How much does amateur astronomy cost?

tl;dr: It costs whatever you have to spare that you want to invest in it.

I was recently reading a thread on the Cloudy Nights amateur astronomy forum in which the poster was complaining how some people are always claiming how expensive amateur astronomy is, when it "really isn't." These threads pop up periodically, and usually follow the same course. (Above: Andrew Magill from Boulder, USA, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Astroboy by Astronomerica)

First, let me comment that many of the most frequent posters on Cloudy Nights seem to mostly be retired engineers, white collar skilled workers, or successful retired "boomers" (full disclosure: I am a retired "boomer") who have fairly large disposable incomes. Often someone will state that compared to expensive motorcycles, high end photography, golf memberships and green fees, high end gaming, skiing equipment and lift fees, and the like, amateur astronomy is cheap. Well, if you look at it that way, it is. Until you buy land out in the boonies and build your own observatory to house your 6" refractor imaging rig. But most of us will never have the money, opportunity, or life situation to do that.

But how about those people, and not just kids, who don't have thousands or even hundreds of dollars to spend on a hobby? I remember when I lived in a 24' travel trailer, had a minimum wage job, and thought that buying a 4.5" Tasco 11TR department store reflector for almost $200 was a huge splurge—and it was for me. By the way, I did start out with $20 Tasco binoculars before I could afford the telescope.

I grew up being frugal and I still am as a matter of principle. Even if I can afford something more expensive, I like to see how much enjoyment I can get out of a less expensive option. That extra 300% in price often only buys a 10% improvement in what really counts: enjoyment. Maybe 1000% will buy a 50% improvement, but that often takes the expense well out of a person's budget range. (Above: At Bull Creek Wildlife Management Area in Central Florida, 1993, with myTasco 11TR department store reflector. Some of the happiest nights of observing in my whole life.)

Hence, with Astronomerica I attempt to demonstrate that it doesn't take a lot of money—whatever that means to you—to enjoy amateur astronomy. We constantly read about "hobby killer" cheap telescopes. That's probably what my 4.5" Tasco was considered by many at the time, yet it helped me develop a hobby that I have enjoyed for the rest of my life, because if you don't approach it from an elitist perspective, it's not a bad scope. 

No one wants to buy crap, but even now there are some decent telescopes for $250 or even less. I just picked up a Svbony SV510 solar telescope (above) for less than $10 new that actually shows sunspots pretty well, even if it's on a very rickety tripod. If that's what you have to start with, then go for it. Just understand the limitations. "Perfect is the enemy of good" (Voltaire).

Many times I read posts where people say for $500 a particular piece of gear is too good of a deal not to buy, even if it's just to try it out. After all, it's "only" $500! Don't we all wish we had that kind of mad money? Others consistently recommend finding a higher quality piece of gear used. But most people don't want to wait weeks, months, or even years for that particular equipment to come up on the used market, just to see it sold to a retired "boomer" engineer before they can even get home from school or work to check the classifieds.

I know from experience that there are ways to get a lot of enjoyment out of amateur astronomy for very little cost.  But as you get more into the hobby it can cost you more. Want to get away from your Bortle 9 city lights out to the country? Better have a car and gas money, or a friend who has both and is also into astronomy (good luck with that). Want to buy that perfect beginner 8-inch Dobsonian? Better have $600, plus a phone with a charting app or money for a star charting book, plus a suitable observing chair, plus good cold weather gear, etc. 

It does get expensive by many people's standards. But do we really need that 8-inch dob as our perfect starter scope that will "serve us well for a lifetime?" No. You can get good binoculars for a third of that price, and "recommended" cheap binoculars for perhaps half of that. Cheaper if you get them on sale, or the price of club dues if you're lucky enough to have a local astronomy club that has some to borrow. (Above: Apertura 8-inch Dobsonian, the "perfect" starter scope for those with $600 to spare.)

While I love forums like Cloudy Nights, Stargazer's Lounge, and Reddit (r/telescopes), there is a strong tendency for the frequent posters to make it sound like if you don't get this or that recommended equipment, then you're making a huge mistake. "Better to buy once and cry once," is the mantra. Easy to say if you have the money on hand to do so. If not, they then suggest you wait and save your money until you can. Depending on your situation, that might take many months, if not years. There really is no reason not to start with whatever modest equipment you have, even if it's a cheap lawn chair, your own eyes, and a bottle of bug spray. (Left: Nikolay Andreyev, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons, modified for amateur astronomy FOMO)

I recommend you read those forums but don't fall into the trap of thinking you have to have a pile of high quality equipment to enjoy amateur astronomy. Consider the situations of those making the recommendations, and consider your own situation. One user may have 20 telescopes, 50 eyepieces, and a fountain of experience (who is also the one that tells you "Better to buy once and cry once!"). You don't need to be that person. You aren't that person. You can enjoy the night sky the way you can, given your own means and situation. Don't feel like you're missing out. You're seeing the same things everyone else is. Someone will always have a better view. Don't let that keep you from looking up.

Enjoy the journey, wherever you start and wherever you wind up.

Why does finding things easily have to be so hard?

In a previous post, I noted that I had gone over to the "Dark Side" and bought a 6-inch tabletop reflector with go-to, the ability to punch in an object and have the motor slew the telescope to it. This is a Sky-Watcher Virtuoso GTi 150P.

