computerised mounts, friend or foe?

[mikeDnight]

Today there are a staggering number of mounts available both equatorial and altazimuth that rely on a computer to do the work of finding and tracking an object. Now I can understand how an advanced computer operated mount would be a blessing to a serious imager, and possibly to a devoted visual deep sky enthusiast. However computerised mounts are offered with even very small telescopes, promising the unwary thousands of objects to view, which the telescope itself is simply not capable of showing, at least to advantage. I wonder how many enthusiastic beginners have been put off the hobby of astronomy because of these?

Even seasoned visual observers who would rather find objects themselves are being pushed towards computerised mounts these days. Setting circles seem to becoming a thing of the past. Mounts with manual over ride seem to becoming obsolete.

Is learning our way around the night sky being slowly erroded and the sense of accomplishment being denied those new to the hobby by the over reliance on technology?

Mike

[Kropster]

I think that telescope adverts/packaging have promised unattainable sights since long before computerised mounts, which must have led to a great deal of disappointment.

Speaking personally, a computerised mount probably kept my interest alive.....having first used a non-computerised mount and been able to find almost nothing to view.

I switched to computerised and it became a lot less frustrating.

What is more I am finding that I am slowly learning where things are almost unconsciously.... so I would say there are benefits that many beginners would find valuable.

[Akiainavas]

+1 for GoTo.

There is nothing that keeps a computerized mount user from learning the sky. You don't even have to use the GoTo function, but it's great to have it.

To be honest, I think manual mounts offered with beginners telescopes are responsible for more people dropping the hobby than we can imagine - after days of frustration and not being able to see anything, they just give up.

[paulastro]

Being a mainly planetary, Solar and Lunar astronomer I can usually find the objects of my desire without any computer assistance!    However, I can understand why imagers use them, and visual deep sky observers who observe objects on the threshold of vision.  I think experienced observers usually migrate towards the type of mount that suits them best.

Also of course, a goto mount can make peoples observing sessions more productive in our rather challenging climate when observing time is at a premium.

The only gripe I have is when small starter scopes are equipped with a goto mount which needs a good knowledge of the night sky to set up.  In addition, most of these scopes cannot be pushed around to follow objects if the power supply fails (or if the alignment process fails because of lack of knowledge of the night sky).  Such a telescope can quickly quench the enthusiasm of any newcomer.

The Celestron Skyprodigy models are the exception to this of course, and the recently introduced Skywatcher Sky Discovery 150P can be pushed round smoothly when not powered up. (I know this because I tried it out at Astrofest)

I don't currently own or have the need for any scope with a goto facility.  If I needed such a facility in the future then I would obtain one. .  My view is that people are free to choose if they want to use goto, after all they are available and there is no compunction to use them.

[L8-Nite]

................................... Is learning our way around the night sky being slowly erroded and the sense of accomplishment being denied those new to the hobby by the over reliance on technology?

Mike

Unfortunately, instant gratification seems to be the way of the world today, its what drives sales, not education.

[ronin]

No goto will ever stop you learning your way around the sky.

Why should it?

If you ask a goto to go to Beteguese and a bright blue/white star appears I do not think there is one goto owner who just assumes that the scope is correct.

I suspect there is not one goto owner who trusts the scope enough to not know in advance exactly where the goto should point. They will have learnt before hand where the object is.

Technology is expected these days and if it is not present usually they do not want it.

Have a look around at the number of youngsters with a smart phone.

The last thing I want is to try and keep some speck of a galaxy in the eyepiece by pushing, kicking or twiddling the mount. Someone invented motors and gearboxes a long time ago. I have no problem making use of them. Is a motor and gearbox technology now.

The posts of bad technology are a bit odd, people use a PC to post how terriable it is. So not exactly so terriable, without technology you could not ask the question here. Recall days before the internet.

Presently I suspect a big disadvantage of just about any scope is they do not have a common app so they can be run from a smart phone. The mount technology is old and somewhat out of date with present day expectations. That is a serious problem for getting youngsters involved.

Scope handsets (most) have what is a pathetic 2 line led display. How antiquated is that?

