Duly investigating…
Thanks
Thanks for all these replies, peeps…
Your input has given me great ideas as alternatives to actually buying a telescope (yet) - such as local astronomy group or visit to Greenwich observatory (unfortunately, Jodrell Bank is prob just a bit far from me - though i have visited before and it is the danglies…)
p.s. sorry that this is a repeat topic but i’m sure the scope advocates enjoy chatting about their stuff 
Speaking of spacey things, Venus was brilliant last night, and we were able to watch the ISS fly over us at about 7:00. 
Even finding the moon could be a PITA.
From the point of view of a novice who sounded like the OP and who purchased a decent celestron telescope 10 years ago get prepared for lots of disapointment. Planets still look like little dots of light, just bigger little dots of light. The field of view’s tiny and you spend most of your time moving it see other little dots of light. You will then spend most of your time looking at the moon and then you’ll get bored.
Just to shake things up a bit - my recommendation would be:
It’s basically a telescope+++ in the form of a really good digital camera. 3000mm optical zoom, add a tripod and you’re better than any entry level telescope (IMO)
At the risk of Thread-Shitting, I would add
Like gambling, don’t spend more than your are willing you lose.
Sitting outside in the dark and cold becomes tedious, VERY QUICKY. Especially for ‘certain types’ of folks.
So, start basic and ramp up it the interest is there. Likely, any investment will be a sunk cost.
I’m sorry, and I don’t mean to be nasty, but this has been my experience with all things of this nature.
One important thing to be discussed is how “big” a planet appears in a telescope.
First a little bit about “angular size”.
The Moon has an angular size of 30 minutes of arc. (a tennis ball at 7.3 meters has the same angular size).
How about Mars? Mars’ closest approach to Earth occurs once every 17 years and at that time, it will have an angular size of 25 seconds of arc.
(That’s 72 times smaller than the Moon!)
So, let’s suppose we observe Mars using a 72 power telescope.
At 72 power, Mars will have an angular size of 30 minutes of arc, the same size as observing the Moon without a telescope.
A lot of people (including myself) think that a telescope makes a planet look as big as a soccer ball at 1 meter. (Obviously, it doesn’t)
(I hope I remembered my trigonometry correctly. If anyone wants to correct me, please do.)
I hope this thread isn’t old enough yet to be considered a zombie as I bump it up, but it has caught my interest since I bought a telescope myself recently - a six-inch Skywatcher Newton on an equatorial mount, to be precise; it’s amazing to see how affordable these things have become, as recently as the 1990s you would have paid much more for the same, or lower, quality.
I can somehow relate to GMANCANADA’s warnings, even though I’m still quite enthusiastic. I hope I can avoid his level of frustration but can see that there is a risk. In my view, it’s a matter of expectation management. People are used to those breathtaking colourful photos of faraway galaxies and expect to see the same through the eyepiece of a telescope, but if that is your expectation you’ll be disappointed (it is, in fact, possible to take pictures of that sort with amateur equipment - you don’t need the Hubble space telescope to do so, but you will need amateur equipment that will cost you thousands, plus years of experience and hours of work taking, stacking and digitally processing pictures). If, on the other hand, you approach it with a mindset that this faraway galaxy or planet that you’re looking at through your eyepiece is not some picture in a book showing something that exists in a different reality, but that it is actually there, and that you’re looking at it right now*, then it does retain a lot of fascination.
*): Disregarding, of course, the time it took the light to get from there to your telescope - but there is nothing you can do about that.
Schnitte
That was more or less what I was saying in my reply.
You stated that what a person will see through a telescope will not look like some photo in a book.
I remember as a kid, searching for M31 (the Andromeda Galaxy) with my 7 x 50 binoculars. Yes and as many amateurs say, it looks like a smudge.
But when I realized the incredible distance of that “smudge” it was mind-boggling.
Also, since that “smudge” consists of hundreds of billions of stars, that was another sobering statistic for this little schoolkid.
Yes, it did not look like the typical photo, but I saw it!!
There’s a new comet (search for atlas comet) that is already a binocular object. Real good candidate for a small telescope.
There really is a great deal of good advice here. It’s hard to add much!
You may prefer different telescopes if you are interested in viewing small bright objects like the planets, versus viewing larger but fainter objects such as galaxies and other nebulae. Small bright objects need more stable mounts and sharper optics, whereas faint objects need greater diameter. Looking around with binoculars will let you start to get a sense of this. Venus is almost big enough in the sky to see its crescent shape with the unaided eye. The large Andromeda galaxy is bright enough to spot with the naked eye under good conditions. Both will start to become impressive with nice binoculars, or at least “neato”.
If you want a cheap thrill, start by looking for globular clusters. These can be impressive in the lest expensive decent telescopes.
And buy yourself a Sky and Telescope magazine. Sorry it’s so full of ads, those are a bit distracting and are trying to talk you out of your money of course. But you’ll still get a sense of the products out there, and the content itself is excellent.
Along with the advice about binoculars, I’d also recommend a good book about using binoculars for astronomy. I read one several years ago, can’t recall the name, but it’s great for giving you ideas of what to look for and get excited about.
Sky & Telescope: “Binoculars for Astronomy: Ultimate Guide to Selecting and Buying”
I’ll also add that if you’ve decided to go beyond binoculars, a good spotting scope with a swappable eyepiece (so you can put an angled piece to more comfortably see near-zenith attitudes) is a good way of getting into astronomy with a relatively inexpensive and lightweight optic. You won’t have the same quality of optics as a good telescope but you’ll spend a fraction of the price of a decent entry-level telescope and is also good for birding, whale-watching, hunting, et cetera where a dedicated astronomy telescope is basically only useful for stargazing. Spend the difference on a good lightweight tripod instead.
There are many good books on amateur astronomy but my recommendation is Terrance Dickinson’s * NightWatch: A Practical Guide to Viewing the Universe*, not only for the quality but because it is spiral bound to easily lay flat. Also, get a red LED penlight to preserve your dark vision, and of course a pen and notepad to mark observations.
Stranger
And one more advice that I’d like to add - it has been touched upon before, but it is so important that it’s worthwhile to make it explicit: The spot from where you observe makes a big difference. The darker the better. The difference between a not-so-dark spot and a really, really dark one, in terms of the celestial obejcts that you get to see, is enormous. If you live in an urban area, it really is worth the effort to drive out of town to a distant place where there are no surrounding street lamps or the like. It’s at least as important as the telescope you’re using.
While I agree with Stranger on the usefulness of a spotting scope, there are 45 degree diagonals that will turn any manageably sized refractor into a terrestrial scope.