First time actually using a telescope

[Exar]

Back in December, I got a telescope for christmas from my girlfriend, cause I said I wanted one. Well, it's certainly not the most advanced telescope around, but it's decent. However, I didn't use it till now cause I wanted the weather to warm up a bit. Deciding I just needed something easy and spiffy to look at for the first foray, I decided to look at the Moon, which was conviently full.

First off, there's just something about seeing the Moon that's not a picture someone else took a couple months or years back- you're seeing it live with your own eyes, even if they are aided.

Secondly, I discovered some things-
1. Higher magnification does not mean better, I got the best views from the lowest.
2. I need to wait till it warms up even more (I'm in TN), as trying to adjust the scope when your hands are a little shaky and trying to open the eyepiece caps when your hands are half numb is not a very pleasant experiance.
3. The dang thing moves! Yeah, I knew it did, it's just that I never thought that unless you're using really high magnification, it wouldn't really make a difference. Boy was I wrong.
4. I'm gonna have to do this stuff a lot more, it was great.

[Maksutov]

Back in December, I got a telescope for christmas from my girlfriend, cause I said I wanted one. Well, it's certainly not the most advanced telescope around, but it's decent. However, I didn't use it till now cause I wanted the weather to warm up a bit. Deciding I just needed something easy and spiffy to look at for the first foray, I decided to look at the Moon, which was conviently full.

First off, there's just something about seeing the Moon that's not a picture someone else took a couple months or years back- you're seeing it live with your own eyes, even if they are aided.

Secondly, I discovered some things-
1. Higher magnification does not mean better, I got the best views from the lowest.
2. I need to wait till it warms up even more (I'm in TN), as trying to adjust the scope when your hands are a little shaky and trying to open the eyepiece caps when your hands are half numb is not a very pleasant experiance.
3. The dang thing moves! Yeah, I knew it did, it's just that I never thought that unless you're using really high magnification, it wouldn't really make a difference. Boy was I wrong.
4. I'm gonna have to do this stuff a lot more, it was great.

Tell us the brand, model, and a few tech specs (objective diameter, focal length, type of mounting, etc.) and we'll go from there. :wink:

[Charlie in Dayton]

Exar, welcome to the club! You are about to embark on a voyage many have only dreamed of, and others not thought possible. As the speed of light is a constant, you will be standing there in the light of centuries past, marveling at that which has come before you. This is as close to time travel as we can get...so far...

Your points raised are extremely accurate, and you have learned much from your first time out.

1. Higher magnification does not mean better, I got the best views from the lowest.
Generally speaking, true. The lowest necessary magnification for the task at hand gives the best resolution. Naturally, you'll use much higher magnification trying to winkle out Jupiter's Great Red Spot than you would viewing the moon. It's all relative. Rule of thumb -- max usable magnification in a telescope = 50x per inch/2x per mm of aperture. YMMV, so experiment.

2. I need to wait till it warms up even more (I'm in TN), as trying to adjust the scope when your hands are a little shaky and trying to open the eyepiece caps when your hands are half numb is not a very pleasant experiance.
True. But you will learn to tolerate some discomfort on nights of crystal clear visibility and rock-solid seeing (note - these two terms are NOT interchangeable!). Let your scope temperature-stabilize for 30 mins or so outside before use (that includes eyepieces). The image is steadier that way.

3. The dang thing moves! Yeah, I knew it did, it's just that I never thought that unless you're using really high magnification, it wouldn't really make a difference. Boy was I wrong.
I'll assume you're referring to the Moon here. Yup, it speeds right along. Its speed across the sky is approximately 4 minutes per degree. Since the Moon covers 1/2 a degree of the sky, it takes two minutes for it to move its diameter. If you're using magnifications where the Moon entirely fills your view, it will move from dead centered to out of your field of view in two minutes. Speedy little sucker, ain't it? A half of a degree in two minutes doesn't sound like much, but apply a little trig to the situation and you'll get answers of speeds that will flabbergast you...

4. I'm gonna have to do this stuff a lot more, it was great.
Amen. Get your girlfriend interested too. Otherwise, she's liable to get lonely on those long leisurely nights you two used to spend cuddled up in front of a roaring fire...

I second Maksutov's request for information. Whaddaya got?

