Hi All,

I am a complete beginner but am thinking of getting a telescope for the family so we can take a closer look at the nigt sky. I don't know anything about telescope/ astronomy so thought I would ask the experts.

Scope type? I was thinking a refractor instead of a reflector since we could also use it for looking at ships on the water, birds in the trees and stuff like that. Is there much quality difference at the same price point? (i.e. if I spend the same dollars on each is one a lot better than the other? Are they each as easy to use?)

Telescope or binoculars? If I invest the same sort of $ in a good pair of binoculars will I get the same sort of view as a entry level telescope?

What would I see? With a base level telescope I imagine we could see the craters on the moon clearer but what else are we likely to be able to see? What sort of a scope (or magnification?) would we need to see the rings of Saturn? Would other stars be clearer?

Where to go? We are in Australia (Queensland) can anyone recomend a good retailer where the staff know what they are talking about and we are less likely to be sold stuff we don't need?

Appreciate any pointers you could give.

__________________
Note to self; add witty comment

This section is the best place to get answers to your questions.

__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

Any telescope will show you the rings of Saturn.

Some say that the very best beginner telescope is a decent pair of 10x50 binoculars.

If you have the money though, go with a telescope.

There are many different types of telescopes, each one has strengths and weaknesses. Check in with your local astronomy club, and get familiar with different types of scopes before you even think of buying one.

Also, considering you live in Australia, it would be disgraceful to buy a telescope just for lunar and planetary viewing! The Milky Way is directly overhead! There are thousands of deep sky treasures to look at. The very best star clusters and nebulae, along with the Magellanic clouds are visible! I am jealous of you!

__________________
You can't really tell the difference between drunken rambling and sober blogging.

If you really want a telescope for astronomy, I can't recommend getting one that is also intended for terrestrial use. Buying a larger aperture astronomical telescope and a binocular, which will also be very useful for amateur astronomy, or a spotting telescope is a better strategy than trying to split the difference.

Binocular observing is a completely different experience and shouldn't be compared to observing with a telescope. A 10x50 binocular represents roughly the halfway point between naked-eye and telescopic observing.

Binocular Astronomy

The following web sites have useful information on choosing a first telescope:

http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=ss&id=9

http://skyandtelescope.com/howto/sco...icle_241_1.asp

http://www.scopereviews.com/begin.html

http://www.company7.com/library/begin.html

http://stupendous.rit.edu/richmond/a...telescope.html

http://www.floridastars.org/telescop.html

http://www.celestron.com/c2/esupport..._j=subcat&_i=4

http://www.astronomics.com/main/cate...lescope/Page/1

Generally speaking, a 6 or 8-inch Newtonian reflector on a Dobsonian alt-azimuth mount, commonly called a Dob, is a great starting telescope. I fully agree with what Siguy said about about limiting yourself to solar system observing. With the superb deep-sky objects that are available to you, I say get the biggest aperture you can afford.

Here's a list of astronomy vendors in Australia.

Dave Mitsky

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Adding to Dave's advice I'd look up a local club
http://www.astronomyclubs.com/
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/community/organizations
and attend a star party or two. There you can "test drive" many different scopes and learn what each does best and how it fits your interests. They will also know the better dealers and may even have a scope or two for sale by members moving up in aperture. When you are a rank beginner only by using a few scopes can you really learn what to expect and shake any misconceptions you may have. All scopes are a compromise, none does everything. Maybe that's why I own 8, 7 of them for over 40 years a couple over 50. Only after using some can you really judge which compromises you are willing to make, money being one though there I often recommend saving for a bit longer than buying something you don't really want but can afford right now. Some clubs, here anyway, have loaner scopes to tide you over or hold regular star parties where they are willing to share some scope time with you and the family.

Rick

The first thing you need to do is contact your local astronomy club and go to a star party. Until you've seen some telescopes in the daylight, and then looked through them at night, you won't know what you're dealing with. There are a lot of clubs in Oz; it's prime territory for amateur astronomy, mostly. I, too, am jealous.There is quite a large difference in what you would think of as quality between different types of telescope, even at the same price point- but there also is a very wide range of price points, and different advantages and drawbacks to each design as well.

