Who knows telescopes?

[cgarr]

There is a zillion of them out there and have no idea what to get or size. Looking for my 10yo daughter for her birthday, I remember having a cheap one as a kid and it was always fun checking out the moon and stuff. What would be nice for under 200 bucks?

[masraum]

Hmm, under $200?

The Starblast 4.5" is a decent scope for $180.

For slightly more ($250), a better scope would be a 6" dobsonian.

If you get a cheapish one from Walmart or something like that, you're likely to be getting junk that'll be more frustrating than anything else. Most folks say that if the box advertises the magnification (600x, 500x, etc...., that you should probably stay away).

Those are both reflectors.

These would be decent small refractors.

Celestron 70mm $130

Orion 70mm $140

Have any specific questions?

I think that Pazazu is our resident expert. (or is that Pazuzu, I can never remember)

[TerryH]

Along with the others, consider Meade "goto" units. I will defer to the astronomers here. I haven't shopped a scope in years, so not sure what is the latest and greatest bang for the buck. Previous scope threads brought some huge models. I was envious!

[mjohnson]

Don't get swept up in magnification.

For 200, you can't get that good a refractor.

Maybe a 6" Dobsonian and an eyepiece?

Most of the things to see in the night sky, planets excepting, are quite large. The Andromeda galaxy is nearly the size of the full moon. Same with the Orion nebula. What you need is area, not magnification (not length, but girth).

Downside of a dob? No tracking with the sky's motion. No setting circles. You have to navigate by the nearby stars ("star hopping") and actually learn rather than dialing in coordinates.

As long as you're not in an urban setting, 6" will get you almost all of the M-objects and quite a few other interesting things. A guy in my astro club in SW Michigan got over 1000 deep sky objects with 6", though he was a bit of a foamer (at the mouth).

Binoculars are an option. You wouldn't believe what you can see with a decent pair of 7x50s, a dark sky and a tripod.

A grasp of reality is a must. You'll _never_ see pictures like in a textbook or magazine from any telescope. Amateur astronomers learn to appreciate vague glimmers seen in their averted vision (I saw it really great until I tried to look at it!).

Keeping in mind its limitations, I really enjoyed such stuff as a teenager. Since I hade time on the scope that night, I didn't have to waste all that money on my Prom.

Heh heh....

[Mr.Puff]

Don't bother with magnification, focus more on angular resolution. Get a reflector instead of a refractor. After that it is mostly reviews and $.

[Mr.Puff]

Here is an angular resolution example for you.

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by masraum

I think that Pazazu is our resident expert. (or is that Pazuzu, I can never remember)

I'm a resident expert now? I'm honored!

I've had a few beers, so I won't give any info now (spend $1000+ and your kid will love you forever...), but I'll think of some stuff tomorrow.

I assume that "resident expert" would mean "professional astronomer who also taught the night sky and basic telescope usage to hundreds of people, helped a blind man see Jupiter, and has helped build and designed telescopes from 4 inches to over 200 inches".

Oh...was that my ego creeping out?

[Bill Douglas]

If I can appoint myself as the resident amature in this situation, I'd recommend going around a few shops and looking through them. Some have really awful quality optics and some are quite good for around the same money.

[TerryH]

The used telescope market is like the used stereo market. Lots of almost new stuff out there at pennies on the dollar. Folks either get serious and upgrade to bigger stuff or they lose interest and the scope can go into the closet after a few months, never to be seen again.

On a $200 budget, I would shop craigslist, want ads, or ebay. Heck, by the time you get a decent tri-pod, a few eyepieces, solar filter and others, etc.. you don't have any money left over for a telescope. Seriously, you don't need a tripod or filters to enjoy astronomy. It only adds to experience to get accessorized so you can see stuff like sunspots and solar flares.

You don't want to go overboard, but you don't want to buy a cheap toy either. As was mentioned, width rather than length will bring in more light and make it easier to find stuff. Low magnification, but high resolution will result in more fun and less frustration.

[slodave]

Originally Posted by TerryH

Seriously, you don't need a tripod or filters to enjoy astronomy. It only adds to experience to get accessorized so you can see stuff like sunspots and solar flares.

Just don't stare at the sun without a filter

[TerryH]

Originally Posted by slodave

Just don't stare at the sun without a filter

Doh! and never through a telescope with anything other than a name brand solar filter!

[masraum]

Aperture is king in the telescope business. That's why the most common recommendations are "Dobsonian" scopes. THey're generally Newtonian reflectors on Dobsonian mounts which means you can get a lot of aperture cheaply (the cost savings is in the mount). Anything that you can get for $200 with a "GoTo" system isn't going to be much of a system, because most of the money will be tied up in the computerized finder and the optics will suffer.

