Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescope Image Quality - Karl's Questions

[EIRE2003]

Hi,

I am looking to buy a Schmidt-Cassegrain Scope for 1,999 euros.
But I am unaware of the quality of this scope. Can anybody tell me what the image quality/details are like. Can you see for eg M42 clearly or Andromeda.
Can you see details on Jupitar like the Giant red spot or the equitorial bands?
And the rings of saturn, or mars? Or is Mars just like a small red speck?
Thanks
Yours
Karl

 

[Artman]

Would you tell us the aperture of the scope you are considering? From this we can estimate the limit to which you can clearly magnify (resolve) an image.

The type of scope you are considering should be good for the planetary viewing and with a large enough aperture, should work fairly well for viewing galaxies.

The rings of Saturn and equatorial bands on Jupiter are visible in even some of the cheapest small aperture scopes.

A good quality scope of at least 4.5" aperture will allow you to see the Cassini division in Saturn's rings, Jupiter's redspot, some of the detail in the Andromeda Galaxy, Ice caps on Mars (when it is close enough), all of the Messier Objects can at least be seen. With a decent quality 6" or 8" aperture scope you will able to see more detail on good seeing days.

Hope this helps.

 

[russ_watters]

Can anybody tell me what the image quality/details are like. Can you see for eg M42 clearly or Andromeda.
Can you see details on Jupitar like the Giant red spot or the equitorial bands?
And the rings of saturn, or mars? Or is Mars just like a small red speck?

Artman is right - with specific info on the scope, you can get pretty specific about its capabilities. But I can tell you that with an el cheapo pair of binoculars you can see Jupiter's moons, a good pair of binoculars, you can see Saturn's rings, a toy-store refractor telescope, you can see the Great Red Spot and bands on Jupiter, and with a decent reflector, you can see the gap in Saturn's rings.

 

[geometer]

Hi,

I am looking to buy a Schmidt-Cassegrain Scope for 1,999 euros.
But I am unaware of the quality of this scope. Can anybody tell me what the image quality/details are like. Can you see for eg M42 clearly or Andromeda.
Can you see details on Jupitar like the Giant red spot or the equitorial bands?
And the rings of saturn, or mars? Or is Mars just like a small red speck?
Thanks
Yours
Karl

Karl, judging just by the price of the scope, I would suspect you have about a 203 mm scope. And, I'll bet it's probably a Meade or a Celestron. Making these assumptions, you're limiting theoretical magnitude is about 14. This puts all the planets, all the Messier objects, and many other even fainter objects such as distant galaxies within your reach. Further, Meade and Celestron both produce quality scopes.

Some words of caution however. The limiting magnitude I quoted above is strictly a theoretical limit. Under good actual sky conditions, you will find in a 203mm scope you will probably be limited to about 12th magnitude. Also, be prepared, what you will see in the eyepiece won't look like the pictures in the magazines. The difference is that cameras integrate the light coming into them and your eye does not. However, it is still a thrill to see that sharp little needle of a galaxy, or the dim fuzzy cloud of a distant planetary nebula for the first time in your eyepiece.

 

[chroot]

The most important concern for purchasing this scope is its field of view. All SCTs are high focal-ratio scopes, most being f/10. They will not show you much more than a degree of the sky even with the best widefield eyepieces. A lot of well-known objects (Andromeda, for example) have very large areas, and this telescope will not be able to show you all of these objects at once -- only the roughly circular core will be visible. A pair of binoculars is really better suited for looking at Andromeda.

- Warren

 

[Artman]

The most important concern for purchasing this scope is its field of view. All SCTs are high focal-ratio scopes, most being f/10. They will not show you much more than a degree of the sky even with the best widefield eyepieces. A lot of well-known objects (Andromeda, for example) have very large areas, and this telescope will not be able to show you all of these objects at once -- only the roughly circular core will be visible. A pair of binoculars is really better suited for looking at Andromeda.

- Warren

This is very true, but you should find it to be a good planetary performer. They are also so short in length because of their folded light path, that they are easy to store and transport, so you are more likely to use it.

 

[turbo]

The most important concern for purchasing this scope is its field of view. All SCTs are high focal-ratio scopes, most being f/10. They will not show you much more than a degree of the sky even with the best widefield eyepieces. A lot of well-known objects (Andromeda, for example) have very large areas, and this telescope will not be able to show you all of these objects at once -- only the roughly circular core will be visible. A pair of binoculars is really better suited for looking at Andromeda.

