Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

Is GoTo Wrong For Beginning Astronomers?


pbyrne

Recommended Posts

Hi all

This might sound like a Victor Meldrew rant, but it's not. I believe that GoTo telescopes are taking something away from beginning astronomers, all a person has to do is punch in a few buttons on a keypad and there's M31 or M45. When I first started 25 years ago GoTo was unheard of and I had to learn my way around the sky, star hopping became an invaluable skill to learn when chasing down fainter objects.

This skill, and possibly learning the night sky, can be lost with the ease of GoTo.

I'm not advocating the eradication of GoTo, I have used it to great advantage myself, but I feel that I went through a kind of apprenticeship, and that newcomers to astronomy might be missing out by going straight to GoTo.

It's all fine and well having M41 in the eyepiece, but what good is it if you can't identify Canis Major?

Not Victor Meldrew, but close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Well - I guess a keen photographer who wanted to take snaps of the night sky might not be interested in all the telescope technical stuff. A goto scope would get them straight on with the photography.

But if someone's keen on learning everything about the night sky (including navigating it) might take a different approach.

I was once in a model aircraft club where some folk were more interested in building aircraft but didn't want to fly their creations - they let the serious flyers do it for them :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that for keeping beginners interested it''s probably equally split as to which is best. Every-one's different, so while for some not having GOTO may keep them interested as they have to learn their way around themselves, others may find that not having GOTO makes them lose interest and give up the hobby. So for beginners I'd just recommend doing what they want and don't worry about what anyone else says.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real issue with "goto" is that the learning curve is steep & you can get really frustrated when it doesn't work & you don't know why. It's a great shortcut for those who know what they're doing anyway and have the nous to check the star field.

Beginner's goto scopes tend to be rather inaccurate & often miss the field. More expensive scopes are usually better (less backlash, more accurately machined gears etc) - my CPC1100 is pretty good, usually within the middle part of a high power eyepiece, but e.g. the Meade ETX 125 is unlikely to get a target in the field of a low power eyepiece however carefully you do the alignment. Guess which scope is more likely to be in the hands of a clueless newby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all fine and well having M41 in the eyepiece, but what good is it if you can't identify Canis Major?
Such need not, of course, be mutually exclusive? :(

Paradoxically(?), I feel I have learned significantly MORE about star-hopping (certainly found more/new objects!) precisely through the exercise of "fiddling with" (trying to resolve the issues cited above!) my GoTo. But common sense (budget?) issues aside, I feel it a shame to limit personal experience to one methodology. I sense too that manufacturer R&D might even be limited by the tacit assumption Astronomers "won't bother" to explore innovations. Noone (else) uses manual setting circles, so their implementation remains limited etc. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For years I explored the sky with nothing more than a pair of binoculars and this gave me many happy hours. My first telescope it was a disaster [114mm eq newtonian] and so was my second [250mm dob]. I could not get on with them at all and so they never got used and eventually sold on. It was only when I got my first GOTO scope (an ETX80) that I actually started seeing things through a telescope. In one sense, I had done my 'apprenticeship' with the binos and this gave me the motivation to keep on plugging away, and yes I can find my way around the sky (at least enough to be able to transmit what I see on CduC onto the sky), but I can't help thinking that if I had started with one of the non-GOTO scopes, I would have dropped the hobby very quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Learning your way round is very rewarding and a good skill. No doubt. Non GoTo has been fine for brighter objects. Without GoTo though I'd have seen a lot less due to sheer invisibility of common objects against the background sky glow and - eye of faith and GoTo tells me M51 is there in my 8" SCT from my light polluted back garden and that is a shame. I'd not have seen it otherwise. I am sure that the light pollution was nowhere near as bad 25 years ago as it is now and starhopping would have been adequate.

Life is also different today. I am simply unable to spend as much time with this hobby as i'd like. GoTo saves the day there too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, not if that's how they want to operate. Each individual needs to make a decision based on what they want to get out of it, what they want to achieve, and what they want to get out of it. Having used both star hopping and goto, and in fact, now using both... they each have their place within our domain.

