Thread: any backyard astronomers here?

i want a new telescope. about a decade and a half ago i fulfilled a lifelong ambition of grinding and polishing a mirror. built a dobsonian mount and have done a little, very little observing, because of the difficulty of pointing the thing. besides the sonotube construction just makes it feel flimsy.
so i'm in the market for a new scope and have a bit of cash to spend on it. i've been looking at schmidt/cassegrains due to the portability factor and when i ran this by a friend who has a $25,000 dobson/newton with binocular eyepieces, slaved to a laptop and has a heated digital temp readout coffee cup holder on it, he said i'd get much brighter and better images from a reflector.
so i've been doing a lot of reading, looking at orion, meade, and celestron mainly. i like the idea of goto, but then there's the intelliscope which has a readout which goes to zero as you manually push the scope, instead of using battery sucking motors to do it for you.
700 bucks gets you a ten inch aperture. i wouldn't exactly say it was grab and go because it weighs 70 lbs. a computerized motorized version is probably a third as much more.
anybody familiar with this class of instrument? i want to do both planetary and deep sky observing, and i know that will involve a compromise somewhere along the line, whether in focal ratio and configuration. i don't know about astrophotography. might be a whole other issue.

I wish I had a few more lifetimes in order to do more of the cool stuff I always wanted to do but haven't because of lack of time, money, and knowledge. Astronomy would definitely be on that list of stuff.

My son (16 yo) is really interested in astronomy and so i've been standing a long nights on our backyard or nearby hill to watch stars with him. Few years ago he started to save money of his summer work to get a new scope. I promised to pay half of it so last year he bought a little better scope from a local astronomy club.
I've learned from him that it is all most interesting, not just a spots of lights we see up there but all that info they can tell us. The problem here up north is that summer nights are really light and you can't really see much stars. At winter it is all better but unfortunately damn colder too.

I can't do much observing anymore because of where I live. Too many big trees and security lights in my area. But back when I could I loved it. If I ever get to move again it will be to somewhere where the seeing is much better than this.

First off, no amount of money or aperture-itis is going to provide sights as good as those in astronomy books. A wide aperture does provide more light accumulation than the human eye but there is a limit to what that can do. To bring out intense colors like you see in books requires a timed exposure. In other words you need a camera. Astrophotography is an advanced technique requiring more than a simple "point-n-go" scope can do. You'll still need to learn to use an equatorial mount or something similar with a tracking motor.

Point-n-Go scopes can be nice but I wouldn't invest a whole lot of money in one. I consider those scopes to be beginners scopes. Something you learn where the major stars are and how to use a telescope with before you move on to a better scope. Basically how they work is you point them at a couple of stars that you can identify and then the computer calculates the location of everything else in the sky based on those. One thing they usually don't tell you before you buy one is that while the computer knows where lots of stars are that doesn't mean they are actually bright enough for you to see even in the scope that the computer is controlling. They might convince you to invest in an upgrade to the computers catalog but unless your primary mirror is bigger than a cake plate you aren't going to see any more stars than you did with the basic catalog.

Next, while a nice big primary mirror is very tempting it's useless without good quality accessories. A big mirror with a wobbly mount or wobbly focuser is trash. A big mirror with a good mount and focuser and lousy eyepieces is almost as bad especially if you wear glasses or have astigmatism. I like wide eyepieces with long eye relief myself because those are good for wide field deep space views. Those cost almost as much as a scope. To me personally a simple dobsonian 6"-8" with a good mount, a nice collection of really good eyepieces and a set of star charts is better than a big huge expensive scope with point-n-go. Then you save money for the dream scope. Chances are your eyepiece collection will still work with the dream scope when you get it so you will actually be ahead of the game.

Lori

what i'm looking at is only 700 bucks and has a 10" primary. that seems huge for that kind of cmuf. it's not motorized but has encoders in the mount which you don't have to use so you can do it like they did in the old days by star hopping. i've found the andromeda galaxy by doing that. then again, there is a 10" dobsonian with no bells and whistles almost brand new on craigslist a couple of towns away for really short money.

the biggest problem with my current scope is the finder is a half a binocular screwed to the tube. plus the whole thing is jiggly even after being rebuilt. at one point during it's life the duct tape wedging the spider in place dried out, and the whole thing fell onto the primary, damaging a minimal area. i don't know where the tool is anymore so even if i had the psychic energy i don't know if i could repolish it, or god forbid, have to go back to fine grinding and repolishing.

i guess i've done enough observing to know that i'm not going to get national geographic quality views. I made a 4" dobsonian out of a purchased mirror before i committed to making a mirror and was walking home with it one night after looking at a spectacular view of saturn. i got accosted by a drunk down the street who wanted to know what i had. i set the scope up, let him take a peek, and he came away from the eyepiece saying, "Wow, that's really real."

