Telescopes

[Greg Campbell]

There are a wide variety of camera adapters out there. You can hook up a small digicam or USB web cam to most decen scopes, and can use heavier film/digital SLR bodies with a more solidly mounted equipment.

IMO, you can't buy anything worth having for under ~200 bucks. Avoid at all cost the cheap Tasco class junk. If in doubt, check the mount. If it isn't solid and stable, the scope will be completely unusable, whatever optics are in it.

I'm very much Old School. Give me a dobsonian, a good sky atlas, and time to chill out and enjoy the sky. I greatly enjoy the relaxed star hopping method of observing; you'll find what you're looking for soon enough, and often encounter pleasant surprises along the way. To have the scope poop out a view on command is like fly fishing with dynamite - completely beside the point. The whirring, chirping, grinding 'goto' scopes are for lame brained Mercedes driving doctors with more $ than common sense. GPS, Goto, Voice Command (No, I'm not kidding. "Goto M42." LAME! ) are just marketing gimmicks, IMO. Yea, I'm a grumpy old fart!

FWIW, I've got a 10" dob, and have just acquired an 18" pyrex blank for a 'big eye' project. We have a complete optics fab shop at work so I can use a powered overarm machine to hog out the glass and rough polish the figure, saving gobs of time, not to mention my back.

Be forewarned: Aperture Fever is incurable....

Opinion aside, you can spend the majority of your money on optics or on the mount, or you can try to find some middle ground. For visual observing, aperture rules - get the bigest dob you can afford. An motorized equatorial mount is obviously required if you want to do guided photography. No worries if that's your goal, but make sure you know what you really want before buyng.

The classic suggestion is to attend a star party or two. Get there early, while it's still light, and ask folks about their scopes. Most are happy to show a noob what they've got. Later, you can observe a wide variety of objects with everything from 20x70 binocs to a not uncommon 18~20" light bucket. Take notes and compare the views, the cost of the equipment, the hassle of transporting and setting up each sort of rig, etc.

Quad Cities Astronomical Society/
http://home.mchsi.com/~qcas/

Scope reviews.
http://www.cloudynights.com/
http://www.weatherman.com/
http://www.scopereviews.com/index.html

Enjoy the night sky, it's gorgeous!

-Greg

 

[Mike Peregrine]

Who can ask for anything more when the dying storm you've given up for the evening retreats to the east blasting out incredible lighting, under an ink black sky?

This one sentence really made me think about what's coming. Those nights are just the best. You get a great storm during the day, and a crystal clear night afterward. I've done my share of sitting in the middle of Kansas in the middle of the night after the cold front passes and the air is good and dry. Lightning in the distance. And a person can just about see every star in the Milky Way. It's the rewarding thing about chasing alone, because it leaves you with just you and the sky when it's all said and done.

It's true - - who could ask for anything more?

Sorry to get off subject, but it just had to be done ...

 

[Esa Tuunanen]

I would really suggest first contacting nearest astronomy club for learning some basics, getting chance to try different telescopes and seeing how different objects show with them and seeing how much "body building" factor there's involved in using them. Good telescopes ain't light to carry around and even binoculars win telescope which just sits under the roof in storage because it's too cumbersome to use.
Also if you're thinking those colourfull shots in magazines it's better to do reality check first. Visually most objects aren't very colourfull and taking good photographs requires considerable amount of experience and skill.

And like' it's been said magnification numbers printed to adds with big font size don't matter, those don't tell anything concretic (just like "zoom"-numbers of digicams, most big zoom digicams don't have any wide angle which isn't good thing in stormchasing) and magnification changes everytime you change eyepiece.
As good rule even 50x magnification can be too much for wide deep sky objects. Of course there's some deep sky objects which require high magnification, like some planetary nebulas (M57) or Trapezium in M42.

While learning all by yourself could be rewarding if you like such approach it can also cause big disappointments which might drive you away from stargazing.

There are a wide variety of camera adapters out there. You can hook up a small digicam or USB web cam to most decen scopes, and can use heavier film/digital SLR bodies with a more solidly mounted equipment.

