Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

hoss

New Members
  • Posts

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

2 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Location
    Chicago USA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hello Baldor Yes, I have the same desire as you. First of all, visually in a telescope the Andromeda galaxy will look nothing like a photo graphic image. The photo graphic images are either stacked images or a long exposure in fast (short focal length) telescopes. Secondly, the Andromeda galaxy occupies a bit more than 3 degrees of arc in the night sky. In my 11 inch Schmitt Cassegrain at F10, all I see is a bit of white fuzzy light and I can make out no structure at all. When I use an optical reducer to get F5 it is not much better. But I am not at a very dark observing site. The best I have seen Andromeda is with a third generation night vision scope with attached magnifier. I was able to see the entire structure of Andromeda what it apeared as an oval dim which fuzzy object. It had the rough shape as seen on photos, but it was very small and had no detail. Here is what it comes down to. Andromeda like all nebula are very dim. Some nebula occupy a large area in the sky, such as the North American nebula and Andromeda. Some occupy only a few arc seconds such as M57. Large diffuse nebula require low power. But a large aperture with a lot of light gathering capability is desirable to get more light to your eyes. The problem is that a larger aperture results in a longer focal length which will reduce the true field of view of the telescope. From my rough calculations, your maximum field of view with your telescope using your 25 mm eyepiece is about 1.4 degrees of true field of view. ( 900mm f.l., 25 mm e.p.=36x. I assume your eyepiece has a 50 degree apparent field of view, 50/36=1.38 actual field of view of the night sky.) To see the entire Andromeda Galaxy requires a telescope with a short focal length, about 500 mm or so. These are referred to as fast telescopes, meaning that they have a small aperture to focal length ratio. Now your telescope would need to have about a 500 mm focal length to be able to get a wide enough view on low power. I hope that helps.
  2. Hello Gilly D For visual observing for the Moon, virtually any telescope at all will work. As mentioned above by Sloz1664, you can see the moon with a telescope even in the most light polluted areas. For visual observing the moon you can use manual tracking. Motor drives, not to mention go to are not required. I have observed Saturn with a Takahashi Sky90 (90 mm aperture, F5.6) using an EQ5 German Equatorial mount, using the manual slow motion controls. Of course I have used such a set up to observe the Moon as well. I will make some assumptions about your situation: I assume you want something small, light, simple and inexpensive since you are traveling to a far off land for a short period of time. Who knows if your equipment will get lost or stolen. I would get a small refractor. To give you a short lesson on Refractors: If you get an inexpensive Achromat refractor (which has two lenses) you will see some purple color with bright images. To get an Apochromat refractor (which has three lenses and sometimes two lenses of special glass) is much more expensive but the color will be reduced. On the moon the color is there using an Achromat, it is a matter of taste as to how objectionable the color is. Believe me, when observing Jupiter with an Achromat it feels like a purple laser beam is being pointed at your eye. The image is effected drastically. Not so much with the moon, just a slight amount of color on the edges of the moon. Even a small cheap refractor, a mount and tripod, and eyepieces are still going to cost you about $1,000. You could get something for less of course. For example go to here: https://www.telescope.com/Telescopes/Refractor-Telescopes/Refractor-Telescopes-with-Premium-Optics/Orion-Carbon-Fiber-ED66-CF-Refractor-amp-Tritech-CFX-Tripod/pc/1/c/10/sc/332/p/118234.uts?refineByCategoryId=332 This is a small refractor with an altitude and azimuth mount. It woudl be nice to have a few more eye pieces other than a 14 mm. I would purchase the most inexpensive Plossl eyepieces. That is what I have been using for years. Of course, I also have very expensive eyepieces, but the Plossl works well as long as the focal length is 9 millimeters or greater. I would have the following Plossl eyepieces in my kit: 32 mm, 20 mm, 15 mm , and 9 mm. Altitude and azimuth mount (Altazimuth for short) and German Equatorial Mounts (GEM) accomplish the same task by slightly different methods. Do research on the two types if needed. If you get something too cheap you will have a frustrating time and it will be a terrible experience. That is the trade off in astronomy. Astronomy as rule can be a very expensive hobby. If you get equipment that is poor quality you will have a bad experience. A cheap shaky mount will also result in a bad experience. Also go here to get an idea about the cost of a cheap small telescope: https://www.astronomics.com/telescopes.html?___SID=U&filter_telescope_type=425&manufacturer=360 This is the EQ5 that I have, it is over kill for a small refractor but it is stable. Also this is perhaps bigger, heavier and more expensive than what you want: https://www.telescope.com/Orion/Orion-SkyView-Pro-Equatorial-Telescope-Mount/rc/2160/p/9829.uts I hope that helps. It is difficult to condense 30 years of telescope observing experience and advice in a few sentences.