"The best telescope is the one you use the most" is often quoted and fits the bill perfectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started off with a Dob some 20 years ago and in all honesty I wish that goto had been around then at a reasonable price. I found it hugely frustrating that finding objects often required a large amount of effort each time. The learning curve for me in learning a goto mount was far easier than learning how to starhop using maps (and I'm a maps kind of person so there's no problem reading maps!).

I really struggle sometimes when people email me asking what's a good scope to start with and should they go for goto or not. I think there's a bit of an 'attitude' out there about goto that the right way to do things is to start without goto with a sort of implicit assumption that if you don't you won't learn your way around the stars 'properly'. Personally I think that's wrong - despite getting back into the hobby a few years ago with a goto scope I'm perfectly confident in my knowledge of the constellations, stars and where various objects are - in fact I'm quite happy using FLO's 12" Flextube to find plenty of objects without the need for goto. Much of what I now know has come through using a goto scope.

At the end of the day I usually advise people that there's nothing wrong with getting goto - as long as they're aware that with goto a substantial part of their investment will be on the goto/electronics as opposed to the size of their optics. Most users of goto (i.e. EQ6/5 CG5 etc users) will need to learn as a bare minimum where many stars are and what they're called. At this point if they want to learn more they will - I'm not sure it's really right to imply that they aren't doing things right unless they go through the effort of learning how to starhop.

Anyway, at the end of the day it's each to his/her own and whichever route they choose is as valid as any other.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goto seems to be pretty much standard now with just about any size telescope, even short focal refractor setups which amazes me! when I statred out in Astronomy goto was never heard of, motorised focusers was advanced as it got ;-) for me If I wanted to see a a comet or deep sky objects I had no option other than learn they sky and star hop, through this I learned the constellations quite well and the objects to be found in them. Its done me well over the years. I supose it depends on what you start out with, I had nothing more than binos, if your first scope has goto then your going to make use of it.

My own opinion is that goto is a gadget, not really required but it can help especially with astrophotography, there is a great feeling of finding an object for yourself, to me goto is a bit like taking your own images and having someone process them for you, where is the fun in that ! but thats a different topic ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it depends on your skies too. Star hopping here with the telrad on my dob is fairly easy, but then I have >mag 5 skies on a good night. If you're in a city, it can get really difficult - and I wouldn't like to star hop with a 9x50 finder!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started with binocs and a planisphere and was so fascinated I set a budget and got the biggest apperture scope possible with manual tracking within £400.

A year later and after learning a lot about the sky I upgraded to a full gps/goto larger aperture scope and sold the old SW 150. Another year on and I also have a 12" dob with tracking. That earlier experience with the 150 is still invaluable now for both current scopes.

For me the learning path was the buzz. But I appreciate that some may just want to look and show friends/familly without all the effort, or just aren't the types for studying.

I've no probs with that cos I guess it's horses for courses and whatever makes people happy that counts. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it depends on your skies too. Star hopping here with the telrad on my dob is fairly easy, but then I have >mag 5 skies on a good night. If you're in a city, it can get really difficult - and I wouldn't like to star hop with a 9x50 finder!

Your sky conditions do make a big difference but im quite sure with a 9x50 finder and a good star atlas like sky atlas 2000 you could detect stars down to 7th - 8th mag, from these stars you can jump off to most deep sky object in your main scope. Does anyone ever turn off their goto and have a a scan around ? I used to turn of my drive and just watch the milky way pass through the FOV:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people use calculators, some use mental arithmetic.....some folk use cars others prefer bikes......some people like to walk while others prefer to cycle. There is a choice which can only be a good thing. lets face it without GOTO there would be less people in astronomy for sure. With perfecr clear skys and hours of spare time i'm sure lots of folk could have great fun without the need for GOTO. The reality is 80-90% cloudy nights and limited time.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your sky conditions do make a big difference but im quite sure with a 9x50 finder and a good star atlas like sky atlas 2000 you could detect stars down to 7th - 8th mag, from these stars you can jump off to most deep sky object in your main scope. Does anyone ever turn off their goto and have a a scan around ? I used to turn of my drive and just watch the milky way pass through the FOV:)
I find it terribly confusing trying to star hop with a finder. I'm not saying it can't be done (I've star hopped through the eyepiece of the 12" dob) but I find it really confusing. For me, a telrad works 100% of the time, but, as I said, I do have reasonable skies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the need for basic knowledge of the sky, but I don't think that people should have to do "an apprenticeship" to enjoy the hobby. That smacks of nostalgia, the good old days and so on. What I think is important is that newcomers and experienced observers alike should go back into the house after spending time outside, and feel that they have been rewarded for their effort. When I was a teenager and starting out, I got really frustrated when I spent hours outside and didn't find a thing. Getting back into the hobby, without the benefit of this forum, I bought a GoTo, and I don't regret it for a moment, I found things I had looked for back then. This also gave me a better idea of where things are in the sky, and from that I now have a 12" Dob, and a better understanding of the scale of the sky.