In planetary photography cheap webcams can actually produce very good results, it just requires taking thousands frames of video, selecting best couple hundred frames and then "stacking" those.

I'm very much Old School. Give me a dobsonian, a good sky atlas, and time to chill out and enjoy the sky. I greatly enjoy the relaxed star hopping method of observing; you'll find what you're looking for soon enough, and often encounter pleasant surprises along the way. To have the scope poop out a view on command is like fly fishing with dynamite - completely beside the point. The whirring, chirping, grinding 'goto' scopes are for lame brained Mercedes driving doctors with more $ than common sense. GPS, Goto, Voice Command (No, I'm not kidding. "Goto M42." LAME! ) are just marketing gimmicks, IMO. Yea, I'm a grumpy old fart!

Or at least that's how stargazing hobby should be started... Under dark sky and without any hurry. That's one of the rare situations when you can forget all those stupid things mankind does.
Feeling when you have found some special object only with your own skills is definitely something which could never be possible with button pushing... like for example finding 2002NY40 while it's moving through very star rich area.

PS. Got April's Astronomy yesterday, results of online poll makes me laugh, here in Finland stars show rarely at winter if temperature is higher than -15C/5F and ten percent of respondents would even miss best observing time we have.

 

[Tim Samaras]

Greg, you wrote:

The whirring, chirping, grinding 'goto' scopes are for lame brained Mercedes driving doctors with more $ than common sense. GPS, Goto, Voice Command (No, I'm not kidding. "Goto M42." LAME! )

Ahhh...

The 'whirring, chirping, grinding noise'..is wonderful. Well, OK...maybe not the grinding noise. Dunno....I think GOTO is a sign of progress. Its a wonderful piece of technology. I love it. Pull up M42 in your Meade handheld controller or remote linked computer, hit GOTO...take a sip of coffee...and there it is. Wonderful!

Remember, I prefaced all my comments by calling myself a big weenie.

I also think starhopping with a monster light bucket also has a romantic appeal. Now, if you were to mount that Dob on a GOTO mount..then you'd have something!

I'm kidding!

Greg, you also wrote:

We have a complete optics fab shop at work so I can use a powered overarm machine to hog out the glass and rough polish the figure, saving gobs of time, not to mention my back.

Man, how cool is that? I admire anybody that attempts to grind their own mirrors. That has to be a very rewarding-sometimes frusrating experience. Say...can your optics fab shop grind me a set of 20-22" RC f:8 optics?

I know that is not an easy task...

Esa, you wrote:

Or at least that's how stargazing hobby should be started... Under dark sky and without any hurry.

Perhaps. But without new, young amateur astronomers coming along with the lure of technology to help them find their own 'thing' within astronomy, I think the hobby would struggle. If there were no motorized mounts with computer control, I'm not so sure astronomy would be as popular. Its the popularity that keeps the manufactures in business making cool telescope stuff.

I started to write a paragraph comparing astronomy to ham radio, but I'll spare folks the rant...

A good comparison to this would be chasing. There are some die-hard folks out there who resist technology to chase. They find great rewards by finding storms just using instincts and their own eyes.

There are some that claim having the internet on 100% of the time in your vehicle nearly removes the forecasting talent that's needed for storm chasing.

Again, for me...technology is great to have. To use the 'old methods' (star hopping, going 'visual', using morse code) certainly has a romantic appeal..its simply not very efficient when you desire the end product (observing the chosen celestrial object, watching the cool storm, getting communications established). I will agree that at times, the journey is the fun part.

Point is, there is no right or wrong way on how to enjoy these cool hobbies...only opinions.

My apologies to you, Jeremy...we ran away from your original topic. See what happens when you mention the word 'telescope' amongst geeks?

I'm surprised the moderators haven't shot us yet.

Tim

 

[Jeremy Ludin]

My apologies to you, Jeremy...we ran away from your original topic. See what happens when you mention the word 'telescope' amongst geeks?

LOL. That's quite alright. This is actually pretty entertaining.

 

[Mike Peregrine]

Seems like it's been a pretty educational thread for a first-time telescope buyer too. There's a lot of info here. When I first got into astronomy I took a course on the Internet. This was back when the net was still new, and so I took it through AOL at the time, but it was actually a good way to learn how things work.