[Diamond]

I remember looking for the first time at the Moon through a telescope 25 years ago. I remember thinking of Galileo, and what he must have thought about the Moon being clearly imperfect and covered in craters and no-one else in the world knew what he knew.

Gives me the shivers to think about it.

[Charlie in Dayton]

And we can see so much more than he coud...if I remember right, his equipment was pretty much the equivalent of one side of a pair of 10x50 binoculars...

[AstroSmurf]

Charlie, you are a poet. Why oh why are there no places to buy a 'scope around here... :cry:

[Thumper]

Charlie, you are a poet. Why oh why are there no places to buy a 'scope around here... :cry:

Telescopes are illegal in Sweden? :-?

[AstroSmurf]

No, but the closest place I know of (Uppsala) is too far off - I'd have to allocate an entire weekend, with an overnight stop, just to go there and look around. I'm tempted, but my schedule is kinda full at the moment. I'm not sure I trust the postal service to deliver a Newtonian in one piece, but maybe UPS could be a way out. I really would like to inspect the stuff beforehand though.

But I suppose I'm too picky. After all, there is that department store carrying wossname, "Lotus" telescopes... [-(

[tngolfplayer]

Where at in Tennessee? I am here in Knoxville battling light pollution every night(and currently rain). Good luck exploring the stars with your scope.

[Wally]

Hey there Exar! Congrats on the scope man!

Just a word of advise. If you thought the moon looked cool when it was full, take a peek aroiund 1st or 3rd quarter. That's when shadows on the "lit" side are at maximum, which gives you one heck of a 3 dimensional view of all the peeks and valleys. Wally

[Exar]

Wow, thanks everyone!

tngolfplayer, I'm fairly close to you- I'm in the Clinton/Oak Ridge area, so the light isn't too bad, but enough to be annoying.

Charlie in Dayton, thanks for the tips. I don't have to worry too much about the being cuddled up at night with the girlfriend situation, as we're still in highschool and living with parents, so we don't have that kind of privledge yet.

Scope specs... *goes to get manuel* *rumedges through a bunch of piles* ah ha! Let's see... It's a Telestar 60AZ-D Altazimuth Refracting Telescope. Objecting lens focal length - 700mm. Objective Lens Diameter - 60mm.

[Maksutov]

Wow, thanks everyone!

tngolfplayer, I'm fairly close to you- I'm in the Clinton/Oak Ridge area, so the light isn't too bad, but enough to be annoying.

Charlie in Dayton, thanks for the tips. I don't have to worry too much about the being cuddled up at night with the girlfriend situation, as we're still in highschool and living with parents, so we don't have that kind of privledge yet.

Scope specs... *goes to get manuel* *rumedges through a bunch of piles* ah ha! Let's see... It's a Telestar 60AZ-D Altazimuth Refracting Telescope. Objecting lens focal length - 700mm. Objective Lens Diameter - 60mm.

So it looks pretty much like this:

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=2304626&sourceid=0100000011 000612902498

OK, you've got yourself a basic, department store starter refractor. The "two-element" description of the objective lens would indicate it's achromatic, which is good (decreases chromatic (color) aberration). Cheaper single-lens scopes create unwanted rainbow effects.

Nothing in the literature indicated what the focal lengths of the eyepieces were. We need this to know what kind of magnification range you can achieve. As stated by Charlie in Dayton above, your limit, based on your objective's diameter, is going to be about 120x. It may be less than this, since many department store refractors have the objective lens stopped down. More on that later.

How to figure your magnification? Just divide the focal length of the eyepiece into the focal length of the objective lens. So, if you have a 25mm eyepiece, the magnification will be 28x, which should be well within the capabilities of your 'scope.

Your main sky objects right now should be the Moon, as it approaches last quarter (spectacular craters and mountain shadow as Wally mentioned), Saturn (you should be able to barely make out the rings at 30-40x), Venus (which is going through Moon-like phases), Jupiter (rises in the east midevening, you should be able to see the 4 Galilean satellites), and a host of deep-sky objects, starting with M42, the Great Nebula in Orion. Hopefully your manual has a few star charts. If not I'll give you some links to ones on-line.

Happy observing and clear skies!