At present the younger ones expect to be able to open up a star map, swipe to a section of the sky, expand the graphics, select an object and the scope slew to it. And all from a standard app on any smartphone.

I would argue that they are not advanced enough and astronomy loses a good number of possible participants.

[Astro_Baby]

Well personally I find GoTo a blessing.  The weather for the past few years has been pretty atrocious and trying to learn the night sky when you get maybe 5 nights a year to observe in is a bit like trying to learn the London A-Z by having the occasional browse of it in a bookshop.

I found my knowledge of the night sky was actually improved by GoTo - if I had been relying on learning it from scratch these days I think I would have given up a long time ago. Lucky for me I learnt the sky back in the 1970s, most of its been forgotten in the intervening years but some of it is still there and GoTo helps me relearn it faster than standing around with a Planisphere - come to think of it why would anyone bother with new technology like a planisphere or a nautical almanac....surely they could have more fun just starting from scratch and cataloguing all the stars from the top - it took Flamsteed a fair few years so at least they would have something to occupy themselves with

Setting circles ?  Never had a scope even back in the 70s that had setting circles that were truly reliable or useful.  Few mounts have the space for solid setting circles and unless you were pretty flush in the 1970s you weren't likely to ever own a scope / mount with good ones.  I seem to recall reading somewhere that setting circles smaller than 6" diameter are pretty useless.  Certainly the circles on the HEQ5 and EQ6 are pretty hopeless but then they are GoTo equipped more often than not.

I dont feel GoTo is a case of instant gratification....more a sensible use of technology to take some of the drudge out of the loop.  After all you no one would want to be without decent glass or other high tech innovations. At least I have never yet read a post that suggested using modern glass is a sissy way of doing it and you can have more fun by using 1970s style Ramsden eyepieces with plastic lenses

I just think its a solid technology that takes the grind out of observing and certainly tracking motors keep the aggro and wobbles out of high powered planetary observing.

At the end of the day though its horses for courses and each of us does what we think best suits us....for me thats GoTo....your mileage may vary

[mikeDnight]

There are some good arguments for computerised mounts there chaps. Perhaps I'm just a dinosaur. And perhaps the post itself tells a tail. It should have read "friend or foe?" But this tablet is thick and corrects spelling where its not needed and doesn't correct it where it is. Or, could it possibly be me? Answers on a post card please!

The reason for the post was that a few years ago a friend of a friend invited me to his observatory. He had a Astro Physics voice activated mount that had a faulty encoder. Fortunately the mount had setting circles and on using them he found it was faster to use the circles than to use the computer. So, after returning home I tried it for myself using my G11. Over a few nights I became proficient at using the setting circles and could find pretty much anything in the range of my scope in only a few seconds. It really is simple. Perhaps that's why I liked it !

Mike

[Carina Lass]

I reckon they sould ban ABS braking and Cruise control on cars - and let's face it radial tyres and windcreen wipers are only effective if you corner excessively  and drive in inclement weather.

Tycho Brahe would love to live in this era. He wouldn't have to get his wife to write everything down for him.

Sorry, I find the whole thread kinda silly (no offence to the OP) as the only reason to buy a dob in the first place is to get as much light in as possible for the outlay, not to enjoy searching all night for the targets on your list. (though some find this entertaining, just as some will buy a car with 2 valves per cylinder a carby and maybe even wind up windows)

[patohalmo]

Funny... I was back in Slovakia over the Christmas, with all my gear plus a Takahashi on loan. Went out one night with my fiance and her son just for the observation. And as it happened, I left one 5kg CW at home, so couldn't balance the scope on the HEQ5. It came down to all manual. I was lucky that I did some studying before I started with this hobby and as well as when I started it. I was able to show them some of the nice, known objects without too much hassles.

But as pointed above, the technology is here and can help generate an interest withing the younger generation. Specially as they can't now imagine the world without it.   

[mikeDnight]

I have to admit that I am one of those strange people who thoroughly enjoy the search, because in searching, many unexpected surprises add to the adventure. On many an occasion I will mount my scope on its heavy duty altaz and sweep aimlessly just to see whats hiding in plain view, sights that I would otherwise not see if I were to rely solely on a preordained coordinate.

