TomN
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/14/09
Posts: 513
|
|
I have been thinking about a new GoTo mount and I began to wonder what your thoughts are about GoTo vs. the old tried and true star-hopping method with a set of star charts. Do you guys use GoTo mounts (or push-to) or do you mostly use your charts? I would be interested to hear your thoughts.
Tom
--------------------
Amateur Astronomer since 1962.
|
rocco13
Got Milk?
Reged: 07/29/06
Posts: 2862
Loc: Phoenix, Arizona
|
|
GoTo was what brought me back into the hobby after nearly 20 years away. With my old Coulter dob, I could never find many things, and after a while grew tired of the the frustration, and shelved the scope altogether. With my new GoTo scope, I saw more objects in the first week or two than I did in all my prior observing time combined.
But after getting used to the GoTo, I noticed I wasn't learning the sky at all. Within 6 months, I acquired a big dob that had no electronics. While my original thought was to add some DSC's, I realized that armed with a decent atlas (which I'd never had one before), I was not only finding things manually (and enjoying it), but learning the sky as well.
Now for some folks who live in light-polluted areas, it might be considered a necessity, since few stars are visible for starhopping.
Although there are those rare times when I wish I had some form of GoTo/push-to, but for the most part I do fine without it. Just my two cents.
--------------------
Rocco
Zhumell Z12
Super C8 (1984 vintage)
Celestron 102 f/5
and a cheap pair of binoculars
|
Ken....
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 01/22/04
Posts: 1140
Loc: Nashua, NH, USA
|
|
Since I do practically all my observing from Bortle 6 skies, a computer assisted scope is neccessary.
--------------------
Ken....
Discovery 12.5"
Pentax 10x50
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3938
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
Since I do practically all my observing from Bortle 6 skies, a computer assisted scope is neccessary.
I, on the other hand, do much of my observing from Bortle Class 8 skies, and find everything by star-hopping. Moral being that it takes all kinds to make a world.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
ursamajor
super member
Reged: 07/24/07
Posts: 151
|
|
I learned to starhop before GoTo's were available. The hunt is a very enjoyable part of the hobby. That being said most of what I do is visual observing.
--------------------
Using a goto scope is like fishing with hand grenades...
|
Steven Aggas
sage
Reged: 04/15/08
Posts: 476
Loc: Arizona
|
|
I too learned star-hopping because there were no go-to options with my 8" back then, plus, the distance between the chart and eyepiece on my 8" was a mere 18 inches.
For the 20" that C-E distance greatly increased since the charts were no longer on a table mounted on the Dob mount. This still worked, however, until I built a platform and bought a ccd camera. Because I could no longer 'see' through the scope dsc's were purchased and it went to push-to.
Now, the 36" had dsc's installed and was push-to from the beginning for two reasons, 1: due to the C-E distance can now involve 12 feet of ladder, plus, walking distance to the paper charts. But, since the laptop is mounted on a truss pole at eye-level from the ground, and, the touch-screen 18" from the eyepiece, that C-E distance is minimal once again. So, digital charts are my 'norm', though I didn't always like them as I do now. 2: with such a long FL involving ladders my old typical paths of hopping, if I used them on the 36", would involve sooooo much more exercise going up and down the ladder than push-to. I'm progressing towards my Black Belt which helps scurrying up that ladder but I do still want a sizable list of observed targets each night (Push-to, observe, repeat until too tired). I'm considering full go-to now which would only save me limited energy since the scope does move fairly easily, but once again this upgrade is ccd related.
I thought at first star-hopping actually had more eye-in-the-eyepiece time than push-to. But I've found that having the charts, or in the case of the 36" the touch-screen, within 18" of the eyepiece I explore more in the vicinity of my original target, similar I'd say to the exploring surrounding each star hopped from towards a target, and the jump from push-to to go-to should not affect that. So for me I see the C-E distance as a parameter for ‘seeing more’, and, upgrading from hopping to something-go if you can’t ‘see’.
Sorry for rambling….
Steven
--------------------
Mr. Wizard
Walking on a Dob: http://darkskyobserving.com/MtGraham.html
Elements in Harmony I, an 8"f6 German Equatorial - Stellafane Winner,
II a 20"f4.2 Newt-Dob - Astrofest Winner,
III a 6"f3.5 Finder/Newt-Dob, and
IV a 36"f4.5 Newt-Dob - "If it's up there, it's in here."
Apache-Sitgreaves Center for Astrophysics
www.DarkSkyObserving.com
|
Hrundi
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 02/06/08
Posts: 1505
Loc: Estonia
|
|
I star hop. Feels great to find something, like a personal conquest.
It's also pretty fun to just look at the sky naked eye and know where everything you've found is, exactly, in relation to everything else, as opposed to just knowing the general direction.
--------------------
|
JimPie
sage
Reged: 11/10/07
Posts: 230
Loc: S.E.Michigan
|
|
I used to use DSC's. When I rebuilt my scope, I never got around to installing the encoders. I just started doing star hopping. It was very slow at first but For the last three years I have been able to find most every thing (that can be seen under heavy light pollution) in a short order.At a dark site it seems I can find things quicker (usually) than when I ussed DSC
--------------------
Jim
12.5",f=4.8 truss dob
EQ platform,24mm pan,14mm radian, vixen LVs
Edited by JimPie (05/11/09 01:39 PM)
|
skyward_eyes
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/12/06
Posts: 2391
Loc: Arizona
|
|
I have owned GoTo scopes and they are nice but like Rocco said you dont learn anything. My 10" has the Orion Intellascope computer but I cant tell you the last time I used it.
Now that I have my 16" and a 24" on the design board I am all star hopping. I can find things much faster then the GoTo can usually. Also most GoTos dont even have the objects I look at listed. Barnard's Dark Nebula and Quasars.
I would just get a good map like a Star Atlas 2000.
--------------------
5 Reflectors 3"-16"
www.skiesofarizona.webs.com
|
Jeff Young
Post Laureate
Reged: 08/04/05
Posts: 4333
Loc: Ireland
|
|
I use GoTo if it's there; I star-hop if it's not.
(Most of my star-hopping is therefore done with binoculars. It's possible I wouldn't be as happy with it with a much smaller field....)
-- Jeff.
--------------------
Nikon 18x70s / UA Millennium Colorado:
Solarscope SF70 / TV Pronto / AP400QMD Coronado SolarMax40 DS / Bogen 055+3130
APM MC1610 / Tak FC-125 / AP1200GTO Tak Mewlon 250 / AP600EGTO
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 8803
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
Quote:
I have owned GoTo scopes and they are nice but like Rocco said you dont learn anything. My 10" has the Orion Intellascope computer but I cant tell you the last time I used it.
Now that I have my 16" and a 24" on the design board I am all star hopping. I can find things much faster then the GoTo can usually. Also most GoTos dont even have the objects I look at listed. Barnard's Dark Nebula and Quasars.
I would just get a good map like a Star Atlas 2000.
You *can* learn something by not star-hopping (you just have to want to go to the trouble to do it). Some people find that they actually do learn the sky somewhat by seeing where the scope is going to, so the statement that you can't learn anything is not always accurate. Again, Go-to is just another tool, one which, after over 40 years of "manual" observing (i.e. star hopping), I have chosen to use (although I can still star-hop with the best of them). As for Go-To systems not having some objects, most (if not all) Go-to telescopes have the ability to input and use coordinates for any object above the horizon, so a limited database is not necessarily a limitation. Indeed, for many objects, rather than connecting my scope to my laptop, I just input the coordinates manually into the hand controller (read off of the laptop or even out of a book) and away we go. This summer at the Nebraska Star Party, I will be on Dob-row manhandling some of the big Dobs to point at distant and obscure objects using my charts and maps, but I am still quite happy to get back to my Go-to instrument, as it can often make me a more efficient observer. Clear skies to you.
--------------------
David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
Prairie Astronomy Club
http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3938
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
You *can* learn something by not star-hopping (you just have to want to go to the trouble to do it).
Agreed. In fact, I know one person who started out as a stargazer by using a Go To telescope, and made a point of always finding out where it was pointing and looking it up on a chart. He found it to be a very efficient way to learn the constellations. Makes sense to me.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
ColoHank
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/07/07
Posts: 670
Loc: western Colorado
|
|
Consider a mount that's equipped with manual setting circles. It's a tried-and-true technology which offers the following advantages: easy alignment, no circuit boards to burn out, no twisted wires, no connections to get loose, accuracy and reliability at any temperature, no noisy slewing, freedom from the big battery packs needed to feed a power-hungry computer chip, and you still get the thrill of the chase and sense of accomplishment that comes with being a part of the navigation process. My scope doesn't leave home without them.
--------------------
---------------------
Questar 3.5 standard - pyrex and BB coatings
Powerguide II
8mm, 12mm, 16mm, 24mm and 32mm Brandons
modified Bogen 3030 w/ homebuilt wedge
Homebuilt Galileo scope and very large and ugly homemade tripod
other odds and ends, including iPod Touch with StarMap Pro (what a marvelous combo)...
---------------------
"Nothing exists but atoms and empty space. Everything else is opinion."
Titus Lucretius Carus 99-55 B.C.
|
Dain
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/24/05
Posts: 2047
Loc: N.Y. Adirondack Mnts. NGC 4565...
|
|
I've been a starhopper since the beginning. Finding objects with my own go-to ( my brain ) gives me a rewarding feeling and a great sense of accomplishment. The best feeling is pushing my gear to its limits unexpectingly to find something I never thought I would of been able to see. Even though this is a hobby and only that, it gives me another sense of achievement in one of the many obsticles of life.
Clear Skies to All.
--------------------
Best,
Dain
Adirondack Mountains (my true dark sky site)
@ Cedar River Flow
Local Site
Clear Skies?
|
Jim Curry
professor emeritus
Reged: 10/29/07
Posts: 528
Loc: Maine
|
|
98% of my sky time is star hopping. Exceptions: 1. when viewing near the zenith and I'm tired and the ground is wet or frozen; 2. when I have visitors over. To me the journey is most of the fun of the hobby.
Jim
--------------------
Vixen 140 refractor
|
Rick Woods
Postmaster
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 6268
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
I do both. Sometimes what I want to see isn't in the telescope database. So I'll go-to the nearest included item (i.e. bright star), then star hop using the telescope motors and either the finder, or estimated hop distances on the map.
I don't see it as an either-or thing. Both are good. Life is good.
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
Dyslexics Untie!
|
skyward_eyes
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/12/06
Posts: 2391
Loc: Arizona
|
|
Maybe I should of refraised what I said. GOTo does help and you do learn stuff but I believe star hopping is more rewarding after you find your object.
--------------------
5 Reflectors 3"-16"
www.skiesofarizona.webs.com
|
MessierScott
sage
Reged: 06/18/07
Posts: 311
|
|
For my personal observing, I use only star hopping. But then I observe from mag 6.5 skies usually and I'm in no hurry. I find the journey half the fun.
For public star parties, I use the GO-TO because people are lined up 10 deep waiting to look through the eyepiece or I'm in the middle of the city with only a dozen stars in the sky visible.
ALSO, PLEASE NOTE: If you are locating objects and recording them to fulfill the requirements of an Astronomical League observing certificate, check that GO-TO is acceptable. For instance, I know for a fact that the Messier Observing Program allows only star hopping (see my signature line).
--------------------
Scott Kranz
20-inch f/4.3 Starmaster w/Zambuto mirror
7-inch Starmaster
H-alpha Coronado PST
Denkmeier II binoviewers w/24mm Panoptics
16x80 binos
Astronomical Society of Kansas City
Powell Observatory with 30-inch f/4.9 EQ newtonian
Astronomical League Messier, Meteor, Sunspotter, Asteroid, & Comet Observing Programs Coordinator
ASKC Dark Sky Site
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3938
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
Consider a mount that's equipped with manual setting circle ... My scope doesn't leave home without them.
If your scope is a standard Questar, then leaving home without them isn't an option!
But I must admit that as far as I'm concerned, Go To has very nearly rendered traditional setting circles obsolete. Low-quality setting circles are worse than useless, and scopes with high-quality EQ mounts and setting circles cost more than scopes with high-quality Go To.
It's true that when using setting circles you participate in the process, but only in a mechanical way. You're performing actions that humans are bad at and computers are good at, like looking up coordinates.
I will grant you, though, that most Go To scopes draw vastly more electricity than an old-fashioned EQ mount with clock drive. Of all the advantages you cite, that's the only one that I find persuasive.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
galaxyman
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/04/05
Posts: 1539
Loc: Limerick, Pa
|
|
Quote:
I have been thinking about a new GoTo mount and I began to wonder what your thoughts are about GoTo vs. the old tried and true star-hopping method with a set of star charts. Do you guys use GoTo mounts (or push-to) or do you mostly use your charts? I would be interested to hear your thoughts.
Tom
Hey Tom
In the post "Clash of the Titans parts 1 & 2, I have both my premium scopes together at one site. One has GoTo (8" refractor), while the other (22" dob) doesn't.
I certainly do like the idea of GoTo, and relish having it on both my 6" and 8" refractors, but at the same time there is a certain type of pleasure using good star charts and finding the object(s). Almost like a treasure hunt.
For me after 41 years at the eyepiece I do like the simple pleasure of hit the button and off we go, but there is still lots of fire in me to do it the old fashion way.