<br><br>Here's a rundown of the types:

<br><br>Reflector: Generally this is the Newtonian reflector. A big mirror at the bottom, with a little one at the top to reflect the light cone out the side; that's where you look. It is the least expensive per inch of aperture, which is the width- and for deep-sky, particularly galaxies, aperture always wins (unless the quality is really, really bad). If you buy what is called a Dobsonian, it's the least expensive, and the easiest to set up and use. The disadvantage is, they're not very flexible, optically speaking; you'll have to make sure that anything you do with it will work in the amount of focal length you have, because there aren't any options that don't involve drilling new holes and moving things around otherwise. If you start doing deep-sky astrophotography, you're either going to wind up spending as much as you would have anyway and have more hassle, or get a different telescope.

<br><br>Refractor: Your basic "spy glass" telescope, two lenses in a tube. These are both the best and the worst, as far as quality goes; I don't know if you have "Tasco" or other cheapo brands in the stores in Oz, but if you do, don't waste your money. These are the ones that are $69.95 at the department store, and have 335x!!!!!111one!! in seventy-nine point type and a huge picture of Saturn on the outside of the box. On the other hand, the top-end refractors are some of the best planetary telescopes out there, and for wide-field astrophotography, they are extremely good also; to do better, you have to get an "exotic" design. But those are, per inch of aperture, the most expensive 'scopes out there, and in sizes above 4 or 5 inches, they're very unwieldy. They are moderately optically flexible; you can generally find a good way to make it do what you want, and many of them are built with cameras in mind. Of course, that's why they're expensive, and that's their big drawback.

<br><br>Catadioptric: This is a telescope with two mirrors and a lens called a "corrector plate." The most common type is the Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescope, or SCT. Another common type is the Maksutov. A very inexpensive technique allows the corrector plate to be manufactured easily, and the use of a corrector plate allows the use of a spherical mirror, which is the least expensive kind of mirror to make for a telescope. They have what is called "folded optics;" this means the light bounces back and forth in the tube; as a result, they are very short, which makes them medium to easy to set up, and also makes them generally the lightest telescope per inch of aperture. They are medium in price, not so expensive as the refractors, and not so inexpensive as the reflectors. They are by far the most flexible optically; if you can't get it to work on your catadioptric, you probably can't get it to work anywhere. Their big drawback is that you can't get low-magnification, wide field views with them, without a lot of fussing around. Overall, they are the "compromise" telescope; medium in quality, medium in price, excellent in portability.

<br><br>There's another consideration: the mount. The finest telescope is useless if it's not well mounted. The Dobsonian is an excellent mount for just "sky surfing;" it's also inexpensive, very easy to operate, easy to set up, and easy to transport. Combined with the least expensive reflector, it's very nearly the ideal telescope for just looking on a budget. However, it is not suitable for long-exposure deep-sky astrophotography. You can take pictures of planets with it, but at very high magnifications (or, more properly, the very high f-ratios you'll need to get very high magnifications), even they won't come out very good.

<br><br>For long-exposure deep-sky astrophotography, you need an equatorial mount. The two main types are the yoke (or fork) and the German Equatorial Mounting, or GEM. These are complicated to set up, expensive, heavy and unwieldy, and finicky to get adjusted just right for really long exposures; on the other hand, they are, above all, accurate, and you don't absolutely have to get the best, most expensive one out there. Don't sneeze at equatorials even for visual use, particularly by multiple people one after another; these mounts track the sky, so if you put something in the eyepiece, generally it stays there. At high magnifications, what you're looking at might only stay in view for a few seconds without one of these.

<br><br>There are a lot of "go-to" mounts out there, with computers that will drive the telescope to what you want to see. Both Celestron and Meade, the two major manufacturers of SCTs, offer them on their mid-range systems. The electronics can generally compensate for the Earth's rotation, but these are still not good for astrophotography because of something called "field rotation." I see these as a useless compromise between the equatorial and the Dobsonian; if you want quick-n-dirty, get a Dob; if you're going to do astrophotography, get an equatorial, and get the add-on go-to system later if you're lazy or rich.

