Got an Orion Skyscanner -- What telescope to get?

[anyangtiger]

Hello guys! New to astronomy. Took the plunge, got an Orion Skyscanner, a moon filter, and a Barlow 2x...

So it came, and I used it a couple of times -- found the moon, saturn and just loved it! It was amazing -- unfortunately I found a crack in the mount, and have to return it. I have the option of replacing it or just getting another telescope.

I happen to have really liked the Skyscanner but I don't like these things: 1) the fact that I need to put it on something; 2) its focal length; 3) it shakes a bit more than I'd like....

While I'd like to go bigger, I'm not so sure I want something like a full 8" Dobsonian!

So I'm looking for a serious, but not too expensive, telescope, that's powerful and rather portable, and right for a beginner who wants to learn the skies!

My "dream" scope would probably be the Celestron C8 S-GT.... but after I master the skies and can get out more into the desert (I live in a suburb of LA, btw)

So far I'm eyeing the Orion SpaceProbe 130 on the EQ mount -- pretty sure I want this one! Anyone have this telescope or have experiences with it? Any objections?

Any other telescopes you'd recommend?

On a side note: for $50 more I can get the Orion SpaceProbe 130 ST -- Frankly I don't understand why I should pay for it when it has a shorter focal length (am I focusing too much on this number? I am interesting in seeing things BIG).....

Relooking for my "first" scope!

Thanks in advance!

Alex

[Cornelius Varley]

I'll answer your last question regarding the 130s. The 130ST has a parabolic mirror which costs more to manufacture. The 130 Spaceprobe uses a spherical mirror which will give slighty worse views than the spherical 130ST.

Peter

[garethmob]

never hered of the skyscanner so i had to do some digging and its the US Orion optics versions of the skywatcher looking at it it has a focal length of 400 and a aperature of 100(didnt know there was one in this size)

so that works out to be roughly F4 (the faster the optics, lower the number to 0 the more light it grabs but also needs better eyepeices as coma is intruduced with antistagmatism)

the reflector (spaceprob) is a nice scope but its the same as the normal 130 (with out the p which means it dosent have the palabolic mirror somthing which really is a nessasety these days. i have the skywatcher equivlent and its a big difference between a palabolic and not. so the shorter focal length is better as it will show sharper images than the other) it is a much bigger scope, (30mm may not seem much but it is scope wise) but the eq2 mount will let it down,

i would go for a slightly bigger starblast scope the 4.5" or even the 6" ok you do need to rest it on somthing but for visual theres no really need to go into the eqworld of mounts (this would be perfect as well but again needs to be rested on http://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-heritage-130p-flextube.html

eq mounts are really for astrophotography and the eq2 is the lowest they make (discounting the 1)

the legs are wobbly and you will get more frustrated by the odd angles the scope goes into than sticking with a alt az (dobsonian or altaz mounted scope)

they do sell the 130p as a altaz mount on a tripod as well but sticking to the orion range it dosent appear there is one

if you can find this where you live it would be perfect for you as the mount also "tracks" keeping the object in view of the eyepeice longer

http://www.firstlightoptics.com/reflectors/skywatcher-explorer-130p-supatrak-auto.html

[umadog]

Frankly, I think those little table top f/4 scopes are a bad idea. They're going to give bad views for a beginner.

Gaz, I think both of the scopes the OP is referring to have parabolic optics (unless I've found the wrong web page).

OP: if I were in your shoes, I'd buy a 6" Dob. The XT6 is reasonably priced, for instance. You'll get much better views through this than through the scope you're sending back.

[cantab]

Focal length isn't too important for visual observing, since the magnification also depends on the eyepiece. A 400 mm focal length telescope with a 10 mm eyepiece will give the same magnification as a 600 mm telescope with a 15 mm eyepiece.

Aperture determines the maximum useful magnification, the general rule of thumb being 2x per millimetre of aperture, though only in good conditions.

Focal ratio, which is focal length divided by aperture, affects how precise the optics need to be; the lower the focal ratio the more precision is needed. Scopes with a low ("fast" - a photographer's term) focal ratio, below f/5 or so, give poor results with some eyepieces that work fine in higher f/ratio scopes.

[anyangtiger]

Hi guys! Thanks for the quick reply! So bottom line -- return it.

To be honest, I was fascinated with what I saw with just a $100 telescope! I think I'm really going to love astronomy.

For some reason I'm not attracted to the large dobs -- the 6" Dob seems to be the same price as the 130 ST. One of my problems with the DOB is: if and when I drive out to the desert, taking the DOB looks so much more clunky than something like the SpaceProbe 130.... (but that's from the eyes of a noob), and I get into the vicious cycle of thinking, if I go for the 6", I might as well go for the 8", but with other eyepieces and whatnot, it ends up being a fortune, and that money can be used towards the celestron monster, I mentioned before!

The starblast 4.5 is smaller than the 130, right? 130mm is 5.1" -- confused here.

So I'm getting the feeling that the $50 extra even with the shorter focal length (Spaceprobe ST) is worth it because of the sharper images, right?

Umadog -- or other dob and reflector users: How does something like the spaceprobe compare to the XT6?

I did a "compare" on the telescope.com page (Orion's page) and they seemed pretty similar. I see to like the idea of seeing something on a tripod more though....

I didn't know choosing a telescope could trigger such an obsession.

But it's definitely fun, and I'm learning a lot!

Thanks in Advance!