Maybe we can look at it in another way, time can be an issue. So if you get out less frequently than you wish, then GoTo is a huge plus.
Karl
E.O.H.
Chesmont Astronomical Society
Telekit (Swayze optics) 22" F/4.5 Dob
Homemade (Parks Optics) 12.5" F/4.8 Dob
TMB 8" F/9 Refractor”The Beast”. One great achro
Astrozap 6" f/8 Refractor. Another fine achro
Orion 4" f/6 Refractor. Also not bad for an achro
Celestron 10x60mm Binos
--------------------
So many galaxies, so little time!
|
ColoHank
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/07/07
Posts: 670
Loc: western Colorado
|
|
Quote:
If your scope is a standard Questar, then leaving home without them isn't an option!
My point exactly, and no regrets. What shaped my decision to go that way were all of the hundreds of complaints and laments on CN about the spotty performance or outright failure of go-to mounts, including some rather pricey fork-mounted scopes made by a variety of popular manufacturers. With all of the comments I've been reading about poor QC, indifferent or non-existent customer service and the viability of one of those firms in particular, caution is advised.
--------------------
---------------------
Questar 3.5 standard - pyrex and BB coatings
Powerguide II
8mm, 12mm, 16mm, 24mm and 32mm Brandons
modified Bogen 3030 w/ homebuilt wedge
Homebuilt Galileo scope and very large and ugly homemade tripod
other odds and ends, including iPod Touch with StarMap Pro (what a marvelous combo)...
---------------------
"Nothing exists but atoms and empty space. Everything else is opinion."
Titus Lucretius Carus 99-55 B.C.
|
JayinUT
I'm not Sleepy
Reged: 09/19/08
Posts: 1312
Loc: Utah
|
|
I've only had Star Hopping scopes though I've used Go To's. I like Star Hopping though at first it would drive me nuts to realize the reason I couldn't find an object was because I took the wrong turn or was in the wrong location. Time and experience quickly resolved that and I enjoy seeing the growth in my own observing.
--------------------
Jay in Utah
---------------------------
Historian Donald Osterbrock called him (Edward Barnard) an "observe-aholic," because Barnard, happiest when he could spend all night observing, was moody and difficult when the sky was cloudy.
My Blog
|
bkruschwitz
member
Reged: 04/15/09
Posts: 64
Loc: Waco, TX
|
|
I enjoy star-hopping, though I'm pretty slow at it because I get directions turned around. (I know, using a Newtonian does not help  .) The most fun I've had is what I call "tag-team star hopping." A friend and I take turns at the Dob, while the other reads directions out loud from various maps, Sue French's Celestial Sampler, or the Thompsons' Illustrated Guide to Astronomical Wonders.
"OK, go about four degrees straight down and look for two bright stars."
"One is real yellow?"
"No, keep going."
"I see a fuzzy."
"Just left of the brightest star...[turning the Guide upside down] ... No, just right of it?"
"Yes."
"Bingo!"
We sound like idiots, but we find a bunch of things in a suburban sky that we've never seen before."
Does this count as goto or star hopping?  
Bob
--------------------
Orion XT8
ST 80 / VersaGo mount
Hyperion 8x24 zoom
Bushnell Legend 8x42
|
Dain
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/24/05
Posts: 2047
Loc: N.Y. Adirondack Mnts. NGC 4565...
|
|
Bob. 
Welcome to CN my friend. Funny stuff right there.
--------------------
Best,
Dain
Adirondack Mountains (my true dark sky site)
@ Cedar River Flow
Local Site
Clear Skies?
|
palsing
super member
Reged: 08/11/05
Posts: 151
Loc: Poway, CA
|
|
Quote:
I enjoy star-hopping, though I'm pretty slow at it because I get directions turned around. (I know, using a Newtonian does not help .) The most fun I've had is what I call "tag-team star hopping." A friend and I take turns at the Dob, while the other reads directions out loud from various maps, Sue French's Celestial Sampler, or the Thompsons' Illustrated Guide to Astronomical Wonders.
"OK, go about four degrees straight down and look for two bright stars."
"One is real yellow?"
"No, keep going."
"I see a fuzzy."
"Just left of the brightest star...[turning the Guide upside down] ... No, just right of it?"
"Yes."
"Bingo!"
We sound like idiots, but we find a bunch of things in a suburban sky that we've never seen before."
Does this count as goto or star hopping?
Bob
Hi Bob,
You bet it does.
I've been observing for a long time, and this is STILL one of my favorite methods of navigating the stars, and my friends seem to like it, too.
However, I must admit that we only do this when tracking down the faintest of objects, and one guy is at the eyepiece and the other guy has the DSS image in his hand...
--------------------
Paul
25" Obsession
5.5" Newt - finder (Cometcatcher)
Hutech 22 X 100 binos w/LPS-P2 filters
Canon 10 X 30 IS binos
|
7331Peg
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 09/01/08
Posts: 970
Loc: North coast of Oregon
|
|
I got back into astronomy several years ago with a go-to equatorial mount and I was in heaven because nothing like it existed back in my previous years in the hobby. But after a while, like others, I noticed I really wasn't learning where anything was, other than a general idea. So I began star-hopping with a four inch refractor and the S & T Pocket Atlas and found I enjoyed it much more. There is nothing like going back and looking at an object so many times that you can instantly recognize the star field.
However, one area where go-to excels is in the search for very faint objects - galaxies and planetaries - that are right at the edge of your scope's limitations. When you know exactly where an object will appear in your eyepiece, it's amazing how much more successful you can be. Sometimes you have to move the scope back and forth to get a glimpse of the object, but chances are real good you would never find it by star-hopping without a detailed chart of the area. Moral here is that there is a place for each of the methods.
John
|
Jeff Morgan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 09/28/03
Posts: 2081
Loc: Prescott, AZ
|
|
Quote:
Maybe we can look at it in another way, time can be an issue. So if you get out less frequently than you wish, then GoTo is a huge plus.
There are two sides to that also. One doesn't have to go to very many star parties before encountering that poor soul whose GOTO system has crapped out for the night. If he has no atlas or star hopping skills ... I can't imagine having a whole precious night of observing shot to pieces because of a software/encoder/power glitch.
My personal observing style is to select a smaller area of sky (typically a single Uranometria chart) and work it mercilessly for all the targets it has to offer. Armed with only a chart and a good RACI finder I think it unlikely a GOTO system can be more productive for small patches of sky. Especially considering that the GOTO user has to do advanced preparation (how goes one know what to see without an atlas?). The GOTO user also suffers the limits of the controller interface. A good 8x50 finder is also a second telescope. Some objects are actually better in the finder due to field of view issues.
OTOH, I can see the arguement of the GOTO folks. When it is working, it could be very productive. Particularly for large jumps and limited time. (Tonight with barely more than one hour from astronomical twilight to moonrise would be a prime example.) Perhaps in the twilight of my astronomical career. But for now I can't shake that feeling I would be missing something .... a feeling of satisfaction, intimacy with the sky, and enjoyment of the "scenery".
--------------------
Jeff Morgan
Prescott, AZ
Wile E. Coyote School of Telescope Making
|
TomN
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/14/09
Posts: 513
|
|
Quote:
Consider a mount that's equipped with manual setting circles. It's a tried-and-true technology which offers the following advantages: easy alignment, no circuit boards to burn out, no twisted wires, no connections to get loose, accuracy and reliability at any temperature, no noisy slewing, freedom from the big battery packs needed to feed a power-hungry computer chip, and you still get the thrill of the chase and sense of accomplishment that comes with being a part of the navigation process. My scope doesn't leave home without them.
I found this comment to be quite interesting...have not used the circles on my mounts to find objects. They are there for a purpose though so why not? Has anyone else found them accurate and quick enough to be useful?
Thanks for all the thoughtful input by the way!!
Tom N.
--------------------
Amateur Astronomer since 1962.
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 8803
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
Quote:
Consider a mount that's equipped with manual setting circles. It's a tried-and-true technology which offers the following advantages: easy alignment, no circuit boards to burn out, no twisted wires, no connections to get loose, accuracy and reliability at any temperature, no noisy slewing, freedom from the big battery packs needed to feed a power-hungry computer chip, and you still get the thrill of the chase and sense of accomplishment that comes with being a part of the navigation process. My scope doesn't leave home without them.
Yea, but you still need the battery for the clock drive (or, in the case of some older scopes, a *really* long extension cord for the older synchronous motors). I have rarely seen decent manual setting circles on any commercial scope recently (too small and too poorly marked usually). The old "setting circles vs. star hopping" argument was present many many years ago (well before the personal computer), and was just as pointless as the "Go-To vs. star hopping" debate is now. The observer uses what they need (and like) to use, and that should be the end of it. Clear skies to you.
--------------------
David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
Prairie Astronomy Club
http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
|
TomN
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/14/09
Posts: 513
|
|
David, the debate is half the fun! 
Interesting, the consensus here so far is heavily on the side of star-hopping. Yeah, the failure rate of a GoTo mount is something to consider. There's certainly a lot to be said about being a competent astronomer and that means knowing the sky. Thanks, Tom
--------------------
Amateur Astronomer since 1962.
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 8803
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
Jeff Morgan posted:
Quote:
My personal observing style is to select a smaller area of sky (typically a single Uranometria chart) and work it mercilessly for all the targets it has to offer. Armed with only a chart and a good RACI finder I think it unlikely a GOTO system can be more productive for small patches of sky. Especially considering that the GOTO user has to do advanced preparation (how goes one know what to see without an atlas?). The GOTO user also suffers the limits of the controller interface. A good 8x50 finder is also a second telescope. Some objects are actually better in the finder due to field of view issues.
I often do this as well, although usually, I pick a few "goal" objects which I want to tackle prior to observing and then try and use them each as a "base" to begin my explorations outward. However, the Go-To is not at a disadvantage, as if I get a little lost in my explorations, a quick look at the R.A. and Dec. readout will tell me where I am. I can do that or just hook the laptop up and have it do all the scope's driving, in which case, I can explore by just doing a quick slew or by inputting an object number or coordinate. Last year at the Nebraska Star Party, I was a "guest observer" at Dragan Niken's 25 inch Obsession. We were having a lot of fun picking out all sorts of dim and obscure targets when we decided to go after a small planetary nebula known as "Minkowski's Footprint" (Mink 1-92). This one had given us a little trouble, as I had found it momentarily, but by the time I got off the ladder and Dragan had gotten up to the eyepiece, either the scope had moved or "the Footprint" had drifted out of the field. From that point on, I just couldn't seem to get the scope right on that object again for some reason (although I did manage to run into the supernova remnant Sh2-91 by "happy" accident). I finally went over to John Johnson's 20 inch (equipped with ServoCat), and after a simple series of button-pushes managed to get Dragan over to see the nebula, which was quite easy in that scope. When I got back from NSP. I put my NexStar 9.25 to work out at my local dark sky site, and its Go-To nailed the object, although it was much more difficult to see in the smaller aperture. People can say what they want about the "fun" of star-hopping (and it can indeed be fun), but this was one time that I was also glad I did have the Go-to. Clear skies to you.
--------------------
David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
Prairie Astronomy Club
http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
|
acey
member
Reged: 01/09/09
Posts: 50
|
|
I agree with the above - covering a small patch of sky is very efficient and enjoyable, and it's what I do nowadays.
When I was starting out, though, I wanted to tick off Messiers that were all over the sky. I can see that GOTO would help here, though I tried it once and it wasn't for me - I'm a star-hopper through and through.
I also tried setting-circles and didn't feel tempted to continue. But these things are entirely personal.
It's a bit like road-maps versus GPS versus asking people the way versus just driving and hoping for the best. I'm a map person but it takes all sorts to make a world.
Andrew
|
Jim Curry
professor emeritus
Reged: 10/29/07
Posts: 528
Loc: Maine
|
|
>There are two sides to that also. One doesn't have to go to very many star parties before encountering that poor soul whose GOTO system has crapped out for the night. If he has no atlas or star hopping skills ... I can't imagine having a whole precious night of observing shot to pieces because of a software/encoder/power glitch.<
Oh, yeah, seen that! Quiet mumbling, packing up and gone by 10pm because they don't know how to search things out.
Jim
--------------------
Vixen 140 refractor
|
Jeff Young
Post Laureate
Reged: 08/04/05
Posts: 4333
Loc: Ireland
|
|
Quote:
There's certainly a lot to be said about being a competent astronomer and that means knowing the sky.
Sure... but sometimes I just want to be a competent sketcher, and GoTo can certainly make me more productive on that front.
Cheers,
-- Jeff.
--------------------
Nikon 18x70s / UA Millennium Colorado:
Solarscope SF70 / TV Pronto / AP400QMD Coronado SolarMax40 DS / Bogen 055+3130
APM MC1610 / Tak FC-125 / AP1200GTO Tak Mewlon 250 / AP600EGTO
|
waskeyc
journeyman
Reged: 06/27/08
Posts: 28
Loc: Virginia
|
|
Quote:
I found this comment to be quite interesting...have not used the circles on my mounts to find objects. They are there for a purpose though so why not? Has anyone else found them accurate and quick enough to be useful?
Thanks for all the thoughtful input by the way!!
Tom N.