<br><br>Last but not least, a good book of what to look at. I am a huge fan of Nightwatch by Terence Dickinson; unfortunately it's very Northern-hemisphere oriented. Another good choice (and generally quite inexpensive, and well worth the money, even in addition to Nightwatch) is Norton's Star Atlas and Reference Handbook, which has an editorial staff and comes out every few years in a new edition. Get one of those headband flashlights with the red LEDs to read it with, and don't shine it in anyone's eyes. Remember that white light is strictly banned at most star parties; you can spend two hours getting your eyes acclimated to the dark and have it all ruined in a tenth of a second by an idiot with a flashlight.

<br><br>The last thing in your question is the terrestrial (birds, ships, etc.) thing. If you want a Dob, because you want to look at galaxies and other faint fuzzies and you want some money left over to put your kids through college, forget terrestrial, it's not going to work out. If you've got the money, you can get a refractor, but the really good ones are too big to be worthwhile for terrestrial; the midrange are fair to good for it, but not so good for astronomy, and still cost big bucks. A big SCT is too huge to be worthwhile, but there is an SCT called the C5 out there, it's a 5 inch, that is, 125mm, aperture, and a 1250mm focal length; I have one of these, and it does double duty as my main grab-n-go astronomy 'scope and my wife's main otter- and bird-watching 'scope. My wife is very petite, and I carry a big camera pack and tripod to take pictures of the otters, so obviously the portability is excellent, since she has to carry it and also her own tripod. An essential accessory for any astronomical telescope you wish to use for terrestrial spotting is an erecting prism. You can find Maksutovs and SCTs in the 4-6 inch range that are comparable to the C5, and reasonable in price.Binoculars are indispensable, but they are NOT a telescope, nor are they generally mounted (although if you have, again, the money to spend, you can do both of those things with giant binoculars on an expensive mounting). I own a pair of $75 Bushnells, and a pair of $350 Orions; the Orions are very nice, but they are still JUST BINOCULARS. I generally take the Bushnells along when I do astronomy, because they're good for finding something I can use the finder (that's the small telescope like a rifle sight that you use to get "in the neighborhood" to where you can find it in the big telescope) to hunt down, and if I drop them on the ground, I won't cry.If the seeing (the stillness of the air) cooperates, you'll see not merely Saturn's rings, but the Cassini Division in them (a dark band in the rings created by orbital resonance due to Saturn's moons' gravity and orbits) with just about anything. With good to excellent seeing and a good telescope, just a bit beyond your standard entry-level, you'll see bands on Saturn's surface. You'll see Jupiter, you'll see Jupiter's moons, and you'll see bands on Jupiter with just about anything; you can see the Great Straw-Colored Spot, too (that's an in-joke, it used to be the Great Red Spot until comet Shoemaker-Levy crashed into Jupiter, since then it's been rather anaemic). With a good telescope and good to excellent seeing, you'll see the shadows of Jupiter's moons and see them outlined against the surface (or more properly the atmosphere) quite easily. Mars, on the other hand, requires better than good seeing and better than a good telescope to see anything but a fuzzy little ball with a fuzzy dark shadow on it; Venus is nothing but a fuzzy ball no matter what you do (although it has phases, which are mildly interesting for the first ten seconds the first ten or fifteen times you see them), Mercury is the same as Venus but harder to see, and Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto are dots unless you have a really expensive rig.

<br><br>The Moon is THE MOON. You can spend a lifetime on it, even with a relatively inexpensive rig and not-too-great seeing; the more you spend, and the better your seeing, the more you'll find to look at. Eventually, though, it gets boring.

<br><br>An often overlooked opportunity is presented by the Sun, which has spots, spicules, storms, and all sorts of interesting things going on, but be warned: one single glance unprotected at the Sun through an astronomical telescope WILL, not might, blind you permanently, irrevocably, and instantaneously. You MUST make certain you have the correct equipment, including a filter that fits over the front of your telescope (to keep the heat out) that will not fall off. This is not for beginners; it is, however, quite rewarding.