- Warren

Too true, and often overlooked. I have a 6" f:8 apo refractor (2" focusser) with a 3" f:5.6 apo finderscope (2" focusser) and a decent pair of Nikon 7X50 binoculars. They ALL get used, depending on the object, and give nice bright views with great contrast. I might use the finderscope as the guidescope for the 6" when photographing a small faint object, or vice-versa when photographing a more extended object, like a comet. The binoculars get used a lot, too. I had a Questar about 20 years ago, but after getting used to Newtonians, using a small long-focal length scope like that was like peering through a soda straw. f:10 SC scopes are better in that respect, and they are still portable and quite affordable, but I find that their contrast leaves something to be desired, the field of view can be claustrophobic, and the mirror shift at higher magnifications is a pain in the butt. If I were to start over again and had a limited budget and no interest in astrophotography, I would buy a sturdy tripod and a decent pair of 100mm or larger binoculars. There is a lot of stuff to see with such an instrument. Two eyes integrate a lot better than one, making fainter extended objects like the Veil Nebula, for instance, really pop out at you. Plus, it's a great way to search for comets.

 

[EIRE2003]

Yea Celestron or Meade is the only type in which I would think about purchasing. This is the scope here that I have my eye on.
I want to do my degree in physics with astrophysics or physics & astronomy so will a telescope like this be like a perfect tool in studying the course like.
And I was also thinking is it possible to find the composition of gases from astronomical clouds by focusing the light through a diffraction grating and onto a plate for the spectral lines (atomic emission spectra).
Ive never seen through a telescope before except my cheap 80 euro telescope, though i cud, if i looked hard enough, see saturn as a speck with its ring, and jupitar v. bright with its moons. But that's about all.

Here are the specifications of the telescope:


Celestron's famous Schmidt-Cassegrain optics on a HD mount

Schmidt-Cassegrain Scope With German Equatorial Mount
203mm (8") Diameter Schmidt-Cassegrain
2032mm Focal Length (f/10)
6x30 Finderscope
25mm (80x) SMA Eyepieces
1-1/4" Star Diagonal
1-1/4" Visual Back

 

[chroot]

Too true, and often overlooked. I have a 6" f:8 apo refractor (2" focusser) with a 3" f:5.6 apo finderscope (2" focusser) and a decent pair of Nikon 7X50 binoculars.

Definitely... serious astronomers will likely end up with more than one instrument, since no single type can deliver everything.

and the mirror shift at higher magnifications is a pain in the butt.

I own a Celestron 11" SCT, and purchased an aftermarket motorized crayford focuser for it. I've owned it for years, and love it.

If I were to start over again and had a limited budget and no interest in astrophotography, I would buy a sturdy tripod and a decent pair of 100mm or larger binoculars. There is a lot of stuff to see with such an instrument. Two eyes integrate a lot better than one, making fainter extended objects like the Veil Nebula, for instance, really pop out at you. Plus, it's a great way to search for comets.

This is, in fact, wonderful advice that is often overlooked in "aperture fever."

- Warren

 

[turbo]

Yea Celestron or Meade is the only type in which I would think about purchasing. This is the scope here that I have my eye on.
I want to do my degree in physics with astrophysics or physics & astronomy so will a telescope like this be like a perfect tool in studying the course like.
And I was also thinking is it possible to find the composition of gases from astronomical clouds by focusing the light through a diffraction grating and onto a plate for the spectral lines (atomic emission spectra).
Ive never seen through a telescope before except my cheap 80 euro telescope, though i cud, if i looked hard enough, see saturn as a speck with its ring, and jupitar v. bright with its moons. But that's about all.

Here are the specifications of the telescope:


Celestron's famous Schmidt-Cassegrain optics on a HD mount

Schmidt-Cassegrain Scope With German Equatorial Mount
203mm (8") Diameter Schmidt-Cassegrain
2032mm Focal Length (f/10)
6x30 Finderscope
25mm (80x) SMA Eyepieces
1-1/4" Star Diagonal
1-1/4" Visual Back

These are very cost-effective telescopes, and they are popular. If you would like to mount instruments on it, though, you should expect to pay at least as much for a decent mount as you paid for the main tube (to properly counterbalance and support the weight of the instruments). Also, you will need a separate guidescope, or an off-axis guider (more weight).

As Warren pointed out, you can beef up the focusers of these off-the-shelf SCs to reduce image shift, but that also costs money. With a short SC main tube, your guide scope's mounts will be close together and may result in flexure - a real pain for photography or spectrography. There are a lot of factors to consider. If your best scope to date has been a cheap refractor, you owe it to yourself to look into a nice pair of large-aperture binoculars (which you will treasure forever, regardless of how many other instuments you buy) or perhaps a nice small aperture (4" or so) apochromatic refractor. These small telescopes are great for planetary views, splitting double stars, etc, and due to their superior contrast (as opposed to mirror or mirror-and-corrector systems) they work very well on the brighter deep-sky objects too.

