings. It's easy to track objects by hand. When I drive to dark sky areas in the local mountains or go over the hill to the desert the Orion nebula and Andromeda galaxy are just brilliant. I use the Parks for terrestrial viewing and can watch hikers on a popular mountain trail six miles distant. .
That's a bunch of hogwash. I have a 60mm refractor and it can see bands on Jupiter and the Cassini gap between the inner Saturn ring and outer (under ideal conditions). Binoculars will not even show the rings separate from the ball of Saturn, and will not show bands on Jupiter. I can also see spots on Mars and the polar caps under ideal conditions. It did take some practice to learn to see some of these, though. It wasn't instant.
Just make sure the optics say "precision ground". That has a legally-enforced trade meaning.
That being said, reflectors are more cost effective for looking at nebula. For "bright" objects like the moon and planets, refractors are more bang for the buck because the center mirror in the reflectors tends to blur planets etc. via diffraction. It's a trade-off.
It all depends on the preferences and behavior and discipline of the kid.
I have a cheap mount (simple tripod). It's annoying, but I've learned to live with it via practice by knowing how to manually track. Being bare-bones, it didn't stop me from seeing anything I wanted to see.
And don't be fooled by extra or gimmicky attachments, such as a Barlow lens. They are often useless. The only attachment I really enjoyed was the sun filter lens, but there are other ways to view the sun via projection.
Auto-targeting gizmos can be nice, but they do take a fair amount of setup and fiddling before they can do their job.
But, I personally think it's better to just learn how to aim the thing manually. Start with the moon to get used to aiming, tracking, and focusing. You then apply those skills to progressively dimmer objects.
If the kid is not disciplined or motivated to practice and use the scope to its potential, then no scope is "good".
Table-ized A.I.
Absolutely yes.
And he is not the only one. When looking for the same question on the internet, this popped up. Sometimes you DO NOT have to ask slashdot for good recommendations.
nosig today
I'd be pleased if some of these kids decide to take up astronomy as a hobby, but don't have any strong expectation that will happen
And most won't.
Most kids (adults, too) will be curious, rather than interested, However, once they take a look through a telescope they will be disappointed. The only objects that give any sense of awe, or wonder, are views of The Moon, Jupiter, Mars (when it's close: once every 2 years), and Saturn. Everything else is just a fuzzy, faint, grey blob.
Sure, you can point a telescope at M31 (Andromeda) and tell people that it's a galaxy and that it's 2 billion light-years away. But really: who care? and who can appreciate how far a light-year is, either? Try a telescope on M13 (The Hercules cluster: either the best or second-best cluster in the night sky) and it is just a collection of points of light - quite pretty for the average newbie to look at once, but that's about it - a bit like picking up an unusual shell on a beach.
I have lots of friends and neighbours who have asked for a look through my telescopes. But none have ever asked again. They see things through my 12-inch Dob or 4 inch refractor (on a GOTO) and make all the right, appreciative, noises but that's mainly for show. Afterwards the reaction is mainly that's nice - who wants a beer? And the whole experience is chalked up "I've seen the rings of Saturn" - but that's all it is: a tick on a "bucket" list.
So I would ignore all these recommendations for this telescope or those binoculars. - they merely reflect the biases and posessions of people who are already enthusiasts. I wouldn't go buying equipment in the hope of impressing, or converting children to astronomy. It won't. They are used to bright, colour images from space telescopes of things at the very edge of creation. They will settle for nothing less and are much more used to seeing things on screens than first-hand. Who can compete with that?
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
I was wondering, would you have advice on someone with $50K in disposable income that wanted to get a large telescope for mounting in the Nevada desert? I would be able to get network connectivity between the site and Reno so remote features would be a bonus on any suggestions.
Exactly the opposite ... You're going to expect an 11y to polar align?
Yes. Teach him or her once, and they feel like they now know the secrets of science. They'll soon be looking up exact lat/lon for their location, and setting it more precisely than the affordable (cheap) mechanism can handle, which is just fine. This also teaches them how to find Polaris. And if they ever get the itch to take some photographs, they'll have the right tool for the job.