I use manual setting circles on a regular basis. I can get an object in a 1-degree field of view 75% of the time  . I have a relatively inexpensive mount, the CG-4, and I've used it with and without a clock drive. There is a vernier on the R.A. axis which helps considerably. The Dec axis is more difficult to read accurately.
The trick to getting manual setting circles to work is to have an accurate polar alignment. I can do that in about 2 minutes though with a little technique I use (no drift alignment for me  ). A polar alignment scope could also be used for a quick polar alignment.
--------------------
----------
Chris
Celestron C4R
|
Rick Woods
Postmaster
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 6268
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
Quote:
David, the debate is half the fun!
Interesting, the consensus here so far is heavily on the side of star-hopping. Yeah, the failure rate of a GoTo mount is something to consider. There's certainly a lot to be said about being a competent astronomer and that means knowing the sky. Thanks, Tom
Anyone with strong feelings in this matter will come down on the side of star hopping, because it carries a sense of personal accomplishment that's lacking in a goto system. It's like playing a musical instrument, as opposed to cranking up the stereo. Anyone can do the latter; it takes practice to do the former.
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
Dyslexics Untie!
|
TomN
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/14/09
Posts: 513
|
|
Quote:
Anyone with strong feelings in this matter will come down on the side of star hopping, because it carries a sense of personal accomplishment that's lacking in a goto system. It's like playing a musical instrument, as opposed to cranking up the stereo. Anyone can do the latter; it takes practice to do the former.
Well said.
--------------------
Amateur Astronomer since 1962.
|
ColoHank
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/07/07
Posts: 670
Loc: western Colorado
|
|
Quote:
...but you still need the battery for the clock drive
One little 9V battery runs my clock drive for about 50 hours. It's no big deal to carry a couple of spares in my eyepiece box for the drive and for my variable-output red LED flashlight.
--------------------
---------------------
Questar 3.5 standard - pyrex and BB coatings
Powerguide II
8mm, 12mm, 16mm, 24mm and 32mm Brandons
modified Bogen 3030 w/ homebuilt wedge
Homebuilt Galileo scope and very large and ugly homemade tripod
other odds and ends, including iPod Touch with StarMap Pro (what a marvelous combo)...
---------------------
"Nothing exists but atoms and empty space. Everything else is opinion."
Titus Lucretius Carus 99-55 B.C.
|
bicparker
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 02/07/05
Posts: 1759
Loc: Plano, TX
|
|
These days, I'm a "nothing but Telrad" star hopper with my dob. I do have a Gemini robotic mount, but it doesn't find much use these days.
One common thread that I have noticed through all of this topic is the importance of a having a good star atlas available (which has always been a huge priority for me). This is important whether you have go-to or not. It surprises me how many folks observe or try to observe without an atlas handy.
This ends up going hand-in-hand with experience, too. After 40 years of this, I have realized that the more I do this, the more I use my atlases. And the experience helps you understand better what you should expect out of the object and confirm its appearance.
You can't go-to if you don't know what or where you are going-to. Anything less is just spinning your scope around the sky and hoping the computer is always right.
--------------------
Bic Parker
17.5" f/5 dob
10" f/10 SCT
5" f/8 refractor
80mm f/6 refractor
66mm f/6 refractor
Plus a few others out of the rotation
|
johnfdean
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/04/06
Posts: 1073
Loc: southern tip of Illinois
|
|
I bought an Argo anvis that I have no complaints about performance wise. I have used it 2 or 3 times over the past 2 to 3 years. Star-hopping seems to be what I naturally do.
--------------------
Celestron C6 f/5 by Vixen with Polaris GEM
14" Tscope dob f/4.7 with Argo Navis
80mm Nighthawk on Eq 2
Celestron C-4 f/10
|
TomN
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/14/09
Posts: 513
|
|
There certainly is something fascinating about getting into the star atlas, looking at what's there, then going out and really observing an area. Several observers mentioned focusing on a very small area of sky. A great approach and one that I have used myself. The Cassiopeia/Perseus region has an unbelievable number of objects within the reach of my small refractors. It's great fun to use the atlas and associated catalogs, make a little observing plan (this keeps me occupied on cloudy nights...) and then set out to see what you can see. I also like to sketch DSOs and have a growing collection of sketches. That forces one to really observe an object. I like that. Great discussion!
Tom 
--------------------
Amateur Astronomer since 1962.
|
Tom Polakis
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 12/20/04
Posts: 816
Loc: Tempe, Arizona
|
|
Quote:
I star hop. Feels great to find something, like a personal conquest.
It's also pretty fun to just look at the sky naked eye and know where everything you've found is, exactly, in relation to everything else, as opposed to just knowing the general direction.
I star hop, but I've never really been able embrace the "personal victory" angle. This poster's second point, however, sums up the reason I like to star hop. After enough years of star hopping, one can look at the sky with no telescope, and see it like a star chart, knowing where all of the bright (and some faint) deep-sky objects are located.
Go-to telescopes have opened up the hobby for those who don't prefer to find objects manually, so I still consider them a net benefit to the hobby. One thing that go-to lends itself to that is not good practice is observing objects that are too low. Star hoppers tend to be more intimately connected with the celestial sphere. They are more likely to know where the meridian is, and observe objects when they are within a couple hours of transiting.
It has been interesting to read 40 replies so far, and notice an overwhelming preference for star hopping over go-to. If you asked this question in any of the other forums beside deep-sky observing, I wonder how the results would be different.
Tom
--------------------
Tom Polakis
Tempe, AZ
Visual observing, DSLR photography, lunar & planetary imaging
http://www.pbase.com/polakis/
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 8803
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
Quote:
David, the debate is half the fun!
Interesting, the consensus here so far is heavily on the side of star-hopping. Yeah, the failure rate of a GoTo mount is something to consider. There's certainly a lot to be said about being a competent astronomer and that means knowing the sky. Thanks, Tom
Failure rate? I have only had a couple of times when things didn't go right, but I could still easily work around the problems and get the scope working well in its Go-to mode. The GPS battery in my 9.25 is starting to die, but I can still get things up and running by punching a few more buttons to input my location. Still, if the whole thing went bust, I still would have the scope to use manually, as well as my 100mm f/6 refractor which is manual (and has a cheap pair of setting circles). In addition, I like to observe with others, so if my system craps out, I just join someone else in our group to share in the experience of observing. If someone with a Go-To scope that goes flaky packs it in, that is their own personal problem and not the "fault" of Go-To. In the end, I would rather have is something that allows me to find and observe objects the most easily and the most efficiently, and for me and many other competent and seasoned amateur astronomers, Go-To is that method.
However, the thing I most object to at times in the continuing "discussion" is the way some of this discussion can sometimes directly or indirectly insinuate that starhopping and those who do it more exclusively may somehow be better than those who choose the route of Go-To. This insinuation may not be intentional at all, but it unfortunately does happen, especially with those who "read between the lines" a lot. I saw the same pointless and divisive debate many years ago with the setting circle vs. star hopping crowd, and years later, I learned what a problem it caused between some people when those who used circles were directly or even indirectly snubbed because they "did not know the sky". The same potential for damage appears today almost every time a "Go-To vs. Star Hopping" thread comes up. Oh, people won't say it up front necessarily, but as the discussion continues, you will see just a little of this come up. Careful choice of words and balance are essential here.
Which is better: GoTo or Star Hopping?
The answer is: NEITHER!! Each has their advantages and disadvantages. Observing the heavens is the objective here, so how it is best accomplished is up to the individual amateur astronomer to decide. Clear skies to you.
--------------------
David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
Prairie Astronomy Club
http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
|
KWB
Postmaster
Reged: 09/30/06
Posts: 9269
Loc: Westminster,Co Elev.1646Meters
|
|
Well said,David
IMO there is no room for an elitist attitude in this hobby,at least as far as anyone I care to be around. Be it equipment or how one chooses to locate a celestial object,I'm with Tom as well because there is no personal victory. I hate to sound like a broken record but I can't resist saying,"Let Jesse rob the train however he wants to".
The end justifies the means,whatever path is chosen. Just give me dark skies and I'm at home with anything in my hands. Having said the above and given the choice,I prefer the ease,speed and accuracy of a quality goto system. And also believe in never leaving home with just one scope as well.
--------------------
Kenny
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
|
la200o
super member
Reged: 09/09/08
Posts: 177
Loc: SE Michigan, USA
|
|
I do both, depending on time available and conditions. One thing I find to be true: When I find an object on my own I tend to spend more time with it. If I'm using a goto, I look at more things, but more superficially.
Bill
--------------------
CPC 9.25
TV 102
Unitron 114
Half Hitch Mk III
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 8803
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
Quote:
I do both, depending on time available and conditions. One thing I find to be true: When I find an object on my own I tend to spend more time with it. If I'm using a goto, I look at more things, but more superficially.
Bill
I have experienced just the opposite. I have more time to work with and study an object when I am using Go-To, especially when I am pressed for time and have an extended list of objects which I want to observe during the evening. I put this time to good use by trying different eyepiece combinations or just looking at the object more carefully than when I have the pressure of expending the extra time for manually locating and positioning an object rather than having the scope do it. Clear skies to you.
--------------------
David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
Prairie Astronomy Club
http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
|
MessierScott
sage
Reged: 06/18/07
Posts: 311
|
|
You've seen my thoughts in an earlier post. I still think that it is good idea to learn the sky either way you go.
I have personally seen the following two things happen, and it seems like a shame:
1) a dob user packing up and going home because he couldn't get his DSC's working correctly.
2) a gentleman getting frustrated because his GO-TO mount would not take him to M42 (this is at 11pm CDT in mid-July).
--------------------
Scott Kranz
20-inch f/4.3 Starmaster w/Zambuto mirror
7-inch Starmaster
H-alpha Coronado PST
Denkmeier II binoviewers w/24mm Panoptics
16x80 binos
Astronomical Society of Kansas City
Powell Observatory with 30-inch f/4.9 EQ newtonian
Astronomical League Messier, Meteor, Sunspotter, Asteroid, & Comet Observing Programs Coordinator
ASKC Dark Sky Site
|
stevecoe
"Astronomical Tourist"
Reged: 04/24/04
Posts: 2862
Loc: Arizona, USA
|
|
I am with David on this one, GOTO provides me a chance to really observe the object, write or draw a good observation and still get many objects done as the evening get later. I wish I had it many years ago. My main telescope will always have some type of electronic setting circles.
Clear skies;
Steve Coe
--------------------
TeleVue 102 refractor on CGEM mount
9.25 inch Celestron SCT
Author "Deep Sky Observing" Springer-Verlag
Author "Nebulae and How to Observe Them" Springer
Canon Xt astrocamera with Hutech modification
|
StarmanDan
professor emeritus
Reged: 08/27/07
Posts: 626
Loc: China Spring, Texas
|
|
My GoTo scope has now pretty much been relegated to AP. I can find things just fine with a good star atlas.
--------------------
"Starman" Dan Doyle
Texas Astronomical Society of Dallas
Central Texas Astronomical Society
8" LX200GPS w/ST80 guidescope, Canon 350D+DSI Pro
150mm f/8 Sky Watcher Refractor
10" f/4.5 Homemade Dob
RV-6 Criterion Dynascope
http://darcstar.wordpress.com
|
wfj
sage
Reged: 01/10/08
Posts: 280
Loc: California, Santa Cruz County
|
|
Use all of the above. Am totally non-ideological. Can take any scope, any tech, no tech at all, ... and go out and enjoy.
GOTO for me when I use it is just about "focus on the objects", and I spend the time on technique/EPs/filters. On target efficiency.
No/low tech, its about sorting through a bunch of different areas in the sky, where I'm too impatient for the motors. Sometimes I'll compare galaxies/globs in very different parts of the sky, and switch back/forth between them, doing a bit of an "A/B" comparison between them. Sometimes do this with a friend. Usually I can do it much faster than the GOTO. But then this is on bright/routine objects.
Lately I've used the cellphone app for charts more - it has a feature that allows me to set the limiting magnitude seen, the orientation/reversal of the optics, and the FOV of finders/eps. Use it both on GOTO/non-GOTO telescopes/sessions.
On GOTOs/DSCs/Push To's, I'm frequently using the fine RA/DEC to bounce against the charts on my cellphone to find things "off the beaten path", or when I suspect something is there on the edge of visibility.
Agree with David about the universality of going between scopes - frankly wish they all had WiFi/Bluetooth so I could get them to interoperate better passing coordinates.
Agree with Tony about DSC's being better setting circles than setting circles - you can use the fine position information quite well. Don't thing I've used them in years.
As to the ego thing about not using GOTO, or the macho thing about manual use - I think that there's a contingent out there who just loves put downs of any kind. All they do is annoy/irritate/destroy interest in the sky to feed a tiny ego. Spend as little time as you can on them, let the slime roll off, and go back to the sky is my advice.
added:
Another advantage of the cellphone app for rendering custom charts is that I can wander between scopes, go up/down ladders, cross between newts/scts/refractors with different FOVs etc and track the same part of the sky with a common reference that's always in hand near the EP.
Edited by wfj (05/14/09 02:15 AM)
|
7331Peg
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 09/01/08
Posts: 970
Loc: North coast of Oregon
|
|
I've already posted my thoughts here, but after reading the additional posts I'll add just one thing. There is a place for both go-to and star-hopping - they don't need to be mutually exclusive. As with any technique, or combination of techniques, once you become familiar and comfortable with both methods, you learn where and when they work best for you. And once you achieve that proficiency, your enjoyment of astronomical observing goes to a whole different and much more satisfying level.
