Quote:

---

My truss newt by comparison is a PITA to setup and use. It's heavy and awkward, and assembling and collimating it is literally a pain in my back. It's anything but simple. Then, actually using it is also painful. Where is that object? I can starhop to where it should be, but where is it?

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

What would a 70's era orange C8 with its manual mount sell for in 2012 dollars? (snip)

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

It would appear that the divisions that began forming between amateurs when go-to instruments were first introduced has widened considerably over the intervening years. Not quite as pronounced as the crevasse between the APO crowd and everyone else, but significant nonetheless.

Excellent...

---

That threatened to happen, that there'd be a divide between go-to/no-go-to amateur astronomers like the code-no code divide between radio amateurs (which participants make the most ardent APO/no APO folks look like cotton picking WIMPS).

It took ham radio the better part of three decades to get over that and move on. Luckily it didn't take us near as long.

The go-to/no-go-to controversy is dead. Why? Amateurs voted with their feet--er..."eyes." Go-to has taken our avocation by storm. The number of even "simple" Dobs without go-to or at least DSCs is becoming ever smaller.

Why did we have an easier time with this conflict than the hams did? Maybe because astronomy is not regulated. Anybody who wants to be an amateur astronomer _is_ an amateur astronomer, and there are no rules as to HOW our avocation must be practiced. The majority saw the advantages of go-to, and even if they don't want to use it themselves, they are OK with other amateurs using it.

Yeah there are still a few curmudgeons who have their noses out of joint that novices don't have to pay their starhopping dues, but mostly you don't much hear their guff anymore. Maybe because most of 'em have their eyes on a go-to rig as the Next One.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It would appear that the divisions that began forming between amateurs when go-to instruments were first introduced has widened considerably over the intervening years. Not quite as pronounced as the crevasse between the APO crowd and everyone else, but significant nonetheless.

Excellent...

---

That threatened to happen, that there'd be a divide between go-to/no-go-to amateur astronomers like the code-no code divide between radio amateurs (which participants make the most ardent APO/no APO folks look like cotton picking WIMPS).

It took ham radio the better part of three decades to get over that and move on. Luckily it didn't take us near as long.

The go-to/no-go-to controversy is dead. Why? Amateurs voted with their feet--er..."eyes." Go-to has taken our avocation by storm. The number of even "simple" Dobs without go-to or at least DSCs is becoming ever smaller.

Why did we have an easier time with this conflict than the hams did? Maybe because astronomy is not regulated. Anybody who wants to be an amateur astronomer _is_ an amateur astronomer, and there are no rules as to HOW our avocation must be practiced. The majority saw the advantages of go-to, and even if they don't want to use it themselves, they are OK with other amateurs using it.

Yeah there are still a few curmudgeons who have their noses out of joint that novices don't have to pay their starhopping dues, but mostly you don't much hear their guff anymore. Maybe because most of 'em have their eyes on a go-to rig as the Next One.

---

I'm not THAT much of a curmudgeon! And for me it's more a matter of spending my days punching keys and looking at a screen, so I don't want to spend my nights punching keys on a keypad and looking at the little menu screens. Reminds me too much of work.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

"The go-to/no-go-to controversy is dead."

And yet, it lives...

---

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

"The go-to/no-go-to controversy is dead."

And yet, it lives...

---

For a few, yes, for a few...

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

I'm not THAT much of a curmudgeon! And for me it's more a matter of spending my days punching keys and looking at a screen, so I don't want to spend my nights punching keys on a keypad and looking at the little menu screens. Reminds me too much of work.

---

You are only one if it bothers you SOMEONE ELSE DOES.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

If they insist on owning a whirring monstrosity of a go-to telescope, which robs them of a truly intimate knowledge of the heavens, they are welcome to it...

---

I don't understand how this statement can really be true. We can get a truly intimate knowledge of the heavens in a lot of different ways, not just by starhopping. Anyway, starhopping may be one of the most tedious and difficult ways to learn what's up there. I've spent my fair share of time starhopping to faint blobs, and I can tell you I didn't learn that much in the process because a good portion of the time I've come up empty handed and unable to find the object. What do we learn during that process? Uh...the object may be there, but then again it might not be? Or, maybe it's too faint to see in my telescope and sky conditions? Or maybe I just didn't look in the right place after 30 minutes of searching. Hmmm....can you say 'frustration'?

No, gimme a good old fashioned goto telescope. Ahh, that's better. Now I can find the object I'm looking for without loosing any more hair.