After looking at Saturn's rings and spotting the Galilean moons, they're going to want to see other famous features; looking for the Messier objects is a great challenge for kids. This will quickly teach them a few other foundational skills, too: how to read a star chart, Right Ascension and Declination, and sidereal time. All this can be done on a relatively inexpensive 4" reflector with a small equatorial mount on a tripod.
A Dobsonian will give much clearer pictures for the money, and is great for viewing easily identifiable objects, but it's not going to give them a working understanding of celestial mechanics.
John
For a very low-price but useful entry-level telescope, try the Galileoscope. It is an achromatic refractor that has been designed as part of the International Year of Astronomy, and can be had for approximately US$ 50 (or order a box of 6 for US$30 apiece). It comes with an eyepiece that approximates Galileo Galilei's experience, but also with (IIRC) 2 modern eyepieces that are decent enough for the Moon, Jupiter, and Saturn's ring. Also, it uses a standard eyepiece adapter, so it can be further upgraded if required. Some assembly required - this is intended as a teaching opportunity ;-). It's cheap enough that it can just be passed on to another kid or a local school if a better instrument is obtained.
Stephan
I don't know about the state of technology now, but when I was young and interested in that kind of stuff, you were considered a pretender if you didn't make your own including grinding your own mirror.
Co-ordinates on a star chart can very trivially be translated into an alt-az component. Last Astrofest I went to there was someone on the imaging field drawing, yes DRAWING, deep sky objects. He was doing it with an entirely manual dobsonian. No go to, no fancy computer, just a starchart, a calculator and his telescope.
As the GP has said, your comments are completely at odds with the evidence of how people get into astronomy, not just for beginners but for experts too. Equatorial mounts are things widely hated by all, often including the imagers who depend on them, and the most cost effective way to get into astronomy is definitely NOT to spend most of your money on the mount.
Astronomy can be a very frustrating hobby when you're searching through space looking for something. If you intend to do the hobby with others or want to help your kid and star at the sky together you absolutely must get a decent purpose built tripod for your binoculars. There's nothing more frustrating than having someone say "Whoa! M16 looks great!" passing you the binoculars and then you spending 10 minutes trying to find the damn thing.
I say purpose made because a standard tripod is not going to let you point the binoculars straight up. You will need to buy (or make) something that will let you point into any direction, and then lock so you can share the moment.
Otherwise the suggestion is pretty spot on. I can see through a decent pair of binoculars so much more than I could through that crappy $50 discovery channel telecsope my parents gave me as a kid as what I can only consider was a misguided attempt to get me to find another hobby.
Grinding my reflecting mirror is a project that I would like to achieve, but after decades
busy doing something else. The mirror project is still pending.
I was thinking, if someone lives high up some mountain in Hawaii, has a big telescope,
it could be a profitable business renting the telescope to someone else online.
Since stars don't move too quickly, viewing celestral object through virtual telescope
could be equally rewarding.
Refractors will always produce low-quality images. A good pair of binoculars will cost less and show you more.
[whisper] Pssst. Hey buuddy. Binoculars are refractors. Nobody makes reflecting binoculars because that would be stupid.[/whisper]
"His name was James Damore."
Why not... get with small museums and astronomy clubs in remote (low-light-pollution) locations across the US, and use smaller scopes not just at your location, but set up all across the US?
Then phase the scopes together, and use scheduling software to let the museums (and you) use them.
Early on, you should be able to get an image under any weather conditions.
Later, as you upgrade and develop your software, you should be able to get excellent 3-D images of planets, better identify the orbits of asteroids and comets, identify new asteroids (take one image, align it to others, and subtract the scaled values to minimize the overall light. Then look for arrays of speckled dots, that indicate a closer object. )
Eventually, what you could end up with is a very large phased array.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Nothing under $350 is worth buying do not do it, they are all crap.
Honestly a 6" Orion dobsonian is a great first scope as it is clear enough to not just make the kids say "meh" and will let them see real detail on saturn.
