One Telescope Per Child 63
Posted
by
samzenpus
from the baby-wants-a-microscope-too dept.
from the baby-wants-a-microscope-too dept.
An anonymous reader writes "It seems one-<object>-per-child goes beyond laptops. A project from the International Astronomical Union (IAU) has designed a high-quality, $20 telescope they're calling the Galileoscope, hoping to spark interest in astronomy among kids and make good scopes available to many who otherwise could not afford one. But as OLPC learned, it's not that easy; they are struggling to get enough volume to get production ramped up and costs down, resorting to tricks like auctioning off a few autographed ones, and trying Give-One-Get-One."
A direct link (Score:4, Informative)
A direct link to the Galileoscope project site [galileoscope.org] would be great, wouldn't you think?
Re:Better than they need to be? (Score:3, Informative)
(Of course it depends on the orientation of Saturn and its rings, but assuming they are ideally situated, I don't see why someone wouldn't be able to see its rings, although IANAA)
Re:Better than they need to be? (Score:3, Informative)
So basically this scope is going to be capable of seeing the rings of Saturn quite easily, although they won't be clearly distinguishable from the planet. This is exactly what early astronomers saw, and while it confused them at the time, any kid who has seen a picture is going to know immediately what it is. While the picture in a book or the view from a big expensive telescope is obviously going to be more impressive, there is something to be said for being able to see it at all with your own equipment in your own backyard. Personally, I bought myself a 5" newtonian for personal use even though my current work involves setting up and operating two 16" SCTs, for that very reason.
And I'm not sure what it being a refractor has to do with it. Tripod is definitely an issue though. I personally like the Celestron FirstScope http://www.celestron.com/c3/category.php?CatID=92 [celestron.com] better for that reason, plus it has an extra inch of aperture - it is $50 vs. $20 though.
I've used one (Score:3, Informative)
A buddy brought one of these on our last backpacking trip. Nice an light, and surprisingly good for something with plastic optics. A couple of words of warning: the images are inverted, so they are great for looking at the sky but not as good for spying on your fellow backpackers. Also, the focus is a simple slide, so it's tough to get a good focus without moving the scope around. I can see how a kid might grow impatient with those faults. You are going to want to put this on a secure tripod - they aren't so good holding in your hands.
Aside from that, I agree that this is something that every kid should have. Perhaps it will get them outside looking at the sky instead of inside immersed in some FPS game.
Re:Better than they need to be? (Score:3, Informative)
It's designed to work with a camera tripod, which works well since it's so light. But the other night I was able to get a pretty good (if very small) view of Jupiter and a couple of its larger moons just bracing my elbows on a porch railing. When Saturn's inclination with respect to the earth is such that its rings are easy to see (not the case right now), I'm sure you'll be able to see them (meaning see that they exist, not necessarily get a good clear view) without a tripod.
(I got one for myself and one for my girlfriend, and I think it was a great purchase. The instructions that came with the kit were ambiguous and incomplete, but there's a good thorough PDF with photos on the web site.)
Re:Better than they need to be? (Score:3, Informative)
My Dad bought one of these for $20 for the Galileo anniversary, they only go up to around 50x (by combining the 30x and 20x lenses), so a tripod isn't really necessary being that these are about as powerful as cheap binoculars. The 50x combination, though, has a VERY small angle of view though, meaning it might necessitate a tripod, the 20x and 30x lenses, though, probably won't need one. Without using a tripod, I managed to observe 2 of Jupiter's moons, with a largish amount of light pollution, without the assistance of a tripod. So I don't see this as a problem. This isn't intended for "hardcore" astronomy, so it fits its purpose just fine.
That said, it does have a standard tripod mount, if you want to use it, as well. It also uses a rifle sight for aiming, which I found VERY amusing.
The most interesting bit of this telescope is the fact that you must assemble it yourself, allowing you to muck around with the various lenses, thus learning the proper placement for your optics. The "hands-on" aspect of this is probably more important that the actual use as a telescope. Believe it or not, it gave me the opportunity to spend around an hour teaching my dad basic principles of optics, without him getting too bored. I can imagine this would be even more useful as a teaching aid to the intended audience.