  3. You are going to have to buy the adapter unless you can make one. Are you a machinist or real handy at metal working or know someone who is? Or maybe you can figure something else out if you are creative. Orion telescopes sells a losmandy to vixen adapter for $80.00 US. go to https://www.telescope.com/Orion/Orion-Wide-to-Narrow-Dovetail-Adapter-Plate/rc/2160/p/7953.uts Here is vixen to losmandy. https://www.telescope.com/Orion/Orion-Narrow-to-Wide-Dovetail-Adapter-Plate/rc/2160/p/7952.uts
  4. Hello tripleped One thing I have learned over the years is that I have wasted A LOT of money buying expensive eyepieces when cheap ones work better!!!! Generic plossl 32mm for $30.00 is as good as my Televue Panoptic 19mm for $275.00. Why? Because of the focal length. A 15 mm plossl is not as good as the 19mm panoptic. A plossl less than 9mm is junk. 9mm is the shorted fl plossl usable in my book. So be careful trying to fix an unfixable problem by chasing expensive eye pieces. You need need use your optical instrument with its capability. A newtonian is best used for wide field of view, at lower power gathering a lot of light. Of course newtonians can be used for all types of viewing. Now maximum usable magnification can be effected by the condition of the atmosphere (there is seeing conditions and there is also transparency), was your telescope cooled down to ambient temperature, was there dew on the mirror, was the scope columnated, do you need parabolic correction, how accurately is the mirror figured, what image were you looking at? Jupiter, the moon, a double star, nebula, open cluster, globular cluster, galaxy? Each target has different requirements of field of view, magnification, dark sky, steady seeing. Every night will be different. I have had my Nexstar 11 at 2000x viewing mars in 2005 one time, never again. I have viewed Saturn in 2004 at 1400x one time. But I just use various eyepieces to get the best image. Mostly that means using 32 mm plossl in a Denkmeir bino viewer with a power switch in and F10 SCT with a 2800mm Focal length. This is all I ever really use for any type of viewing. I have no idea what this magnification is, all I know is that this works for me. I don't know how to put this, but the idea of a maximum magnification is not of importance. There is really no real rule of thumb that matters in my book. Some writers will state that a very good optical system can handle magnification of a certain amount per inch of aperture. I think that for very high end refactors such as a Takahashi or AP or TEC is something like 50 x per inch. But that really does not matter. All that matters. is what you have in front of your eyepiece. To put things in non technical terms, when I was in school we had movie projectors or slide projectors. If the slide projector was close to the screen the image was small but it had very bright colors and the image was crisp. If the projector was moved back, the image got bigger, but the colors were not as vivid. The same thing happens with a telescope. At low power, say a 32 mm plossl the image will be very crisp and bright. Now when you use say a 7mm Pentax XL, the image is slightly bigger, but the colors as not as vivid. Also with a barlow you are losing some of the light cone, called vignetting. Your telescope is a Newtonian at F 4.7. I am not an expert, but most Newtonians are not know as superb optical instruments. There are very good mirrors out there, but by their design capabilities, they usually are not near what a very expensive apochromat refractor is or what a Takahashi Melon Dall-kirkham is. To learn about how eye pieces and telescopes work search the youtube for "how to choose you eye piece" with david nagler televue optics.
  5. Hello Dave from Wigan You have the question with the impossible answer. Here are some things to consider. Now this is from my point of view. To meAstronomy is an appreciation of nature and it is also an appreciation of science (meaning cosmology and astrophysics.) 1. Do you appreciate the natural world? If no, do not get a telescope. 2. Can you view from your back yard, a few steps from your back door? If no, do not get a telescope. 3. Do you have more than $2000.00? If no, do not get a telescope. The telescope that you use will be the best one for you. You need to get one that is easy to use, easy to set up, a joy to use, a joy to view through and will not be frustrating to use. You need one that tracks the objects in the sky. Most importantly you also need to get a telescope so that you only need to make a purchase ONCE!! A starter scope for you (or any one) is a tough one, Simply put: 1. Hands down, far and away the best telescope I could recommend is a Celestron Schmitt Cassegrain 9.25 or 11 inch fork mounted telescope. Get the 11 inch if you can. These scopes are much easier to handle than you would think. Provided you only need to get it out of your back door. Get one used it would be cheaper. Optics are good, the mount is good and the telescope is very versatile. These are very intuitive to set up and use. These telescopes take only a few minutes to take outside and start viewing. These telescopes have built in motor drives to track the objects in the sky. This would be the only telescope you will ever need. I would avoid a Meade product, customer support is very poor . 2. A refractor telescope is a very difficult one to recommend. Usually they will be on a German Equatorial Mount. A German Equatorial Mount can sometimes be very time consuming to set up and it can be confusing. You need to balance the telescope with weights and also balance the scope using the objective lens of the scope to allow for different eye pieces. The motor drives can be a problem. It is better to have a small refractor and just move the telescope manually than to rely on motor drives at your price point. 3. A Newtonian telescope ( usually referred to as a Dobsonian, but Dobsonian really means a Newtonian telescope on a mount that holds the telescope near its mirror) is the least expensive but the most difficult to track an object in the sky. Difficult to balance with eye pieces. This telescope can be frustrating to use. It will be difficult to summarize 35 years of back yard astronomy in a few sentences. Photography and imaging refer to two different things. Imaging means that you have very, very expensive equipment, you expose your CCD (Charged Couple Device, aka dedicated digital camera) to the night sky through an optical instrument (telescope) for an extended period of time (perhaps hours or days, or you stack images). This requires precise tracking (meaning expensive mounts). Then you spend hours upon hours in front of a computer manipulating the images with software to get the image perfect. Now this equipment could cost in the area of $100,000.00. Yes, that is a very substantial amount of money. To me, I would rather look at some one else's photographs. To me, I want to see things live through an eye piece. I do not know your starting point. By this I mean have you been studying the sky with your naked eye for many years? I do not know of your area, is the sky dark? Can you see any stars? Do you live in a very light polluted city, or do you live in the country side? Unless you are a somewhat accomplished naked eye observer, I would recommend that you initially do not buy any type of telescope. I would buy a planisphere and study the night sky with your naked eye. Learn how the stars move. I would not use any of those Iphone aps. You need to get to know the constellations, how they move across the sky. You need to be able to make a simple sketch of some of the constellation, how they are positioned in relation to one another. The brightest stars in the constellations. A very good reference is the National Audubon Society Field Guide to the Night Sky. This is by far the best reference book out there. Also get Hubbard scientific seasonal star chart is the best seasonal star chart which includes a planisphere. This has all of the detail necessary for all but the most advanced back yard astronomer. Also read the book Backyard astronomer's guide by Terence Dickinson and Alan Dyer. You really need to read this book to get yourself started. But if you are past this point of personal development then here is some more information. The number one object to view is the moon. It is large, close, bright and very interesting. It is a very easy astronomical target that is regularly viewable. Get yourself a chart of the moon after you get a telescope. The moon is most interesting to view 6 to 10 days after a new moon and about 3 to 8 days after a full moon. You also want to view through your telescope with binocular vision. This means both eyes. When looking at the moon with binocular vision you think that you are looking out the window of the Apollo 11 space ship. Looking through one eye is not enjoyable. Binocular viewing is easily possible with a Schmitt-Cassegrain telescope. The other interesting targets with a telescope in order: Jupiter, Saturn, Alberio, The double cluster, the pleidies, M42, well the list goes on. But here is the thing. These different targets have different viewing requirements. Some need low power and a wide field of view, such as the double cluster. Generally open star clusters require a wide field of view, globular clusters require higher power and a narrow field of view. Nebulas can vary. But these are deep sky objects. Anything in the solar system is not a deep sky object. Planets usually require higher power and occupy only a few arc seconds. As a general rule of thumb, It requires a dark sky to view deep sky objects Any object bright enough to see with your naked eye in your area will be the easiest objects to view, hence the Moon, Jupiter, Saturn, Alberio. Well, I hope that gets you started.
