How much?

[Greymouser]

So I was looking at the progress of a recent order I had made, for a couple of items that I had ordered, looked at my orders from that supplier and added up how much I have spent on astro gear in the last 15 months or so. I will not post the total, but it was more that I had thought and without a doubt a moment. OK, so it is done, no worries, I suppose, but it set me to thinking, was it well spent? I would not spend it that way now, my choices would be different, but after more thinking, would I even buy it all at all? I started along that train of thought after trying to watch the transit of Mercury, with my own gear, failing due to the awful weather and my inability to travel to a better site, but watching it online, through someone else's gear. Well I saw it at least, but what with one of the sites pushing their own telescopes for use remotely, by anyone wishing to purchase time on them, it set me to thinking: is that the better route?

I counted up the number of opportunities I have had the last 15 months of observing, from this wet isle, it is not a huge number. I cannot help wondering if it is better considering the weather in the UK, if observing remotely, with a telescope on the Canary islands, ( or elsewhere, ) is much more effective? Not only cost per minute of observing, but the results gained...

So, does anyone have any experience of using someone else's gear remotely? Is it worth it? Or is it just faking it?

Edited November 12, 2019 by Greymouser

[DaveS]

Ooh 🍿 .

 

I'm trying not to think about how much I've spent on imaging kit, but it's a fair bit more than my car (Which wasn't cheap either)

[geordie85]

I guess it all depends on what you're looking to get out of this hobby. 

I've spent a ridiculous amount of money on my setup and wasted even more by buying the wrong gear since I didn't really know what I wanted and rushed into silly purchases without research. But I'd do it all over again. 

Its not just the image processing and ending with a pretty picture for me. If it was, I could just download data sets that are available online.

But I love setting up my imaging rig. Seeing the first image of my target pop up on screen. Sitting under the stars whilst my telescope catches photons that have been traveling through space for longer than I've been alive. Processing the data that I've captured. Knowing that the end result may not be the best, but its mine. 

 

[Rob Sellent]

I appreciate what you're saying @Greymouser.

We could argue that amateur astronomy is as expensive as you want it to be. There's no reason to spend a lot of money - if anything - on this hobby and what you do buy has the potential to last a lifetime. Naked eye astronomy is free. You can see a little more with binoculars that cost €50. Spend a little extra on an 8" dob and you can see even more. 

Furthemore, such a hobby promotes self education, patience, fortitude, humility, diligence, wonder and awe, the hunger for more knowledge and further discovery, encourages environmental awareness, concerns about pollution, urban sprawl, the erosion of our night sky and might even educate the general public with out-reach programs. It's also great fun and offers great peace of mind and calm.

As such, it's tricky to put a price on such a passtime and aestheitc.

On the other hand, if we look at it from a purely €/£/$/hour basis, there might be some cause for concern. If one is only able to observe once or twice a month with a kit that has cost thousands, for example, then each session is going to be pricey. That kit has the potential to last years without upgrade, so the hourly rater will drop but if one is beginning to question their economic outlay relative to use, then I agree, it might be a good idea to take stock of what is going on and act accordingly.

I'm not an imager and have no idea of actual prices and what is involved but I imagine there's no such thing as a free meal. Remote online astronomy would be a business venture, be quite pricey, and as @geordie85has noted, you are probably not taking the actual picture yourself. All that will happen is that some remote gear will image an object of your choice. You could ask a member of SGL to do much the same for a fee and either way, the image will never be 'yours'.

Other than that, if you're into visual astronomy, you could simply cut back on your gear, use a frac or dob, two or three eyepieces, Barlow, finder and star atlas and away you go. Even if you only had a dozen or so sessions a year, within time the gear will become relatively cheap.

I'm know I'm banging on a bit but another thing I've noticed is the idea of 'keeping up with the Joneses'. Someone will say how awesome gear X is, others will try out that gear and before long we've got many folk saying the same kind of thing. Most times they're right, gear X is awesome and now one may feel as if their own gear is second rate or deficient in some manner. But in absolute seriousness, other than seasoned astronomers most folk wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Inexpensive gear can and does give just as much enjoyment and pleasurable views as gear costing five times as much.

Everything boils down to the individual and whether that person in question decides to get outside and make the best of his or her own potential. It's not so much with what we're using but rather that we're aiming high and reaching for the stars.

[Greymouser]

I think I have not been clear enough, again.

I don't regret any of it. It is not so much the amount spent, ( though that is shocking enough to be honest... ) but the fact that it has sort of crept on me, somehow I just never realised how large the amount had got. What is more, as is often said here on this forum, I still have so many other things to try, am far, far from a perfect set up. Will it ever end? No of course not, at least not until they nail me shut in a box!

I suppose I was guilt tripping myself over the cost, both past and future, especially as I keep considering taking a step into the dark side: imaging. I know people say, it doesn't need to be expensive, that you can just make do with what you can afford, but from what I can see from everyone's experience here, it is a very slippery slope. Therefore after seeing adverts for remote imaging, I just considered that option.

As for " owning " an image, does anyone really own that image, whether it is produced in their backyard, or remotely in the Canary islands? To me there is not that much difference, perhaps. The universe is everyone's, no one owns it eh? 