Patrick

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If they insist on owning a whirring monstrosity of a go-to telescope, which robs them of a truly intimate knowledge of the heavens, they are welcome to it...

---

I don't understand how this statement can really be true. We can get a truly intimate knowledge of the heavens in a lot of different ways, not just by starhopping. Anyway, starhopping may be one of the most tedious and difficult ways to learn what's up there. I've spent my fair share of time starhopping to faint blobs, and I can tell you I didn't learn that much in the process because a good portion of the time I've come up empty handed and unable to find the object. What do we learn during that process? Uh...the object may be there, but then again it might not be? Or, maybe it's too faint to see in my telescope and sky conditions? Or maybe I just didn't look in the right place after 30 minutes of searching. Hmmm....can you say 'frustration'?

No, gimme a good old fashioned goto telescope. Ahh, that's better. Now I can find the object I'm looking for without loosing any more hair.

Patrick

---

Patrick:

- I do not recommend Starhopping to anyone who doesn't enjoy Starhopping. This thing we do is a hobby and it is supposed to be fun.

I think for someone who does not truly enjoy starhopping, it is difficult to understand that some of us just really enjoy it. It's a different paradigm, a different mind set. If your goal is to look at specific objects from a list, GOTO is probably faster, at least in the beginning, and can allow you to spend more time looking at specific objects on that list.

For me, I just truly enjoy starhopping... I like the simplicity and freedom. I enjoy scanning the sky and "discovering" objects and identifying them rather than working only from a list. I enjoy digging back into my mind and finding an object once again by remembering exactly how to find it...

Starhopping, one learns the sky on a different scale, a different level, than one does using DSCs or GOTO. It maybe in bits and pieces, especially at first, but those bits and pieces slowly come together one develops an intimate knowledge of many parts of the sky, it is just a natural result of the process...

Last night I was able to zero in on the faint nebulosity in NGC 2467 in Puppis from my light polluted backyard. It's 30 degrees above the horizon at best and in the muck of light pollution. It is an object I had first "discovered" just wandering around from a dark site with a larger scope, but last night, with an O-III filter and my NP-101 I put it right in the eyepiece just because I knew exactly how to find it.

Rod likes to think that starhopping is unpopular and I imagine he is right for those who frequent this forum. In general "Cats and Casses" are poorly suited for starhopping because their long focal lengths and slow focal ratios make for narrow fields of view that typically are quite dim. The maximum well illuminated TFoVs associated with a C-8 are narrower than those of a 16 inch F/4.4 Newtonian...

Starhoppers typically choose fast scopes because they provide bright widefield views, an advantage both in locating a target but also well suited for just scanning the sky and looking around. The refractor forum and the reflector forum is where starhoppers are more likely to hang out. Starhopping ain't that big a deal with fast 4 inch refractor with a 4+ degree TFoV.

One of my favorite things to do is to just put in a ~30mm 2 inch widefield eyepiece in a fast Newtonian and just work my way in broad strokes through the summer Milky Way, the myriad of small objects, the valleys and mountains of nebulosity, it is just pure visual pleasure. It's like wandering around with a pair of binoculars, but those big bright views that are detailed on a fine scale.

So, if Starhopping is only a means to an end and not part of the joy of the observing, forget it, if it's not fun, it's not worth doing.

On the other hand, there are many who enjoy it. And it's not just us old geezers. My observing buddy, he's no luddite. If you have a CDMA phone, it is most likely he developed the lowest level software that talks to the actual silicon chips. He has a XT-10i, never used the Intelliscope.. My other buddy, he had a Nexstar 11. It's gone in favor of a big dob and some smaller Newts and refractors...

There are many ways to enjoy this hobby. Discovering what I enjoyed about amateur astronomy was really the key that transformed an enjoyable experience into a passion. Hopefully each of has been able to do that, whatever it might be.

Jon

P.S.: One doesn't spend 30 minutes looking for an object with GOTO, if you don't see it in a few minutes of looking, you know it is not there to be seen. The same is true of Starhopping.

Post Extras:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If they insist on owning a whirring monstrosity of a go-to telescope, which robs them of a truly intimate knowledge of the heavens, they are welcome to it...

---

I don't understand how this statement can really be true.(snip)

---

Pure opinion, as are the majority of my comments... true for me, but not necessarily true for anyone else. That said, I will always feel that much of value is lost, and very little of value gained, by use of a computer where one's mind and hands would suffice.

Post Extras: