If you know what to look for at your destination, you won't be lost when you arrive. And that's the beauty of starhopping - you will not have a puzzled thought such as, "Am I in the right place?" You will know you are.
The vast majority of meteor showers are rather dull observing events. Most produce the underwhelming meteors-per-hour counts of 20 or less. And the Draconids are (almost always) even worse, at five/hour. But here's what you CAN see instead.
I see people ask all the time, "I would like to do both visual AND astrophotography - and my budget is limited. What should I get?" 9 times out of 10, the response is either "Get a bigger budget" (not always possible) or "Spend ALL your money on the mount." Here's an alternative solution that checks nearly every box for doing both - without breaking the bank.
Did you know it is possible to look towards the center of our galaxy, as well as the complete opposite direction, out towards the outer arms of the Milky Way, looking towards the rest of the cosmos? It's true. And you don't need a telescope to do it - just a bit of knowledge of where each point is located in the sky, so you can look that way.
It may seem a little hyperbolic to say it is the best time to see Mars until 2035 - but it's true! In two years - well, about 26 months - we will get another good look at Mars when we are closest to it again.
Jupiter isn't just the largest planet in our solar system - it is also the planet that appears largest in our telescopes. And yet... it still looks VERY small. How to tease out the most detail? What can you see? And it's possible to see moon shadows?!? (Hint: Yes!)
Can I vent a frustration? This is a long semi-rant, and truly, I'm really not trying to start an argument (though it might, truly that's not the intention). Rather, I hope I can get people to think a little about how to better encourage people with minimal astronomy budgets, especially when it comes to discouraging comments I've read about the very low end budget telescopes.
Something I see regularly on astronomy forums and on social media - and a question I get in person a lot - is the question: "What telescope should I get?" I often begin by pointing out that there is NO PERFECT TELESCOPE. Yes, the Hubble Space Telescope is amazing, but 1) you can't use it and 2) it's expensive. So unless you can afford to put your own space telescope up in space, it's not a perfect option, because cost is a factor.
One of the things I really try to do well with Eyes on the Sky is share good, factual information about what can be seen well in the night sky, by most amateurs. Are there a lot of faint things that could be seen that I overlook? Yes. Are there are lot of not-so-great things that get hyped by some media sources of people looking to boost their views or clicks or whatever? Yes also. As such, somewhat frustratingly, I have recently seen one making the rounds with a headline saying unequivocally "We will see 100's of meteors per hours!"