I got an 8" Zhumell Dobsonian. It was $300 or $350 and comes with what you need to view. You wouldn't necessarily need to spend any other money. A 6" dob like I posted in my first response would be similar for $250.

Lots of folks use a small refractor. The benefit would be size and portability, but you sacrifice light gathering ability.

I'd thought about recommending a set of binoculars, but they'd be hard for a 10 year old to hold steady enough.

Views of the moon, Saturn and Jupiter are pretty spectacular through almost any scope. Most other objects are much less exciting than they are in pictures. Light Pollution really sucks. The difference between what you see at my house in a suburb of Houston and what I can see at my mother's house in the middle of the country is huge.

Originally Posted by mjohnson

Most of the things to see in the night sky, planets excepting, are quite large. The Andromeda galaxy is nearly the size of the full moon. Same with the Orion nebula. What you need is area, not magnification (not length, but girth).

The Andromeda galaxy is actually much larger than the moon, but you won't be able to tell unless you go to a dark site. Pleiades is pretty large. Most other stuff is small enough to be seen well in any scope. Low magnification views are often really nice. Magnification, of course, changes based on whatever eye piece you have in the scope, but "Field of View" is also a function of the scope.

[cgarr]

Thanks all, Looks like I may be going with the Orion SkyQuest XT6 Classic Looks like a nice setup.

[targa911S]

I would start with a good pair of binoculars.

[Hoots]

The Meade ETX is a great starter scope for $600 if you live in a dark area. I know you listed $200 is your limit, but for just a few hundred more this series of scopes will hold her attention (and yours) for several years.

Celestron AstroMaster 130 EQ Reflector Telescope for $240.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by cgarr

Thanks all, Looks like I may be going with the Orion SkyQuest XT6 Classic Looks like a nice setup.

Excellent choice. The Orion and Zhumell (and several other brands) dob scopes are Guang Shen Optical (GSO) scopes made in China with slightly different accessory packages. They are excellent budget scopes, and are some of the most recommended scopes available.

If you want more info, the Pelican Parts forum analog for astronomy is
http://www.cloudynights.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?Cat=

They've got a "beginners" forum as well as several technical articles, reviews, etc... if you go to their main site.
http://www.cloudynights.com/index.php

[masraum]

Originally Posted by Hoots

The Meade ETX is a great starter scope for $600 if you live in a dark area. I know you listed $200 is your limit, but for just a few hundred more this series of scopes will hold her attention (and yours) for several years.

Celestron AstroMaster 130 EQ Reflector Telescope for $240.

Basically, that scope is a 5" Newtonian Optical tube mounted on a "GEM" (German Equatorial Mount). Compared to the Orion 6" dob, you're paying for a fancier mount and getting 1" less aperture. I'm sure it's a great scope, but personally, I'd much rather have the aperture. If you stick with astronomy and decide that you want to upgrade, you can always buy a nice GEM later and mount the tube from the Orion to it. One thing that a GEM will do is add quite a bit more weight to the scope. Another benefit of a dobsonian is relatively low weight. You also don't have to align a dobsonian mounted scope, but a GEM needs a polar alignment

Originally Posted by targa911S

I would start with a good pair of binoculars.

I would at the very least suggest that you get a decent binocular to go with the scope. I use my binocular to scan an area and help me find objects with my scope.

[masraum]

I'm no expert, and can't claim to know a fraction of what Mike B knows about this stuff, but I did a bunch of research and spent several months on the Astronomy forums before I bought my scope. I struggled with the "so many different types and so much info" problem before I bought. I also had someone donate a 4" refractor to me (just the scope, I had to mount it to my camera tripod) for a couple of months before I bought my current scope) A refractor is a nice instrument, but aperture makes an enormous difference.

Just like in the high perf auto world "there's no substitute for cubic inches". In many ways astronomy is the same. You could say, "there's no substitute for square millimeters."

[DARISC]

I emailed your post to a friend who is very, very into astronomy. Hope his response helps:

"I always recommend binos as a first telescope, but these will not thrill a 10-year-old. Fortunately, a $200 budget can actually buy a decent starter telescope these days

To keep it simple, see this page;

http://www.telescope.com/control/category/~category_id=recommendedbeginners/~pcategory=telescopes

I would stay away from any refractor, usually a long, skinny tube. Only the first scope on this page is a refractor.

There are (2) $199 scopes on this page, and they will perform just about equally. He should read about each and decide on whichever he thinks he might like. The $249 telescope will be clearly better than either.

There may be a store that sells telescopes near him, so he should go there and check them out for himself. At this price level you can't really make a big mistake."

[targa911S]

What ever scope you buy, be sure it has a clock drive. It is very frustrating without that feature. I too say "no refractors". Also get a good sky book with RA and DEC co-ordinates on the messier objects.

Scope aperture is like horsepower...you always want more. Also, be patient. What you will see is NOT like the Hubble pictures.