Re:Better than they need to be? (Score:3, Informative)
I've actually used one of these; A tripod isn't strictly necessary. With the 50x lens combination (combining the 20x and 30x) I could see Jupiter's moons without the assistance of a tripod, though sighting it was a bit "odd" using the built in rifle sights. I couldn't test it on Saturn, thanks to bad weather and light pollution.
This was at my fathers, so I didn't have my usual $70 photography tripod around, but he had one that was around $14.99 at Fry's Electronics, which worked fine with the Galileoscope. You really don't need quality with this telescope, its pretty much an educational toy meant for children. Also, as stated, the main interest of this is the DUY aspects of installing your own lenses.
I have seen $70 reflectors with base mounts included that are higher than max 50x before (yes, cheap, and very simple), so getting a $50 tripod is a bit silly. The main joy of this is that it is a quick, easy, kit for learning. The design doesn't really lead to "quality" observations thanks to a ton of light leakage, and less than accurate plastic lenses. In a certain sense, it is inferior to cheap binoculars. But that isn't the point.
Re:Better than they need to be? (Score:3, Informative)
Here in rural Nepal, we would use the telescope to see when ama was going to get up the hill with fresh water, or dada was returning from the hilltop with a bit of fresh meat. A similar thing is happening with the $200 netbook project, they are becoming the village telephone and whatnot when the power goes out for the mandatory 6 hours or so. But this is not to say that new low-cost educational tech is not useful or not needed more then fresh water, sanitation, shelter, and food. The low cost cell phone microscope is saving lives, and laptops are powering entire comm links for villages without power most of the time. Keep it all coming!
Jigs in Nepal
Re:Kids will be bored (Score:1, Informative)
Noble intentions indeed.
Call me a skeptic, but when you can get a basic refractive telescope plus tripod (which will easily cost more than the scope itself) for under $40 I'm not exactly enthusiastic about this. And when kids find out that all they can do is look at the moon and get headaches, they'll learn one thing: Astronomy without super-expensive equipment is boring.
I bought one of these telescopes and the optics are amazing for the price. It doesn't come with a tripod (you have to supply one, but it's compatible with virtually any camera tripod so at least they can be found on the cheap if you don't have one), which I'm sure is why the cost is so low (back when I got mine, they were only $15 USD, the price increase to $20 came later).
When I first set mine up I tried to observe the moon from my backyard. I was quite worried about light pollution ruining observations of the planets as I live in the middle of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada which has it's fair share. I had trouble focusing because, although I didn't realize it at the time, I didn't actually have the moon in frame and was just looking at a patch of exceptionally bright cloud next to it. Frustrated, I pointed it at the 2nd brightest thing I could see (a planet to the south) and tried focusing again. This time I found it very easy to focus and I immediately recognized that I was looking at Jupiter because I could, for the first time in my own life, see all four Galilean moons lined up in a neat little row around it. Once focused, lining up the moon was easy and filled the entire image (in the lower 25x configuration [the 'scope can also be rigged for 50x]). I'm still waiting for Saturn to show up at a convenient time for observation, to see if I can make out the "ears" without having to go for a drive.
Re:light pollution? (Score:2, Informative)
While I disagree with your aggressively hostile attitude towards the Galileoscope project, an Internet-connected scope sounds like a really good idea. I took a quick Google & found a couple already, such as The Internet Telescope [pbs.org] but what they seem to lack is real-time control. Sending off an email to request an image of something that a backyard astronomer cannot see is cool, but lacks the visceral thrill of twiddling the knobs.
I remember seeing a robot arm on the Internet in the early days - you could move it, stack blocks, etc. Maybe something like that would be interesting - mount a scope on a tripod with servos (a ham radio satellite tracking mount, maybe?) with a camera (what type?) mounted to the end.
I'm going to need a good think about this, and I sadly lack a place to *put* it. Thanks for the idea, though. I wish you'd signed a name to your post so I could credit you if I manage to go somewhere with this.