  6. Please take note, I am only a visual observer. I do not do any imaging. I know nothing about imaging or the technical difficulties with imaging. I have a Celestron Nexstar 11 that I have purchased in 2003. (I also have a few other telescopes, but I mostly use the Nexstar 11) So I have been using it for 17 years here near Chicago USA. As far has fighting the battle with dew and possibly frost, I mostly use a heat gun/hair dryer in combination with a dew heater band. I have also have a dew shield, but they seem to be cumbersome. Now let it be understood: I have read in the book the Backyard Astronomer's Guide by Terence Dickinson and Alan Dyer that dew and frost could be slightly acidic like the famous acid rain dew will eat away at the coatings on the optics of such things as a corrector plate of SCT. A SCT has a very large piece of glass just asking for dew to accumulate. They called it a vampire that will suck the life blood out of your optics. So just the mere act of dew accumulating on your optics should be avoided. But dew and frost have been getting on my corrector plate for a long time and I am still using the same telescope. I did have a dew strip heater that I bought from Orion telescopes that was very thin and I could use both a dew heater and the dew shield at the same time. But my new dew heater is too thick to use a dew shield with it. I suppose could work something out if I tried hard enough. Wonderste mentions heated dew shields. I have not heard of that before. I do have an Astrozap dew shield but it is not heated. I will use various techniques simultaneously. But for sure I always have a heat gun ready for use. Probably a hair dryer would be better, you must be very careful when using a heat gun. If you use a heat gun or hair dryer, apply the heat from a distance and only long enough to clear the dew. I have often used only a heat gun for dew removal. It works. But the problem is that the heat from the heat gun will effect seeing for a little while. Then shortly after the seeing returns to normal, the dew will build back up. This technique works. I have been using this technique for years because for me it is the most basic technique that does not require any special equipment. The old KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid.) With a dew shield in place I could not reach in with the heat gun to effectively remove and built up dew or frost. Once the corrector plate (the large glass lens in the front of a SCT) comes to ambient air temperature dew and frost will accumulate rapidly once you remove the lens cover. A heated dew band seems to work well. It depends how cold it is outside, the humidity level and how big your corrector plate is. Sometimes the heated band will not keep dew and frost off of the entire corrector plate near the center where the secondary mirror is located. The heated dew band will definitely keep the outer portion of the corrector plate clear. When dew or frost builds up towards the center of the corrector plate, I will use a heat gun just enough to clear the dew. This will effect seeing for a little bit. A heat gun is also handy for removing condensation on the lenses of the eyepieces. Discussion on dew heater strip: You could make a dew heater strip see this web page: http://www.deepskywatch.com/Articles/newtonian-dew-heater.html I didn't make the one I have, I bought, a DEW NOT brand. But any cheap one will work. I paid about $40.00 for the one I have. I do not use those expensive controllers, to me they are a useless rip off. You could spend hundreds of dollars on heated dew bands and controllers. The controllers adjusts the amount of current through the dew band, thus control the amount of heat. But I need to have my dew band produce maximum heat. Even then the dew band doesn't get hot because it is transfers the heat to the corrector plate and aluminum frame. Even with maximum current the entire corrector plate does not remain free of dew. Just connect directly to a 12 VDC source. I use a car battery to run my Nexstar 11 electronics and the dew heater, but you could use a deep cycle marine battery or a good ac to 12 VDC power supply. But you need about 1 amp or so, most 12VDC plug in power supplies do not have enough current to run a dew heater strip. There are also dew heater strips available for eyepieces, I have never used one.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.