For a first time telescope, if you are really interested in astrophotography, I would really consider the Orion shorttubes. I really loved mine and wish I hadn't sold it. They are short and compact, so you can carry it around anywhere, even in a backpack. And the glass they use is excellent, which gives you some crystal clear views. Planetary and solar system views were great with that telescope (Saturn was super crisp), and I could see a lot more detail in deep sky objects than I thought I'd be able to. They're also in a good, medium price range that lets you invest some in scope, some in glass and some in tripod.

If you're really wanting lots of light and good views of galaxies, nebulae, etc., then I'd agree with Greg to go with a Dob. Dobsonians have simple mounts, so you don't spend a lot of money on that aspect of the scope, and your money goes more into aperature and mirror diameter, letting you snag more light for your buck.

By the way, even though you'll find some good telescopes on eBay - astromart has traditionally been the hotspot for used telescopes, so I would definitely check it out. You'll probably find someone selling one close to where you live.

 

[Greg Campbell]

Greg, you wrote:
Ahhh...

The 'whirring, chirping, grinding noise'..is wonderful. Well, OK...maybe not the grinding noise. Dunno....I think GOTO is a sign of progress. Its a wonderful piece of technology. I love it. Pull up M42 in your Meade handheld controller or remote linked computer, hit GOTO...take a sip of coffee...and there it is. Wonderful!

Remember, I prefaced all my comments by calling myself a big weenie.

And hopeless technophile!

Star party observing tends to be quiet and relaxing, at least after the large families drag the brats back to bed. Most motorized mounts are fine when tracking, but 20 seconds of 'ZZZZZZZZTTT!' high speed, horizon-to-horizon slewing can ruin the mood faster than garlic breath.

I also think starhopping with a monster light bucket also has a romantic appeal. Now, if you were to mount that Dob on a GOTO mount..then you'd have something!

Not a bad idea. There are a number of low slung equatorial cradles out there that allow a few minutes of tracking. A friend of mine has tried several with his 18" Discovery truss tube. I tease him a lot, since he's also 'old school,' but secretly admire the added functionality. Bumping and nudging the scope at 300x to track Neptune is a PITA. If you really want to 'cheat,' a few hundred bucks will buy a set of alt-az axis encoders and a black box that will guide you to your prey.

Man, how cool is that? I admire anybody that attempts to grind their own mirrors. That has to be a very rewarding-sometimes frusrating experience. Say...can your optics fab shop grind me a set of 20-22" RC f:8 optics?

Hehe. In theory I could hog out the mirror blank, but final figuring of those wacky RC optics (what are they, hyperboloids, or something?) is way beyone anything we've ever done. Wish me luck final figuring my 18" I made a decent 6" WAYYY long ago, but have never attempted anything remotely this big. We've got several interferometers in house, so I should be able to test sections of the final mirror surface with great accuracy.

Perhaps. But without new, young amateur astronomers coming along with the lure of technology to help them find their own 'thing' within astronomy, I think the hobby would struggle. If there were no motorized mounts with computer control, I'm not so sure astronomy would be as popular. Its the popularity that keeps the manufactures in business making cool telescope stuff.

I duunow if I'll go along with that, Tim. Any bright kid will get a 'woot' out of Saturn. If they're sufficiently intrigued, they will take the time and effort to find thier own objects and hunt them down. I'd much rather they make that effort, rather than sit back and wait for the view to be served up on demand, like a TV show or microwave dinner. I'd argue that if they aren't willing to 'work' for few minutes, they don't have much interest in the first place. (Oops - almost had another 'TV rant' moment.... sorry all. )

I started to write a paragraph comparing astronomy to ham radio, but I'll spare folks the rant...

Amen!

A good comparison to this would be chasing. There are some die-hard folks out there who resist technology to chase. They find great rewards by finding storms just using instincts and their own eyes.

There are some that claim having the internet on 100% of the time in your vehicle nearly removes the forecasting talent that's needed for storm chasing.