John
|
TomN
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/14/09
Posts: 513
|
|
Quote:
There is a place for both go-to and star-hopping - they don't need to be mutually exclusive. As with any technique, or combination of techniques, once you become familiar and comfortable with both methods, you learn where and when they work best for you. And once you achieve that proficiency, your enjoyment of astronomical observing goes to a whole different and much more satisfying level.
Yes, yes, and yes! I have a push-to (Sky Tour) on my Gibraltar mount and TV-101. It is a wonderful tool, but most often I just take out a grab n'go scope and look at the sky! It's all good!
--------------------
Amateur Astronomer since 1962.
|
wfj
sage
Reged: 01/10/08
Posts: 280
Loc: California, Santa Cruz County
|
|
Have some short tube newts, and sometimes just sit in a lawn chair with the mirror end in my lap (or under arm), and sort through the sky w/o any mount at 20-30x.
|
Rick Woods
Postmaster
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 6268
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
Yeah, but which is better?
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
Dyslexics Untie!
|
TomN
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/14/09
Posts: 513
|
|
Quote:
Yeah, but which is better?
........troublemaker..... 
--------------------
Amateur Astronomer since 1962.
|
Scott Beith
SRF
Reged: 11/26/03
Posts: 37989
Loc: Frederick, MD
|
|
Which is better: GoTo or Star Hopping?
"The answer is: NEITHER!! Each has their advantages and disadvantages. Observing the heavens is the objective here, so how it is best accomplished is up to the individual amateur astronomer to decide. Clear skies to you. " Mr. David W. Knisely
Perfect answer. 
--------------------
  SLAP Observer (TMB130SS, SV102V{LOMO Lens}, SV80ED)
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell
"The measure of a man’s greatness is not determined by what he accomplishes for himself, but by what he accomplishes for others.” -- Some Bald Guy
|
Sarkikos
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/18/07
Posts: 1729
Loc: Suburban Maryland, USA
|
|
wfj,
Quote:
Have some short tube newts, and sometimes just sit in a lawn chair with the mirror end in my lap (or under arm), and sort through the sky w/o any mount at 20-30x.
Yes, I know what you mean. I do this sometimes myself. It's like using a big bino but without the neck strain. I have a 4.5" Newt and a 6" Newt, both short focus, that I can use while sitting in a lawn chair. I attach a laser finder to the side of the OTA and just point, click, and observe. No goto, no mount, no finder. No fuss, no muss. Only a star map if you want to find some object that you haven't seen before. But if, like me, you've been star hopping for decades, you already have locations for a lot of nice objects stored up there in your wetware. Another advantage of star hopping.
Mike
--------------------
C10-NGT on 1stBase (DSO); Z8, Bosma 6" f12 MCT (NSO); 6" f5 Newt, 4.5" f4.4 Ball (Handheld RF w/GLP); C4-R, 130ST (NSO/RF/DS); 90mm f13 MCT (Luna/DS); ST80+Crayford (RF/DS); SkyMaster 25x100/15x70; Zhumell 20x80; Barska XWA 10x50/8x40 (9.5°!); CV 2.3x40 (26°!); BV-125C; CG5, CG4 (2d); SV AZ, 501HDV on 055XB, P+ on Oberwerk; QuikFinder, Telrad; 11x70 RACI Finder; Dynamo Pro, Dew-Not; Orion 5-Filter Wheel; ES 14 100°, Baader Zoom, Baader GO 9mm, Plossls, Orthos, Kellners; Barlows, Reducers
|
scott m
sage
Reged: 12/06/07
Posts: 228
Loc: Hatfield Pa
|
|
I do both, guess it depends my level of patience for that night. One thing I do more often is I mounted a green laser on my DS-90 and even the deep sky objects are hardly visible. It points to them; then I just point the DOB at the laser and no searching.
--------------------
Orion Astroview 120st EQ w/rigel+2"diag(Cosmo)
Zhumell 10 inch dob w/telrad (Oddball)
Nikon AE 10x50 Binos
Astro-Tech Paradigm 5,8,12,15,18,25mm
GSO SuperView 30mm,20mm,15mm,10mm
Knight Owl EWA 6mm,9mm
Zhumell Plossl EP Kit
|
Rick Woods
Postmaster
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 6268
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yeah, but which is better?
........troublemaker.....
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
Dyslexics Untie!
|
arpruss
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 05/23/08
Posts: 964
Loc: Waco, TX
|
|
I've used paper setting circles on my 8" very heavily, but haven't installed them on my 13" yet. Last night, I took the 13" out to a dark site for the first time. It was both interesting and frustrating not to have the setting circles. (That I foolishly rubbed off the dark coating on my Daisy RDF, following various online instructions, didn't help--the dot is harder to see now, even with the pot turned to zero.)
However, I did notice that while I had previously, using setting circles, seen a bunch of the Leo galaxies that I was looking at, I hadn't really noticed their spatial relationships (both real and apparent). Going by the numbers one can miss out on that. It has happened to me in the past that as I go through my observing list, sorted helpfully by RA or alt or something like that, I end up moving the scope, looking at the setting circles, and ending up very close to where the previous object was. One of my slightly embarrassing view-by-number moments was when I was going through the Urban DSO list, item by item. I check the alt/az on my PDA (actually, adjusted alt/az--the PDA does n-star alignment, so the scope doesn't have to be level or north-aligned), if it's in an area of the sky I can see, I point the scope to it. I point the scope. It's a rather nice cluster. I wonder to myself what it is. I look at the sky. It's the Pleiades! (I just better make sure that when observing in daytime I don't try to go by numbers to that intriguing mag -26.7 star that we get to see sometimes. :-) )
On the other hand, with the star hopping, I ended up looking at less than half of the objects that I normally see. But that has to be adjusted for the fact that I was using a new and somewhat unfamiliar scope, with a narrower FOV.
I think eventually I will install paper setting circles (or circle and square) on the 13", as they are really nice for public star nights.
--------------------
Coulter Odyssey 13.1" split-tube
Coulter Odyssey 8"
Home-made 7.8" F/4 dobsonian travel scope
Home-made 68mm F/5.3 achro (typically used as finder on 13.1")
Skymaster 15x70
BPTs4 8x30
32mm Plossl, 30mm GSO SV, 30mm Rini, 27mm Kellner, 13mm Hyperion, 6mm TMB/BO Planetary, Owl 2X Barlow
Palm TX with AstroInfo and RescoViewer
|
jrbarnett
Eyepiece Hooligan
Reged: 02/28/06
Posts: 5301
Loc: Petaluma, CA
|
|
I spent many, many years star hopping because, well, that was all that was available to me at the time. When I purchased my first scope with a GEM and analog setting circles, it was bye-bye star hopping. The setting circles made it easier and more efficient to locate objects. Now that I have push-to and GOTO, I almost never bother with the analog setting circles for exactly the same reason - they make it easier and more efficient to locate targets to observe.
To me this is analogous to electing to drive an automobile rather than riding a bike or a horse to work; shopping for your food in a supermarket rather than farming it or hunting for it using an atl-atl and wearing a loincloth of hide.
I don't "get" the segment that insists star hopping is more "legitimate" than other methods of finding targets. As I've said before, I am no prouder when I find an address using a Rand-McNally Road Atlas than I am when I find that same address using Google Maps or a TomTom GPS.
On the other hand, though star hopping is the least efficient, most time consuming, most other-gear-intensive (i.e., atlases, charts, finders, red flashlights, field guides, etc.) way of tracking down objects you've never previously viewed, it's not particularly difficult to master. Someone high jumping more than their own height impresses me. The act of starhopping is rather more akin to belching at will - anyone can learn to do it but not everyone sees a reason to do so.
Lastly, there's nothing that precludes starhopping with scopes equipped with other, more efficient means of finding targets. The only time I star hop these days is if I've already observed a given object and know where it is relative to a naked eye object. That is the only instance where I find dispensing with the finding aids to be faster than not doing so.
My observing sessions are usually no more than a few hours so I want to pack as much observing into each session as possible. For me, my target yield is about 75% higher for the same time frame using finding aids like GOTO or push to than it is if I star hop alone. Put another way, it would take me 4 years star hopping to see the objects I can see in 1 year using the modern tools.
I guess I'm in favor of progress.
Regards,
Jim
--------------------
"I do not always observe with low dispersion glass doublets, but when I do, I prefer Televue. Stay focused, my friends!"
- The Most Interesting Astronomer in the Universe
|
Tom Polakis
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 12/20/04
Posts: 816
Loc: Tempe, Arizona
|
|
Quote:
To me this is analogous to electing to drive an automobile rather than riding a bike or a horse to work...
That's a pretty good analogy, and one that acknowledges what may be missed by driving to work. Whether your drive is rural or urban (like mine), there's a lot to see during the commute. The same applies to the sky. Star hopping is no "more legitimate" than GO-TO, but star hoppers may see a reward in understanding the layout of the sky a bit better.
Quote:
I don't "get" the segment that insists star hopping is more "legitimate" than other methods of finding targets. As I've said before, I am no prouder when I find an address using a Rand-McNally Road Atlas than I am when I find that same address using Google Maps or a TomTom GPS.
That's a weaker analogy, since the GO-TO route to that address would be to be better compared to being transported instantly or closing one's eyes while somebody else drives the car to your destination. Navigating by one's self using maps is not a matter of pride as much as it is being observant along the way.
Quote:
On the other hand, though star hopping is the least efficient, most time consuming, most other-gear-intensive (i.e., atlases, charts, finders, red flashlights, field guides, etc.) way of tracking down objects you've never previously viewed, it's not particularly difficult to master. Someone high jumping more than their own height impresses me. The act of starhopping is rather more akin to belching at will - anyone can learn to do it but not everyone sees a reason to do so.
You are correct that star hopping is not difficult to master. I've tried all my life to belch at will without success, however.
Quote:
My observing sessions are usually no more than a few hours so I want to pack as much observing into each session as possible. For me, my target yield is about 75% higher for the same time frame using finding aids like GOTO or push to than it is if I star hop alone. Put another way, it would take me 4 years star hopping to see the objects I can see in 1 year using the modern tools.
I'm no doctor, but my prescription for the paragraph above would be a week of observing with only unaided eyes and hand-held binoculars on a mountain top in the Atacama Desert.
Tom
--------------------
Tom Polakis
Tempe, AZ
Visual observing, DSLR photography, lunar & planetary imaging
http://www.pbase.com/polakis/
|
Hrundi
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 02/06/08
Posts: 1505
Loc: Estonia
|
|
I'd chime in on the horse analogy too.
I'm a huge fan of walking to random places. If I'm in a hurry to some specific place or meeting, then I take transportation. However if it's just about experiencing the environment, then there's no way to do it better than to walk, or use slower, more open transportation such as biking.
This is a parallel I can bring into observing I think. If the goal is some specific object, then yes, goto is superior, often faster and involves less hassle. However, for me at least, the path there has as much magic to it as the destination, which is why I'm hesitant to skip it when I don't have to.
--------------------
|
stevecoe
"Astronomical Tourist"
Reged: 04/24/04
Posts: 2862
Loc: Arizona, USA
|
|
I agree with Tom in that a few evenings with a good pair of binoculars and a modest star chart will teach you plenty about finding your way around in the sky. You will find yourself saying things like "Oh, that is what Crater (The Cup) looks like".
We have had one star party in our astronomy club that was aimed at using binoculars. We traded pairs of binocs around, pointed out things to observe and generally had a fun time. More will probably happen in the future.
Enjoy;
Steve Coe
--------------------
TeleVue 102 refractor on CGEM mount
9.25 inch Celestron SCT
Author "Deep Sky Observing" Springer-Verlag
Author "Nebulae and How to Observe Them" Springer
Canon Xt astrocamera with Hutech modification
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3938
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
To me this is analogous to electing to drive an automobile rather than riding a bike or a horse to work.
This particular analogy works against your argument, not for it. I've never ridden a horse to work, but I do often commute by bicycle. And among people who have habitually commuted both by car and by bicycle, I think you'd have to look far and wide for someone who prefers driving.
Frankly, I've always been amazed how many people eat breakfast, get in a car, and spend the next long while driving to work. A more soul-crushing way to start a day is hard to imagine. Sitting in traffic with smoke coming out of your ears, surrounded by the real world but cut off from it by a steel coffin and a wall of glass -- thanks, but no thanks!
Granted, many people have no other option. But here in Boston, my guess is that 25% of all commuters could get to work every bit as fast by bicycle as by car, and for another 25% bicycle would only be marginally slower.
So why don't more people bicycle? Many reasons, perhaps chief among them the (legitimate) fear of being killed by a less enlightened commuter. But really, the main reason is because it requires effort. Which is not synonymous at all with taking more time.
Getting places faster is arguably progress -- though I have no shortage of counter-arguments to that claim. Getting places effortlessly is not progress. The opposite of effort is torpor, either mental, physical, or both.
Our whole society is obsessed with convenience. And so we increasingly slide conveniently and efficiently from cradle to grave without ever risking anything challenging, unexpected, or uplifting.
