# telescope



## Scott (Dec 15, 2005)

IS anybody into astronomy? I am curious about recommendations for a first telescope. It will be used by kids primarily, but I want it to be decent. I remember having a piece of junk as a kid that stifled my interests.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 15, 2005)

My wife got me one at a garage sale. Its a Magnicon, whatever that means. But its not plastic. Look for one that has the body of it made of metal. It'll last longer, I think.

We've been looking at Venus just before Suppertime, even while the sun is still just above the horizon. I even located it once with the binoculars while the sun we still well before going down, and then focused the telescope on it. That impressed the kids, seeing a star during the daylight. You couldn't see it without the glasses or the scope. Now when they look out the back door and see that bright light in the sky, even before the sun goes down, they know its Venus. They even look for it before they sit down for supper. Kinda nice to see that. I just didn't know how much I missed when I was a kid, living in the countryside, with darker skies back then, and not seeing all that was around me.


----------



## cupotea (Dec 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> IS anybody into astronomy? I am curious about recommendations for a first telescope. It will be used by kids primarily, but I want it to be decent. I remember having a piece of junk as a kid that stifled my interests.



Buy a Celestron. http://www.celestron.com/telescopes.htm

They even have "First Telescope" sales. You can't beat 'em. In 1979 I shelled out well over $1000 for one of their Schmidt-Cassegrain editions, with several eye filters, a sun filter, tripod and equatorial-wedge. I've never regreted it. I STILL use it. And over the years they've only improved. 

You don't need top-of-the-line. But you're right in avoiding a piece of junk that will only push away interest. Just be prepared to make an investment (even if it's a small one). 

And once you get it ... be patient. It takes time, discipline, a dark sky and no city lights - and lots of experience - to get really good with it. And don't expect to see the photographs that come with all the advertisements. That's just hype (borrowed from photographs taken with world-class telescopes). 

However, don't get discouraged either. Your first glimpse at the moon will blow you away. And it only gets better.


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 15, 2005)

I am a telescope builder and have ground my own mirrors and lenses. I understand that approach isn't for everyone.

I'd suggest doing a search on "Dobsonian" telescopes. The are reflecting telescopes that tend to be inexpensive but have a lot of light gathering potential for the buck. Avoid the department store refractors and reflectors. Their components will typically wear out after a few years and the optics often are poor.

While you are at it, you should get a basic star atlas so that you kind identify the various interesting nebulae and clusters out there. 

Feel free to email me with any specific questions.

Vic


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 15, 2005)

I just saw Kevin's post and I agree. Celestron is pretty good. Meade also is quite good for amateur work.

My personal preference is to avoid the fancy "GoTo" technology, but I am definitely in the minority in the amateur astronomy field on that question. I like star-hopping and setting circles, but it's because I'm old fashioned.

Vic


----------



## cupotea (Dec 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by victorbravo_
> I am a telescope builder and have ground my own mirrors and lenses. I understand that approach isn't for everyone.



Now THAT is dedication and a love for the field.

I had an uncle who was a physicist. He taught at a college in Chicago, but spend off-time down in Louisiana. He purchased the largest Celestron available at the time (I forget the model #). But built an observatory in his back yard in La. and supplied it with electricity. He invited me over one night and we had a wonderful time. We saw not just a few neighborhood planets (ho-hum), but entire galaxies! That got me to understand the "fear" (awe, reverence) of God. In fact, I still occasionally preach about that night.


----------



## Casey (Dec 16, 2005)

> We saw not just a few neighborhood planets (ho-hum), but entire galaxies!


How powerful of a telescope do you need to see galaxies? These things must have some kind of positioning technology, because I have a tiny telescope that I used with my wife to look at the moon (which was neat), but when I wanted to go for a star (or planet) it took me forever to get the thing centered on it!


----------



## Scott (Dec 16, 2005)

How does this telescope look? I know it is not Celestron brand or Dobsonian class. But price seems great for what you get. 

Also, why the recommendation for Dobsonian?

Scott

[Edited on 12-16-2005 by Scott]


----------



## Scott (Dec 16, 2005)

"I am a telescope builder and have ground my own mirrors and lenses. I understand that approach isn't for everyone."