I do Astronomy because it rewards me and relax's me. How other people go about this should be what they are comfortable with and able to afford. There is no way twenty years ago, I would have thought I would own a scope that finds it's own way around, if the technology is affordable and what you want, use it, but learn from it as well.

I'll get off my soap box now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real issue with "goto" is that the learning curve is steep & you can get really frustrated when it doesn't work & you don't know why. It's a great shortcut for those who know what they're doing anyway and have the nous to check the star field.

Beginner's goto scopes tend to be rather inaccurate & often miss the field. More expensive scopes are usually better (less backlash, more accurately machined gears etc) - my CPC1100 is pretty good, usually within the middle part of a high power eyepiece, but e.g. the Meade ETX 125 is unlikely to get a target in the field of a low power eyepiece however carefully you do the alignment. Guess which scope is more likely to be in the hands of a clueless newby.

I am an astro noob, been looking around for about 3 months with only cursory previous experience and I couldn't disagree more with the above.

In my, admittedly limited, experience there is nothing steep about the learning curve for a GOTO. The first time I tried it I found that it was a trivial exercise and was aligned and running in a matter of a few minutes.

The only trouble I ever had with it had nothing whatsoever to do with GOTO at all - it was that I couldnt recognise the second alignment target through the eyepiece due to unfamiliarity with the magnified view of that part of the sky.

With the same level of viewing experience I would have experienced exactly the same problem had I opted to star hop from there manually.

It takes time to align a GOTO thats for sure maybe 5 minutes on a good night a bit longer if you fumble with the buttons and have to redo.

But rocket science it aint.

As to the second point, I had an ETX 125 and before that an ETX 80 and in both cases the GOTO was spot on 100% of the time - they never once missed a target and I was confident that when I hit the goto button and the scope stopped slewing that the target would be there close to centre of the eyepiece - and I was never let down.

It is true though that sometimes the target was closer to the edge of the FOV than to the centre - but then I get the same thing happening now with my C8 too.

I would accept, however, that during alignment the scope is often well short of the first and sometimes the second selected target (I have always used 2-star align) and it is necessary to at least be able to know where your alignment/calibration targets lie and be able tot find those manually but again I experience the same issues there with my C8 as I did with the ETX 80.

I can state with utter conviction that the GOTO is an undoubted boon to new amateur astronomers and has allowed me to view with pleasure - and sometimes wonder - far more than I could possibly have achieved by myself in the same timescale without it.

I have no doubt that many beginners can be put off by not being able to find what they want to see or having to spend ages tracking stuff down.

I do, though, enjoy just scanning around and seeing what is there too, and have on a number of occasions simply star hopped to a target of interest. I tracked down Vesta the other evening but it took me a good half hour of popping back and forward to my shed to consult stellarium and to compare what I saw in the EP with what ought to be there - and there is quie a difference at times - not least the orientation of the visible star field.

BTW on the night in question when I failed to properly identify Cappella - the one and only time I ever felt I had to abandon the GOTO I just had a poke around looking at whatever I could see and identify.

But as others have said it is horses for courses and I would agree that relying solely on technical gizmos without haveing at least a basic ability to observe without them is going to restrict ones viewing pleasure sooner or later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's down to whatever the beginner wants out of astonomy. One could say you shouldn't look at the moon until you know exactly how it was formed, all it's history, names of all the craters etc. But someone might just want to look at the moon.

