Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

computerised mounts, friend or foe?


mikeDnight

Recommended Posts

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.

Thats a very good point.

The other way of looking at it is that the user might have no interest in learning how to find an object. They only wish to learn about the object itself. Does anyone really think that a professional astronomer really cares how her scope ends up on target?

An analogy- you don't get a degree just by driving to and from a University, you get it by studying whilst at the university. How you got to the university is of no consequence and of no real interest if you got there by walking, rail, car or pogo stick. Similarly for some people (me included) how I get to the target is of no consequence. What I do want it to be able to get there as quickly as possible and spend as much time there as possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Thats a very good point.

The other way of looking at it is that the user might have no interest in learning how to find an object. They only wish to learn about the object itself. Does anyone really think that a professional astronomer really cares how her scope ends up on target?

An analogy- you don't get a degree just by driving to and from a University, you get it by studying whilst at the university. How you got to the university is of no consequence and of no real interest if you got there by walking, rail, car or pogo stick. Similarly for some people (me included) how I get to the target is of no consequence. What I do want it to be able to get there as quickly as possible and spend as much time there as possible. 

That is a good point, well made.

For some, the hobby is as much about the journey as the destination. For others, it is all about the destination and how one gets there is of little consequence.

In the end, one person's preferences are as valid as the next.

One phrase sums it up...

'Live and let  live' or maybe 'Mind your own business' if you are feeling a little crabby! :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the amount of muttered oaths and confusion I hear from friends with goto setups as they try to do their initial align I'm not convinced about the merits of goto. If your scope is permanently fixed in one position that's one thing but for any scope that's small enough to be portable I remain unconvinced. On the other hand I find that finding targets with a non goto equatorial is pretty easy. I know that one turn on the dec control is 2.5° and on turn on the RA control is 10'. Rough alignment to polaris, center a nearby known object and count from there. So to find Lovejoy at the moment it's center on Ruchbah, two turns south, half a turn east, motors back on and there you are.

If my system was permanently fixed and aligned so that I could just dial in RA and dec that would be a different matter altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Astro_Baby.  My comment was not connected to your post, so absolutely no apology necessary.  I was just trying to make the point that we should all be nice to each other.  After all, anyone who contributes to this forum is ok in my book - as lovers of the night sky we have so much more in common than we have differences and should support and help each other.

Regards, Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats a very good point.

The other way of looking at it is that the user might have no interest in learning how to find an object. They only wish to learn about the object itself. Does anyone really think that a professional astronomer really cares how her scope ends up on target?

An analogy- you don't get a degree just by driving to and from a University, you get it by studying whilst at the university. How you got to the university is of no consequence and of no real interest if you got there by walking, rail, car or pogo stick. Similarly for some people (me included) how I get to the target is of no consequence. What I do want it to be able to get there as quickly as possible and spend as much time there as possible. 

I think you may have  convinced me of the merits of Goto lol. Good point well made, some like the challenge of locating an object, some from getting the most information out of it, some a bit of both. Anyways it's all good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi jnb.

my glass is appended to a vertical mains water pipe.

Hence,open shed, slide back roof(one hand), flick three switches, turn on computer.

Remove lens covers.

open eqmod. Cartes du ciel, phd2 and apt. Check focus.

so far about three minutes.

align to scp.... 20 seconds max

click on major star on screen press slew .

synch on star.

start photo run on desired target.post-36524-0-42687900-1425429199_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was working with a dob, remove ota from base take outside and place on grass away from house.

return pick up base, bark shin, trip over door threshold in the dark.

carry out to waiting ota place one on other.

so far about 5 minutes.

go back and find ep box in dark.Dont bother with camera cant use it on a dob.

remove lens covers allow to cool for two hours.

Wish fervently for some rich aunt to cark it so I can buy an observatory with a go to scope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi jnb.

my glass is appended to a vertical mains water pipe.

Hence,open shed, slide back roof(one hand), flick three switches, turn on computer.

Remove lens covers.

open eqmod. Cartes du ciel, phd2 and apt. Check focus.

so far about three minutes.

align to scp.... 20 seconds max

click on major star on screen press slew .

synch on star.

start photo run on desired target.attachicon.gif20140401_1816401.jpg

'Well jel'!..as they say in Essex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this post seems to have touched a nerve!

I've been called silly and a cave man and I agree on both counts. However, as for the implication I'm fearful that computerised mounts are eroding my achievements, well first of all, for that to be true I would have had to have achieved something. Second, computerised mounts don't scare me, I rather like them, I simply believe a beginner would be better served by buying a good telescope on a solid mount rather than some of the shoddy trash that's being offered as so called "Entry Level" telescopes.

