Question for star gazers re:telescope

[This Guy]

Having recently acquired an interest in looking skyward, I'm giving serious thought to buying a telescope. I mentioned this in an earlier thread, but at the time, I thought maybe a good binocular set would be a more practical choice. Since then, I've decided I don't want to be practical ;)

A local department store has the Tasco 402x (http://www.opticsplanet.com/product-catalog/products/tasco-novice-402x60mm-refractor-telescope-30060402.html) for $60. I've looked around the WWW a bit, and the few reviews I've found are mostly positive.

Just wondering what those of you with some experience think about the basic stats on the thing. Is it a good choice to start with?

Sounds like it serves well for planet looking, which I think would be cool as heck. And that it would do fair for looking at things a bit further out.

The price sits well with my wallet, but I don't want to be tossing the money out the window, on something that's going to be worthless.

Your input would be greatly appreciated!

[genesplicer]

Personally, I would take the money and invest it in a pair of binoculars. Much more versatile and much higher quality for the price. Also personally, I would avoid Tasco, but that is just me. I feel the quality is nowhere near the price they ask... If you want a telescope and can double the price, you can get a decent entry-level Meade that will blow the Tasco out of the water.

Another tip. If a Telescope refers to its "Power", like "402X" That's a warning that this was not made for serious use. Real telescopes are measured by the size of the main or "primary" mirror or lens. The eyepiece should be interchangeable to change the magnification...

Another thing is resolving power or resolution. This is the ability to pick out fine detail. The higher the resolution, the greater the level of detail. My students have a problem with this so I made these posters to help illustrate the concept of resolution:

http://www.wendingourway.com/imagesforsa/resolution01.jpg

http://www.wendingourway.com/imagesforsa/resolution02.jpg

http://www.wendingourway.com/imagesforsa/resolution03.jpg

http://www.wendingourway.com/imagesforsa/resolution04.jpg

http://www.wendingourway.com/imagesforsa/resolution05.jpg

[This Guy]

Personally, I would take the money and invest it in a pair of binoculars. Much more versatile and much higher quality for the price.

SNIP


Thanks for the input!

In your opinion, what numbers should I look for in a pair of binoculars?

The same store has several pairs to choose from, but at the moment I forget how they list their magnification power. I'm really a novice in this area, and have no real understanding of what to look for/avoid.

Again, any input will be appreciated.

BTW:That Tasco does come with 3 eyepieces (1.25 inch-25mm, 12.5mm, 4mm eyepieces) , and a moon filter. For what that's worth :)

[starseeka]

Hey everyone,
I'm kinda interested in astronomy too, but I live in an area with a pretty good amount of light pollution. What types of things could I do to see some cool things without having to find a really dark place, or spend a whole lot of money?

Thanks.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The 402X number (magnification power) is pretty meaningless. You can't magnify light that isn't there. The general rule for the limit of magnification is 2 times the aperture (diagonal measure of the primary mirror or lens) in millimeters. So a 60mm refractor--even with very good optics--won't go beyond about 120X. You can put in eyepieces that will give you higher magnification, but all you'll get is black.

You can do a lot with a pair of binoculars--more if you get a tripod for them. Otherwise, look for as much light gathering power as you can afford. There are some relatively inexpensive options.

Be careful of overall quality, though. I got an 8" reflector on an equatorial mount about a year ago, and it's been a struggle. Shakey mount, really sloppy focuser, etc. etc. If I had to make that purchase again, I'd have gotten a Dobsonian (a very simple alt-azimuth mount).

I'm pretty impressed with the "goto" technology--or whatever name they go by. That'll probably be my next investment. Rather than messing with an equatorial mount and polar alignment, you just identify a couple of stars in the sky, and the computer does the rest. You can then punch in either RA and Dec coordinates or Messier catalog numbers, and you hear the motors whirr then "beep beep"--voila, there is the object perfectly centered in your eyepiece!