I have no argument with people who prefer Go To to star-hopping for a whole variety of reasons. But I suspect that for many, especially newbies, it's the fear of having to make an effort that lies at the bottom of this choice. I understand that, but don't sympathize with it.
If I were willing to spend the money, had room to store the scope, and didn't have issues with electric supply, I would get a scope with Go To in the blink of an eye, and enjoy its many benefits. Not least among those, a Go To scope is the only practical way to see details on artificial satellites.
As it is, I'm quite happy star-hopping. I find the experience rewarding in its own right, and in any case I don't "waste" much time doing it. I spend far more time looking at the things that I've found than I do finding them in the first place.
Once you've acquired the necessary skills, star-hopping isn't particularly challenging. And faint objects are probably where Go To would help me least. Unless the Go To has arc-minute accuracy, I would end up having to match up star fields anyway to find an object at the edge of visibility. When I've star-hopped there, the star field is pre-matched in my mind.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
TomN
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/14/09
Posts: 513
|
|
I was out just last night thinking "oh geez, it's clear, I should go get out my telescope...but I have to get up early...I dunno..." Then I found myself just standing in the yard looking at the sky. That is a very legitimate form of astronomy and the only one available to humans until the last 500 years or so. So I decided to put away the guilt and the pressure and just enjoy a few moments of looking at and enjoying a dark sky. Very liberating!
--------------------
Amateur Astronomer since 1962.
|
ColoHank
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/07/07
Posts: 670
Loc: western Colorado
|
|
Perhaps John Ruskin, commenting on the advent of the railroad, said it best: "There was always more in the world than a man could see, walked he ever so slowly. He will see no more by going fast, for his glory is not in going, but in being."
Of course, if a person is a human-doing rather than a human-being -- Ruskin's sentiments aren't quite so apropos.
--------------------
---------------------
Questar 3.5 standard - pyrex and BB coatings
Powerguide II
8mm, 12mm, 16mm, 24mm and 32mm Brandons
modified Bogen 3030 w/ homebuilt wedge
Homebuilt Galileo scope and very large and ugly homemade tripod
other odds and ends, including iPod Touch with StarMap Pro (what a marvelous combo)...
---------------------
"Nothing exists but atoms and empty space. Everything else is opinion."
Titus Lucretius Carus 99-55 B.C.
|
Jeff Morgan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 09/28/03
Posts: 2081
Loc: Prescott, AZ
|
|
Quote:
So why don't more people bicycle? Many reasons, perhaps chief among them the (legitimate) fear of being killed by a less enlightened commuter. But really, the main reason is because it requires effort. Which is not synonymous at all with taking more time.
When I was working in downtown Chicago I used to be able to do that ... for a few months out the year. I'm not sure it made me any more "enlightened" but it was nice (worlds nicer than public transportation cattle cars). For most people arriving to work in a presentable fashion is probably more important though.
Getting back to the GOTO thing, this thread has got me a little interested in trying it. I have an ETX 90 I bought for a rifle range spotter. Because of the poor finder, limited FOV, and problematic table-top mounting I had never considered it for astronomy. But, it could make a nice little double-star scope. The OTA detaches from the fork and has a 1/4-20 thread, would an iOptron cube be a suitable mount?
--------------------
Jeff Morgan
Prescott, AZ
Wile E. Coyote School of Telescope Making
|
deepsky
sage
Reged: 12/04/05
Posts: 228
Loc: oregon
|
|
I have GoTo on my 18" Dob, but I hardly ever use it.
I like the KISS principle, and I must admit I get a rush every time I find my object. Then I double the fun by sketching, observing and logging the object.
Do I think Starhopping is superior? Heck no; someday I'm going to kick in the GoTo and start all over again.
--------------------
jim jackson
Astroleague Observer Award junkie
Messier Club-Honorary
Lunar Club
Binocular Messier Club
Double Star Club
Herschel 400 Club
Urban Observing Club
Deep Sky Binocular Club
Caldwell Club Silver&Gold
Southern Sky Binocular Club
Southern Sky Telescopic Club
|
Bill F
sage
Reged: 05/30/05
Posts: 214
Loc: scotland
|
|
More years ago than I care to remember, I learnt the sky with an old telescope I found in a cupboard at school and Norton's star atlas.
Many years later I bought a 4.5 inch newt which was great for looking at easy things like the moon or Jupiter, but I got very frustrated that I could never find anything else and gave up for many years.
4 years ago I bought a GoTo and have got infinitely more pleasure and knowledge out of the sky since.
3 months ago I dropped the Starbook controller (nothing new for a clumsy oaf like me), then stood on it! At which point it decided enough was enough and quit. I then tried star hopping, which was better than nothing but I found a bit slow as I like to observe and study an object in detail.
I just got the Starbook back in time for the summer shutdown. It doesn't get DSO dark for three months.
Each to his own, but I don't think I'd be in the hobby without GoTo.
Bill
--------------------
Orion Optics (UK) SPX 250 F4.8
|
TomN
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/14/09
Posts: 513
|
|
Quote:
More years ago than I care to remember, I learnt the sky with an old telescope I found in a cupboard at school and Norton's star atlas.
Yes, thanks for the reminder, I got my start with a Bausch and Lomb spotting scope. Rested it against the fence in the backyard and had lots of fun. Of course in those days (1962) I knew nothing about DSOs, but had fun looking at the bright planets and the moon. And, no GOTO!
--------------------
Amateur Astronomer since 1962.
|
Man in a Tub
Not Retired!, But a little cranky!!!
Reged: 10/28/08
Posts: 2664
Loc: San Francisco, CA
|
|
Quote:
Once you've acquired the necessary skills, star-hopping isn't particularly challenging.
"It's like walking in the woods," I tell people who are surprised to see me on a city sidewalk with tripod-mounted binoculars. The woods analogy usually gets said after they ask me "What's going on?" Answer to that question: a lot.
Clear Skies!
Todd
|
Jeff Lee
professor emeritus
Reged: 09/17/06
Posts: 560
|
|
Done both. For my limited time goto is what I want, esp. in the city..
--------------------
Jeff Lee
C90,C5,C8, 10 x 50's
|
AlanK
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/26/07
Posts: 523
Loc: Auckland, New Zealand
|
|
Up to a couple of years ago I was always star hopping as the scope had no electronics at all. With the 18 and DSC's it is now part/part - find the nearest NGC or IC to the object I'm after and then star hop the rest of the way. This saves a lot of time especially getting into naked eye star poor areas such as Antlia and Sculptor for example and time is of the essence in the ocean ruled NZ climate where many observing trips are opportunistic. Star hopping is still a good back-up in the rare instances of the DSC's playing up or batteries going flat. With very large scopes, push or gotos are a must IMHO as it is a lot easier than being up a ladder getting to the right part of the sky in the first instance and then star hopping to the target.
--------------------
Clear skies!
18 inch f4.5 Obsession #1637
12 inch f5.4 reflector
Just another frozen astronomer
Kumeu Observatory
Auckland NZ
7,436 deep sky objects incl 4,742 ngcs
Who dares - observes!
|
arpruss
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 05/23/08
Posts: 964
Loc: Waco, TX
|
|
[QUOTE]I am no prouder when I find an address using a Rand-McNally Road Atlas than I am when I find that same address using Google Maps or a TomTom GPS.[/QUOTE]
Well, the analogy isn't bad. I have had a GPS in the car since moving here two years ago. However, it has slowed down my learning of what is where in town, since I can just type in the destination address, and go off, and not pay any attention to where in town I am or which streets I'm taking. As a result, I don't know my way around town as well as others do. Last night I didn't even know which highway to tell my friends to take to my dark sky site (but I did guess, and I guessed right), because when I follow the GPS, I don't pay attention to which roads I take--I just follow the directions.
If one already knows the city, or if one just quickly wants to get somewhere and one doesn't care about learning one's way around (e.g., if one is visiting a town or an area that one isn't going to go to much, or one is in a hurry), there is nothing wrong with using GPS. But if one wants to get to know the city, using GPS is probably not the best idea, at least if you're like me and you just pay attention only to road safety and GPS directions, and generally ignore landmarks, road signs, etc.
So for a beginner like me, there is a value in star-hopping.
Probably the best advice I saw was that when one uses assisted means for locating objects, one should take care to see one or two objects by star-hopping (I guess just so one doesn't get rusty).
As a minor autobiographical psychological point, I think that when I use setting circles, I spend less time paying attention to the objects when I find them--I find I get myself into a checking-off objects mode, rather than observing mode. But if it's taken a while to find the object with star-hopping, it's worth spending a while on the object. This may not be true for other people.
Another issue is that in crowded areas of the sky (e.g., galaxies around Leo), when using setting circles, to be sure that the object in the EP is the one I was looking for, I may need to do some star-hopping anyway, to find some obvious asterism to match up against the chart and confirm it. More precise goto that could be sure to put the exact object exactly in the center of the FOV would take care of that.
--------------------
Coulter Odyssey 13.1" split-tube
Coulter Odyssey 8"
Home-made 7.8" F/4 dobsonian travel scope
Home-made 68mm F/5.3 achro (typically used as finder on 13.1")
Skymaster 15x70
BPTs4 8x30
32mm Plossl, 30mm GSO SV, 30mm Rini, 27mm Kellner, 13mm Hyperion, 6mm TMB/BO Planetary, Owl 2X Barlow
Palm TX with AstroInfo and RescoViewer
|
AlanK
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/26/07
Posts: 523
Loc: Auckland, New Zealand
|
|
Quote:
Another issue is that in crowded areas of the sky (e.g., galaxies around Leo), when using setting circles, to be sure that the object in the EP is the one I was looking for, I may need to do some star-hopping anyway, to find some obvious asterism to match up against the chart and confirm it. More precise goto that could be sure to put the exact object exactly in the center of the FOV would take care of that.
Ditto here. DSC's are close but rarely spot on. An error of up to 1/2 of a degree is quite common. In those crowded areas such as the Virgo cluster where more than one galaxy can be seen in the low power field a quick check of the star charts and correct positioning of right spot in the finder's cross hairs has prevented many mis-id's.
One thing I do like is using the DSC to position on an object that is behind a cloud, the cloud then clears and there it is - cheat!
--------------------
Clear skies!
18 inch f4.5 Obsession #1637
12 inch f5.4 reflector
Just another frozen astronomer
Kumeu Observatory
Auckland NZ
7,436 deep sky objects incl 4,742 ngcs
Who dares - observes!
|
Jeff Morgan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 09/28/03
Posts: 2081
Loc: Prescott, AZ
|
|
Quote:
Well, the analogy isn't bad. I have had a GPS in the car since moving here two years ago. However, it has slowed down my learning of what is where in town, since I can just type in the destination address, and go off, and not pay any attention to where in town I am or which streets I'm taking. As a result, I don't know my way around town as well as others do. Last night I didn't even know which highway to tell my friends to take to my dark sky site (but I did guess, and I guessed right), because when I follow the GPS, I don't pay attention to which roads I take--I just follow the directions.
And of course one hardly needs GPS to go to the grocery store ....
--------------------
Jeff Morgan
Prescott, AZ
Wile E. Coyote School of Telescope Making
|
arpruss
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 05/23/08
Posts: 964
Loc: Waco, TX
|
|
Quote:
And of course one hardly needs GPS to go to the grocery store ....
Actually, my first two or three trips to the grocery store were by GPS. :-)
--------------------
Coulter Odyssey 13.1" split-tube
Coulter Odyssey 8"
Home-made 7.8" F/4 dobsonian travel scope
Home-made 68mm F/5.3 achro (typically used as finder on 13.1")
Skymaster 15x70
BPTs4 8x30
32mm Plossl, 30mm GSO SV, 30mm Rini, 27mm Kellner, 13mm Hyperion, 6mm TMB/BO Planetary, Owl 2X Barlow
Palm TX with AstroInfo and RescoViewer
|
Scott K
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 09/13/07
Posts: 1533
Loc: Dallas, TX & Eufaula, OK
|
|
Quote:
I have been thinking about a new GoTo mount and I began to wonder what your thoughts are about GoTo vs. the old tried and true star-hopping method with a set of star charts.
I think this is entirely a personal choice. To use a somewhat different analogy than the others presented so far, I think this is like asking whether or not you want a powerboat or a sailboat. Powerboats are certainly easier to operate efficiently and get you from point A to point B more quickly, typically. However, we are talking about a recreational activity, so do you WANT to get from point A to point B more quickly, since your basic purpose is to relax? (Some will, or will want to pull skiers or whatever, others will enjoy the silence and the skill of operating the sailboat.)
The answer to that type of question is entirely personal.
I think that as long as you are having fun out under the stars, it doesn't really matter what approach you take.
I'd definitely suggest trying someone else's goto mount first to see whether or not you enjoy it.
|
Rick Woods
Postmaster
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 6268
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
Quote:
The act of starhopping is rather more akin to belching at will - anyone can learn to do it but not everyone sees a reason to do so.
I never thought of it quite like that...
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
Dyslexics Untie!
|
Sarkikos
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/18/07
Posts: 1729
Loc: Suburban Maryland, USA
|
|
A good reason for me to star hop instead of using goto, is that I don't have goto. A good reason for me not to get goto, is that it's more expensive than not having goto. That's also a good reason for me not to get APO or Ethos ... or Lexus.