Again, for me...technology is great to have. To use the 'old methods' (star hopping, going 'visual', using morse code) certainly has a romantic appeal..its simply not very efficient when you desire the end product (observing the chosen celestrial object, watching the cool storm, getting communications established). I will agree that at times, the journey is the fun part.

FWLIW, I'm much more sympathetic to the technical side of chasing. Galaxies and tornadoes occupy opposite ends of the 'durability' spectrum. You've GOT to be there when a storm develops, not 100 miles away looking at the tops and thinking "Dang, I should'a checked the latest surface readings after all." NGC2847 will ALWAYS (well...) be there.

My apologies to you, Jeremy...we ran away from your original topic. See what happens when you mention the word 'telescope' amongst geeks?

I'm surprised the moderators haven't shot us yet.

Tim

Stormtrack is always good for an argument!

-Greg

 

[Tim Samaras]

Greg, you argued:

Most motorized mounts are fine when tracking, but 20 seconds of 'ZZZZZZZZTTT!' high speed, horizon-to-horizon slewing can ruin the mood faster than garlic breath.

I think you're looking at this wrong. I don't think there is a sweeter sound than ZZZZZZZTTTT! As far as garlic breath is concerned...its NOT a problem when everyone is munching on a clove because its SO GOOD! We just throw out 'Suzie sweet breath'..and we no longer have a problem.

You also added:

And hopeless technophile!

Yep..I agree. Technology is our friend.

You kept on going with:

I duunow if I'll go along with that, Tim.

Well, if technology can't serve it up on demand, they may lose interest in it. Hey, we live in the techno-age! Why NOT have technology work for us. If somebody handed a teen that Celestron gizmo called a Skyscout, and was able to 'zero in' on cool things in the sky to look at..and he got hooked on astronomy..then technology helped him get hooked. ...and why not? Kids love the incredible video games they have...get to yap/text on the celphones to their friends, nuke up a meal in a matter of minutes, watch damn near anything on the Tee Vee using the kazillion channel cablebox and TiVo, clip on these tiny music boxes on to their shirts and listen to the songs they just downloaded off the 'net.

I call it 'the Old and Cranky Syndrome' (OCS). People like us that had to do things the hard way must insist that the kids should do it, too...or they won't learn/appreciate it. I'm only referring to technology, and not lessons in life.

OCS examples (in a cranky old voice): 'Well...when I was yer age..I had to go down to the music store and buy a record if I wanted a song..they make it too damn easy for kids' ....or.... "You don't need a danggum celphone...just use a pay phone..thats what they're for" ..."You must learn Morse code to get your ham license" ...."Quit looking through that GOTO telescope, and I'll show you how to star hop".



....Gonna get roasted on the last one.....

Continuing to address your comments:

"Dang, I should'a checked the latest surface readings after all." NGC2847 will ALWAYS (well...) be there.

Ah...I actually see a closer parallel. Comparing the starhopper/non-technochaser to the GOTO/technochaser. Starhopper takes X amount of time to find NGC2847....non-technochaser stumbles around trying to find the storm which takes X amount of time. Perhaps both Starhopper AND non-technochaser can't find NGC2847 and juicy storm due to X being too long.

Now lets look at GOTO/technochaser. Simply remove X.


Moderators: I tried my best to keep stormchasing in it.

Oh, I'm surprised that Gene Moore (world's best chaser IMO) has not chimed in. My wife can park her car inside of his Dob..

Mike commented:

I've done my share of sitting in the middle of Kansas in the middle of the night after the cold front passes and the air is good and dry. Lightning in the distance. And a person can just about see every star in the Milky Way.

Amen.

Tim

 

[Mike Peregrine]

Alright, no one asked, but here's my take on the tech end of astronomy. It's nice to have, and it's nice for those nights a person wants to see stuff more than search for stuff to see. At the same time, my thinking for people who are new to star gazing is that it's great if the technology gets you interested, but your experience can be that much more meaningful if you take the time to learn the DIY methods and understand how this is working. Technology in astronomy is a lot like technology in everything else, and it depends on the person's goals. If you want to learn to drive a car, you can do it without learning how the car works ... but there's also something to be said for picking up some of that useful information.