Note those ALL scopes are not kid friendly. they can bake their eyes out of their head easily in daytime, and extended full moon use without filters will cook your retinas even in a tiny 60mm aperture.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I'd have assumed that by now a motor-driven Alt-Az mount would be good enough to eliminate the need for an actual physical Eq mount. Just tell the thing where/when it is and maybe point it at a guide star and it should be able to simulate an Eq mount, assuming the steppers have sufficient resolution that you don't notice the steps in an exposure (but what kid is going to be taking photos anyway?). Then you can switch modes at will when panning around.
Heck, stick GPS and a compass in the thing and it could find a star for you and just ask you to tweak it to correct for compass/tilt error. That is $10 worth of extra parts these days.
I used to work at a planetarium helping school kids with telescopes. Our preferred scope was a dobsonian. I'd recommend a 4.5" dobsonian. The one sold by Orion isn't a bad deal, and they're pretty good quality. But that's $250. You can sometimes find a used dobsonian. A 6" or 8" would be a really good scope. I like the dobsonian because there's little to mess with. Too often the fancy scopes get between you and observing. And you might not even need a scope. There's a whole lot to be done with the naked eye or a cheap pair of binoculars (7x35 or 8x40 being good cheap choices, 7x50 being really nice). If you are on a really tight budget, a dobsonian is very easy to build. You'll need the mirrors, a spider, and a focuser. The rest of the stuff you can get at wally world or hardware stores. If you go that route, the best bang for your buck is usually a 6" f8 scope. But you can low-ball and even build as small as a 3" scope. In fact, a 3" f10 is a very, very simple mirror to grind. You'd done before you know it. You just then need to find someone to silver or aluminize it for you; it used to be easy to send a mirror off for surfacing like that.
> I'm in the southern hemisphere
So? Just bore a hole through the Earth and line up on Polaris like the rest of us do.
Sheesh.
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
Sorry, but you are flat-out wrong. I do a lot of public outreach in astronomy, and I can tell you with confidence that a dob is the best first-telescope for a beginner. I teach folks how to make sure the finder is aligned (I prefer a Telrad), how to do a quick check on collimation of the optics, and show them how to use the bright stars of the constellations as guide-posts to interesting objects. I try to get them started with planets and the moon. A dob is perfect because you can have it set up in a minute and there's no complexity or precision required. The XT6 is a perfect first scope. My first one was an 8" and I used it for several years until I bumped up to a 13.1" dob, which I still use. An EQ mount will do nothing but frustrate a beginner. Trust me. I work regularly with newcomers to the hobby who bought one and are ready to sell it and walk away from the hobby.
Speaking to their durability, a family friend gave his childhood Astroscan to our son for his fifth birthday. Our son is an adult now, and we still enjoy using it at home and on trips.
Dan Rutter has a nice Astroscan review that includes some other telescope suggestions:
http://www.dansdata.com/astros...
-Dangle
Dobs are NOT about high magnification. They're for looking at large very dim objects (galaxy, globular clusters, etc.). Those are at relatively low mag that doesn't require a lot of bumping of the scope to track an object.
On 90% of nights in most places, you can take an 8" Dob to the seeing limit and hand-track planets by hand with no problems. For many objects you're not approaching higher powers anyway, because they're larger and don't require the magnification. Hand-tracking is zero problem under these conditions. I've seen lots of beginners take the hobby because of Dob. You're simply wrong in your assessment of them.
soylentnews.org
PS. Practicing star hopping when using standard charts without EQ mount, is kind of complicated too if your next star is not in the same field of view. Or you don't know which direction is which because your chart is completely out of whack.
Over twenty years in the hobby here and I can't say I've found this to be true for me. I can star hop just fine with a Dob and a star chart. Actually, most of the time I don't even need to star hop through the eyepiece. I just do it naked eye with a Telrad.
soylentnews.org
In terms of bang for the buck Dobs can't be beat. You'll get more aperture per amount spent. Add a Telrad and you're good to go. Do not start out with an electronic mount; use real charts. Ads for cheap scopes will tout magnification; that's not as important as aperture and light-gathering power. You'll want at least 4", preferably 6". All that said, expect to pay good money for good quality. If it sounds too cheap then it probably is.