<br><br>Then there's the faint fuzzies. With any beginner 'scope but a Dob, you're going to run out of them in an hour or two, even in Oz (drool- one day I may have to fly down there and see for myself). The center of the Milky Way (our galaxy) is the densest part of the sky for nebulae and star clusters, both open and globular. You'll find there are new things to look at in each month of the year, but your Winter is the best time. The more experience you gain, the more of them you can find; but to see them clearly, you'll need to spend more money. You're never going to see anything that looks like what you see in magazines; mostly the nebulae look gray or faintly greenish, mostly they are pretty blobby, and mostly they look like foggy spots. But if you know what you're looking at, it can be quite interesting. Clusters can be quite spectacular; good ones can be like gemstones scattered on black velvet. Quite a few of the open clusters in the Southern sky are also associated with nebulae, and that's an excellent view. Wide fields of view are required for this, and that means low magnification; be aware that SCTs don't excel at this, though they have other compensating features. The Dobs you are likely to get at entry level most likely won't excel at it either; you need very low focal ratio for wide fields, and that's expensive just like in camera lenses, and for the same reasons.

<br><br>Galaxies are not as plentiful in the Southern sky as up North here; that's because the Milky Way blocks them out. Not to say you can't see some; and pretty good ones at that. But again, at entry level, there will be a handful of interesting ones in the sky at any given time. Get more 'scope, see more galaxies; and if you want the really spectacular ones, get on a 'plane and fly up here. Your best resource is your local astronomy club. They'll know the good on-line places, and the good local places, to buy stuff; shipping to Oz is expensive. They'll also know the good places to take your stuff to do astronomy (where it's dark and the air is still). And you can get a look at (and through!) the stuff before you plunk down the simoleans. You'll also have a much better idea of what you're going to see afterward. Hope that helps.

Sorry for the break characters; this forum software is weird.

That was an excellent post, but one category that Schneibster missed is the "push to" Dob. Orion makes what they call an Intelescope. It is an electronic gadget that uses arrows to tell you which way to move the scope to get the object you're interested in into the field of view.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

There are a number of points in Schneibster's post that I'd like to address, without any intention of being critical.

First of all, astrophotography/imaging is something that a beginner, particularly one looking for an inexpensive telescope, really should not be immediately concerned about, especially if no interest has been expressed in doing it. Be that as it may, Dobsonian-mounted reflectors are perfectly capable of conducting excellent planetary and deep-sky imaging, if they are equipped with stepper motor drives or equatorial platforms. Alt-azimuth goto mounts are likewise certainly capable of imaging, if multiple short exposures are stacked or a field derotator is used.

Almost all observing guides are Northern Hemisphere biased, since the vast majority of amateur astronomers reside there. There are a few on the market for southern observers, however.

Saturn's rings are growing increasingly edge-on and the Cassini Division is becoming much harder to see. Saturn won't be its spectacular self again for several years but it is at opposition this month so now is a good time to observe it.

The Great Red Spot has varied in hue and color intensity as well as size throughout history. The collision of Comet P/Shoemaker-Levy 9 with the planet had nothing to do with its color fading from red to "salmon". Jupiter's atmosphere is very dynamic and there is now a second, smaller red spot known as the Little Red Spot or Red Spot, Junior (Oval BA) that is the result of the merger of several large white ovals.

Observing Mars successfully is very dependent upon how close the planet will be to Earth during opposition every 26 months. Quite a bit of surface detail can be seen, even with relatively small telescopes, during favorable oppositions such as the historically close opposition that took place in 2003. Unfortunately, Mars will not be a good target again until 2016.

Uranus and Neptune are not much to speak of visually but they can be magnified to more than just dots through large apertures. In fact, Stephen O'Meara was able to visually determine the correct rotation rate of Uranus in 1981 using the 9" refractor at the Harvard Observatory. Large apertures also allow a number of their dim satellites to be seen. Pluto is less than 1 arcsecond in apparent size and is nothing more than a faint stellar point in even the largest amateur telescopes.

If you're interested in the Moon, observing it never becomes boring since its surface always look different due to phase changes and libration. The "geology" of the Moon is fascinating and being able to observe features such as grabens, rilles, lunar domes, and the like with even a small telescope can be quite rewarding.

Spicules are not visible with white light filters. Viewing spicules, prominences, filaments, flares, and other solar phenomena requires expensive H-alpha filters. With a white light filter, sunspots, faculae, granulation, and very rare white light flares can be seen.

There are a great many galaxies visible from the Southern Hemisphere including the two very best galaxies in the entire sky, the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds. I've spent hours observing extragalactic HII regions and star clusters in the LMC and SMC with a 22" Starmaster during my observing trips to Bolivia.