I used to be in to astronomy years ago. My first scope was a 4.5 inch reflector I built myself when I was around 19. A newtonian reflector will give you the best image. The schmidt types are compromise with small size and an easy viewing angle but you give up resolution in exchange. Of course a dobson is big.

it's all a matter of how serious you are into this stuff. An 8 inch newtonian is the best of all worlds. Good mag and resolution yet still portable. If you go with the schmidt types I wouldn't get less than a 12-14 inch. Of course this stuff starts to get very expensive with all the add ons and computer control and all that and varying quality of eyepieces. Those new units, well not so new really are neat to find just about anything short of a computer tie in. Add a laser to a Sky Scout and you're in business.

I just found as time went on I had to travel more and more to get a decent night sky and then there are the elements and the viewing angle with a newtonian. I still have my 6 inch meade though it basically gathers dust.

Yeah, bad telescope mounts and light pollution have done more to wreck backyard astronomy than anything else. People buy a cheap telescope at a discount store and then the mount is so wobbly that the view constantly bobs around so that they can't get a steady view of anything. Then they decide astronomy is too hard and never try it again. It's amazing how much difference the mount makes. A small telescope can be great if the mount is stable. I agree with thebigspendur that size matters a whole lot when you have to travel. 1) it has to fit in the car and 2) sometimes to find a really good spot you have to hike on foot. I don't think I've ever seen a 10" dob that wasn't a major hassle to hike with. It takes one person to carry the tube and one to carry the base unless you want to make two trips. That matters a lot if it's a mile back to the car. 8" is definitely the best trade off and for some people that is still too heavy to lug around. Or you can try light blocking filters that screw into the eyepieces. Those help some but I think they tend to block too much light at certain wavelengths so you gain in some ways and lose in others. I have a feeling though that if I was getting back into astronomy I'd go with the filters. Walking around with a big telescope just isn't that much fun anymore.

Lori

Originally Posted by Noisykids

what i'm looking at is only 700 bucks and has a 10" primary. that seems huge for that kind of cmuf. it's not motorized but has encoders in the mount which you don't have to use so you can do it like they did in the old days by star hopping. i've found the andromeda galaxy by doing that. then again, there is a 10" dobsonian with no bells and whistles almost brand new on craigslist a couple of towns away for really short money.

the biggest problem with my current scope is the finder is a half a binocular screwed to the tube. plus the whole thing is jiggly even after being rebuilt. at one point during it's life the duct tape wedging the spider in place dried out, and the whole thing fell onto the primary, damaging a minimal area. i don't know where the tool is anymore so even if i had the psychic energy i don't know if i could repolish it, or god forbid, have to go back to fine grinding and repolishing.

i guess i've done enough observing to know that i'm not going to get national geographic quality views. I made a 4" dobsonian out of a purchased mirror before i committed to making a mirror and was walking home with it one night after looking at a spectacular view of saturn. i got accosted by a drunk down the street who wanted to know what i had. i set the scope up, let him take a peek, and he came away from the eyepiece saying, "Wow, that's really real."

Star hopping is the tried and true method. Even with the encoders it's not fool proof so sometimes you have to nudge the tube a bit in the right direction to center the desired object. I had to learn where stars and other objects were back before there were encoders so I have kind of a biased opinion on those. I think it's best to just know where all the major naked eye objects are in relation to each other. Then if you're out somewhere and see someone new at the hobby with a little scope or a pair of binoculars having a hard time you can say, "No, it's over there."

An 8" is a huge improvement over a 4". It has over twice the light gathering capacity. Things start getting exciting with an 8" mirror. A 10" is even better. As you've noticed the other accessories make a difference. I know how frustrating a bad finder scope can be. They don't have to be an actual telescope themselves. They just need to be steady and aligned correctly. A cheap 10" dob that is sturdily made is a great find. Bells and whistles don't help that much but good quality does. Remember that magnification not only increases the view but it also increases the wobbles. Check any scope you can see in person to make sure the wobbles are kept to a minimum.

Lori

Just checked the scope. It is Sky-Watcher Skyliner 200 with a Dobson mount. Probably not the best there is but ok for the kids 1st scope. We've been considering getting an adapter for Canon SLR mount. Any recommendations where to get such with reasonable price?

I've only ordered from Orion but that's in California. I don't know what's available in Europe. Orion might be willing to ship there though.

Lori