I don't think it's fair to say that you should not do part of a hobby, until you have learnt another part, if it's not actually neccessary to learn that bit.

Personally, I enjoy imaging and observing the planets and DSOs and also learning about how they were formed etc. However, I'm not particularly interested in learning where they are in relation to hundreds of other stars. Star positions in the sky is not my astronomical interest. Hence I have a GOTO.

Also, some people may have a deep interest in all things technical and might love the technical challenges of a GOTO scope, hooking it up to a laptop etc,etc, as much as the imaging/observing itself.

There could be an argument that by learning the sky, it might eventually be quicker to find objects that setting up a GOTO to do it, but I think that could take a while and it would be a close call.

Some people just want to start astronomy being able to see or image certain objects and don't want to spend significant time learning the positions in the sky, particularly when there are very few clear nights and they have very busy lives. It's not lazy to not learn the sky, there are many other challenges in astronomy beyond this. It's just a case of what people want out of it and the time they have to spend doing it.

I don't think people should be judged for not doing a certain part of a hobby that others might do (I'm not saying that anyone is doing this of course).

Just to add that even though I use a GOTO, I've found that I do learn where the major DSOs, planets and stars are in the sky anyway, because of course I can see which direction the scope is pointing. I can also see the movement of objects through the night and their positions and movements in the sky week after week. It's just that I haven't learnt all the Greek names etc, not a great loss in my opinion.

I did start off with a dob and then a basic EQ6, but found it very frustrating spending half the night try to find a single object, only for it to cloud over minutes later!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a Tal1 reflector before I got my first goto scope. I spent ages trying to find targets like M1 without success. With my goto scope I new I was bang on target but still couldn't see M1. Knowing it should be there made me keep looking and finally I could see it as a faint smudge. I quickly learnt how to spot dim targets - averted vision, tapping the scope and so on. After this I was much better at locating targets without goto. The next big advance for me was to get a telrad which I find a lot easier than star hopping.

I don't know my way to many targets but those I do I can find much quicker manually than I can using goto.

So I think goto can be very useful for beginners and save a lot of frustration but ultimately there is a lot of sense honing your star finding skills.

If sat nav worked like goto you would have to drive to a couple of well known spots that the sat nav knew and press an alignment button. You would then drive in 2nd gear to where ever you wanted to go. Fine if you don't know anything about roads or directions but a pain in the neck if you know how to get somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can afford it get a goto, you still need to learn about the night sky anyway, I really don't go along with the opposite argument, I have spent many an unhappy time trying to find faint objects by sky hopping, not for me these days.

If the technology is there use it IMO, the only reason for not getting a goto is if this will seriously reduce the telescope size and quality due to budgetary constraints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO!!

Is it wrong to drive a car without a choke - was it really fun fiddling about with it praying you didn't pull it out/push it in too quickly and end up stalling or floodfing the engines?

Or having to get up out of your seat to change channel on your TV?

Progress tends to make things easier and I don't think that is a bad thing no matter what level you are...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we all lived in New Mexico with warm(ish) nights and clear skies and could spend the time getting to know the skies without the need for computer aids, I'd certainly recommend to a beginner to get out there and do his or her apprenticeship without the advantage of GoTo. However, along with many other members here, I live in the UK when the opportunities to observe and image are at a premium. Therefore, I'd prefer to use anything which would help me to get onto the objects as quick as possible. So for me, budget allowing, GoTo would be preferable.

That shouldn't stop anybody learning the night skies (which i'd also strngly recommend) with a book or in front of a screen on those nights when the seeing is not so good or it's just too cold

My 2p's

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GOTO can be an invaluable learning aid if used the correct way. If one gets the scope to point at an object, then hits the info button, the handset should tell you which constellation etc that the object is in.

Then a quick look through the finder, with both eyes open, will show you exactly where that object is. Slew away and then try to locate the object manually and it should lock the position into your mind.

Unfortunately, most folk just jump from one target to the next without never actually looking to see where the targets are positioned in the sky.

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.