Starseeka: in urban areas, you can still see bright objects just fine. That'd been the moon and planets and some brighter deep sky objects. (Also the ISS and other manmade satellites.) Usually, it doesn't take too long a drive to get to dark enough skies for at least some deep sky stuff.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I used to work in a planetarium gift shop (which was also a telescope dealer). We sold these little plastic souvenir telescopes, and people would constantly ask, "How far can you see with one of these?"

I usually told them that it depended on what they were looking at. If you were in a cave in absolute darkness and pointed it at a rock immediately in front of you, you couldn't see it. No light--nothing to magnify. If you pointed it at the Sun, I guarantee you'd be able to see about 93 million miles with it (but not for long).

Better to ask about the size of the aperture, the quality of the optics and so on.

Oh yeah, This Guy, another bit of advice: hook up with your local astronomical society or telescope club. Our club actually owns a couple telescopes that they lend out to members.

[genesplicer]

Thanks for the input!

In your opinion, what numbers should I look for in a pair of binoculars?

The same store has several pairs to choose from, but at the moment I forget how they list their magnification power. I'm really a novice in this area, and have no real understanding of what to look for/avoid.

Again, any input will be appreciated.

BTW:That Tasco does come with 3 eyepieces (1.25 inch-25mm, 12.5mm, 4mm eyepieces) , and a moon filter. For what that's worth :)


One thing I have learned over the years is you want a nice, large aperture. There will be two numbers on Binocs, the first is the magnification (good on binocs, bad on telescopes) The second is the size of the front lens in mm. So you will see things like 8X20 or 10X50. As stated earlier, high magnification is pretty much meaningless with a small lens. If you have a choice of 10X20 or 10X50, the 50's will collect far more light, thus providing a far better image.

Another trick of the trade, when trying out binoculars is to listen to them. Roll the focus knob and listen carefully. A clicking or popping sound may indicate the use of heavy grease to compensate for poorly-machined parts... I have heard some binocs (Albeit fairly cheap binocs) that clicked and popped horribly. It was so obvious that the machining had to be crap.


Optics are one of those cases of "You get what you pay for".

[genesplicer]

Oh yeah, This Guy, another bit of advice: hook up with your local astronomical society or telescope club. Our club actually owns a couple telescopes that they lend out to members.

This is the best advice. Not only do they know their stuff, but you can get experience with the scopes and see what works for you.

[TV's Frank]

If you go with binoculars, get those fancy image-stabilizing ones. I've picked out sunspots and the moons of the Jupiter with them. But the best advice is hook up with your local astronomy club.

[BenBurch]

Here is the question; How urban is your environment. On a clear night do you see hundreds of stars, or only dozens? Is it hard to see all of the stars in the Big Dipper?

[Jocce]

Regarding magnification. I bought a reflector a couple of years ago and as a reference I can tell you that I basically never go beyond 100X when watching deep sky objects like galaxies, star clusters etc. Most usually I will use <=50X. Many of these objcts are dim but large and to see them, light gathering power is the important consideration. Using a binocular, say 10x50, you will be able to study all Messier objects and much much more. A tripod to put it on can be helpful since it tends to put a lot of strain on your shoulders when handheld.

The only time you really want to use higher magnifications is when watching the bodies in our solar system which, unlike stars, can be made to look bigger with magnification. You won't be able to see detail on the planets using a binocular.

Regarding ligh pollution, it's astonishing how much you can see from your back yard even if the sky is bright. Many of the fainter objects like most galaxies will still be hard but f.ex. is there a number of very nice open star clusters to watch. There are also filters you can use that block the wavelenghts of suburban light to a degree and that can be a worthwhile investment if you mainly use your scope in those kinds of areas.

[This Guy]

Thanks to all for the input!

In answer to those that suggested me contacting my local club, I have checked that out already. There is one near by. They meet the 3rd Thursday of each month, and the meetings are open to the public. Unfortunately, the next meeting isn't for a few weeks, but I am going to try and be there.

I think that was the same club that has open star gazing nights also (I found several clubs in the state, and the details between them are getting fuzzy).