I disagree with parent. An equatorial mount is the way to go, short of a computer controlled motorized mount of any kind.
The problem is not that of initially pointing the 'scope at the celestial object. Anyone can do that with either type of mount. The problem is tracking the object after it is found. An equatorial mount that locks the scope to the object's track is the only way to go within an affordable price range.
I was 12 or 13 yo when my Dad decided that I showed enough interest in astronomy to be worthy of owning a telescope. My birthday present that year was a used 4 inch reflector on an equatorial mount with a couple of eye pieces. I loved that thing.
I can attest that a 13 yo can learn to use an equatorial mount with ease, including aligning it properly with a magnetic compass, which also involved learning to adjust for the difference between magnetic and true North. All of which was fascinating. I learned all this without adult supervision (Dad was not into astronomy), and I am certain that a motivated younger child could easily learn all this with good adult direction.
The frustrations I encountered with this first telescope experience were in aligning the mirror and aligning the spotting scope with the main tube. In retrospect it would have been much better if an adult had done those things for me. Other sources of frustration were that the spotting scope's crosshairs were not very visible in the dark, and that scope's tube was not rigid enough for the higher power eyepiece to be of much use (too much vibration and jitters). These details should probably be considered when making the purchase.
Don't discount craigslist, etc, as a good source for a used telescope. Some who start with an entry level 'scope lose interest and sell their's, others upgrade to better equipment when they can. A second hand 'scope from someone who is spending beaucoup bucks on a better replacement is likely to be in excellent working order, and could be a really good deal. Plus, often the seller would willingly give a potential buyer a free night time demo, with rings of Saturn or moons of Jupiter...
Oh yeah, there is prob'ly an amateur astronomy club around you somewhere. They put on star gazing parties where a person could look at a number of different set-ups and get a lot of info from their owners.
Will
The problem mentioned in parent post was not due to the type of mount. But due to a mismatch between the quality of the optics and the amount of money spent on the mount.
A 10 inch reflector needs to be mounted on a stand weighing several hundred pounds or there is not enough mass/inertia to make use of the 'scope's capability. There will be too much vibration just from persons walking near by.
You can't put fine optics on a cheap mount of any kind and get acceptable performance. And any mount that would be knocked off calibration by a slight bump is not good enough for a 10 in mirror.
Will
All I would add to this is that from my experience as a kid with a 4 in reflector in 3 or 4 foot cardboard tube (good EQ mount) is that high power eye pieces may not be very useful, due to vibration in the tube. So I would suggest getting a low power and a medium power eyepiece to start, and being very careful about buying high power eyepieces.
Unfortunately my experience was too long ago for me to remember what magnification my eye pieces were. But others might chime in...
Will
Is there a way to obtain this outside the US?
The trouble with Alt-az mounts for imaging is the field rotation, which changes with the scope position, take 10 minute exposures, and you're screwed.
John once fixed one of our balky home-built donated units with a disassembled 8" floppy. The disk itself and one side of the felt-lined carrier were perfect AZ bearing materials.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
some of these guys have a remote setup like what you describe and would be better able to help you.
https://plus.google.com/u/0/10...
My setup is like I described. I have a converted 10" Dob on an Equatorial mount that I use for astrophotography.
It's not high end, but it does wonders on a budget.
The poster should visit a local astronomy club and try an Alt-Az mount and an equatorial mount and see what he likes. Everyone is right and everyone is wrong in this thread. Equatorial mounts are more expensive, but easier for a beginner to use under high magnification and somewhat educational (see the discussion on polar aligning). So (my $0.02) if you REALLY want to see PLANETS under high mag, then equatorial mount is the way to go, especially if you're going to be having several kids looking at the scope in turn. (Under high mag a planet can rotate out of the field of view in the time it takes one kid to leave and another to step up to the eyepiece.)
