[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.