My thoughts on what I need is just something to wet my feet with so to speak. I don't want to spend a lot of money, until I'm sure I want to. In other words, I want to play around a bit, get a taste for what can be done, and see if my interest goes up or down, before I shell out several hundred dollars on something that I might use a few times, and stick in a closet.

I checked around the Web a bit on Binocs, and there is a pair of 20x80, Zhumell (http://www.opticsplanet.net/zhumell-binoculars-2080a.html), Binocs listed for about $140. That sounds like something that might fit the bill. I found some reviews that indicate other than needing a tripod (they have a tripod mount on them) they are pretty good. I'm thinking I'll see if I can find a local shop that carries them, and go check a pair out. Check for the "click" that genesplicer warned about. If not, I may take a chance on them anyway.

Thanks again for all the great input!

[ksbluesfan]

In the US, where do they sell telescopes and astronomy-grade binoculars? I realize you can find a wide variety on the internet, but I want to go to a store so I can get a better feel for the quality.

I have a telescope with a 3" lens. It's better than nothing. I was able to view Jupiter and 4 of the moons the other night, so that was pretty exciting. I was disappointed that I couldn't see the great red spot though. I tried higher magnifications, but all I could see was black. Now I know why.

[This Guy]

Try camera shops, perhaps in Malls.

Wolf Camera (http://www.wolfcamera.com/), I think is nation wide. I found them on the Web, and I'm pretty sure they have a local shop in one of our malls. They have a store locater on their site.

I have also seen scopes in science stores. Been a few years and I forget the name, but might have been Discovery Science, or something like that. They were also in one of the shopping malls.

[ksbluesfan]

Thanks This Guy!

With Mars as near as it is, will I be able to see craters on Mars with a decent pair of mounted binoculars? Will I be able to see the rings of Saturn?

[BenBurch]

Well, no, nobody will see craters on mars with any earthbound telescope.

When mars was at its closest opposition a few years ago, what I could see with my Meade ETX-90 (the old non-computerized one) was a small pink ball with a white spot on one side. The white spot was the polar cap.

With 10x60 binoculars you would see a small, small pink dot that visibly has some size when the stars are just points.

A 10x60 binocular is good for the moon (you might want a filter) the sun (YOU NEED GOOD FILTERS DESIGNED FOR A BINOCULAR as this is a safety issue) Jupiter's four big moons, and sometimes Saturn's moon Titan. Saturn will, depending on the ring orientation look like a small spot or a small oval spot. Binoculars are great for looking at comets, and also at some extended deep sky objects, and for taking in star fields.

I strongly suggest going to one of those viewing parties!

But buy the binoculars anyway because everybody needs a good set.

[JoeTheJuggler]

In the US, where do they sell telescopes and astronomy-grade binoculars? I realize you can find a wide variety on the internet, but I want to go to a store so I can get a better feel for the quality.

I have a telescope with a 3" lens. It's better than nothing. I was able to view Jupiter and 4 of the moons the other night, so that was pretty exciting. I was disappointed that I couldn't see the great red spot though. I tried higher magnifications, but all I could see was black. Now I know why.

A 3" refractor can be a fine telescope, but you won't be able to magnify more than about 150X (probably less than that, depending on the optics and seeing conditions).

What part of the country are you in?

Again, I'd recommend checking into your local astronomy club. You can see and try out a plethora of telescope brands and models, get personal recommendations and so on, and then shop for price on the internet.

Planetarium stores sometimes have a telescope inventory (so you can try before you buy).

[ksbluesfan]

A 3" refractor can be a fine telescope, but you won't be able to magnify more than about 150X (probably less than that, depending on the optics and seeing conditions).

What part of the country are you in?

Again, I'd recommend checking into your local astronomy club. You can see and try out a plethora of telescope brands and models, get personal recommendations and so on, and then shop for price on the internet.

Planetarium stores sometimes have a telescope inventory (so you can try before you buy).

Thanks for the tips.

I live in Kansas City, MO, close to the airport.

