[dreamcompiler]

A few basics:

Magnification "power" is pointless nonsense. If you see advertisements about "100x magnification" or some such, run. That's the mark of a poor telescope you'll hate. What matters is the size of the aperture: The bigger the better.

You'll see lots of recommendations for Dobsonians, because reflectors are the least expensive way to get big apertures, and Dobsonians are the least expensive reflectors. Dobbies have one disadvantage: They cannot be used for long-exposure photography because they cannot track the sky. (Well, they can be outfitted with computer-controlled motors but that's going to add so much cost you might as well just buy a Newtonian reflector on an equatorial mount.) If you don't care about astrophotography this is a non-issue.

Refractors use lenses instead of mirrors and cost a great deal more for a given aperture than an equivalent reflector. (Any refractor that does NOT cost a lot more than an equivalent reflector is absolute garbage.) Refractors are great if you want to look at terrestrial objects in addition to space objects, because you look through them rather than through a hole in their side, and the image will be right-side-up. Right-side-up doesn't matter with space objects. Reflectors are almost always better for most people nowadays than refractors. Don't spend a lot of money on a fancy refractor until you're sure you really need one.

You'll see some discussion about buying lenses for Dobsonians: That's about eyepieces. Every telescope needs an eyepiece and all eyepieces are lenses. The "lens vs. mirror" debate is only about the main optical element in the 'scope which determines the aperture.