# Is it the end of the amateur telescope?



## gavroche (12 Mar 2021)

I have three of them and they are all in a cupboard and never used now. It is so easy now to go on Youtube and look at any planets and their moons close up, thanks to space exploration, that I don't see the need to go out and set a telescope that will give me very poor results compared to very clear photos from space crafts on or in orbit around the planets/moons,
I appreciate what professionals telescopes can do as they look deep into space to places we can't travel to but I think the traditional home telescope has had its day now.


----------



## Rocky (12 Mar 2021)

I still get a buzz from looking at the moon through my small telescope. It wasn’t long ago I could vaguely see Saturn’s rings and Jupiter’s moons in the same southern sky. Don’t get rid of your telescopes - there’s nothing like seeing the night skies with your own eyes.


----------



## HMS_Dave (12 Mar 2021)

Nothing can really compare through a screen. With my 6 inch Meade refractor my eyepiece and my eye balls can draw circles. A computer screen cannot as it uses a series of dots. Sure, high resolution helps, but look at dim stars on a picture through your monitor and you'll see... For me there is a child like awe i have when i look through. I can see Mar's surface thanks to probes and robots, but that doesn't stop me wanting to look at Mars through my scopes. I just don't get that buzz sitting on my arse looking at whatever it is i want to look at...


----------



## Drago (12 Mar 2021)

I dont think there will ever be a substitute for direct observation for real enthusisasts. Sure, many will sit inside and be looking at their screens, but their pooters will still be directing a telescope outdoors.


----------



## CanucksTraveller (12 Mar 2021)

It's always exciting to see Saturn's rings and the moon's topography through an amateur telescope... yes you can see them way closer up on screens, but it's so artificial in a way, they could be computer generated (or at least that's what my mind constantly tells me, even though I know that image is real). 

There's something far more authentic about being out in the cold and seeing that light with your own eyes. It's magical, I don't think the amateur telescope has had its day yet.


----------



## HMS_Dave (12 Mar 2021)

CanucksTraveller said:


> It's always exciting to see Saturn's rings and the moon's topography through an amateur telescope... yes you can see them way closer up on screens, but it's so artificial in a way, they could be computer generated (or at least that's what my mind constantly tells me, even though I know that image is real).
> 
> There's something far more authentic about being out in the cold and seeing that light with your own eyes. It's magical, I don't think the amateur telescope has had its day yet.


The first thing i looked at was Saturn. Completely unbelievable to me. I remember seeing it on TV and in magazines but it don't really prepare you for seeing it for the first time. My first ever telescope it was a challenge to spot the cassini division in the rings, always a good test of the seeing conditions but also felt like an achievement with my small scope i used to have.


----------



## stephec (12 Mar 2021)

Computers might be able to simulate a lot of things, but it's not the same as doing it for real. 

As an example, I played a game of snooker against the computer earlier, whilst I enjoyed it it was no where near as a good as doing it for real in the club.


----------



## snorri (12 Mar 2021)

I use my telescope for observing marine activities, but nowadays when I see a ship or marine structure in the distance with my naked eye I am more inclined to look on a website in order to identify it and get more information than the telescope can reveal.


----------



## gbb (13 Mar 2021)

I've never really been avid about astronomy, yet always had an inbuilt wonder of it all and I cant tell you how exciting it was as it dawned on me I could see with my own eyes the moons of Jupiter, four sharp pinpricks of light...through a simple (but good) birdwatching scope.
In the scheme of things, it's a moment of wonder and excitement, nothing more, it's simply you see something you never thought you would....but it was a special moment for me. The internet photos have their place of course but its 'normal'.


----------



## MontyVeda (13 Mar 2021)

I've looked at countless pictures of the moon's surface over the years and spent hours going all over the moon on Google Sky... but seeing it 'close up' through a telescope for the first time took my breath away ...it's 3D!


----------



## Bazzer (13 Mar 2021)

The night sky is a wonder in its own right. 
From the joy of identifying a star or a constellation, through looking at the craters on the moon and on to the planets. Computer screens have there place, but so do eyes and reality.


----------



## numbnuts (13 Mar 2021)

Clouds comes to mind, that is why I got rid of mine


----------



## PeteXXX (13 Mar 2021)

Would it be comparable with Zwift etc. and cycling? 

Pedalling away, looking at a screen, getting exercise, but without the real fun of headwinds, drizzle and potholes.. 

There is life beyond screens, and maybe even at the other end of a telescope 🔭 👾


----------



## Randomnerd (13 Mar 2021)

stephec said:


> Computers might be able to simulate a lot of things, but it's not the same as doing it for real.
> 
> As an example, I played a game of snooker against the computer earlier, whilst I enjoyed it it was no where near as a good as doing it for real in the club.


How on earth can you play snooker on a computer? My mind is boggling. I cannot fathom it. How?