[GodMark2]

Another tip. If a Telescope refers to its "Power", like "402X" That's a warning that this was not made for serious use. Real telescopes are measured by the size of the main or "primary" mirror or lens. The eyepiece should be interchangeable to change the magnification...

The 402X number (magnification power) is pretty meaningless. You can't magnify light that isn't there. The general rule for the limit of magnification is 2 times the aperture (diagonal measure of the primary mirror or lens) in millimeters. So a 60mm refractor--even with very good optics--won't go beyond about 120X. You can put in eyepieces that will give you higher magnification, but all you'll get is black.

Just to clear up some confusion, the 402x is simply the model number of the telescope, not any reference to the magnification. From the spec sheet:

Interchangeable Eyepieces:|(1.25") H25MM (25X), H12.5MM (50X), SR4MM (175X)

So they only try to get to 175X magnification (which, as JoeTheJuggler showed, probably only has enough brightness for looking at the moon anyway).

[Charlie in Dayton]

The price sits well with my wallet, but I don't want to be tossing the money out the window, on something that's going to be worthless.
Wise attitude...most "Christmas Telescopes" (those such as you refer to, given as Xmas gifts, and consigned forevermore to the attic in a month or two) aren't worth the Rule8/10 it would take to bury them. The magnifications are vastly overstated, the apertures (the real critical element) are ignored, the mounts are flimsy and wobbly. As stated a tad further on, until you learn the sky, you're much better off with a good pair of binoculars, an instructional book, a planisphere, and six months to learn what's where when. (NOTE -- I've been doing the stargazing bit for seven years now. I have more enthusiasm than ever, and I still don't know the complete sky. Learning is fun. Stargazing is relaxing. Life is good.)

This Guy and starseeka asked about what numbers to look for in a pair of binoculars, and what might be seen without a really dark place and/or outrageous amounts of money:
What to look for are fully multi coated optics (optimizes light transfer between lens elements -- there are more than a dozen separate pieces of glass in each side of a decent pair of binoculars); good sturdy construction; Porro prisms (has fewer internal reflections -- this is the standard setup in binos; you can see where the light turns by the configuration of the tubes); for handheld, magnifications between 7x and 10x, and apertures between 40 and 50 millimeters.
A pair of 7x35's are ok if you've already got 'em...if you're starting out and are buying mostly for astronomical use, my personal choices in order of preference would be -- 7x50 8x56 8x42 10x50 9x63 -- these are standard sizes, with preferences being wide field, large aperture, weight.
As far as what to see, you'd be amazed at what will pop out even in light polluted urban skies with binos. The Moon's a natural. The planets can mostly be seen with binos (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn are naked eye if you know where to look, and Uranus and Neptune [not to mention numerous asteroids] are relatively easy bino targets -- Pluto and Eris are just too small/dim/far away), along with numerous nebulas (The Orion Nebula) and other galaxies (The Andromeda Galaxy). This is where you start going for books to advise -- may I suggest Touring the Universe with Binoculars by Phil Harrington.

The tip about checking with your local astronomical society is dead on.

Image stabilizing (IS) binoculars by their nature are of smaller aperture (10x30, for example), and they range from rather to hideously expensive. But the stable image they give prevents eyestrain and headaches. There ARE other options, though...

Here's a nice little gizmo that steadies the image and keeps your arms from getting tired. (http://www.skyandtelescope.com/howto/visualobserving/Image-Stabilize-Your-Binoculars.html)

Here's an excellent article by Ed Ting that covers just about every question asked in this thread...and besides, I like the broomstick mount picture on page 2... (http://www.skyandtelescope.com/howto/howtoequipment/3389576.html?page=1&c=y)

Prices and who sells what?
www.telescope.com for Orion Telescopes...they have some very nice starter sets for under $100. I'm an Orion customer for telescopes and tripods, and they'll do ya good.
www.bigbinoculars.com for Oberwerk. Follow the menu -- they have numerous quality starter sets for $125 and down. I'm an Oberwerk customer (I have one of these... (http://www.bigbinoculars.com/80bt45.htm) -- the binos, not her...), and I must say, they are the best $20 in raffle tickets I ever spent...would I have bought a set? Eventually...takes awhile to save up. Wanna drool excessively? Mommy, they followed me home...can I keep them? (http://www.bigbinoculars.com/120bt45.htm)