The vast majority of galaxies are quite small in apparent size and require high magnification to be observed. A wide field of view is not required. In fact, equating deep-sky observing with low power and f/ratio is a persistent telescope myth. I've observed many hundreds of open and globular star clusters, planetary nebulae, small emision and reflection nebulae, and galaxies at 162 to 324x using a 17" f/15 classical Cassegrain with a maximum true field of view of only 26 arcminutes.

Dave Mitsky

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Wow,

Thanks a lot for all that information, now I know the first step! I will be finding the local astronomy club. Appreciate all the advice (and I will be looking at this post and following the links for a while as well).

__________________
Note to self; add witty comment

I find that it comes up just about every time I don't mention it. I therefore mention it. Let me go a bit beyond that. You will spend an enormous amount of time, money, and effort if you decide to do astrophotography, before you get one shot that you will really consider worthwhile. If you're interested enough to go there, despite already knowing that, then by all means, do it. But if you find that a daunting prospect, then take Dave's advice and don't worry about it now.

I had to edit some stuff out to make it in under 15k words. Was one of the things the statement that by the time you're done, you've spent as much money as you would have anyway? Probably. Having seen this done, I have to say that there is decidedly a reason that the bulk of astrophotography is being done with cats, RCs, and refractors, mounted on GEMs. I'm not saying you can't with a Dob, but it's far more convenient with a 'scope better made for it.

At the risk of repeating myself, again, sure, it's possible, but there are far more convenient choices.

I couldn't agree more, and I'd recommend that as a question to ask at a local star party. I wish I could help.

Good point. I haven't been following my ephemerides lately; too busy. I just got my observatory up, though, so I'll be getting back into it over the next year or so.

I don't insist they're causally related, but the last SEB revival was in '93, and SL9 hit in '94; there hasn't been a revival since, though this is not unprecedented, since the gap from '74 to '89 was longer. Certainly they're correlated. I agree that it's more likely Junior is causally connected to SL9 than the faded color of the GRS, but I also have to point out where SL9 hit, and that GRS darkening generally accompanies a SEB revival, which hasn't happened since then. YMMV.

I missed the 2003 apparition in Washington, under the bad seeing. I did catch 2001, and from a high, still, dark site- and also from Calstar that year- and I have to say that my opinion is formed from that, and from the current apparition, most recently a couple nights ago with both the C9.25 and the NP127is. I also have to point out that if the querent is considering a purchase now, that's going to be on the menu for a few more months.

No disagreements here.

YMMV, very much. I will say that one key point about lunar observing is that just about anything on the Moon is more interesting when the terminator is near it; the long shadows emphasize everything, and details that are not discernible in the direct sunlight of the full phase are easily seen because of the shadows they throw.

Again, no arguments here. I will point out that spicules are visible, though only just, using a PST, and that's $600 for the OTA including the filter. Coronado has been in the back of my mind for quite some time; I'm also looking over Lunt K-line (calcium) interference filtered 'scopes at $800 or so. It's getting interesting in that area, and I've been curious since an experience at someone else's eyepiece after lunch one day at Calstar a few years back. I will probably do something about that this year or next.

Heh, well, technically they're satellite galaxies, dwarfs; and part of the scenery down South. They are, as you say, extremely scenic. What most people think of when they think of galaxies, though, isn't the LMC and SMC.

On a side note, have you ever examined the HII regions in M33? It's an old favorite, and one of my star party tricks is to show 'em the Lagoon, then swing over to M33 and say, "See those cloudy spots in it? Those are the same thing as we were just looking at, but in another galaxy." It really opens the universe out for some folks.

Ahhh, but M31. I mean, if you wanna follow Markarian's Chain, sure, you don't need no wide field of view. But M31.

