There are tons of good advice threads on the internet for this, because it's actually a really hard decision.

I looked into it a year ago or so, and pretty much universally, the advice was, "start with really good binoculars, because even relatively expensive beginner telescopes aren't all that much better, and it's more important to understand what you're looking at than to see it well".

Then, by the time you know whether or not you're going to be "into it", you'll know if you want to spend a few grand on a Dobsonian (which isn't necessarily the best answer, but is a good example).

A bit of meta discussion that usually isn't mentioned in those advice threads:

There's a big divide between visual telescopes that you can use to see things 'live' with your naked eye, and observing telescopes that are mainly used for photography.

The visual ones are more fun, used e.g. for the Messier rally where you try to spot all Messier objects in one night. Let's say it'll be a 12" f/4 to f/10 mirror, giving you suboptimal magnification but nice and bright images. Easy handholdability, difficult to attach a camera, imprecise tracking if any at all. Telescope usually fits in your trunk and is made to be assembled each night.

The telescopes that are used for photography are more akin to classical observatories. Guiding motors are now mandatory, usually you'll have a stationary place (concrete foundation and all) to have your scope perfectly aligned. You'll use it almost exclusively computer-operated, timing the images across different color channels and working only remotely. This way it is actually possible to do research even as an amateur ... but also to capture deep sky objects like nebulae in their full color detail.

There are hybrids, but those are quite niche, and usually not best bang-for-buck. Personally I'm considering to get myself a tele lens or two, and a cheap outdated digital camera body along with it. That way I'll only need a tracking mount, and I'll have enough to dip my feet into the water.

There are lots of good homebuilt options. The site of the late John Dobson, founder of San Francisco Sidewalk Astronomers, has some resources:

http://www.sfsidewalkastronomers.org/index.php?page=telescop...

Make friends with a friendly local astronomy club. It'll be free, you'll meet nice people, you'll get to use their glass, and you'll get as much advice as you want.

Or, as MPSimmons suggests, get some wonderful binoculars (in a pinch, the ones with the largest objective lenses you can find), a comfortable clear moonless night, and a blanket to lay on.

Mostly, though, just go look.

If a "nearby" supernova is happening, I don't think looking at it through a telescope is a good idea. Don't quote me on it though.

That doesn't feel right to me (though it all depends on how nearby is nearby).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A

"Its brightness peaked in May with an apparent magnitude of about 3"

(a few million times fainter than the full Moon)

That nova was in another galaxy, albeit a close one. The one we're talking about here is about 1-2K light years away.

Great point, thanks!

Wikipedia says KIC 9832227 is "almost 1800 light years away" while SN 1987a is "167885 ly" from us. There should be an inverse square relationship for the intensity of light reaching us by our distance from the object, so light from this nova should be

  You have: (167885 ly / 1800 ly)^2
  You want: 
          Definition: 8699.1893

times brighter than that from SN 1987a due to proximity (which would still be much dimmer than the full Moon). However, the expected nova is also far dimmer to begin with:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_red_nova#Characterist...

"The luminosity of the explosion occurring in luminous red novae is between that of a supernova (which is brighter) and a nova (dimmer)."

So I'm still going to say "safe to observe with a telescope".