--------------------
C10-NGT on 1stBase (DSO); Z8, Bosma 6" f12 MCT (NSO); 6" f5 Newt, 4.5" f4.4 Ball (Handheld RF w/GLP); C4-R, 130ST (NSO/RF/DS); 90mm f13 MCT (Luna/DS); ST80+Crayford (RF/DS); SkyMaster 25x100/15x70; Zhumell 20x80; Barska XWA 10x50/8x40 (9.5°!); CV 2.3x40 (26°!); BV-125C; CG5, CG4 (2d); SV AZ, 501HDV on 055XB, P+ on Oberwerk; QuikFinder, Telrad; 11x70 RACI Finder; Dynamo Pro, Dew-Not; Orion 5-Filter Wheel; ES 14 100°, Baader Zoom, Baader GO 9mm, Plossls, Orthos, Kellners; Barlows, Reducers
|
Dain
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 03/24/05
Posts: 2047
Loc: N.Y. Adirondack Mnts. NGC 4565...
|
|
I think we're all pretty much on track now.
--------------------
Best,
Dain
Adirondack Mountains (my true dark sky site)
@ Cedar River Flow
Local Site
Clear Skies?
|
Astraforce Paul
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 04/05/05
Posts: 1913
|
|
Four other aspects of all this.
1) Noise. Unless I missed it, one issue that hasn't been mentioned is NOISE! I've owned and used several go-tos, but find the drive noise on most irritating. I like being at peace with the night sky.
2) Manual control. Another issue that hasn't really come up is the lack of optional, manual control on many go-tos. On a few go-tos I owned that were quieter, they lacked manual operation (no clutch), so there was no way of easily moving from one part of the sky to the other.
Still, I must say I enjoyed the convenience of the Celestron hand paddle, being able to press M-4-9 and have it slew there.
3) DSCs. The third thing is the unique role of push-to vs. go-to and star hopping. DSCs are, for me, the perfect compromise. Quiet operation, manual control fully available, no neck strain, no frustration. I use the Argo Navis and have a large custom catalog that provides me with tours of the best objects (NGC, Messier, IC, red stars, colorful doubles, etc.)
Still, there's a thrill using a red dot pointer, QuikFinder, or Telard and landing a DSO in seconds on one's own. No tangent arms to attach, no wires, no fuss, no mess.
4) PDA star charts. Really like having Planetarium (Palm OS) at the scope. I use it for the big picture, constellation-DSO view...that lets me spot what I'd like to observe (and I have it loaded with several custom catalogs) and then I use it for star hopping at the eyepiece! You can set the magnitudes to match your site and see in the eyepiece what's on the screen and step off fovs to get where you're going. Astrocards are an inexpensive, low-tech way of doing this, too! I highly recommend them.
In short, it's fun having lots of options!
|
arpruss
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 05/23/08
Posts: 964
Loc: Waco, TX
|
|
Quote:
4) PDA star charts. Really like having Planetarium (Palm OS) at the scope. I use it for the big picture, constellation-DSO view...that lets me spot what I'd like to observe (and I have it loaded with several custom catalogs) and then I use it for star hopping at the eyepiece! You can set the magnitudes to match your site and see in the eyepiece what's on the screen and step off fovs to get where you're going.
Yes, that's the main way I star-hop. It's worth adding that some PDA star charts will interface with DSCs, and PDA star charts work nicely with analog setting circles.
--------------------
Coulter Odyssey 13.1" split-tube
Coulter Odyssey 8"
Home-made 7.8" F/4 dobsonian travel scope
Home-made 68mm F/5.3 achro (typically used as finder on 13.1")
Skymaster 15x70
BPTs4 8x30
32mm Plossl, 30mm GSO SV, 30mm Rini, 27mm Kellner, 13mm Hyperion, 6mm TMB/BO Planetary, Owl 2X Barlow
Palm TX with AstroInfo and RescoViewer
Edited by arpruss (05/17/09 10:06 AM)
|
jrbarnett
Eyepiece Hooligan
Reged: 02/28/06
Posts: 5301
Loc: Petaluma, CA
|
|
"Our whole society is obsessed with convenience. And so we increasingly slide conveniently and efficiently from cradle to grave without ever risking anything challenging, unexpected, or uplifting."
And it's a darned good thing too that our society still pursues innovation. For the entirety of human existence the species has been obsessed with innovation. Ironically, it is when particular societies have ceased to pursue innovation that those societies have faded into the dusts of time. Turning one's back on innovation is the fast path to extinction at the societal level.
Having commuted by both bicycle and car, and also being an avid outdoorsperson, I need look no further than myself to find a person who has tried both and prefers the automobile commute. What you call "convenience" I would call "efficiency". Bicycling in rain is rotten. Getting hit by a motorist while cycling, likewise is rotten. Being called to an unscheduled meeting at another corporate campus many miles away is likewise rotten if one's only mode of transport is a bicycle (no one wants to sit next too the sweaty person who arrives ten minutes late to the meeting by bicycle).
Riding bicycles when the act itself is the purpose of the pursuit is sublime, but commuting by bike in my book is dangerous, inflexible and most importantly inefficient in a context where I am rewarded for being efficient.
I actually think setting up a GOTO mount requires more up-front effort than star hopping with an alt-z mount. I rather think that the reason many folks star hop is that they find setting up a GOTO mount to require too much effort or even to be intimidating. Rather than confront these fears directly, they default to star hopping and then for some unfathomable reason criticize others who are not so intimidated or daunted. Once the initial pain of set-up is over, GOTO (like most innovations) rewards with efficiency.
As for the accuracy of GOTO, I've used most available systems (Intelliscope, NGC-Max, Argo Navis, Nexstar, Synscan, Autostar, etc.) and provided that the user is up to the effort it takes to polar align and/or star align accurately, any of these systems will put objects in the field of a high power (150x+) eyepiece, which means that rarely does the diligent user need to consult a chart for target confirmation.
The bottom line (for me, personally) is that I am a happier astronomer when I've observed 8 or 9 new targets in a 2 hour session than only two or three new objects star hopping. I have no problem with people star hopping (or riding horses to work). What I find mildly annoying, and the motivation for my post, is the "holier than thou" attitude many star-hopping dervishes exhibit when decrying other target acquisition methods. As if star hopping (like wearing a hair shirt and flagellating one's self, riding a bicycle to work, driving spikes into trees, freeing monkeys from labs, flying planes into buildings, eating or not eating anything for moral reasons, etc.) somehow makes one "better" than someone else. The idea that star hopping(or bicycling to work, or self-flagellation) is somehow "enlightened" is rather silly in my opinion.
Again, my position is that there is no more merit in star hopping than in using Push-To, using analog setting circles or using GOTO, to acquire target. There is something of value to be found in each method, but if one values efficiency, then the logical path is to adopt the innovation of GOTO. I could care less how folks acquire their targets or why they choose the methods they choose (efficiency, fear, misguided sense of personal superiority, delusion, it doesn't matter). I think no more or less of them no matter what method they choose. I don't think using "GOTO" makes me any more "enlightened" than anyone else. That would be a form of conceit and I've never met a conceited enlightened person. The only thing object to is the notion (whether overt or implied) that star hopping somehow makes one a better person than someone who elects to find things other ways for other reasons. All zealots are the same no matter the religion.
Regards,
Jim
Edited by jrbarnett (05/17/09 02:44 PM)
|
jhors
Riddle me this
Reged: 07/16/07
Posts: 990
Loc: Tempe, AZ
|
|
Quote:
. . . Rather than confront these fears directly, they default to star hopping and then for some unfathomable reason criticize others who are not so intimidated or daunted. . .
I respect you and enjoy reading your posts, but I feel compelled to voice my opinion that you might have some responsibility in stirring up the very attitude that seems to bother you so.
I wasn't going to chime in on this thread at all, but I can't help but make that comment. Perhaps it would have been best for me not to write anything, but I was tempted after the "belching on command" analogy and couldn't resist after this last.
You've drawn quite a few unfavorable caricatures of star-hoppers and I don't know why. Most of the posts in this thread are pretty benign, not saying either method is "better."
I, obviously, enjoy doing things in the manner that makes sense to me. Not that my way is better than anyone else's, it's just better for me. You have a method that works for you. Why the negativity?
--------------------
-Josh
Boyce Thompson Arboretum:
10" f/4.7 Dob
8x42 bin
Edited by jhors (05/17/09 03:20 PM)
|
wfj
sage
Reged: 01/10/08
Posts: 280
Loc: California, Santa Cruz County
|
|
"Why the negativity" Ask this all the time.
There are lots of people who don't post, but email/PM, because if they are having a bad day and someone is negative, it collapses their interest and they go away - sometimes permanently.
You wonder at the point of the jerk/ridicule/ideological rant. So let me relate a story:
Was doing astronomy outreach in a disadvantaged area (East Palo Alto in this case), where the parents talk more to their kids about beating up other kids and always being the victor. In this case, it was at a *charter school* that emphasized science and math.
One of the parents wanders over, looks in the EP, and then starts razzing me about how ridiculous it is for a grown man to spend his time looking at such unremarkable things. He was complaining because it wasn't like watching an action film, with spaceships, laser fire, stars exploding ...
It later occurred to me that simply by being there and wrestling with the scope/seeing/interpreting, I was unknowingly *threatening* him - by doing something he couldn't, so like a tortured junk yard dog (actually there was one nearby at the time), he was "fear barking" at me.
So this happens in human endeavors all the time. They get nasty for no good reason. Even on cloudynights, I've routinely been disincented from my hobby by others.
Really think there should be a feedback mechanism, a "click on this link if it makes you feel less like doing things" right next to each post. Then if it accumulates to 4 or so clicks, it sends a "take this back" PM to the poster, so they can share the joy they create. Kind of like getting negative "stars" (perhaps bricks?).
Some like negatives, some like mob behavior, some like encouraging/policing groupthink. Thats what supposedly the mods are for...
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3938
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
The bottom line (for me, personally) is that I am a happier astronomer when I've observed 8 or 9 new targets in a 2 hour session than only two or three new objects star hopping.
Doing the math, I deduce that it takes you (8-2)/2 hours = 20 minutes on average to star-hop to a target. If it took me that long, I probably would avoid star-hopping too.
I won't say that it's never taken me 20 minutes. There are those nights where everything goes wrong -- head east instead of west, then bump the scope just as I'm zeroing in on the target, then drop my star-atlas face-down in the grass.
But I bet my average time is way under 5 minutes.
One point that nobody's made yet is that people have different aptitudes. Without a doubt, everybody can learn to star-hop, but it's bound to be harder for some than for others -- just as navigating a car using a map is harder for some than for others. Having a good spacial sense and visual memory help a lot. I'm really good with maps, but bad (for instance) learning foreign languages. Given my 'druthers, I'd be happy to swap those two aptitudes.
I agree about your point with respect to holier-than-thou, by the way.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
jrbarnett
Eyepiece Hooligan
Reged: 02/28/06
Posts: 5301
Loc: Petaluma, CA
|
|
I suppose it depends on your targets and your scope and your skies, how challenging the chosen object is for the scope and local conditions, and of course whether you've ever located that object or an object nearby before. If I know the "stellar neighborhood" and the object is relatively bright for the aperture being used and light pollution level of the site, I can probably knock them out in 5 or fewer minutes too. If however, I'm pushing my equipment, conditions and sky region familiarity envelope, 18 to 20 minutes is probably about right.
I had pretty much seen everything easily within reach of a 6" Newtonian by the time I switched from starhopping to other methods. In fact it was the pursuit of more challenging targets under suburban skies in that particular scope that prompted me to first move to analog setting circles and ultimately to GOTO for most of my observing.
I suspect there are plenty of people with the aptitude and even a high degree of proficiency for star hopping who nonetheless elect to use other finding methods in the interest of efficiency (my supposition) rather than laziness and/or ignorance as had been suggested in earlier posts.
Sorry if my earlier post came across as sounding "cross" but I've seen lots of posts over the last couple of years advising folks, especially beginners, that they'll "never learn the sky" if they use GOTO or push-to equipped scopes. If you take the time to look where the scope is pointed (as I think most observers do) before "digging in" with the observing you can learn the sky. I've even had star hopping pals use one of my push-to Dobs as a sight-post to help then star hop to tough targets (unfamiliar neighborhood bad light pollution, dim or LSB targets) by sighting up the OTA and paralleling their OTA in both altitude and azimuth with mine.
I also find push-to to actually be more efficient than GOTO in terms of rapid target acquisition. Most GOTO GEMs slew pretty slowly. In some ways, alt-az push-to blends the simplicity of alt-az star hopping with the efficiency of GOTO. The main reason I opt for a GOTO rather than push-to setup these days is that I do a lot more high magnification observing than I used to. Finding is only the beginning of the challenges. Without tracking I'd be lost.
Regards,
Jim
--------------------
"I do not always observe with low dispersion glass doublets, but when I do, I prefer Televue. Stay focused, my friends!"
- The Most Interesting Astronomer in the Universe
Edited by jrbarnett (05/17/09 11:27 PM)
|
Tom Polakis
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 12/20/04
Posts: 816
Loc: Tempe, Arizona
|
|
Quote:
Rather than confront these fears directly, they default to star hopping and then for some unfathomable reason criticize others who are not so intimidated or daunted.