The key to all of beginning astronomy is -- LEARN THE SKY!!!!! Make yourself a planisphere (Google it -- there's half a dozen places out there to download some .pdf files -- a half hour with some printouts, an old manila folder, a stapler, a glue stick, and a pair of scissors will save you some money, and they're good enough for a start). Buy a small flashlight with a RED lens -- saves your night vision looking at books./planispheres in the dark. Buy a decent book for beginner stargazers -- there are squillions of 'em out there. But most of all, GET OUTSIDE and LOOK UP!!!

Enjoy yourself...this hobby can be shared or solo. Me? I've sorta given up telescopes for my main viewing and stick with binos. I have 'em all the way from tinydinky 6x30's that hide in the glove box to 8x40WideAngles that sit on the table next to the front door to 7x50/9x63/10x50/12x60 that stay in the Box'O'Binocs that go to stargazes with me to The Monsters (Oberwerk BT80-45's noted above). I do youth and public outreach about beginning stargazing with binoculars just as we've been doing here -- indeed, I've been invited to speak at the Warren Rupp Observatory in Mansfield OH this weekend on this very subject. We shall see whether I come across as the reincarnation of Carl Sagan, or just the missing half of Pegasus...

And just for grins... www.heavens-above.com ...plug in your location, and it'll tell ya when and where to go outside and see satellites go by...naked eye, no optics needed...it's a cheap thrill to look up and realize that the light you see moving among the stars is the International Space Station...

[This Guy]

Thanks again for all the great input!

I truly appreciate all the time and effort put in to the replies, and despite my earlier claim of not wanting to be practical, you've (collectively) forced me to reconsider. I'm not above ignoring good, free advice. But with such great advice from you folks, I'd be a fool to not heed it.

Not that it would be the first foolish thing I've ever done ;)

Thanks VERY much!

[tracer]

I live in Kansas City, MO, close to the airport.


Ack! Light pollution! Begone, foul demon of the tepid sort-of-night! <makes the sign of the cross>

[slow lurker]

ksbluesfan-
HMSBeagle in Parkville Mo has telescopes and binoculars in their store. Since you are near the airport, Parkville shouldn't be too far.
A good pair of binoculars won't be unused.
slow lurker

[Jocce]

Found a couple of links detailing a bunch of objects to go look for with binos:

http://calgary.rasc.ca/binocert.htm
http://www.astromax.org/aa02501.htm

/C

[genesplicer]

In the US, where do they sell telescopes and astronomy-grade binoculars? I realize you can find a wide variety on the internet, but I want to go to a store so I can get a better feel for the quality.

I have a telescope with a 3" lens. It's better than nothing. I was able to view Jupiter and 4 of the moons the other night, so that was pretty exciting. I was disappointed that I couldn't see the great red spot though. I tried higher magnifications, but all I could see was black. Now I know why.

If you have any mountain communities near you, there is a good chance that somebody has a scope shop up there. We have several really nice shops within 50 miles of me, if I ever get the bug to brave the mountain roads.

[Schneibster]

Da Schneib is an amateur astronomer. Perhaps some of my musings will be helpful.

Tasco doesn't make anything you should waste your money on.

The biggest part of the price depends on whether you want to just look, or take pictures. Just looking isn't very expensive; taking pictures costs a lot. I'm $50k or more into my habit, and doing relatively well. If I just wanted to look, I'd have stopped at well under $10k. And that would be the Cadillac, nay, the Rolls Royce, setup for it. The Chevy will run you around $2k or less. You can get a Yugo for a few hundred bucks. But don't start there; start with binoculars and good books. You don't have to drop all the money at one time; you can spread it out a bit, over several years as you decide what precisely you want to do.