[Charlie in Dayton]

No, but the closest place I know of (Uppsala) is too far off - I'd have to allocate an entire weekend, with an overnight stop, just to go there and look around. I'm tempted, but my schedule is kinda full at the moment. I'm not sure I trust the postal service to deliver a Newtonian in one piece, but maybe UPS could be a way out. I really would like to inspect the stuff beforehand though.

But I suppose I'm too picky. After all, there is that department store carrying wossname, "Lotus" telescopes... [-(

If you have no scope at all, and are just beginning, might I suggest a decent pair of binoculars and a book? Phil Harrington's Touring the Universe Through Binoculars (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471513377/qid=1076055384/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-6039768-3185616?v=glance&s=books) is an excellent manual.

Anything in the 7x50/8x42/10x50/11x70 range is suitable for handheld use. Anything bigger is too heavy to hold steady for long.

You'd be surprised what a decent set of even 7x50's will show you! Also, they're cheaper than a 'scope, and more utilitarian.

[Russ]

No, but the closest place I know of (Uppsala) is too far off - I'd have to allocate an entire weekend, with an overnight stop, just to go there and look around. I'm tempted, but my schedule is kinda full at the moment. I'm not sure I trust the postal service to deliver a Newtonian in one piece, but maybe UPS could be a way out. I really would like to inspect the stuff beforehand though.

But I suppose I'm too picky. After all, there is that department store carrying wossname, "Lotus" telescopes... [-(

If you have no scope at all, and are just beginning, might I suggest a decent pair of binoculars and a book? Phil Harrington's Touring the Universe Through Binoculars (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471513377/qid=1076055384/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-6039768-3185616?v=glance&s=books) is an excellent manual.

Anything in the 7x50/8x42/10x50/11x70 range is suitable for handheld use. Anything bigger is too heavy to hold steady for long.

You'd be surprised what a decent set of even 7x50's will show you! Also, they're cheaper than a 'scope, and more utilitarian.
To expound a bit on what Charlie in Dayton says. The binocular options are much more extensive than he indicates. I met Charlie while I was in Dayton at the Apollo Rendezvous last summer. They had a raffle for some HUGE 20x100 binoculars and I won them. They are GREAT! While they don't give you the variety of magnifications and the "put ya right up there" feel of a Mead LX-200-10 telescope, they do give you an amazing stereoscopic view of the Moon, planets and the lady changing clothes down the block. :wink: Just kidding.

You deffinately need a solid tripod. I use my camera tripod. It's not quite up to the task but is good enough until I can get the right one. These big binocs. are more expensive than your typical "bird watching" binocs, but they are cheaper than a full blown telescope of similar capabilities. Mine are "Oberwerk" but there are several manufacturers. If you are looking for something you can have up and running in 2 minutes, these are the thing. :)

[Spacewriter]

I second the recommendation of a solid tripod. IMO most of these department store scopes come with pretty wobbly "legs" and you can do yourself a big favor by tightening up the tripod (if you can) or junking the one it came with and getting a more solid one.

The optics may be okay, but I have seen many of these things that come with plastic in the lenses, etc....<buries head in hands> which can get easily scratched and introduce all sorts of aberrations.

At higher mags, things will quickly move out of your field of view, and of course if you have much turbulence in the atmosphere, the view will waver anyway.

But, the point here is once you've done what you can to solidify your view, just sit back and enjoy it! Explore the sky, experiment with your eyepieces until you get an intuitive feel for what each one does. That's a lot of swapping out of eyepieces, so choose a big easy target -- like the Moon -- to practice on. Or Saturn, if you're so inclined. It should be an easy target right now.

Head over to the Sky and Telescope web page and read the info they post on what's up this week. (www.skyandtelescope.com)

And above all, have fun!

[aurora]

I second the recommendation of a solid tripod. IMO most of these department store scopes come with pretty wobbly "legs" and you can do yourself a big favor by tightening up the tripod (if you can) or junking the one it came with and getting a more solid one.


Which is why, for those of us on a budget, the Dobsonian mounted newtonian is so popular. A solid mount for relatively low cost.

Frequently, for refractors or SCT's, the cost of the mount is equal to the cost of the scope. Especially nowadays when China is exporting high quality achromats for such low prices.