I generally don't criticize as much as I point out that you may miss some of the more rewarding aspects of visual observing using a GO-TO mount. Your implication that those who star-hop are incapable or Luddites comes across as a criticism.
Quote:
I have no problem with people star hopping (or riding horses to work). What I find mildly annoying, and the motivation for my post, is the "holier than thou" attitude many star-hopping dervishes exhibit when decrying other target acquisition methods. As if star hopping (like wearing a hair shirt and flagellating one's self, riding a bicycle to work, driving spikes into trees, freeing monkeys from labs, flying planes into buildings, eating or not eating anything for moral reasons, etc.) somehow makes one "better" than someone else. The idea that star hopping(or bicycling to work, or self-flagellation) is somehow "enlightened" is rather silly in my opinion.
Earlier on in this thread, I gave a prescription for a paragraph that obsessed about "observing efficiency." I'm afraid have no such prescription for those who could make such a reach as to compare star-hopping to terrorist acts. You don't sound like such a happy stargazer, or a happy person at all with that paragraph.
Quote:
All zealots are the same no matter the religion.
There are zealots in both camps.
Tom
[a target acquisition agnostic, really]
--------------------
Tom Polakis
Tempe, AZ
Visual observing, DSLR photography, lunar & planetary imaging
http://www.pbase.com/polakis/
|
TomN
professor emeritus
Reged: 01/14/09
Posts: 513
|
|
Quite frankly folks, I find it sometimes intimidating to just go out and observe by star-hopping. I feel particularly inept at this time of year when Leo crosses the meridian. The constellations are dimmer, the Milky Way is not high, There's lots of dark sky between things, and I don't know my way. That can be a deterrent to me. I want to go out but I'm really not that well oriented. Now in winter or summer that's a different story. I know lots of objects and can find them quickly. Tonight I think I will just wait until later when the summer constellations rise in the east and then go out and look at some familiar sky. Honestly, its sometimes a hassle just to use my simple go-to mount. Much easier to go out sans charts or guides, setup your stuff and look at familiar objects. Guess at heart I'm a minimalist. I think my answer will be not to buy a goto mount, just use my push-to Gibraltar and Sky Tour, and my small refractors on light weight portable mounts. Better learn the spring sky though!
--------------------
Amateur Astronomer since 1962.
|
Tony Flanders
Post Laureate
Reged: 05/18/06
Posts: 3938
Loc: Cambridge, MA, USA
|
|
Quote:
I suspect there are plenty of people with the aptitude and even a high degree of proficiency for star hopping who nonetheless elect to use other finding methods in the interest of efficiency.
Oh, yes -- there's no question whatsoever about that. Several of the best deep-sky observers in the world have just stated precisely that in this very thread. Anybody who thinks that Steve Coe is lazy or incompetent is seriously out of touch with reality!
Quote:
Sorry is my earlier post came across as sounding "cross" but I've seen lots of posts over the last couple of years advising folks, especially beginners, that they'll "never learn the sky" if they use GOTO or push-to equipped scopes. If you take the time to look where the scope is pointed (as I think most observers do) before "digging in" with the observing you can learn the sky.
I agree. But star-hopping does happen to be a very efficient way of learning the night sky without even trying to do so -- just as a side-effect of looking for your targets.
However, knowing the night sky is not the be-all and end-all of astronomy. I do think that it's an important facet, and it's perhaps the single one that I find most rewarding. However, astronomy has many aspects, and very few people have mastered them all.
If I were feeling ornery, I could make a very compelling case that you can't be considered a "serious" astronomer until you've mastered CCD imaging. Unfortunately for me, that argument would exclude me, because I've only dabbled every so slightly in astrophotography.
Likewise, although I deeply love knowing the constellations, and wish that everybody felt the same way, I certainly do not think that knowing the constellations is essential to being a "serious" astronomer.
--------------------
Tony Flanders
First and foremost observing love: naked eye.
Second, binoculars.
Last but not least, telescopes.
And I sometimes dabble with cameras.
|
David Knisely
Postmaster
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 8803
Loc: Beatrice, Nebraska
|
|
Paul R. wrote:
Quote:
1) Noise. Unless I missed it, one issue that hasn't been mentioned is NOISE! I've owned and used several go-tos, but find the drive noise on most irritating. I like being at peace with the night sky.
I cannot hear the drive on my NexStar unless I put my ear right up against the fork. The only time it makes any noise is when slewing, and the Celestron go-to scopes tend to be a lot quieter than the Meades (even then, the Meade only makes noise when it is slewing, and it isn't exactly deafening). In fact, one time I got snookered by my scope's quietness not long after I had gotten it. I was out at my rural "quiet" observing site with my NexStar and had sent it to a target via a remote connection from my laptop while I messed with a chart with my van's radio playing some quiet music in the background. I didn't hear anything and I wondered if the darn thing just didn't get the command to slew from the laptop, so I clicked on the target object again and the scope refused to move. I messed with connections and configurations trying to get the darn thing to slew, but it refused. Finally, I walked over to the scope and looked into the eyepiece to see if it was even tracking. Low and behold, right in the middle of the field was the object I had originally clicked on! The scope had executed the commands so silently that I didn't hear it from 15 feet away, so all was well.
Now, I have yet to hear any go-to telescope that made enough noise in slewing that it interfered with conversation. The noise issue is simply way overblown. If you want a quiet one, get a good Celestron, but the Meades aren't exactly "breaking the sound barrier" either. Clear skies to you.
--------------------
David W. Knisely
Hyde Memorial Observatory
http://www.hydeobservatory.info
Prairie Astronomy Club
http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
|
Rick Woods
Postmaster
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 6268
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
Quote:
As if star hopping (like wearing a hair shirt and flagellating one's self, riding a bicycle to work, driving spikes into trees, freeing monkeys from labs, flying planes into buildings, eating or not eating anything for moral reasons, etc.) somehow makes one "better" than someone else. The idea that star hopping(or bicycling to work, or self-flagellation) is somehow "enlightened" is rather silly in my opinion.
Hey, watch what you say about self-flagellation. Good clean family fun!
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
Dyslexics Untie!
|
Sarkikos
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/18/07
Posts: 1729
Loc: Suburban Maryland, USA
|
|
The family that flays together stays together?
--------------------
C10-NGT on 1stBase (DSO); Z8, Bosma 6" f12 MCT (NSO); 6" f5 Newt, 4.5" f4.4 Ball (Handheld RF w/GLP); C4-R, 130ST (NSO/RF/DS); 90mm f13 MCT (Luna/DS); ST80+Crayford (RF/DS); SkyMaster 25x100/15x70; Zhumell 20x80; Barska XWA 10x50/8x40 (9.5°!); CV 2.3x40 (26°!); BV-125C; CG5, CG4 (2d); SV AZ, 501HDV on 055XB, P+ on Oberwerk; QuikFinder, Telrad; 11x70 RACI Finder; Dynamo Pro, Dew-Not; Orion 5-Filter Wheel; ES 14 100°, Baader Zoom, Baader GO 9mm, Plossls, Orthos, Kellners; Barlows, Reducers
|
arpruss
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 05/23/08
Posts: 964
Loc: Waco, TX
|
|
One point I haven't heard made is that one might actually end up doing some observing, and maybe even star-hopping, even while setting go-to, push-to or aligning analog setting circles. When I was using analog setting circles with n-object alignment in the fall, it was pretty common for the core of M31 to be one of my alignment objects, and I got to observe it while aligning. In winter, it was pretty common for the Trapezium to be an alignment object, so while aligning I already got a look at M42. At whatever time of year I was observing, it's pretty common for a prominent planet to be one of the alignment objects. I think I may have once done the initial alignment on M31 and M33.
--------------------
Coulter Odyssey 13.1" split-tube
Coulter Odyssey 8"
Home-made 7.8" F/4 dobsonian travel scope
Home-made 68mm F/5.3 achro (typically used as finder on 13.1")
Skymaster 15x70
BPTs4 8x30
32mm Plossl, 30mm GSO SV, 30mm Rini, 27mm Kellner, 13mm Hyperion, 6mm TMB/BO Planetary, Owl 2X Barlow
Palm TX with AstroInfo and RescoViewer
|
Sarkikos
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/18/07
Posts: 1729
Loc: Suburban Maryland, USA
|
|
I don't goto 'cause I ain't got goto. For me it's a matter of lack of opportunity and a stand against conspicuous consumption*. (Thank you, Thornstein Veblen.) Without goto, you can get a larger aperture for less money, sometimes quite a bit less money. More for less. Not a bad deal. I thought aperture rules? Telescope - goto = larger aperture. Am I the only one who thinks this way?
Mike
* Looking at my long roster of scopes and binos you might say I'm a hypocrite. In my defense I'd say that these are all good instruments but far from top-of-the-line, I've accumulated these over a number of years, and I just haven't sold any. Each has its little observational niche that I expoit to the fullest. I don't believe in a jack-of-all-trades scope or bino.
--------------------
C10-NGT on 1stBase (DSO); Z8, Bosma 6" f12 MCT (NSO); 6" f5 Newt, 4.5" f4.4 Ball (Handheld RF w/GLP); C4-R, 130ST (NSO/RF/DS); 90mm f13 MCT (Luna/DS); ST80+Crayford (RF/DS); SkyMaster 25x100/15x70; Zhumell 20x80; Barska XWA 10x50/8x40 (9.5°!); CV 2.3x40 (26°!); BV-125C; CG5, CG4 (2d); SV AZ, 501HDV on 055XB, P+ on Oberwerk; QuikFinder, Telrad; 11x70 RACI Finder; Dynamo Pro, Dew-Not; Orion 5-Filter Wheel; ES 14 100°, Baader Zoom, Baader GO 9mm, Plossls, Orthos, Kellners; Barlows, Reducers
|
Sarkikos
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/18/07
Posts: 1729
Loc: Suburban Maryland, USA
|
|
Here's a thought: Does anyone here who has goto ever do a rudimentary star hop - after at least quickly consulting a planishere or star map or their memories - using their own muscles to point the scope in the general direction of an object before they activate the goto to slew to that object? I would think that this would make sense on several levels: you would save wear and tear on your equipment, preserve battery life, and learn the sky while you are at it. If I had goto, that's how I would use it.
Also, I have read that goto tends to be more accurate than DSCs ("push to"), and so that would be a definite advantage for goto over DSCs. But it just seems silly to have a motor slew your scope over to an object. I mean, you went to the trouble of hauling the scope out, maybe took several trips to do it, so you're not an invalid, but you need a motor drive to move the scope tube to the object? Somehow that doesn't seem cost-effective to me. What were the people who invented this thinking? "Oh, this is really high-tech, futuristic! Cool! You don't even have to move the scope; it moves itself! They'll sell like self-flapping flap jacks!"
Mike
--------------------
C10-NGT on 1stBase (DSO); Z8, Bosma 6" f12 MCT (NSO); 6" f5 Newt, 4.5" f4.4 Ball (Handheld RF w/GLP); C4-R, 130ST (NSO/RF/DS); 90mm f13 MCT (Luna/DS); ST80+Crayford (RF/DS); SkyMaster 25x100/15x70; Zhumell 20x80; Barska XWA 10x50/8x40 (9.5°!); CV 2.3x40 (26°!); BV-125C; CG5, CG4 (2d); SV AZ, 501HDV on 055XB, P+ on Oberwerk; QuikFinder, Telrad; 11x70 RACI Finder; Dynamo Pro, Dew-Not; Orion 5-Filter Wheel; ES 14 100°, Baader Zoom, Baader GO 9mm, Plossls, Orthos, Kellners; Barlows, Reducers
|
Jim Curry
professor emeritus
Reged: 10/29/07
Posts: 528
Loc: Maine
|
|
> I rather think that the reason many folks star hop is that they find setting up a GOTO mount to require too much effort or even to be intimidating. Rather than confront these fears directly, they default to star hopping and then for some unfathomable reason criticize others who are not so intimidated or daunted. Once the initial pain of set-up is over, GOTO (like most innovations) rewards with efficiency.<
Jeeze, Jim, this is what you should have edited (out). It seems like everyone posting on this thread is pretty agnostice about the "virtues" of their method.
Jim
--------------------
Vixen 140 refractor
|
Rick Woods
Postmaster
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 6268
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
Most goto scopes lose their alignment if you move them by hand. The encoders have to know where the scope is pointing. You could do it, if you synched on the star after you moved to it; but it's quicker and easier just to let the scope do the work.
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
Dyslexics Untie!
|
Sarkikos
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/18/07
Posts: 1729
Loc: Suburban Maryland, USA
|
|
Rick,
Quote:
Most goto scopes lose their alignment if you move them by hand. The encoders have to know where the scope is pointing. You could do it, if you synched on the star after you moved to it; but it's quicker and easier just to let the scope do the work.
So much more the pity. Seems like a design flaw to me. What a waste. Can't GPS get around this bottleneck?