this is the one im looking at for my first scope..
what do the experts think?
thanks alot

aaron




http://http://www.telescope.com/cont...oduct_id=27183

Yes, you should consider that you asked this on an ASTRONOMY forum. With that in mind, it's apparent to me in looking at the responses that the needs you state in the first sentence quoted above has not only been ignored, but you are now being told what you want to use your scope for. The suggestions of a 6" or 8" Dob reflector for your stated purposes is poor advice. Hauling logs with a Ferrari is a poor idea, a Dob would be a ridiculous choice for you to be doing terrestrial viewing.
There is an excellent book called "Astronomy Hacks" you might want to read.
On pages 72 & 73, the author has suggestions for grab and go scopes. His top suggestion is a type of scope that WOULD be suitable for your stated purposes, a 90 or 100mm long tube refractor on an alt-az mount. One of my scopes is a 90mm f/11 that came with an equatorial mount, but I often use it on an alt-az mount for 200-600 yd. riflery spotting, at which it excels. It cost just $200 in the U.S. You will have a focal length around 1000mm and be able to go up to around 200X in good viewing conditions with decent results.
The TREMENDOUS ADVANTAGE to this scope for a newbie:
Both the non-optical finder and the erect image diagonal on this scope give an image that is right side up and oriented correctly from left-to-right, making it easy for you and your friends to orient the scope, sky, and star chart easily.
The TREMENDOUS DISADVANTAGE to this scope for an experienced person:
Both the non-optical finder and the erect image diagonal on this scope give an image that is right side up and oriented correctly from left-to-right, making it easy for your friends to orient the scope, sky, and star chart easily. ,)
Having said all that, if you have been talked into buying a scope SOLELY for astronomical purposes and decided you don't want to look at birds and boats after all, then I would suggest the 6" f8 Orion XT6 with Object locator.

Well, it's apparent to me that you weren't reading some of the responses very carefully.

My advice was that trying to do both jobs with a single telescope was not a good idea, particularly for someone who has the great Southern Hemisphere sky at their disposal, and that the OP should consider getting a spotting telescope, one that is expressly designed for the purpose of birding and terrrestrial viewing, as well as a larger aperture for astronomical observing.

http://www.opticsplanet.net/celestro...ng-scopes.html

A large aperture binocular on a tripod or a binocular guider (mount) would also serve this purpose.

http://www.binocularsbestbuy.com/OBE...l?feed=Froogle

http://www.astunit.com/tonkinsastro/.../binomount.htm

A short-tube 80mm refractor, like the one that I wrote a chapter about in the book Astronomy with Small Telescopes: Up to 5-inch, 125mm, would also be good for terrestrial use and would additionally serve as a respectable grab-and-go, rich-field astronomy scope. A long-focus refractor is not well suited for watching ships in motion or birds on the wing. Magnifications of 200x are not needed for most terrestrial viewing.

"If you really want a telescope for astronomy, I can't recommend getting one that is also for terrestrial use. Buying a larger aperture astronomical telescope and a binocular, which will also be very useful for amateur astronomy, or a spotting telescope is a better strategy than trying to split the difference."

I still very much stand by the above advice.

Shneibster suggested getting a small SCT or MCT, which is also a viable option, and specifically stated that a Dob would not be appropriate for terrestrial use.

"The last thing in your question is the terrestrial (birds, ships, etc.) thing. If you want a Dob, because you want to look at galaxies and other faint fuzzies and you want some money left over to put your kids through college, forget terrestrial, it's not going to work out. If you've got the money, you can get a refractor, but the really good ones are too big to be worthwhile for terrestrial; the midrange are fair to good for it, but not so good for astronomy, and still cost big bucks. A big SCT is too huge to be worthwhile, but there is an SCT called the C5 out there, it's a 5 inch, that is, 125mm, aperture, and a 1250mm focal length; I have one of these, and it does double duty as my main grab-n-go astronomy 'scope and my wife's main otter- and bird-watching 'scope. My wife is very petite, and I carry a big camera pack and tripod to take pictures of the otters, so obviously the portability is excellent, since she has to carry it and also her own tripod. An essential accessory for any astronomical telescope you wish to use for terrestrial spotting is an erecting prism. You can find Maksutovs and SCTs in the 4-6 inch range that are comparable to the C5, and reasonable in price."