More often than I care to remember I've stood in line to look through a GOTO telescope while its proud owner fumbles around trying to get it to look at anything other than his shoe laces. Meanwhile in the que adjacent, a hill billy using a manually driven scope, is having a great time flitting from one object to another and wowing the crowd stood around his humble set-up. Its the same at Saintsbury's or Asda, I always seem to end up in the wrong que.

Mike

[Astro_Baby]

Oh I don't doubt some, with better memories than me, can find objects sans GoTo probably quicker than I can with GoTo.  I was at a star party some time ago and suffered a GoTo fault.  Some chap came along who was like a walking almanac 'oook look at the wotsit nebula, it will be at about 23.2 RA and 72.2 DEC in the Constellation of Ooojiflip, its about 4 arcseconds below the blue giant star Hoolabuloo 21' it was mighty impressive how much this person could hold in his head, and to be frank, my flabber was ghasted and mighty impressed I was.

Unfortunately my head just cant remember stuff with that level of detail (although oddly I can recall most of Wilfred Owens poems, Hamlets Soliloquy, Henry Vs speech before Agincourt,  the general situation of forces and historical perspective on most major battles since Marathon and the lyrics of almost every pop tune since 1960 - that last being a curse because knowing you can remember stuff like 'Knock Three Times' seems an abuse of intellect).

I digress.  I too sometimes scan the sky even with GoTo, but it does make it easier to just press a button and look through the EP at the sky slowly moving past like a movie slow pan rather than having all the bumps and wobbles as you turn some knobs on the mount. GoTo doesn't always get it right so you need some backup knowledge rather as you might do if your car suffers some sort of failure and you are forced to drive it in impaired condition. 

Now some people will prefer to do it the old way rather like some people will prefer morris dancing, folk music, real ale, trams and other things that died out 100 years ago.  I do myself and have a love of a steam trains, a passion for tea in a pot with real tea leaves not some baggy thing filled with sweepings off the floor and, some may think peculiar, I despise the internet (this forum and a few others excepted) and have taken great pains to use it as little as possible. I was an early adopter but have come to see it as toxic and prefer now to use it as little as possible.

We are all different, despite how our modern society tries to make us look like a western version of Kim Jong Uns wonderland, and thank the Lord for that. YOu go right ahead Mr Knight with ye olde wonderful and novel contraption for finding stuff - you will hear no demands from me that all should use GoTo.  Its not an orthodoxy and I would not wish it to be.

Clear skies

[Thalestris24]

Unfortunately my head just cant remember stuff with that level of detail (although oddly I can recall most of Wilfred Owens poems, Hamlets Soliloquy, Henry Vs speech before Agincourt,  the general situation of forces and historical perspective on most major battles since Marathon and the lyrics of almost every pop tune since 1960 - that last being a curse because knowing you can remember stuff like 'Knock Three Times' seems an abuse of intellect).

Bit like me - brain's full up!!

Louise

[Carina Lass]

"Cry 'God' for Harry England and St George...."

Prefer Richard III opening speech!!  Crreeepy..

I borrowed a DOB from my club - brand new - first to use it. Collimated it so it was a beautiful view.

flipped from one Glob to the next neb (I know my way round the sky a bit even though I use only a GOTO normally)

The views once achieved were excellent and with it being a 12 inch the contrast and brightness and field were excellent.

Fact is though at 6 foot tall I found that I soon had a bad back from low objects and the smoothness was lacking and it jerked past stuff or wouldn't cross both alt and az at the same time making it jerky and awkward.

I think using a neat little hand controller and zooming round the sky then looking into the lens without bending whilst whatever it was stays neatly in view is so much more enjoyable.

[DaveS]

Imaging time's too precious to be faffing around hunting down my target for the night, especially when a long exposure (Even with 4x4 binning) is needed to see if it's on the chip.

Even when I was visual, not having to push the wretched 'scope around was a big plus.