This is sooooo like chasing these days, and the whole gear vs. no gear arguments. I'm a gear-head ... but if I didn't know at least some of the basic mechanics for what was going on over my head, I would be doing my eyes a big dis-service when I chase. As it is, I'm just about as comfortable chasing with or without data, and I love being self reliant that way. But that's just me ... and to each his own on this one.

 

[Chris Gullikson]

My favorite scope ever was a Dobsonian mount Coulter Odyssey that was made in the 80's (when Coulter still had good optics). It had a 13.1" mirror and I could resolve down to a bolt on a hubcap sitting on a car about three blocks from my house.

I have that exact scope, bought it in the late 80's. Very simple and inexpensive yet breathtaking views. Stopped down to 5 inches with an off-aperature mask and it does very well on planetary viewing. I put a different focuser on it and also put a dob driver from tech 2000.

Its been sitting in my garage for several years now, mirrors are probably in dire need of recoating. I have been thinking about taking the optics out and installing them in a truss tube kit. I bet a proper mount would do wonders for the primary mirror.

Remember the Coulter CT-100? That was my first scope as a kid. My uncle steered my parents in the right direction - I got a decent reflector instead of a POS 60mm refactor that boasted 400x of magnification.

I also have a 5" Celestron SC which is 1200mm at F10. I have used my Canon DSLR with this telescope to shoot wildlife with adequate results. Camera shake is a big issue, going to try and forgo the tripod and use bean bags or something to reduce shake and see if the images get better.

 

[Dan Chaffee]

Man, how cool is that? I admire anybody that attempts to grind their own mirrors. That has to be a very rewarding-sometimes frusrating experience. Say...can your optics fab shop grind me a set of 20-22" RC f:8 optics?

Hi Tim, All;
I too have spent years making my own lenses and mirrors and the telescopes they reside in, but have found there is a considerable penatly: the time factor is
horrendous and what seems to happen is more energy ends up going into fussing over the ol'e handywork than goes into using them for what they are intended. Only if you want a customized system with optical quality better than you can afford to buy or large apertures can one really save money making them yourself and the best reason to do it is to gain an understanding of optics and get some satisfaction of having indulged in the craft of it. Then on one of those unsusually stable nights that you can dial in 400x on Saturn and have it look razor sharp, not many words will describe the feeling.

I specialize in looking at planets and the Moon and this requires a bigger emphasis on optical quality than aperture, but they definitely look more interesting in apertures 4" or larger. I have made both a refractor and reflectors larger than this, but for a beginner I would recommend a 6" f/8 newtonian for general, all-around oberving. A used 6" Meade on a dob mount may be found for a couple of hundered $ and are usually of decent optical quality. If one goes smaller than this aperture, deep sky objects are going to be pretty disappointing.

One note about magnification: high power is VERY important for good views of planets and is only achieveable with good optical quality and on stable nights, as with low level temperature inversions (not the same as "capped"
Good quality scopes can handle up to 50x per inch of aperture, if the atmosphere allows it, and looking at Jupiter at 300x with a 6" scope with a steady mount is a sight to behold. I would stay away from refractors
in the 150-200$ price range--even used, as they will have way too much chromatic aberration unless very long and will not be much over 3" in aperture.

A common problem with any of these comments is that the expectations of inexperienced observers are characteristally much higher than what they will probably see, since we are now flooded with images of from the Hubble and other
observatory class instruments. CCD images from amateurs are also much more vivid than what we get at the eyepiece, with the exception of the Moon or bright planets. Also, unless you live in S. Fla or along the Gulf coast, most nights do not permit enough stability in the layers of the atmosphere to use more than 150x, regardless of how good or big the instrument is.

BTW, if you want to do some imaging, simple eyepiece
projection with webcams is common place in today's amateur astro community and relatively inexpensive.

Hope this helps,

Dan Chaffee
Parkville, Mo.

 

[Robert Edmonds]

Check out my new lens for my camera...

I had to show it off, I just got it and it is amazing. It's a cpc1100. I spent a long time debating on what I should get. However, I finally decided, and after my first night, I love this telescope!!!