And for good quality imaging, the mount can cost much much more.

[Tensor]

I second the recommendation of a solid tripod. IMO most of these department store scopes come with pretty wobbly "legs" and you can do yourself a big favor by tightening up the tripod (if you can) or junking the one it came with and getting a more solid one.


Frequently, for refractors or SCT's, the cost of the mount is equal to the cost of the scope. Especially nowadays when China is exporting high quality achromats for such low prices

I got a Meade LXD55 and am currently looking at replacing my aluminum tripod with an oak tripod. As you said aurora, the optics are outstanding(for an achro) but the tripod has just too much flex. I'm looking at plans and will build it myself.

[tngolfplayer]

Wow, thanks everyone!

tngolfplayer, I'm fairly close to you- I'm in the Clinton/Oak Ridge area, so the light isn't too bad, but enough to be annoying.

Charlie in Dayton, thanks for the tips. I don't have to worry too much about the being cuddled up at night with the girlfriend situation, as we're still in highschool and living with parents, so we don't have that kind of privledge yet.

Scope specs... *goes to get manuel* *rumedges through a bunch of piles* ah ha! Let's see... It's a Telestar 60AZ-D Altazimuth Refracting Telescope. Objecting lens focal length - 700mm. Objective Lens Diameter - 60mm.

Clinton/Oak Ridge area, actually fairly close to me. I live just down the road from Pellissippi. Sorry it took me a while to get back to you, Statics homework has been kicking my.. calculator around. You have slightly darker skies up there. There is an observers group in Oak Ridge(called O.R.I.O.N.) they go to the Tamke-Allen observatory on certain Friday nights. Glad you are getting into the hobby.

[Edymnion]

Where at in Tennessee? I am here in Knoxville battling light pollution every night(and currently rain). Good luck exploring the stars with your scope.Ditto.
I'm in Chattanooga, and I swear to God, the weather INTENTIONALLY changes to keep me from seeing squat. Lunar eclipse? Clouds roll in just before dark, and roll out about an hour after it's over. Remember when Mars was so bright and spectacular for a solid month? Solid month of overcast skies. Tennessee weather is NOT condusive to astronomy... :(

[jumbo]

First off, there's just something about seeing the Moon that's not a picture someone else took a couple months or years back- you're seeing it live with your own eyes, even if they are aided.

The moon is one of my favorite sights. Pictures can be great but seeing it for yourself has far more impact. On a similar note i saw the rings of saturn and jupiter and its satellites for the first time with my own eyes recently. Im glad none of the neighbours woke up because they`d have seen me ecstatically leaping around the garden as if i`d just drank a gallon of red bull. :D

Swap Tennesse for The U.K. and you`ve got what seems to happen to me. I get home from work and see wonderful clear skies... by the time its getting dark what do i see great big clouds everywhere.
This saturday i tried to get some observing in. i knew the weather would be a bit dodgy later on but what happened...it was clear until five minutes after i was set up then it rained until just after i got back in. Still those frustrating nights are more than worth when you have a night like the one i mentioned earlier.

[Spacewriter]

I second the recommendation of a solid tripod. IMO most of these department store scopes come with pretty wobbly "legs" and you can do yourself a big favor by tightening up the tripod (if you can) or junking the one it came with and getting a more solid one.


Which is why, for those of us on a budget, the Dobsonian mounted newtonian is so popular. A solid mount for relatively low cost.



Yeah, I have a couple of dobs myself. One of them needs some repairs at the moment and the other one is on loan to the guys at Sky & Telescope for photo shoot. But, I'm not worried. It's been too friggin' cold to go out with more than binocs anyway!

(Also have a 6" Sovietski (you can read about it here (http://www.scopereviews.com/page1j.html) and here. (http://www.cloudynights.com/reviews/sovietski.htm)) that I drag out from time to time and am trying to figure out a way to build an observatory for that won't cost a fortune!)



Frequently, for refractors or SCT's, the cost of the mount is equal to the cost of the scope. Especially nowadays when China is exporting high quality achromats for such low prices.

And for good quality imaging, the mount can cost much much more.

True. It's amazing how quickly you can rack up a king's ransom in stuff for astronomy. Sometimes my simplest and most enjoyable stargazing involves binoculars...