Well, so far I'm not impressed with the Dark Side. Like most tech gear, I have a love-hate relationship with it. I love it when it works. When it doesn't, which seems more and more of the time now, I hate it. I can't count the number of times just in the few weeks that I've had it that I wished I could just push the scope where I want it to go, like a manual dob. That always works. Always.

So what are the issues? For one thing, you need two suitable stars to do the initial alignment. These are selectable from a list. In a partly to mostly cloudy sky, which is common around here, two suitable stars may not both be visible at the same time. Understandably a limitation of the sky conditions. But if they are visible, the scope may slew many degrees away from the target star, so you need to choose only the brightest stars that are easiest to navigate to manually and recognize in the eyepiece as the correct star. 

Then there's the accuracy. Maybe because it's a cheaper mount (the scope retails for $470 and I paid even less on sale), but an initial alignment almost never lasts the whole observing session, which for me is usually between two and four hours. Sometimes, despite leveling, centering the alignment stars, and doing all the required tasks, the first object I punch in after alignment is still several degrees off. Occasionally it's right in the middle, but most of the time it's either on the edge if I'm lucky or somewhat outside a low power (30x) field of view. When it's several degrees off, I can starhop my way over to it with the help of the Sky Safari chart. Again, somewhat of a limitation of the technology.

Then there are the random take-offs. I'll have an object in view and then as I am watching, with the phone on the table, the scope suddenly decides it wants to look at something else and slews on its own. Hmm.

How about connection drop outs? This scope has WiFi, to which the Synscan app connects so you can control it with your phone. Synscan is very rudimentary in its interface for selecting objects (and the font for that function is inexplicably small). So I tried using Sky Safari to select and go-to the objects I want to look at. At first things were great, except that Synscan would drop the connection every 15 minutes unless it was in the foreground. Despite ensuring the Android settings would prevent this, it still did it. I could live with that. 

But then either Synscan or Sky Safari must have done an update (à la CrowdStrike), and Sky Safari would no longer connect: the Gray Screen of Death (GSOD) in the screenshot. So I used the apps separately, selecting an object in Sky Safari and pointing to it with Synscan, then going back and forth between apps to actually get it in the field. This is supposed to be the easy way of finding stuff? I later found that if I just move Synscan to the foreground and then back to Sky Safari, the latter will reconnect. But...really?

Lastly, I find that having to look down and press buttons on a cell phone when I'm observing is distracting and clunky. It also doesn't help with maintaining night vision, despite a "night mode" in the app, which is not well implemented. You can slew at different speeds, but it's aggravating to keep overshooting over and over. [1/9/25 update: I picked up a cheap bluetooth mini game controller and it works great. In the cold, I can even keep my hand in my pocket and control the scope. One problem solved.] I tried the "tilt to slew" feature in Sky Safari, whereby you tilt your phone a little one way or the other and the scope slews in response. That is even more masochistic, no matter how slow I set it. Sometimes I give up, loosen the clamps on the axes, and just move it by hand. Always works. But that kind of defeats the purpose of go-to, doesn't it?

Well, by now you either think I'm a total crank, or maybe that go-to is not everything it's cracked up to be. In fact, I have come to the realization that both are true. 

I am now experimenting with using the free progressive web app Astrohopper as my "push-to" way of finding things (see my initial review on Astrohopper here). It works well for that purpose and is more reliable than the go-to. I can still use the tracking once I find an object, and that's my main reason for getting the go-to version over the non-go-to. I can't use straight-through finders anymore due to physical limitations, otherwise I'd still be starhopping, which is the simplest, most reliable, and most rewarding way to navigate with a telescope.

By the way, the scope itself is great. It's the tech part that could use some refining, to say the least. The Synscan Pro app gets a 2.2 star rating on Google Play. The non-pro version only gets 1.7 stars. I may end up staying with Astrohopper as my finding tool, then turn on the tracking. That works. [9/21/2024 Update: I got fed up with the go-to, and Astrohopper seems to not be able to geolocate after browser updates, so I added an azimuth circle to the scope base and use that and my digital angle gauge to navigate now. I only use the tracking, and that is often out of whack, but it's nice when it works. Maybe I'll write up how I did the azimuth circle in a future post.]

Snarling dog image by Albert Leung via Flickr (CC 2.0).

Can we pronounce “Uranus” better?

NASA/ESA and Erich Karkoschka, University of Arizona

Years ago everyone pronounced the seventh planet from the Sun, “Your-ANUS,” emphasis on the “anus.” Okay, it was fun for a while, but then the jokes got really old, so scientists changed it to “URINE-us.” Really? That’s the best they could do- just go from being the “butt” of jokes to the flip side?

I have a suggestion that no one will heed, but I’ll throw it out there anyway. “Oo-RAHN-us, with the emphasis on the middle syllable. This is closer to the ancient Greek pronunciation of roughly “Oo-rahn-OS,” with the emphasis on the last syllable, but it preserves the emphasis that we got used to, while removing the association with excretory bodily functions. He’s an ancient Greek god, for crying out loud. 

Let’s show some respect and bring it at least closer to the original pronunciation. This will get rid of two ugly pronunciations and quell some of the giggling.

I’m going to start calling it that, and I don’t care what people think. Will you join me to promote “Oo-RAHN-us” and make public star parties and science classes a little less awkward (notwithstanding we are a bunch of sometimes socially awkward astro-geeks to begin with)?