HOWEVER, the money you save with an Alt-Az mount could be spent on other things like a larger mirror more eyepieces or "digital setting circles". But the main diff is in what your target observation is. Most amateurs prefer "deep sky objects", Hercules cluster, Andromeda galaxy, Orion Nebula, low power (~50x) high light gathering (at least 6" mirror) is key here. The key to "tracking" is to think about how the earth rotates. Sun sets in the west so if you know where west is when you're looking in the eyepiece, you know which way to move the scope when the object moves out of the field of view. Not that complicated, but a bit like rubbing your tummy and patting your head at the same time. But to use a AltAz mount to its fullest potential, you should know how to read star charts and navigate to the various deep sky objects (or get digital setting circles).
Ah, that hadn't occurred to me. I guess you could add a rotation axis to the thing. I figured the bigger issue would be jitter/quantization/etc. With an equatorial mount you just have a single continuous motor that just turns at the right rate and is continuous - so it would be very smooth. With a computerized alt-az even with rotation you'd end up with the computer firing off steps on all three motors at various intervals, but ultimately the movement of the thing would be a series of individual steps. With enough gear reduction I imagine that could be very fine and seem continuous, but if you cheap out the thing isn't going to be smooth, which would kill an exposure.
The steppers are now all "microstepped", which basically means you don't see quantisation from the drives, but you can't "beat" field rotation, and you'd be surprised how few de-rotators are out there - the imaging guys pretty well all use equatorials, with their attendant problems.
ALL mounts have their issues - an equatorial can't view the area around the celestial pole, and is rarely as stiff as an alt-az for the money. An Alt-az has the field rotation issue, and can't view its zenith.
Mount wars get like computer language wars....
Get a couple of subscriptions to astronomy magazines like Sky and Telescope and Astronomy. Reading a few issues will give you a better idea of what you want and what is available.
but it's not going to give them a working understanding of celestial mechanics.
Funny that actually the last thing most 11 year olds actually want. If you're an adult getting into the hobby fine, but the whole reason for the dobsonian's creation was to get a world of no fuss kids with short attention spans introduced to astronomy and not bore them to death trying all night to set up their mounts.
Setting up an EQ mount requires dedication to the cause which most people with emerging hobbies just don't have.
It's kind of sad that you underestimate kids like that.
John
A set of 10x50 binoculars can resolve some pretty good details. They're inexpensive and rugged too. That might be a better option.
Twice in my life I've gotten involved in astronomy and each time gave up after a while. When I was young I bought a cheap department store telescope, and when I was older, bought a 4" refractor with equatorial mount. My fancy scope wasn't that conducive to just going out and looking at the sky. It was a pain to set up an align Generally I waited to use it when I was willing to drive an hour out of town to the astronomy club's site, and even then I was always hassling with the setup. If I tried astronomy again I'd be tempted to get a small dobsonian or small refractor with a good alt-az mount, or even some good binoculars. I'd want something that I could keep near the door and would be easy to drag outside and use.
I was always disappointed with what I saw in a telescope. It's exciting to see Jupiter and the Moon, but it was always terrible frustrating and a disappointment to me to find the faint fuzzies. In the end I just loved being out in dark sky sites learning the constellations and just learning to find things in the sky. There's nothing with more sense of wonder than seeing the Milky Way at a good dark site without any equipment. I would recommend any parent with a kid interested in astronomy first start by joining a local club and going to their dark sky site. You'll be able to look through many kinds of scopes and get lots of advice. Don't buy a scope until you've gone sky gazing a few times without one.
I think getting a telescope for a young person involves a number of compromises. You want to get something good enough and easy to use for the kid with a casual interest, but also good enough for the kid that truly has the astronomy bug to grow with. I tend to think a well made small dobsonian is the best starter scope. But a quality 80-90mm refractor that's small with a solid alt-az mount might be equally good.
End in the end, the scope that's easy to grab and use often is the better one to buy first.
It took me about 15 minutes to polar align my first ever telescope, on it's first night after delivery. It's not rocket science, and it's not as difficult as you seem to think.