There are three major classes of telescope:

Refractor: this is the common conception of a telescope. In its simplest incarnation, it's two lenses; one to gather the light, and one to focus and magnify the image for your eye. Basically it's a long tube with a lens at each end. The big one farthest from you is called the "objective;" the little one you put your eye up to is called the "eyepiece." These are both the most and least expensive telescopes. The least expensive ones are little more than toys, if that, basically incapable of any serious observing and generally consigned to the attic after a few neck-wrenching frustrating sessions of not seeing much by their unfortunate victims. The most expensive are some of the finest optical instruments on Earth, and the most expensive per aperture of all types of telescope. Special glass is used to create the finest possible image. They have a great deal in common with the huge lenses you see on the sides of football fields, both in terms of price and in terms of performance.

Reflector: this is a telescope that uses a mirror as its objective; in its simplest incarnation, merely a large, concave mirror at the bottom of a tube. If it's a large mirror, you can just point it up at the sky and stick your head up there; because the mirror is curved, you won't see yourself, you'll see a magnified image of the stars. Herschel, among others, used a telescope like this. The ones you're most likely to find available today are Newtonian reflectors; these put a small mirror in the middle of the tube, at the right distance to get all the light cone from the big mirror at the bottom of the tube, and bounce the tip of the light cone out the side of the telescope. You can put an eyepiece there, and magnify the image and make it the right size for your pupil. A man named John Dobson invented a way to mount these telescopes that is very inexpensive: you make a box with two half-circles cut out of opposite sides, and put two disks on the sides of the tube, and a lazy-susan type bearing on the bottom of the box. These are called "Dobsonian" in his honor. Dobsonians are the least expensive per aperture. In these telescopes, the big mirror is called the "primary" and the little one the "secondary." An eyepiece is still an eyepiece. There are other types of reflectors; there is the Cassegrainian, which has a hole drilled in the center of it so that a secondary can reflect the light from the primary down through the hole. It turns out that the outside of the mirror is the most important, so this works fine. These are the most common types of amateur reflectors; overwhelmingly so. There are a few folded designs, or ones that use mirrors with novel shapes, to avoid the central obstruction that is a practically universal feature of reflectors; I've only seen a few.

Catadioptric: These telescopes combine reflective and refractive elements. The Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescope (SCT) is by far the most common; these use a primary and secondary and a hole in the middle of the primary like a Cassegrainian, but they also use a corrector plate at the front of the tube. This is by far the most common amateur telescope. Significant numbers of these telescopes have been build and sold by Celestron and Meade. They are medium in expense per aperture between the Dobsonian Newtonian and the high-end refractor. They are the lightest and smallest telescope per aperture. They are also for technical reasons the most flexible type of telescope; their design maximizes something called "back focus" that you'll find out all about if you get into astrophotography. Furthermore, in addition to inherent flexibility due to their design, they have more different adapters and field flatteners and focal reducers and other doo-dads available for them than Carter has little liver pills.

Each type has advantages and drawbacks.

The refractors are the most expensive, but capable of the best images per aperture. They excel at lunar and planetary astronomy, where the object is relatively bright, so optical quality is the most important parameter rather than light-gathering, which depends on aperture. They are also excellent for photography, for some of the same reasons. With a big one, 5 or 6 inches, you can do good deep-sky astronomy as well, but you can spend more on one like that than on a good used car. For photography, you'll also need a good mount; I'll get into that in a bit. They'll need a medium to good mount; they are generally long, so they have a moment arm. These are probably the last type of telescope you'll want to buy, unless you get bit bad by the astronomy bug. :D

The reflectors are generally the least expensive per aperture, and excel at deep-sky visual astronomy because they are generally of large aperture (10 or 12 inches is not uncommon, for considerably less money than a refractor of lesser aperture. If you want to go hunting for faint remote galaxies, and planetary nebulae, this is your telescope. But they are remarkably lousy at astrophotography; they are very long, and thus have a long moment arm and are difficult to mount for photography, requiring the most expensive mounts, and they sorely lack all-important back focus and major modifications are needed to allow photography with them, which generally make them difficult or impossible to use for visual astronomy. Still, if all you want to do is look, this is probably the way you want to go.