[Gazabone]

I have a couple goto scopes, a Celestron 6SE and a C8 on an AVX mount.  However, having more recently aquired a SW EQ 3-2 mount, and read (and now understand) setting circles, I really love using setting circles (I did smile to myself when I read one of the above posts  that setting cicles seem a thing of the past.  I now reckon that I am at least as accurate as a goto mount using setting circles.  There is something satisfying in finding a very faint object with no computer assistance at all (like finding the owl nebula for the first time a couple of weeks ago).

I'm now feeling strongly inclined to buy a EQ 6 syntrek (i.e. not a goto) as it has quite big setting circles on it.  I really wish now that the AVX had circles printed on them (I wonder if I could make some????)

However, I can only find FLO selling the syntrek version of the EQ6 - does anyone know if they are made any more and FLO just have remaining stock or are other retailers not bothering to stock them now because as earlier posters have suggested, finding stuff manually is now "old hat"?

[pete_l]

To be honest, I think manual mounts offered with beginners telescopes are responsible for more people dropping the hobby than we can imagine - after days of frustration and not being able to see anything, they just give up.

I have recently been helping a couple of enthusiastic newbies (meant in the nicest possible way) get started with a Meade Polaris 130mm that they have been given:

I think it's difficult for people who are experienced astronomers: those who have done a collimation at least once, know how to polar align (a joy that still awaits my friends) and can then push-to the scope to an object that is not visible to the naked eye, to appreciate just how much there is to learn to make the first night a success. I would suggest that anyone who's got a scope - manual or computerised - to work  satisfactorily by themselves with no help from others or the internet deserves a medal.

And if the results of a first night out only results in 3 or 4 hours of wasted effort and frustration with no sign of progress, or that things will be any easier on the second, or tenth attempt then can you blame people for abandoning the hobby?

So if it's possible to get a scope that you just unpack, point roughly to the north and then switch it on and everything "just happens" then providing enough people can afford it, I reckon that will be a major boost to the hobby and many more people will become active observers and there will be more free space in the cupboard under the stairs.

[Zakalwe]

Is learning our way around the night sky being slowly erroded and the sense of accomplishment being denied those new to the hobby by the over reliance on technology?

Forgive me for saying so, but that's begging the question.

Similar arguments have been made countless times in just about every hobby area.  One of my other interests is motorbikes. Some people feel that technologies like fuel injection, ABS brakes, electronic engine management have taken the "soul" out of biking. Well, if by "soul" you mean carburettors icing up on colder mornings, snatchy throttle response, never knowing if the damn thing would start when warm, then I am all for having no "soul"!

You clearly put a lot of stock in learning your way around the night sky and feel that technology is eroding that. For others, they couldn't really give two-hoots about sky hopping. That sort of stuff is just not important to them. Again, using the biking analogue, some guys loved "fettling" their machines and have an innate distrust of anyone that can't rebuild a gearbox on the side of the road using nothing more than a penknife and a bottle-top picked out of the ditch. Whilst others would despair of not having a machine that worked first time, every time and allowed them to get on with more interesting things like trackdays or touring the back roads of the country.

So, in summary, technology is absolutely eroding YOUR sense of accomplishment. But you should realise that other people have different priorities and can get a similar sense of accomplishment in a different way. Is your way better than theirs? Well, it would take either a very brave, or very egotistical person to try and say that their way is the only, true, just and proper way of enjoying a hobby, in my opinion. Lets celebrate the differences, be thankful that this hobby is more inclusive and accessible  than ever and that people can get into the hobby at all sorts of levels.

[Scott]

Unfortunately, instant gratification seems to be the way of the world today, its what drives sales, not education.

I don't understand this post. Are you saying that those using go-to are not being educated? If so, I think its malarky. I've learnt more about the night sky since owning a go-to than I ever did with manual mounts. Quicker/easier is not always about instant gratiication is it? after all, we don't still walk everywhere, or sit around a campfire for light/heat. and the last time I went back to Oz, I didn't use a raft made of coconuts, I flew and I don't concider myself unfortunate for having done so. why should astronomy be the domain of cavemen when there is technology to help those who chose to use it

[paulastro]

I don't know about anyone else, but I felt the tone of the last two posts were un-necessarily personal and on the rude side.  Or am I just an old over-sensitive softy?  I thought we were all supposed to be open to other's views and supportive of each other.  Or do I expect too much?

