PDA

View Full Version : Intro Telescope?



Reaper
04-25-2012, 03:45 PM
Alright i will start off saying i dont know anything about astronomy.
Im looking for an entry level telescope, needs to be powerful enough to view the rings of saturn.
I dont want to spend very much at all, but i also dont want a $50 piece of shit from academy.

Any suggestions?

I was looking at this one, but i dont know anything about it.

http://www.meijer.com/s/celestron-astromaster-70az-telescope/_/R-175848;jsessionid=8F08112E7B61CEEB7BD7FE112D3A419A .instance01?CAWELAID=758284863&cagpspn=pla&cmpid=goobase
any insight on what i should be looking for in a telescope?

Siegler
04-25-2012, 04:01 PM
You picked a refractor. For the amount of money you're spending, you want to get a reflector. Refracting telescopes are great, but they don't offer as much in the low price range compared to what reflecting telescopes can give you. Celestron is a decent company for telescopes, so is Meade (though a bit expensive). For example:

http://www.shopatron.com/products/productdetail/Meade+114EQ-ASTR+Equatorial+Reflector+%2304066-1/part_number=04066-1/1323.0.1.1.28926.45510.0.0.0?pp=8&

or something like this:

http://www.celestron.com/astronomy/astromaster-lt-76az-telescope.html

Glad to see someone getting into this stuff.

EXCellR8
04-25-2012, 09:21 PM
I still plan on getting a decent dobsonian kit but i haven't been able to allocate any funds for it; I wanted one last year. Some of the kits I looked at, perhaps from around a year ago, were plenty capable of seeing Saturn's rings. Pretty cool.

thinkmad
04-26-2012, 12:24 AM
star gazing is the most boring shit ever. unless you have activities worth viewing. well, i guess you can by the right to name your own hot gas and stare at it.. lol. i used to point a telescope towards the sky when i was a little kid, but then i just end up pointing it at the neighbor's windows.

Siegler
04-26-2012, 12:51 AM
star gazing is the most boring shit ever. unless you have activities worth viewing. well, i guess you can by the right to name your own hot gas and stare at it.. lol. i used to point a telescope towards the sky when i was a little kid, but then i just end up pointing it at the neighbor's windows.

It's a hobby like anything else. It requires a bit of experience to understand what you're looking at and some more to figure out how to navigate the night sky (without the use of an automated mount). That is why it's best to go with a manual mount so you learn how to navigate the night sky. You won't see color through a telescope, nor will you see the heavy detail, both of which appear in many images you find online. But what you do find and see is the actual object itself! Not some false-colored image that was taken with 8 hours worth of exposure time. And to many people, that is very rewarding.

Harry
04-26-2012, 02:29 AM
I used to have a 3 inch refractor and I could see the rings of Saturn as well as jupiters moons, but you have to make sure to buy quality shit, especially eye pieces. Don't buy anything that isn't of a regarded brand name in astronomy. You will get more magnification with a reflector but the refractor is the clearest. It's a trade off like anything else. Try to get a motorized mount if you can. To me that was the biggest irritant. The rotation of the earth only keeps highly magnified objects in your field of view for seconds.

Double R
04-26-2012, 01:13 PM
star gazing is the most boring shit ever. unless you have activities worth viewing. well, i guess you can by the right to name your own hot gas and stare at it.. lol. i used to point a telescope towards the sky when i was a little kid, but then i just end up pointing it at the neighbor's windows.

So is photography.

I have two cameras. They're called my eyes.

Harry
04-26-2012, 01:21 PM
You named your cameras?

thinkmad
04-26-2012, 01:36 PM
So is photography.

I have two cameras. They're called my eyes.

can't argue with your deleted comment "they shit all over your dslr" since lenses are designed to copy exactly what the eyes can see, and haven't come close. so yeah +1 for you. but nobody publishes white dots, they still use (as siegler said) cameras with long exposures as to convey what the star may/may-not look like.

if i'm gonna observe magnified images, i'd rather do on a micro level, atleast those (to me) are more fascinating than hot gasses, half of which are probably non-existent anymore.

Siegler
04-26-2012, 03:42 PM
can't argue with your deleted comment "they shit all over your dslr" since lenses are designed to copy exactly what the eyes can see, and haven't come close. so yeah +1 for you. but nobody publishes white dots, they still use (as siegler said) cameras with long exposures as to convey what the star may/may-not look like.

if i'm gonna observe magnified images, i'd rather do on a micro level, atleast those (to me) are more fascinating than hot gasses, half of which are probably non-existent anymore.

What makes imaging the cosmos really cool is, our eyes can only see a small sliver of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. So many images you see online are a composite of different wavelengths of light that our eyes will never see. This topic is kind of irrelevant to begin with, learning how to image the sky is extremely difficult/expensive and time consuming, but it is rewarding to those that do. Also, imaging stars are boring, most people image nebula's, star clusters or galaxies. The people who image stars are probably research driven scientists looking for planets or other obscurities.

Btw those hot gasses are still there! We only see the hot gasses that are within a few thousand light years of Earth, and for these gasses to dissipate or develop into a newborn star takes millions of years.

Stealth
04-26-2012, 04:38 PM
In Highschool my astronomy teacher would allow us to take the school telescope home. It was this huge 10in in diameter one that was about 4-5ft long. Using other telescopes like the cheap little ones was never the same.

He also had another one that we used to look at sun spots, that shit was pretty damn cool too.

Stealth
04-26-2012, 04:41 PM
by far the coolest thing was seeing the rings of saturn/saturn through the telesope

Seeing pictures is completly different then seeing it through a telescope

Reaper
04-26-2012, 05:23 PM
i've seen saturns rings at the observatory in San antonio, but i was a wee little one..

also i dont care what everyones thoughts are on the hobby, its something i want to do.. fuck off :lol:

Harry
04-26-2012, 06:01 PM
zeroing in and focusing on an actual planet is pretty cool, it's right there over your head. All the pictures in the world don't measure up to that.

EXCellR8
04-26-2012, 11:45 PM
this is a pretty boss unit for pretty cheap... i've used a similar one in the past but i really need to own something.

http://www.zhumell.com/telescopes/reflector/eclipse-114-reflector-telescope/

here is a celestron of the same type...

http://www.telescopes.com/telescopes/reflecting-telescopes/celestronastromaster114eqreflector.cfm

Reaper
04-27-2012, 05:34 PM
^ that 2nd one.. i think i will get it. I might go look around town first though, i dont really think a telescope should be shipped by the moronic parcel carriers.

Harry
04-27-2012, 07:35 PM
Get something local from a physical store if you can. Go somewhere that specializes in it, especially if you're a beginner, the support will be invaluable to you.

EXCellR8
04-28-2012, 01:09 AM
I would love to sit down and talk to someone who is experienced with this sort of stuff, because trying to go at it online is pretty haphazard. All telescopes, like most things, have good and bad attributes but you really just need to weigh them all out. I know that magnification isn't nearly as important as aperture width or whatever because you want to see clear images. I couldn't give two shits about seeing things that are really distant if they are blurry and impossible to make out. You're obviously not going to see anything that hasn't been seen before on a $200 telescope but that's not a realistic goal for someone starting out anyways--so clarity is my #1 priority with choosing. To me I'd like something that's not too heavy, that can track and keep somewhat of a focus on an object, and something that I can perhaps buy other components for down the road. I think I closer to a grand or two for something along those lines, that's a terrific unit anyway, but I don't want to shell out that kind of money yet. I will probably start in the $250-300 range for now and if I get into it maybe I'd buy something significantly better.