The catadioptrics are excellent for photography, very good for planetary, and very good for deep-sky. Their long back focus and short tube make them easy to adapt to almost any imaginable camera and easy to mount on cheap to medium mounts for passable photography results. They give optical results that in the best examples are easily the equal of the deep sky that a Newtonian can do. Because you can go to bigger apertures for reasonable money, you can get excellent planetary views rivalling anything even a big refractor can do; remember, "big" for a refractor means 5-6", whereas "big" for a cat means 12-15". Although the image from the big refractor is technically "cleaner," it's possible with careful adjustment and careful selection of accessories to rival or beat what any smaller telescope can do. Only a refractor in the same size class as a big cat can beat the cat, and that's not a car's worth of expense- more like a house. And you'll need to build a permanent observatory for a big refractor, you're not putting it in your car and taking it anywhere unless you've got a semi trailer and a forklift handy. You can take a Dob apart for transport, if it won't fit; it's relatively easy to take them apart and put them together.

So my advice is, if you're sure you just want to look get a Dob; if you're not sure and might want to take pictures, start with an SCT.

One saying of note is that in all optics of acceptable quality, aperture ALWAYS wins. This must be taken with a grain of salt; if you just want to look, this is inarguably true. On the other hand, if you want to take pictures, a big refractor of the highest quality may well beat a medium SCT of good quality. It also depends what you want to take pictures of; the refractor will usually beat the SCT for planets or the Moon, but the SCT may well beat the refractor for galaxies and planetary nebulae. The SCT will not take as wide a field generally, so the refractor may be best for diffuse nebulae. On the other hand, for smaller diffuse nebulae, the SCT may show more detail because of its larger aperture. So if you want to take pictures, consider what you want to take pictures OF.

Now, for mountings.

If you buy one of the popular package deal SCTs, they often come with a mount. It's generally OK for visual observing, but not very good if even usable at all for photography. It has been said that you need three things for astrophotograpy: a good mount; no, a REALLY good mount; and lots of patience. Dob mountings are essentially unusable for astrophotography; they can be adapted for it, but it's a major PITA. A mount that will work well for a medium SCT will not work well for a big refractor. If you want to take pictures, you will need a mount that will cost as much as your telescope or more.

There are two general types of mountings: altazimuth, which is a truncation of altitude-azimuth, in which one axis points directly overhead and allows rotation like a lazy susan, and the other points in a direction determined by the first and allows the telescope to be adjusted in altitude; and equatorial, in which one axis points at the celestial North Pole, very close to the star Polaris, and the other allows the telescope to be adjusted in Right Ascension, which is what astronomers call longitude on the sky. The most common types of equatorial mounts are the German equatorial (GEM) and the fork mount; this last is common on Meade and Celestron SCTs sold as packages, and is generally sold low-end as an altazimuth mount, where the base of the fork turns in azimuth; to make it equatorial, you get an "equatorial wedge" (generally an extra-cost option) that permits the azimuth axis to be pointed at the pole. Many relatively good astrophotographs are taken with small to medium SCTs using fork mounts and equatorial wedges. However, if you want to do serious astrophotography with a medium to large SCT or a large refractor, you'll want a GEM, and a good one.