[Scott]

I don't know about anyone else, but I felt the tone of the last two posts were un-necessarily personal and on the rude side.  Or am I just an old over-sensitive softy?  I thought we were all supposed to be open to other's views and supportive of each other.  Or do I expect too much?

I'm sorry you feel that way however when someone suggests that I (as a goto user) am after instant gratification rather than education, I feel I have a right to respond. or do I expect too much also. I made no peronal attack. I merely expressed my belief that I thought the post was wrong and to support my arguement, used some very obvious examples. at no point did I make a personal attack on the poster. furthermore, I do not and will not expect anybody to be supportive of my views if they disagree. I enjoy living in a democracy

[Astro_Baby]

I feel it might be my fault - I have already apologised to the OP in private if my comments were seens as rude - allow me to publicly apologise as well.  People who know my posts will know I am rarely, if ever, very serious and I was being a bit sidewise.

I am sorry if my post was seen as rude - it truly wasn't meant to be.

[Fogboundturtle]

There is always some purist who will try to attack technology as they were attacking their way of life. We should not fear technology. It is there to help us. I don't think I would have learn as much as I do about astronomy if it wasn't for the GOTO. What it does really well is help getting over that usual long learning curve of finding object. Most people get discourage before they even rip of the benefits. I think GOTO is really the best thing that ever happen to our hobby. It open up a brand new world to a group of individuals who wouldn't even bother with it before.

Even if you have a GOTO, you still have to learn the sky as it doesn't always work perfectly. It's a time saver and I enjoy my thoroughly.

[Zakalwe]

  Or am I just an old over-sensitive softy?

I don't know about anyone else, but I felt the tone of the last two posts were un-necessarily personal and on the rude side. 

It can be difficult at time, when just reading words, to get the real intention. Without all the other stuff that you get in real life (voice intonation, facial expression, body language and so on) it can be more difficult to get the true intonation of the message.  I have re-read my post, and I do not see it as rude. Please do show me where I was being rude.

 I thought we were all supposed to be open to other's views and supportive of each other.  Or do I expect too much?

Open to other views, yes always. Supportive, not always, no. Thats an unfair expectation as others can disagree with a point of view.

In fact, it can be easily argued that the original post was not open to others views. The poster opined that "the sense of accomplishment being denied those new to the hobby by the over reliance on technology". That's called begging the question because the OP assumed in the question that a sense of accomplishment depends on not using technology. In other words, the question included a claim that the conclusion was true.

I did agree, in part, with the original question, namely that technology could erode the OPs sense of accomplishment. To claim, however, that such technology would deny all newcomers a sense of accomplishment is, in my opinion incorrect. The OP cannot possibly know all newcomers to the hobby and cannot make such a claim.

My post was not intended to be personal or rude. And I don't think that it was, but your mileage may vary.

[cuivenion]

I'm a relative newcomer on this forum, but here's my view. I've never used Goto by the way. About 15 months ago I got my first scope a 130p on an eq2. After a couple of outings randomly pointing at objects that a remembered from when I was into the hobby as a kid, I decided to get organised, learn how to use my mount properly and make my way through the messier list to educate myself about the night sky.

At the time of writing I've found 25 messiers. I feel that's not a lot, even though due to work commitments and the dreaded British weather I get out about 1-2 times a month, and some of that time is spent on planetary observing/imaging. I find that Skyview on my Ipad makes it a lot easier to find objects than my planisphere or star maps.

I also tried using the setting circles but they were woefully inaccurate on the EQ2 mount and though I've yet to try them on my EQ5, but they're so small I imagine it'll be the same story. I view setting circles as an antiquated form of Goto anyway, although the simplicity of them does appeal to me.

When I started out I thought of Goto as 'cheating', now I'm more inclined to think of it as an equaliser for modern observing conditions. However if I was to use Goto I wouldn't feel that I had located the object, if that makes any sense.

As for the educational aspects it depends entirely on how best a person learns. Goto would suit some down to the ground, while others would be better off with star maps.