what can i see?

[keiwein1]

i have an 8 inch SCT. i live in a fairly dark neighborhood but i can only count about 30-40 stars in any given night with my naked eye. i live about 10-20 miles away from nyc what can i see with my telescope?

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Probably, with practice, loads of stuff. I have had my Celestron GP-C8 (8" SCT on equatorial mount) for almost 20 years and it has shown me loads from my suburban garden. I have bagged over 500 galaxies, and many other deep sky objects, and all the planets bar Pluto.

[keiwein1]

Probably, with practice, loads of stuff. I have had my Celestron GP-C8 (8" SCT on equatorial mount) for almost 20 years and it has shown me loads from my suburban garden. I have bagged over 500 galaxies, and many other deep sky objects, and all the planets bar Pluto.

with the eye or do i have to use a camera long exposure to bring these things out? i would prefer to use my eye because i dont have the equipment for astrophotography

[ronin]

You will see a lot of items, however you will have toalign the scope fairly well, just so it points to the right place.

Suggest you look at the Messier objects at first, they are in a way the brighter of the DSO objects around that is why he identified them and not many of the other objects.

Many are clusters and being practical clusters are not exciting, and after the 5th GC the next starts to look familiar. If you go to the EWiki site their list of messier objects can be reordered by type. Try all the Galaxies and all the Planetary Nebula.

Another list of slightly more interesting objects are the Caldwell Catalogue.

You will need to plan ahead a bit by generating a list or an idea of things to go and capture. So having say a short list of clusters, galaxies, planetary neb, double stars to have a go at is useful. You may want to go look at The Astronomy League, they are US based and have I believe 100+ observing programs. Some are big/numerous.

Keep the magnification down, on an 8SE it is easy to go high and on DSO magnification is often a negative aspect. A 32mm, 25mm and 20mm plossl (or equivalent) will be the main eyepieces I suggest.

Still trying to decide what Michael meant by "Probably, with practice, loads of suffering"  ???  :confused:

I suspect that he has been the victim of an overly keen Autocorrect. :grin:

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

with the eye or do i have to use a camera long exposure to bring these things out? i would prefer to use my eye because i dont have the equipment for astrophotography

I have seen all these things with my eyes. Note that the images you will see through the eyepiece are nothing like the images you see online and in books and magazines. However, seeing the Ring Nebula glow like a fuzzy little smoke ring is wonderful. My mount has no go-to capability, so I got myself a BIG finderscope, which has helped a lot in star-hopping to my targets.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

You will see a lot of items, however you will have toalign the scope fairly well, just so it points to the right place.

Suggest you look at the Messier objects at first, they are in a way the brighter of the DSO objects around that is why he identified them and not many of the other objects.

Many are clusters and being practical clusters are not exciting, and after the 5th GC the next starts to look familiar. If you go to the EWiki site their list of messier objects can be reordered by type. Try all the Galaxies and all the Planetary Nebula.

Another list of slightly more interesting objects are the Caldwell Catalogue.

You will need to plan ahead a bit by generating a list or an idea of things to go and capture. So having say a short list of clusters, galaxies, planetary neb, double stars to have a go at is useful. You may want to go look at The Astronomy League, they are US based and have I believe 100+ observing programs. Some are big/numerous.

Keep the magnification down, on an 8SE it is easy to go high and on DSO magnification is often a negative aspect. A 32mm, 25mm and 20mm plossl (or equivalent) will be the main eyepieces I suggest.

Still trying to decide what Michael meant by "Probably, with practice, loads of suffering"  ???  :confused:

I suspect that he has been the victim of an overly keen Autocorrect. :grin:

What suffering?

Thee advantage of being a moderator is of course that I can cover my tracks

Auto-correct? Auto-scramble more likely?