One of the four astronomy clubs of which I am a member owns a Chinese-made, 127mm Orion Maksutov-Cassegrain. It's a fine little telescope but not as desirable for astronomical use as an 8" Newtonian would be.

http://www.telescope.com/control/pro...LAID=130323814

Any telescope on an equatorial mount is going to be fairly clumsy to use for viewing objects on the Earth, however, so we're back to an alt-azimuth, spotting scope situation.

http://www.telescope.com/control/pro...LAID=130323799

Cheers,

Dave Mitsky

Attached Images

Orion ShortTube 80.jpg (16.3 KB, 13 views)

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Dave - I recognized your name, but was surprised that your advice was to buy 2 telescopes when the question was for an all purpose scope. Seems it would be better for him to get a dedicated astronomy scope and a pair of binoculars. Almost any binoculars are going to beat any scope for "birds on the wing." I am making a suggestion for a dual purpose scope, therefore the 200X magnification is useful to mention for astronomy purposes.
Anyway, I'll admit a 1000mm refractor is not the most maneuverable thing to watch birds up close with, but it is perfectly adequate for watching ships (or birds) at a distance.
I think your short tube refractor suggestion is good, especially if the emphasis is on terrestrial viewing. Maybe I'm spoiled from looking through Canon camera lenses for decades, I hadn't looked through a true astronomy telescope (built an 8"/f6 Newt with my Dad in 1964) since I quit astronomy in 1968 until a couple of years ago. I was shocked by what I saw as poor astronomical performance (Purple Haze!) from several short tube refractors at star parties. I think they were mostly 80 or 90 mm f6's.

Eratosthenes,

Short-tube refractors certainly have their drawbacks, as do every other type of telescope, chromatic aberration being the principle one. However, false color does not affect deep-sky observing or terrestrial use to any great degree. Some short-tube achromats are much better than others in this regard, the 80mm f/7 Stellarvue Nighthawk, for example. The next step up, in terms of quality, would be an 80mm ED refractor.

I believe that I did, in fact, suggest a large aperture telescope and a binocular as an alternative to a spotting scope.

"If you really want a telescope for astronomy, I can't recommend getting one that is also for terrestrial use. Buying a larger aperture astronomical telescope and a binocular, which will also be very useful for amateur astronomy, or a spotting telescope is a better strategy than trying to split the difference."

Dave Mitsky

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

The posters here on BAUT all have terrific tips.

I've always just followed John Dobson's philosophy : (paraphrasing), the telescope should be for soft warm eyes and be able to just push around with gentle nudges, hence, the DOBSONIAN mount, without any complications; and you can get them for a few hundred dollars. Plus, I'd buy 25 mm and 12 mm (maybe 9 mm) eyepieces. My 6inch is f/8 for 48 inch focal length so you could get a couple of magnifying powers
m (25 mm eyepiece) = 1.3 m/ 0.025 m = 40 X
m (12 mm eyepice) = 80 X (this is certainly enough power for major things)

I like the 6 inch DOBs because they are not too bulky. With my 6 inch I've seen all the main things: great views of moon, Jupiter's belts and moons, rings of Saturn and Titan, star clusters (Pleiades, Beehive) , Andromeda galaxy, M13 globular cluster in Hercules, Orion nebula (with obvious trapezium of stars imbedded) , Polar caps of Mars (at opposition is best) , phases of Venus (neat views) , sunspots ( I actually prefer to project those instead of using solar filters for SAFETY. Beginners PLEASE be careful when viewing sunspots and read instructions on doing this before proceeding).

__________________


'Just be a good team player in life', Andrew Evans

i always found that getting a good sight test at the local opticions does wonders for your view first off. I wsas quite surprised on how much i was missing out on till I got my glasses.

__________________
"Attack the idea, not the person" Posted by a Moderator.
Useful words around here indeed!!

You might want to take a look at some of the shots captured with Dobsonians sitting on top of dual-axis equatorial platforms or with stepper motor drives at the links listed below. Performing astrophotography with an equatorially mounted 16 or 20-inch Newtonian, not to mention a Ritchey-Chretien Cassegrain (or a 16-inch SCT, aplanatic or otherwise), would be several to many times more expensive.

http://www.equatorialplatforms.com/images.html

http://astronomy-mall.com/regular/pr...tforms/pg5.htm

http://astronomy-mall.com/regular/pr...tforms/pg6.htm

http://www.haven.k12.pa.us/orfft/dd2andstar2000.html

http://homepages.accnorwalk.com/tddi...0/astrophotos/

My friend Gary Honis, a Cherry Springs State Park regular, has taken some superb images, both shallow and deep-sky, with his 20-inch Starmaster Sky Tracker Dob.