@Rob Sellent You are right of course, there is definitely an element of " keeping up with the Joneses " with this hobby, especially this forum. This forum is a great tool for the likes of FLO! One big advert, not that I begrudge them their business, they are brilliant, the best, just that I think we all could benefit from taking a step back, consider the law of diminishing returns more perhaps. The difference  between my most expensive eyepiece and the cheapest, is not in fact that far at all!

[Star101]

I have an account with iTelescope. The images I take using their equipment are my images by law. I have taken test shots to get a feel for the camera/scope. I chose the rig I wish to use. I buy time on that rig. Images taken at that time with that rig are placed in a folder for me to download when I wish, within reasonable time frame of a few months. The images are supplied raw or calibrated.

I think iTelescope and other such organisations are a great thing to have available to the public. 

I still have my own setup at home ( see my sig ) I just don't have the skies. iTelescope is not cheap. A typical image costs me around £70 using my preferred process. Compare that to buying your own gear and setting up, storing, repairing should anything go wrong. and having good weather! There is not much in it really.

If I add all the images I have in my library. That I have taken, processed and printed off or shown to family and friends ( not counting the fun/rubbish/attempts I post online  ) Just the really worthwhile stuff. When all said and done...Remote imaging/renting is good value in my eyes  

[maw lod qan]

Being I have a very tight budget, I've not a lot spent, yet. But i can see this hobby, if you really get the bug, being like owning a boat or private plane.

Back when I was doing a bit of flying, the general thought was you needed to fly 2 hours a week, minimum, to justify owning even a little Cessna.

But, there's the reward of turning your own telescope skyward and gathering that distant light.

[don4l]

I've got family in Spain with dark skies, but I have never been tempted to have a remote observatory.  I wouldn't rule it out on principle,  it just wouldn't appeal to me at the moment.

I think that we all get pleasure from different aspects of the hobby.  For me, at the moment, it is all about learning.

[Greymouser]

19 hours ago, Star101 said:

I have an account with iTelescope. The images I take using their equipment are my images by law.

You see this is what I mean, about not really getting this whole ownership thing about an image of a natural object. Does it really make any difference if you produced that image in your backyard, or via someone else's equipment, rented for the purpose? I just cannot see any difference at all. No one actually owns the object imaged itself.

[JamesF]

23 minutes ago, Greymouser said:

You see this is what I mean, about not really getting this whole ownership thing about an image of a natural object. Does it really make any difference if you produced that image in your backyard, or via someone else's equipment, rented for the purpose? I just cannot see any difference at all. No one actually owns the object imaged itself.

Some people just want to get to the destination.  Others enjoy the journey just as much, sometimes even more so.  I don't know why that is, but it seems to be true.  Perhaps it relates to a sense of achievement.  For me, doing something as much as possible myself, whether it's astrophotography or beer-making or turning animals and seeds into food or building or whatever gives me more pleasure than "outsourcing" bits of it to others.  Obviously I have to accept that sometimes doing stuff myself isn't practical for all sorts of reasons, but if I'm doing something purely for the enjoyment of it then I like to be as involved in the process as possible.  In that sense I guess there's a kind of "ownership", but perhaps not solely of the "property" kind.

James

[Greymouser]

6 minutes ago, JamesF said:

Some people just want to get to the destination.  Others enjoy the journey just as much, sometimes even more so.  I don't know why that is, but it seems to be true.  Perhaps it relates to a sense of achievement.  For me, doing something as much as possible myself, whether it's astrophotography or beer-making or turning animals and seeds into food or building or whatever gives me more pleasure than "outsourcing" bits of it to others.  Obviously I have to accept that sometimes doing stuff myself isn't practical for all sorts of reasons, but if I'm doing something purely for the enjoyment of it then I like to be as involved in the process as possible.  In that sense I guess there's a kind of "ownership", but perhaps not solely of the "property" kind.

James

OK, I can get that, but it does seem to me that there is a certain amount of ' snobishness ' about the whole thing. From what I read, most of the time spent is about post data collection too. Of course I do understand to a good extent, or I would not have ever bought any equipment, even for observing, just surfed my way to observing astronomy.

Edit: Indeed the food analogy you offer is a good one, the best meal I ever ate was one where I had grown al the vegetables and caught the fish, very satisfying.

Edited November 14, 2019 by Greymouser

[Captain Scarlet]

Also think about what you mean by the word "spent". If you've purchased new, then sure you've "truly lost" about 25-30% of what you paid, and you won't get that back. That's what I would consider you've truly "spent". If you've purchased second hand, you'd get most of the value back if you wanted to sell, so arguably your "spend" is quite small, could even be zero or negative. It all has value, whether it's in machined glass/aluminium form, or foldable paper, or an electronic record in a server farm in Slough...

Cheers, Magnus

Edited November 14, 2019 by Captain Magenta

[Peter Drew]

The best way to reduce the time/cost of equipment is to share it. I have more telescopes than I can use but being part of an outreach facility, thousands of people have benefited.  That's what I call good value.     🙂  

[Rusted]

2 hours ago, Peter Drew said:

The best way to reduce the time/cost of equipment is to share it.
I have more telescopes than I can use but being part of an outreach facility, thousands of people have benefited. 
That's what I call good value.     🙂  

Outstanding value, I'd say!

Because they get lessons in life, morality, sharing and astronomy all bundled in with the "educational toys."