----------



## stephec (13 Mar 2021)

Randomnerd said:


> How on earth can you play snooker on a computer? My mind is boggling. I cannot fathom it. How?


It's a simulation, here you go.


----------



## Randomnerd (13 Mar 2021)

stephec said:


> It's a simulation, here you go.
> 
> View attachment 578361


Right. I see. Gotcha. Suppose you can get a bit of practice in. (OT I know but I often wondered why Conservative Clubs were where all the decent snooker tables were. Did my adolescent Marxism ruin my long potting? Answers on a postcard)


----------



## SpokeyDokey (13 Mar 2021)

Never been a fan of telescopes of the affordable amateur variety.

Even through a big refractor stars, that look like little dots to the naked eye, still look like little dots - disappointing to say the least.


----------



## stephec (13 Mar 2021)

Randomnerd said:


> Right. I see. Gotcha. Suppose you can get a bit of practice in. (OT I know but I often wondered why Conservative Clubs were where all the decent snooker tables were. Did my adolescent Marxism ruin my long potting? Answers on a postcard)


On a similar theme, my cousin only joined the local Con club because it had the best bowling green in the area. 😀


----------



## Randomnerd (13 Mar 2021)

stephec said:


> On a similar theme, my cousin only joined the local Con club because it had the best bowling green in the area. 😀


I wonder what proportion of the Tory party are only there for the sporting facilities. FOI request time, maybe
?😄


----------



## Profpointy (13 Mar 2021)

After an initial dabble with a home made (which I was very chuffed with) adaptor to fit commercial eyepieces to a camera lens, I was very much drawn to getting a proper telescope. The camera lens I had was a 500mm telephoto (mirror lens) - which despite being a genuine Nikon wasn't very expensive and the set up worked quite well. Suitably inspired I bough a very high quality "apo" 4" refractor. Even from the city, jupiter with its moons and stripes, or saturn's rings are easily seen, and the moon is just spectacular. Orion Nebular, or milky way star fields likewise. As others have said, seeing these things with your own eyes is thrilling. Only used it casually, and not all that often but glad I've got it. Maybe a couple of grand's worth so I haven't skimped, nor gone crazy either.

A final thought is seeing pictures in astronomy magazines looking very like pictures in books I had as a kid taken from the Mount Palomar 200" telescope ... but the modern picture were taken from someone's garden in Kent. OK they've got kit worth the price of a modest brand new car, but still astonishing


----------



## DCBassman (13 Mar 2021)

A year or two back, walking around the Tavistock Pannier Market, we noticed a telescope on a tripod. 
A Celestron C70 Maksutov reflector, with a 25-75x zoom eyepiece. Absolutely not a top-end scope. 
"How much?" 
"£15" 
Don't use it very much, especially as I live right in the middle of town, and light pollution is terrible. But I'm glad I have it!


----------



## Dave7 (13 Mar 2021)

numbnuts said:


> Clouds comes to mind, that is why I got rid of mine


Plus the fact you watch them while in the nude .
Who wants to see a close up of uranus.


----------



## Profpointy (13 Mar 2021)

DCBassman said:


> A year or two back, walking around the Tavistock Pannier Market, we noticed a telescope on a tripod.
> A Celestron C70 Maksutov reflector, with a 25-75x zoom eyepiece. Absolutely not a top-end scope.
> "How much?"
> "£15"
> Don't use it very much, especially as I live right in the middle of town, and light pollution is terrible. But I'm glad I have it!



Maksutovs in general have a reputation for high quality, assuming built properly. Celestron are a pukka make, if not Rolls Royce level for such things, so still undoubtedly quite a bargain. I think maksutovs tend to have high definition images but low contrast, so presumably better for the moon and planets than for deep sky objects


----------



## wheresthetorch (14 Mar 2021)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Even through a big refractor stars, that look like little dots to the naked eye, still look like little dots - disappointing to say the least


Stars look like small dots even through the Hubble Space Telescope. But a decent amateur telescope will show you more of them, will show you different coloured stars, clusters of stars, close double stars (sometimes in contrasting colours), nebulae, galaxies, craters and rilles on the moon, detail on the planets, planetary moons and even spots on the sun's surface. You just need to know where to look!


----------



## HMS_Dave (14 Mar 2021)

Profpointy said:


> Maksutovs in general have a reputation for high quality, assuming built properly. Celestron are a pukka make, if not Rolls Royce level for such things, so still undoubtedly quite a bargain. I think maksutovs tend to have high definition images but low contrast, so presumably better for the moon and planets than for deep sky objects


The maks are great, especially for solar system stuff and double stars. They actually have high contrast due to the small central obstruction, not as high as refractors with no central obstruction but not far off. The issue with maks are their narrow field of view. So when looking at large galaxies such as andromeda or a large nebulae, they won't fit into the field of view.


----------