Its also been eluded to that trying to find ones way around the night sky by star hopping would be both boring and off putting to the newcomer, but that's not true. It would only serve to build confidence and a deeper appreciation for the skies hidden treasures. I suppose the difficulty here would be for the beginner to find someone these days who has the ability to mentor them, as it would seem from some of the replies to the original post, that its preferable now to have a machine do the thinking.

Now this post was never intended as an attack on computerised mounts nor those who choose to use them, but that's how it appears to have been received. It was more to do with the direction mount production is going in and the over reliance on computers and electronics. Fewer and fewer mounts now have manual options, which I feel is a backward step.

People today have a greater choice of instrumentation than ever before and things are advancing rapidly. It would be a great shame if amateur astronomers lost sight of what astronomy is all about, a love of the night sky.

The great astronomer Bruce Lee said "Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory!" Good advice I think!

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I simply believe a beginner would be better served by buying a good telescope on a solid mount rather than some of the shoddy trash that's being offered as so called "Entry Level" telescopes.

You won't find many people disagreeing with that! :icon_salut:

I'd still rather have a good scope on a good computerised mount though.

Its also been eluded to that trying to find ones way around the night sky by star hopping would be both boring and off putting to the newcomer, but that's not true. It would only serve to build confidence and a deeper appreciation for the skies hidden treasures.

That's a fairly broad brush that you are painting with. Star hopping bored the heck out of me. Rather than being a Bible, Turn Left at Orion almost put me off continuing with astronomy (the book is still lying somewhere gathering dust!). If I was limited to visual and star-hopping then I would have left this hobby years ago....the technical nature if it keeps me interested.

 It was more to do with the direction mount production is going in and the over reliance on computers and electronics. Fewer and fewer mounts now have manual options, which I feel is a backward step.

It's called the progress of technology...virtually everything from your toothbrush to jet airliners are getting smarter every year, which allows them to do things that were impossible only a few years ago. Personally I relish it and mourn the passing of star hopping as much as I mourn the passing of the gaslight man.

It would be a great shame if amateur astronomers lost sight of what astronomy is all about, a love of the night sky.

It won't happen, Mike (light pollution is a far bigger threat). We all love the night sky whether it's the person with a big Dob, the kid with her first scope or the bloke with £30K of cameras, mounts and GoTo in his computerised dome. It's why we are all here, after all. :smiley:

There's room for us all, and long may it last :icon_salut:

Clear Skies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone purchasing a GOTO perhaps needs to be extra-careful about mount quality and stability. From my reading of various reviews, some GOTO scope mounts sound like a joint manufacturing venture between Tasco and the Rowntrees Jelly people. :huh:

No good finding stuff, then see it dance all over the eyepiece view with the least puff of wind.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first GoTo was a Nexstar 8 GPS. A great scope and rock solid. Very easy to set up and use.

However, it was totally the wrong scope for me as I get bored in about 2 minutes looking through an eyepiece. I rapidly realised that I needed an EQ mount.

Some of the very basic GoTos look awful flimsy. Then again, so do some of the basic non-GoTos:

Skywatcher_Heritage_130P.jpg

What is good, though, is that there is so much choice available. 30 years ago you had the choice of a rubbish 3" Tasco, or spending a small fortune. Now there's a bucketload of choice and long may it last!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can have both. Lots of us do. Each has its charm.

I do think it dishonest to say that that x thousand objects will be available in a scope in which they simply won't be available and I think this is plain wrong and of doubtful legality.

When beginners here post 'which scope' questions they are often pointed to simple Dobs on bang for buck basis but the lack of GoTo will be pointed out and discussed. This seems fine to me. As long as the information being provided is good information (unlike '65000 objects in a three inch achromat...') then people can make wise choices based on their own preferences.

Use the technology as/when you feel like it. I have traction control on my car and generally leave it on, but sometimes it's a heck of a lot more fun to turn it off.  :evil:  (One of my pals says, if he sees me going for the off button, 'Don't even think about it. Hands back on the wheel.' I guess that makes him a GoTo man. :grin:  :grin:  :grin:

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect "enthusiastic beginners" have been put off by BOTH

"GoTo" mounts and e.g. "Wheelie bin full o' bricks" Dobsonians. :p

There may be virtues / pitfalls in either / both though...

I sometimes wish advice could be a less... "partisan" at times?

Or at least with a greater ability to empathise with users who

might have different virtues (OK, limitations!) to ourselves...  :)

There is no "friend or foe" thing for me. It's not that personal?

I have made mistakes along the line with purchases! But not

that many? A little light reading here and elsewhere helped.  ;)

But perhaps a degree of "natural selection" is no bad thing.

Some people are not that cut out for Astronomy. In later life

I have wondered exactly that re. Physics and Computing too!  :D

Here's a thought: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/04/why-we-should-design-things-to-be-difficult-mastery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the post patohalmo, a real rib-tickler it made me laugh out loud.  I can remember sometimes (on the odd occasion I have used a goto) choosing suitable alignment stars and being frustrated to find the computer then sends me the wrong way and lost in space -  only to realise after cussing and muttering to myself for what seems like an eternity that because I was in a hurry I had misidentified the alignment stars to begin with.   More gnashing of teeth.