That is awesome


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> 
> 
> > We saw not just a few neighborhood planets (ho-hum), but entire galaxies!
> ...



Casey, the main factor is not magnification, but diameter. Galaxies are faint. The bigger the diameter of the objective lens or mirror determines whether you will be able to make out a galaxy.

Other factors are light pollution, clarity of the skies, etc. If you are in a city, you will probably need a bigger objective than if you are in the country. There are "light pollution filters" that help, but they are expensive and they do reduce the amount of light transmitted.

I can see several galaxies from my back yard of a medium sized city with a 6" reflector, but my 8" is much better. My pastor had a very high quality 4" refractor (it has an objective lens rather than a mirror), and he could make out galaxies. But my 8" reflector could pull in the same things much easier.

There are almost as many opinions as back-yard astronomers, but I think everyone would agree that given equal optics, bigger is better. Once you have determined the size, then magnification comes in, not vice versa. For instance, an 8" telescope can easily make use of 200 power, but a 4" scope would have a lot of trouble making use of that kind of power. For Galaxies, you can see a lot of beauty in the 50-100 power range.

Vic


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 16, 2005)

Scott, I think you'd be much happier with a six inch. Four inch minimum unless you want to watch birds more than stars. The three inch would be fine for casual looking at the moon and planets, but you'd have a hard time picking out the Ring Nebula, I think.

Here is a six inch Celestron that I saw, I'm sure there are others:

http://www.nextag.com/Celestron-Sta...bsonian_telescopeszB9az2--COMPARE-PRICES-html

Vic


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> How does this telescope look? I know it is not Celestron brand or Dobsonian class. But price seems great for what you get.
> 
> Also, why the recommendation for Dobsonian?
> ...



Sorry Scott, I missed the other question.

I suggested Dobsonian only because that design provides the biggest diameter for the buck. A Dobsonian is a simple Newtonian-type reflecting telescope that has a concave objective mirror, a diagonal mirror to bend the light from the objective to an eyepiece, and an eyepiece. Although a refractor is even simpler, because it has two components: an objective lens and an eypiece assembly, the cost for making good quality optics in a lens is much higher than for a mirror.

The other reason a Dobsonian is inexpensive compared to other styles is because it has a simple mounting system. It cannot be fitted with "GoTo" guiding systems without a lot of modification. But that is the trade-off for getting a larger diameter. But you can do a lot of fun observation without a guiding system if you have a simple star chart. "Star-hopping" (going from a known star to another star and then to the object you seek from the chart) is a great way to become familiar with the heavens. 

I know people who are able to star hop to all of the Messier objects (these are nebulae, galaxies, and clusters) in one night by just using a chart and having a plan.

The other thing I like about Dobsonians is that they usually have a wider field of view and relatively low power. I think you would get the most satisfaction with lower power and wider fields because that is where the really spectacular things are seen.

High power is useful for scientific measurements, like trying to discern the period of binary stars. But, unless you have extraordinary viewing conditions, you will not be able to make use of high power very often because the atmosphere distorts the light. For example, with low power, you can see the moons of Jupiter strung out like pearls. With high power (particularly in a smaller diameter scope) you will not be able to see much more detail of the surface of Jupiter, but you miss the moons. 

High power does not help at all for the Messier objects I mentioned above.

Vic


----------



## Casey (Dec 16, 2005)

Thanks for the tips


----------



## Scott (Dec 16, 2005)

Thanks, Vic


----------



## JohnV (Dec 16, 2005)

Yeah, thanks guys. Great tips. 

My wife got mine at a garage sale for $15, and got a spotlight for the car to with it. The telescope has a trippod, and is micro adjustable to allow me to follow the objects I'm looking at. It has a sight on it to find to find to objects too. For $15 its a great deal. But it only gets me to want a bigger one, to get even better shots. I won't be happy until I'm orbiting the object I'm looking at, I guess. But even with this telescope, or even the 10X binoculars, what a sight. 

I want to find Andromeda sometime. But north is not a good direction for me, as all the big city lights are that direction.


----------