http://ghonis2.ho8.com/

A 20-inch RC Optical Systems Ritchey-Chretien Cassegrain telescope and mount is going to run over $65,000 as compared to a bit more than $8,000 for the Starmaster. The R-C Cassegrain is the better astrograph, to be sure, but how many people can afford one?

http://www.rcopticalsystems.com/20inchtruss.html and http://www.rcopticalsystems.com/paramount.html

http://www.starmastertelescopes.com/...opeprices.html

Digital imaging and processing has very much changed just what is possible when it comes to imaging and what is necessary to do it. In fact, I've seen some very impressive planetary quickcam shots taken with undriven Dobs.

http://www.usno.navy.mil/pao/QuickCamAstro.shtml

http://www.fvastro.org/articles/digital

Please cite a scientific paper that states that SL9 caused any change in the GRS or was responsible for the merger of three white ovals many years later. Note: I certainly made no such claims about Oval BA, by the way.

Mars will drop below 10 arcseconds in apparent size on February 19, thus ending the period of fruitful telescopic observation for the 2007 Martian apparition.

I've owned a PST for over three years now (I've attached a few rather mediocre afocal digicam shots that I took through my PST) and have looked through the Calcium K PSTs at the NEAF Solar Star Party. I think that you'd be very disappointed in the images through the latter. They are very, very dim as compared to the H-alpha PST. These instruments are primarily intended for imaging.

"The magnificent super granulation cells that gather and strengthen in this layer of the Chromosphere may not be visible to all, as most humans eyes through the process of aging, are not particularly sensitive to this wavelength. The primary purpose of any CaK instrument is for imaging."

http://www.adorama.com/CDPSTCAK.html

The reason I brought up the matter was the fact that some novices might think that spicules might be visible through a far more common and far, far less expensive white light solar filter.

Satellite galaxies are as much galaxies as any others, be they ellipticals like M32 and M110 or irregulars like the LMC and the SMC. As far as your last statement is concerned, it is very much indicative of the typical Northern Hemisphere bias. There is nothing in the northern sky that compares to the Magellanic Clouds.

I have, indeed, as well as the HII regions in M101 and NGC 6822, through apertures ranging from 14.5 inches to 32 inches.

Yes, but M31 is very much the exception. Of the 1866 NGC objects discussed in Burnham's Celestial Handbook, only 11 galaxies are greater than 20 arcminutes in apparent size.

Roger Clark has done extensive studies of just what the optimum magnification for deep-sky objects is. This section of his web site is quite "illuminating" - http://www.clarkvision.com/visastro/m51-mag/index.html

The view of M31 through my 101mm Tele Vue refractor and 13mm Tele Vue Ethos is exceptional and the view through Al Nagler's 127mm TV-NP127i and 13mm Ethos at Stellafane last year was even better. I had this wonderful combination to myself for 15 minutes or more and enjoyed some incredible sights through it. However, to this day the best view of M31 that I've had was at Cherry Springs State Park through an 18" ATM Dob that was modified for low power binoviewer use.

A wide field of view is actually quite nice for traversing Markarian's Chain.

Dave Mitsky

Attached Images

	Kodak DX3900 Auto Small 2006-05-21.jpg (6.1 KB, 7 views)
	Solar Scimitar Yellow Small 2457 2006-4-02.jpg (106.1 KB, 6 views)
	Tax Day's Filaments Yellow 2568 2006-4-17.jpg (49.6 KB, 6 views)
	Sunspot Region & Filament 2705 2006-5-02.jpg (61.6 KB, 8 views)

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

That's a bad link, but I assume you meant to go to the SkyQuest Intelliscope XT8?

http://www.telescope.com/cont...oduct_id=27183

It is a very good scope. The nice thing about the Intelliscope Dobs is that the computer is an assistant, it does not run the entire telescope. You are still in charge.

Yep! The Intelliscope is a "push to" scope. Arrows light up to show you which way to move the scope and you push it until the lights go out!

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

I just came across a rather respectable 1500 frame image of Mars at only 11" that was taken by John Biretta at this year's Winter Star Party using a 16" f/4.3 Starmaster Dob mounted on an equatorial platform.

http://www.astromart.com/common/imag...999/577836.jpg

Dave Mitsky

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Very well done indeed!
I like the natural processing.

Rick