Mind you, there is another side to this, I consider I have a good knowledge of the night sky, but that won't always keep you sane either.  At Kelling Heath one year, under a wonderful pristine sky, I decided to turn the scope  to have a look at M81/M82.  What a mega mistake this turned out to be.  Usually I'd expect this to take a maximum of a minute, or possibly two if I was very tired.  Oh boy, after 30 minutes and the two galaxies were still hiding from me.   To make matters worse, I was in the company of an astronomer who has been even longer at this game than I have.  I won't mention his name as he's a well know long-standing contributor to this forum!  It was little consolation to me that my friend couldn't find it either.  After the 30 minute mark we exchanged a few words and decided to carry on looking as our honours were at stake!  It still took a few more minutes, and by the time we were on target we had almost lost the will to live.  We agreed never to divulge our embarrassing fiaso to a living soul. :grin:

You might ask, on this occasion, would I have used a goto if I had one?  You bet I ****** would have!!

Well, that's me, a committed star-hopper and technophobe :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reminder Paul :embarassed:, not one of our finest half hours! You could almost see them naked eye the sky was so dark and clear, easy in 10x50s but to translate that view to the telescope for some reason became a challenge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't resist any longer!  It all  depends on what you are expecting from the hobby. While in my youth I froze my eye to the eyepiece and struggled to focus a film camera and develop the results all without (well before) computerised mounts I have not looked through and eyepiece nor taken an astronomical photograph in years.

Did I give up the hobby? No, I took up spectroscopy and here an accurate computerised mount has allowed me to do what few other have done which is conduct automatic an survey of B stars looking for new Be stars.  All done from the warmth of the house while the results roll in at 20 to 30 spectra per hour.

However, for pleasure, on a warm evening I find joy in sitting out as darkness falls and the stars appear, first as the bold outline of the constellations and then in uncountable number. Can I recognise more than a few major patterns - no. Do I care no.

 So no technology at all and the best I can afford both allow me to enjoy this hobby but in a way specific to me.

Regards Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Well at  67 I know I do not have 20 years left in me to learn all the sky!! My eyes are dimmer than they were at 20 so for me at least a GoTo would be a blessing. Having said that I suppose it depends if you are going to just be a backyard observer like me or go to dark sites. In my case I have the side of the house blocking some view of sky, also  a couple of street lights to contend with and on top of that the glow from the town lights.

So for me the views of sky would be really restricted to South East for the best views. So I think to myself perhaps just a manual scope would be ideal really and a star map. Like the saying goes ones man poison is another mans meat. I think we all have to respect what someone is trying to achieve in astronomy and the equipment the want to use. It is like cameras,you could buy the top model Nikon or Canon camera with lenses yet get no more pleasure out of it than someone with a lesser camera. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it has to be Go-To, i live in south london and the LP is so bad that there ofter isn't enough stars in the sky to be able to learn the constellations & for the odd night where the cloud hasn't rolled in i just don't want to waste what little presious time i have. The odd week of the year when i actually get to a dark site i'm then blinded by the lights and theres not enough time in the week to learn the sky. The Go-TO has though made me more aware of what's where simply by paying attention to where the scope is pointing.

It depends on what your into, pleanty of people enjoy the learning of setting up and getting right an imaging rig as appossed to learning the sky

I do think the expectaions of what a scope can do is let down by the number of objects advertised but there is nothing advertised these days that doesn't employe those tactics...."buy this car it can do 80mpg" and then the best you get is 30mpg cause your driving through the city.

I think the people who really want to do this hobby either visually or AP will come to places like this first and do a little research and ask the questions and decide from there what part of all this does it for them, they are the people who'll stick with it as oppossed to those who watched Stargazing Live and buy a scope from argos and wonder why Neptune isn't a bright Blue ball in there eyepiece.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Late to this party, apologies. To be honest, does it matter? Want to use goto? Good on you, go for it, enjoy it. Don't want to use goto? Same reply.

Enjoy the skies, that's the main thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like using goto. Observing time is always limited and It saves a lot of time faffing about trying to find your intended target. However, I do believe that it makes learning the sky more difficult. If to find a target you have to first find star A, then B, then C to finally find D then you are learning where everything is as you go. With goto it takes you there and your target could be anywhere... you don't even need to know where.

So, providing people use it as an aid and not as a replacement I think it is a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I learnt the night sky by using goto. I bought a cheap department store scope on a chocolate eq, within months I replaced it with a Meade etc 70 which I used for the next 10 years. Now that I have the experience, I enjoy my skytee, but I wouldn't have bought it without the knowledge gained from goto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.