I will admit that the manual was pretty decent on this point, and I'm the sort of person who Rs T F-ing M before unpacking anything else. which isn't a normal 11-year-old's natural trait. But so what? On the first night, you set up the scope and get them hooked. First night is for seeing sights. If that works, then there will be other nights for them to learn the hobby. If the first night doesn't show enough goodies, then there won't be a second night.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Used to be a boy scout project I remember from years ago. They found a place that had good optics. They knew because they worked for NASA at Goddard. Sent a few back. So they had the optics and we had to build a case to put them in. Plywood mostly. When it was done, man it's incredible. No, really. I've owned some Sears type telescopes. They're crap in comparison. When you are able to see through one of these babies - it's truly incredible. I'm talking one with about a 1 meter or so focal length. Galaxies oriented every which way and the colors and so many of them. Never felt so insignificant in my life. Then we found Saturn. Incredible. It really is worth I think we paid about $200 for the optics about 15 years or so ago. I'm sure that telescope is still around someplace. Wish I had it.
That's exactly what the entire dobsonian craze is about. Spend money on optics which are nice and large and capable of capturing the sights to get people hooked.
On a budget (which what the entire Ask Slashdot was about) I would never recommend an equatorial mount. Without a budget I would say go your hardest and suggest spending upwards for $1000 on one.
This isn't underestimation, it's observation. I spend quite a bit of time at the local astronomy club, frequently we work with kids to try and get them interested. I also know both heads of science at the two schools in the area with observatories and astronomy as part of the curriculum, and they say the same thing.
Yes it is sad, but the sad part is what I'm seeing, not what I am estimating.
If you want to kill a potential astronomy hobby, start by sitting your kid down for a nice healthy dose of orbital mechanics.
If you want it to thrive show them the stars and let them figure out the mechanics how it works when they are ready and willing.
EQ mounts not only significantly complicate the night, but also limit what type of telescope you can look through, and even if we're not talking about kids if you go to any astronomy night that segregates imagers (me) from visual observers you will find the imaging field covered in EQ mounts, and the visual field littered with Alt-Az forks and dobsonians because when you look through a scope, the aperture is key, when you take a photo through a scope the steadiness for a longer exposure is key.
you could argue that is only some 50% of the target audience, but it's still 50% who you're going to need to ship dozens or hundreds of km to decent skies.
Alternatively, allocate 20 or 30% of the budget to dark sky advocacy work. You could even use a "reduce waste" slogan like "why pay to light up the bottom of the clouds?" Which raises another point, always a bugbear of astronomy, the weather.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
I was strict about the getting the absolute best. What you were being is absurd. A big aperture can make some incredible sights visible from even a light polluted area. Don't believe me why not look up John Dobson's history of setting up his telescope design in the middle of a city and showing people the sights they can't see through the blanket of light. Then you can do something as simple as use a UHC filter to cut out what makes up a very large portion of light pollution and still look at some amazing sights.
A dark sky is something that is outside of direct control and also highly dependent on mobility and personal activity. What I mean by that is that a good 6 times a year I end up in a dark sky with absolutely ZERO relation to astronomy and with ZERO effect on my astronomy budget. It's called travel / holiday / camping.
When my trip to the dark skys allows (i.e. I'm going camping in the bush not on a sandy island) I take a *drumroll* dobsonian because my EQ mount is large, heavy, has more parts, is easier to setup, supports a much larger telescope, and doesn't fit into a suitcase.
You can have a sky utterly devoid of light pollution and iit still be utterly useless for astronomy by dint of driving rain or scudding cloud, even withut the precipitation. With around 2/3 of nights unusable, that is the main reason that I shipped my telescope off to my sister's country guest house. On those rare occasions that it does get used, it`s much better there than in my home town. But that`s still only a few nights a year that it gets used.
Going back to the original question - what is the most effective use for getting kids interested in astronomy (or whatever the Q was - I can't remember now) - then choosing your time and place is going to be important. Making a big build up and then being washed out by the rain (or snow, or in high summer, fog) is going to be more effective dampener than taking an opportunity of good conditions and using it there and then.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Well since we're arguing semantics the original question is what telescope to buy a kid.
I'm not sure why you dragged the night sky into it at all.