Mike
--------------------
C10-NGT on 1stBase (DSO); Z8, Bosma 6" f12 MCT (NSO); 6" f5 Newt, 4.5" f4.4 Ball (Handheld RF w/GLP); C4-R, 130ST (NSO/RF/DS); 90mm f13 MCT (Luna/DS); ST80+Crayford (RF/DS); SkyMaster 25x100/15x70; Zhumell 20x80; Barska XWA 10x50/8x40 (9.5°!); CV 2.3x40 (26°!); BV-125C; CG5, CG4 (2d); SV AZ, 501HDV on 055XB, P+ on Oberwerk; QuikFinder, Telrad; 11x70 RACI Finder; Dynamo Pro, Dew-Not; Orion 5-Filter Wheel; ES 14 100°, Baader Zoom, Baader GO 9mm, Plossls, Orthos, Kellners; Barlows, Reducers
|
Tom Polakis
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 12/20/04
Posts: 816
Loc: Tempe, Arizona
|
|
Quote:
Most goto scopes lose their alignment if you move them by hand.
Rick,
I am intrigued by the word "most" above. Are there any go-to mounts that enable the user to unlock the axes and push by hand, all the while knowing where the scope is pointing? I have to admit that I haven't given it any thought if this is even technologically feasible.
I recently acquired an advanced GO-TO CG-5 mount on loan for a few months. This past Saturday night I put it through its paces with my TV101, and found the experience to be very enjoyable. The one irritation that I anticipated (and the experience confirmed) was the inability to just move the scope without using the hand control.
Tom
--------------------
Tom Polakis
Tempe, AZ
Visual observing, DSLR photography, lunar & planetary imaging
http://www.pbase.com/polakis/
|
palsing
super member
Reged: 08/11/05
Posts: 151
Loc: Poway, CA
|
|
Quote:
Are there any go-to mounts that enable the user to unlock the axes and push by hand, all the while knowing where the scope is pointing? I have to admit that I haven't given it any thought if this is even technologically feasible.
Hi Tom,
I have an Obsession outfitted with Argo Navis and ServoCat, and I can unlock the ServoCat's clutches and move the scope anywhere I want without losing alignment.
I don't pretend to have any idea how it really works, but it seems to me that the AN always knows where it is pointing, like other DSC's do, and if I choose to engage the ServoCat, well, it keeps the telescope pointing wherever the AN says it is pointing.
As far as the go-to, I suspect that when I enter a target into the AN, the ServoCat moves everything until the Argo is at zero-zero. I think of the ServoCat as being a slave to the AN.
Maybe this is not exactly right, but the analogy works for me. After all, I don't really need to know how it works, only that it does...
--------------------
Paul
25" Obsession
5.5" Newt - finder (Cometcatcher)
Hutech 22 X 100 binos w/LPS-P2 filters
Canon 10 X 30 IS binos
|
Jim Curry
professor emeritus
Reged: 10/29/07
Posts: 528
Loc: Maine
|
|
I found out to my chagrin early in my CG5 ownership the same thing, that once you disengage the clutches for push-to the scope no longer knows where it is for go-to purposes. I believe the sensors are on/in the motors or drive train. That not the case for DSC's.
Jim
--------------------
Vixen 140 refractor
|
Tom Polakis
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 12/20/04
Posts: 816
Loc: Tempe, Arizona
|
|
Quote:
I have an Obsession outfitted with Argo Navis and ServoCat, and I can unlock the ServoCat's clutches and move the scope anywhere I want without losing alignment.
Thanks, Paul. I should have remembered that, as I've actually pushed ServoCat scopes around the sky several times at star parties. I think your "slave to the Argo Navis" thinking is correct.
Tom
--------------------
Tom Polakis
Tempe, AZ
Visual observing, DSLR photography, lunar & planetary imaging
http://www.pbase.com/polakis/
|
Rick Woods
Postmaster
Reged: 01/27/05
Posts: 6268
Loc: Inner Solar System
|
|
Mike and Tom
Seems like a design flaw to me, too.
As far as I know, all the current SCTs have this restriction. IIRC, though, one of the early Celestron models would allow you to move the scope by hand, supposedly without losing alignment. I guess it wasn't too successful.
That would be really nice, though, if it worked!
--------------------
- Rick
14" LX200GPS
Dyslexics Untie!
|
Sarkikos
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/18/07
Posts: 1729
Loc: Suburban Maryland, USA
|
|
Rick,
Quote:
Seems like a design flaw to me, too.
I am with you. Now, wouldn't it be cool if you could use your own knowledge and skills to push the scope using your own muscles into the general area of a DSO, and then press a button so the scope could slew over to the "exact" position? Then goto would seem more like the labor-saving device that it should be, rather than the dumbing-down device that I fear it often is. I might even be willing to spend the extra coin for goto if they would make this improvement.
Quote:
IIRC, though, one of the early Celestron models would allow you to move the scope by hand, supposedly without losing alignment. I guess it wasn't too successful.
I guess I shouldn't voice my opinion as to why IIRC wasn't too successful. I wouldn't want to be too incindiary here. 
Mike
--------------------
C10-NGT on 1stBase (DSO); Z8, Bosma 6" f12 MCT (NSO); 6" f5 Newt, 4.5" f4.4 Ball (Handheld RF w/GLP); C4-R, 130ST (NSO/RF/DS); 90mm f13 MCT (Luna/DS); ST80+Crayford (RF/DS); SkyMaster 25x100/15x70; Zhumell 20x80; Barska XWA 10x50/8x40 (9.5°!); CV 2.3x40 (26°!); BV-125C; CG5, CG4 (2d); SV AZ, 501HDV on 055XB, P+ on Oberwerk; QuikFinder, Telrad; 11x70 RACI Finder; Dynamo Pro, Dew-Not; Orion 5-Filter Wheel; ES 14 100°, Baader Zoom, Baader GO 9mm, Plossls, Orthos, Kellners; Barlows, Reducers
|
jrbarnett
Eyepiece Hooligan
Reged: 02/28/06
Posts: 5301
Loc: Petaluma, CA
|
|
"Jeeze, Jim, this is what you should have edited (out)."
Yep, Jim, I agree. Sorry. 
Regards,
Jim
--------------------
"I do not always observe with low dispersion glass doublets, but when I do, I prefer Televue. Stay focused, my friends!"
- The Most Interesting Astronomer in the Universe
|
BillFerris
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 07/17/04
Posts: 2983
|
|
Quote:
Without goto, you can get a larger aperture for less money, sometimes quite a bit less money. More for less. Not a bad deal. I thought aperture rules? Telescope - goto = larger aperture. Am I the only one who thinks this way?
While aperture is certainly an important consideration in any telescope purchase, it's often not the case that a person targets the largest aperture they can afford. Many observers will target an aperture they feel will give them the best combination of performance and portability.
I could have purchased a 20 inch scope rather than the 18 inch. I could have dropped the DSC's and goto to bring an even larger aperture into my price range. But I didn't. I chose the 18 inch because that was the aperture that fit my observing interests and needs, best. That size offered the perfect balance between large aperture and aperture that's so large it would start to negatively impact how often I get out to a dark sky site. So, despite the fact that I could have gone with a larger scope, I chose the 18 inch because that was the aperture I wanted.
One of the reasons I bought goto with my 18 inch, is that it gave me tracking. Tracking is critical to my observing enjoyment. The other option was an equatorial platform. The cost would have been marginally less for a quality platform. I would have had to reset the platform at regular intervals during the night. And the platform would have elevated the eyepiece height, which would have affected another factor: seated observing.
I like to be observe from a seated position. This makes it easier to spend significant time at the eypiece to observe, take notes and make a skecth. The adjustable height chair I built for the 18 inch allows me to be seated even when the scope is pointed at the zenith. If I'd gone with the equatorial platform option to get tracking, I would have had to extend the chair height by another 6 inches or more to accomodate the platform. That was a significant negative for me.
So, if a person decides they want a 10 inch (or 8, or 18 inch) aperture and if goto fits within their budget, there is a good chance that they're not giving up any aperture by investing in that accessory. Even if they could afford a larger aperture with goto, they may not opt for it.
Bill in Flag
--------------------
Grand Canyon Adventure
Lowering the Threshold
18" Obsession
4.5" Meade 4500
10x50 Swift Audubon
Cosmic Voyage
|
Jeff Morgan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 09/28/03
Posts: 2081
Loc: Prescott, AZ
|
|
Quote:
Without goto, you can get a larger aperture for less money, sometimes quite a bit less money. More for less. Not a bad deal. I thought aperture rules? Telescope - goto = larger aperture. Am I the only one who thinks this way?
Not a good argument in this day and age. GOTO is relatively cheap. So much so that I am toying with the idea of an iOptron for a few small scopes I have. OTOH, my StellarVue F50 Sparrowhawk, Uranometria charts, and Telrad cost just around $300. I'm not sure how much of that expense could have been avoided with GOTO, but star hopping equipment is not free.
--------------------
Jeff Morgan
Prescott, AZ
Wile E. Coyote School of Telescope Making
|
arpruss
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 05/23/08
Posts: 964
Loc: Waco, TX
|
|
Quote:
GOTO is relatively cheap.
It depends relative to what. On a good day on craigslist, one can buy a used 8" dob for $150. Adding DSCs would probably about double that price (and that's assuming one only gets encoders and cables, and uses a laptop or PDA that one already owns, and gets a good deal on the encoders and cables). So, relative to that scope, it's not at all cheap: its bigger than the price of the scope.
Now, I bought my 13" for $350. Relative to that scope, DSC installation would still be about half of the scope's price. And I assume that GOTO would be much more than DSCs.
If one has an appropriate portable computing device (laptop, or compatible PDA or phone), minimal starhopping equipment will be $9 for a red dot sight, and the charts will be free since one can download electronic ones. And even without the portable device, I assume one can print out charts for free that will be as detailed as any atlas one can buy (for 2-3 cents a page if one has a laser printer--granted, this does add up).
And if one already has an appropriate portable computing device, then analog setting circles need only cost a couple dollars (printing large stuff at Kinko's). If one does that right, one will get precision somewhat lower than DSCs (though some of the sources of imprecision will be similar, such as a wobbly mount), but it may be almost as fast as push-to for finding things. There is no way of doing GOTO on the cheap in this way, though. :-)
--------------------
Coulter Odyssey 13.1" split-tube
Coulter Odyssey 8"
Home-made 7.8" F/4 dobsonian travel scope
Home-made 68mm F/5.3 achro (typically used as finder on 13.1")
Skymaster 15x70
BPTs4 8x30
32mm Plossl, 30mm GSO SV, 30mm Rini, 27mm Kellner, 13mm Hyperion, 6mm TMB/BO Planetary, Owl 2X Barlow
Palm TX with AstroInfo and RescoViewer
Edited by arpruss (05/18/09 05:52 PM)
|
izar187
sage
Reged: 09/02/06
Posts: 404
Loc: 43N
|
|
<<<Now, wouldn't it be cool if you could use your own knowledge and skills to push the scope using your own muscles into the general area of a DSO, and then press a button so the scope could slew over to the "exact" position?>>>
This is what a power finder helps do. Gets one to the exact position of the intended target within it's charted field. But as folks have rightly pointed out, finder scopes and deep field charting can cost too.
--------------------
4 thru 13 inch scopes.
30 years observing.
You just read this on the internet, so.....
|
Jeff Morgan
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 09/28/03
Posts: 2081
Loc: Prescott, AZ
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
GOTO is relatively cheap.
It depends relative to what.
Relative to a quality atlas, RACI finder, and unit finder. And perhaps dew chasing equipment for you eastern observers. Yes, I could do star hopping cheaper. And I could also replace my primary mirror with a shaving mirror. Not the point. On new scopes GOTO (or DSC's) add scarcely more than the cost of items mentioned above.
--------------------
Jeff Morgan
Prescott, AZ
Wile E. Coyote School of Telescope Making
|
cuzimthedad
Just Be Cuz
Reged: 04/09/06
Posts: 3856
Loc: Sonoma, Northern California
|
|
I don't particularly care for the argument that non goto means more aperture because each person has their own idea as to how much they are willing to spend on the hobby. One person may be able to afford only a 16" LightBridge on it's own, while 2 others could afford the same scope plus an Argo Navis and eq platform. This is one reason I try to avoid these kinds of threads because personal preference and subjectivity play such a huge roll in the selection and there are so many differing opinions, all being right to each individual expressing them...yours truly included!  Go figure. The bottom line is that some folks like goto, some like to star hop. What I can tell ya'll is this. When I took my dob out for the first time in 4 months last month, I had forgotten a couple of important steps in setting up the Argo Navis and couldn't find the directions. Now I learned myself a unique way of star hopping that works for me and I hadn't forgotten how to use that. If you can read a road map, then a star chart, anyone can star hop. Do I prefer this over pushto? Nope, not on your life. I want to minimize the trips up and down the ladder to viewing ones as much as possible. Just another oopinion.
--------------------
Dan
20" f/5 Obsession
Antares 1529
Various Naglers, Ethos, UO Orthos
Gone but not forgotten: Meade 5K UWAs & Plossls, WO UWANs, TV Plossls & T6 Naglers, Tak LEs, 13 & 17 Ethos, Vixen LVWs, Orion Stratus, Meade 12" LX200R, TV Genesis and TV102, Meade AR6, WO 80SD. All these helped to get me to what I own today.
The Off Fisher Lane Irregulars
Edited by cuzimthedad (05/18/09 09:48 PM)
|
Sarkikos
Carpal Tunnel
Reged: 12/18/07
Posts: 1729
Loc: Suburban Maryland, USA
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 