Finally a few things to set your expectations:
1. You will almost certainly not see colors in anything but planets. A few stars are colored, but you'll grow bored with that relatively quickly. From a very, very dark site, with a very, very large telescope, there are perhaps two or three nebulae in the entire sky in which you will see color. Otherwise, it's pretty much all going to look black-and-white to you. On the other hand, you can easily take photographs, with only a camera lens, that will show color in nebulae all over the sky. This is because of the fact that the camera shutter will remain open for minutes or hours, but your eye takes a "picture" about fifteen times a second. There's more to it; ask if you are curious. Human scotopic vision and dark adaptation are interesting subjects.
2. With a decent telescope, you'll be able to see the Cassini Division in the rings of Saturn. You'll be able to see craters on the Moon, and mountains, and other small features. You'll be able to see bands on Jupiter; if you're lucky, you'll catch a few glimpses of the Great Straw Colored Spot (it's not red anymore since Schoemaker-Levy hit it). You'll be able to see Mars' polar icecaps; if you're lucky, you'll catch a few glimpses of the surface features on Mars. There are perhaps a hundred open clusters, and ten or twenty globular clusters, that are of note. There are probably hundreds or thousands of galaxies, of which perhaps fifty or less are notable. To see more, you'll need three things:
a. An excellent telescope.
b. A very dark sky.
c. Good seeing.
3. Seeing is very important for getting detailed views. This concerns how still the atmosphere is, and how clear it is. The atmosphere is constantly moving; and because there's so much of it between you and the things you're looking at, when it moves, it changes its refractive index. The more magnification you use, the more important that will be. It can make views of planets and the Moon dance around in the eyepiece; it can do the same thing to stars. One good way to gauge the seeing is just to wait until your eyes are dark-adapted and then look up. If the stars are twinkling a lot, the seeing isn't good; if the planets are twinkling, you're hosed. If the bright stars are still, and only the dimmer ones twinkle, the seeing is good. If pretty much every star you can see doesn't twinkle, then the seeing is excellent.

Most important of all, HAVE FUN! That's what it's really all about.

[This Guy]

I checked out Orion on the Web, and requested a catalog. Got it yesterday. Haven't had a good chance to really study it yet. It has a lot of information, in addition to the large selection of scope stuff.

Schneibster, thanks for that great post! A lot more information to use!

Once I've read these post a few more times, along with the info in the Orion catalog, and compare prices on the models/options available, I'll likely have more questions about some specifics.

That will likely be at least a few days from now. I want to try to absorb as much of the info as I can, and ask intelligent questions, when I do. OK, they will still be novice level, but I hope they will at least be intelligent novice questions :)

[Schneibster]

Ask away. :D If I miss your post, PM me, please.

Bear in mind that you'll very much get what you pay for with Orion- no less, but no more.

[Schneibster]

One other thing: when you get it down to two or three candidates, go here (http://www.cloudynights.com/) and look for reviews of them. I know some other review sites as well, so if you don't see what you need, lemme know.

[Hatchet]

Having recently acquired an interest in looking skyward, I'm giving serious thought to buying a telescope. I mentioned this in an earlier thread, but at the time, I thought maybe a good binocular set would be a more practical choice. Since then, I've decided I don't want to be practical ;)
I'd spend the $60 on joining your local amateur astronomy group. They are bound to have a range of members with various scopes and binoculars that you can play with before you make a decision. And besides observing with other people is about 10^6 trillion times more fun.

Perhaps this web site will help to find a club near you?
www(dot)go-astronomy(dot)com/astro-club-search.htm

Cheers.

[This Guy]

I'd spend the $60 on joining your local amateur astronomy group. They are bound to have a range of members with various scopes and binoculars that you can play with before you make a decision. And besides observing with other people is about 10^6 trillion times more fun.

Perhaps this web site will help to find a club near you?
www(dot)go-astronomy(dot)com/astro-club-search.htm

Cheers.

I have looked into two clubs in my general area. The nearest one will be having an open meeting 1 week from tonight. It will likely cause me to be a bit late for work that night, but I'm gonna try to get that OK'd, and go. The other, which is a bit of a drive, is having an open star party, or whatever they call it, that same Saturday night. I'm going to try to find the place they will be holding it and join them. Hopefully I'll get to look through a few of the different types of scopes and maybe better define what I want out of one.

I'll most likely join the nearer club, just because they are nearer. Both seem fairly active, I've just missed the recent events held by the nearer club.

[This Guy]

Ask away. :D If I miss your post, PM me, please.

Bear in mind that you'll very much get what you pay for with Orion- no less, but no more.

One other thing: when you get it down to two or three candidates, go here (http://www.cloudynights.com/) and look for reviews of them. I know some other review sites as well, so if you don't see what you need, lemme know.

Thanks :)