[brudgers]

The cheapest one you can find. Because odds are you won't get into space observation. You'll try it and find out it's not for you. That's the way interests work.

If space observation is for you, the quality of the telescope won't matter because to a first approximation all of the limitations will be in your experience. You won't drive far enough away from city lights. You won't get the tripod level enough. Not closely aligned with the Earth's pole. The clamps won't be tightened tight enough. The eyepiece won't be optimal.

I mean, you'll have trouble finding the full moon.

No matter how much you spend.

Want to get good?

Set up the telescope right outside your front door and leave it there.

Use it every day.

But what if something happens to it?

It's cheap. Buy another. They're cheap.

Because something will happen to your telescope if you use.

It will fall.

You will drop it.

Knock it over.

You will forget it's leaning on the rear bumper when you back the car up.

All better than sitting in a closet.

The way to tell if space observation is for you is by a your willingness to be bad at it.

Being bad is being a beginner.

Mastery is reserved for masters.

Being into it is all the space in between.

Good luck.

[Cd00d]

Brilliant.

I'm someone that over-analyzes every purchase even if it's at a price I'll never notice. This is great advice. The thought-hours and calories I've spent on "finding the best choice" for things that turn out to be less interesting is horrendous.

I've been following this thread because my 6 year old has expressed several times that astronomy is interesting to her. I've been wondering what the right choice of telescope is to support her, while realizing a 6 year old is fickle especially after bedtime. That hasn't made me pause at the rec's of a $700 8" Dobs, which it should.

I don't think binocs are great for little kids, as you can't point and then show and they have stability issues, but you're absolutely right that a cheap Amazon telescope will give us the moon (literally) and maybe some more, and then we can follow the interest from there.

Thank you.

[brudgers]

They make very small binoculars and like all optics you can spend as much or as little as seems appropriate along a flattish curve of diminishing returns.

And to me, a small pair of non-toy binoculars is a great gift for a child. The sort that lasts a lifetime by virtue of being a general tool.

To me; two pairs of binoculars is better than one telescope. It allows “parallel play.” Looking at the night sky together but with individual agendas seems a great way to spend time together.

Maybe in a few years upgrade to a telescope. Children grow up quickly, yet not so much that there’s a rush to do things.

And with two pair binoculars, there’s also birdwatching.

[rimliu]

Actually don't buy cheap. That's a sure way to be disappointed and to give up hobby before even getting into it.

[brudgers]

Galileo and Copernicus and Brahe would have coveted today's flea market class telescopes. It's been diminishing returns for a long time, today's most terrible optics are really damn good. Most of the differences among what a beginner buys will be what sits in their closet collecting dust.

It's a fascinating hobby for people fascinated by it. Most people won't be fascinated enough to turn it into one. The idea of shopping for gear is typically more than the idea of using it. That's why this page is a shopping question not a use question. Shopping is easier.

[dplavery92]

Of course, optics are only half the battle. The other half is with the hardware all around them: plastic tripod leg clamps that slide, plastic baseplates that crack behind collimation screws, alt-az mounts that shake like a branch when you try to slew, and everything in-between.

I think you have the right mentality about making sure you enjoy the hobby and what to understand how to use a scope, but maybe the better advice (modulo COVID precautions) is to seek out star parties or observatory public outreach events. These are free, aren't fraught with the pitfalls of cheesy equipment, and will show you as much as you can expect to see with a scope given several years of experience and several thousand dollars of investment. Was it inspiring or disappointing? Would you drive an hour out of your way to stuff your hands in your pockets and do it again?

[brudgers]

I understand what you mean. And I could attribute my disinterest in telescope sky gazing to exactly those factors...I’ve had two of them cheap wobbly things over the years.

But I know that’s not really it.

It’s that though it was cool to see the moon and planets and such, it didn’t make me want to solve telescopic problems in the dark.

Better equipment doesn’t change the types of telescope problems that need to be solved in the dark. It just changes the grain. The mount and optics will always be nothing but compromises. The weather will never be controlled. Light pollution will be there. Objects will rise and fall on their own schedule.

For me, those are mildly interesting. Not interesting enough to pursue ever more difficult problems. To find ever more rarely seen astronomical objects.

Going out to an event is a good alternative to a movie. But just as going to a movie isn’t a good indication of an interest in solving cinematic problems, looking through someone else’s telescope probably doesn’t indicate much about solving telescope problems ones self.

A cheap telescope is the simplest thing that might work. It is the most direct path past “maybe.” It is the least guilt option for a telescope sitting in the closet. And it is the easiest excuse for being bad...which all beginners are.