The 4" APO can be your main scope for years, and later when you decide to buy a larger refractor or perhaps a nice Newtonian, it can do double-duty as your "finder/guidescope". My 3" Vernonscope is my 6" Astro-Physics' finder (with a 50mm 2" ocular) and is also the guidescope (with a barlow and a high-power illuminated-reticle eyepiece). It is also a pretty darned nice scope for birdwatching, comet hunting, or just plain star-gazing. The Vernonscope is one of the nicest little refractors ever made. Of course they made Questar's oculars, so they are no strangers to quality.

Look at your options. I'm not trying to tell you that an 8" SC is a poor choice, but it is limiting, and you will probably outgrow it pretty soon if you are serious. Try to spend your money on equipment that will engage your mind and your interest. A modest-aperture but high-quality scope and a good set of charts is the best way to become familiar with the sky, IMO. If you have a great dark-sky site where you can store your scope, invest in a larger Dob and a good set of charts (and a Tel-rad finder). If you can only get in your car every once in a while and get to a really dark site, buy a pair of 100mm or larger binoculars and a good tripod (AND the decent charts) and have at it.

 

[chroot]

My 3" Vernonscope is my 6" Astro-Physics' finder (with a 50mm 2" ocular) and is also the guidescope

:surprise: You must have a money tree growing near your house.

- Warren

 

[turbo]

:surprise: You must have a money tree growing near your house.

- Warren

No, I just saved my money until I got enough to buy the scopes I wanted, and added incrementally to the equipment. Even though I live in Maine where such things are commonplace, I don't buy snowmobiles, 4-wheelers, motorboats, or new cars (they all depreciate quickly and leave you with liabilities) and I try to live within my means. Anybody who can afford to buy a house and maintain it can afford to buy a decent telescope if they will budget accordingly. Luckily, I bought my AP before Roland got so busy that he had to institute 3-5 year lead-times and raise his prices to keep the demand limited to match his projected output.

I have yet to look through a 10" Newtonian that can match the views through my 6" AP on deep-sky objects. Of course, I'd love to have a 20" RC system, but I'd have to start buying lottery tickets to have a shot at that!

 

[Artman]

I like the view through binoculars, but they become hard to hold and keep steady without a decent mount. Also, the angle at which you need to keep your head to use them is difficult (you need to recline to be comfortable, and then you have the problem of holding them again).

...or perhaps a nice small aperture (4" or so) apochromatic refractor. These small telescopes are great for planetary views, splitting double stars, etc, and due to their superior contrast (as opposed to mirror or mirror-and-corrector systems) they work very well on the brighter deep-sky objects too.

The 4" APO can be your main scope for years, and later when you decide to buy a larger refractor or perhaps a nice Newtonian, it can do double-duty as your "finder/guidescope". My 3" Vernonscope is my 6" Astro-Physics' finder (with a 50mm 2" ocular) and is also the guidescope (with a barlow and a high-power illuminated-reticle eyepiece). It is also a pretty darned nice scope for birdwatching, comet hunting, or just plain star-gazing. The Vernonscope is one of the nicest little refractors ever made. Of course they made Questar's oculars, so they are no strangers to quality.

I really like the 4" APO suggestion. I have an 80mm (3.2") f5 Celestron refractor and the views through it are not bad for the cost (it's not an APO, but the images are pretty sharp and clear at lower magnifications.

Orion has some decent prices on their APO scopes. Their quality has been pretty good on the stuff I have bought from them in the past.

Orion Telescope

 

[Chronos]

A friend has an 8" Celestron. Wouldn't trade it for anything. He is a photo freak and has pics of everything from galaxies to hummingbirds. The picture quality is amazing. If you have your own personal observatory, I would go aperature crazy and all. But, if you have to share a patio with the barbecue grill or head out to the wilderness to find a decent night sky, the Celestron is a no brainer. They are extremely portable, compact and a breeze to set up.

I would definitely want a computer assisted target finder. Locating deep sky objects with star maps will have you talking to yourself [trust me]. You might want to look at the Celestron NexStar 8i. It is a nice instrument and well within your budget [more accessories!].

 

[turbo]

I like the view through binoculars, but they become hard to hold and keep steady without a decent mount. Also, the angle at which you need to keep your head to use them is difficult (you need to recline to be comfortable, and then you have the problem of holding them again).

The angle can be a problem sometimes, but this can be overcome. I found a 1'x1' front-surface silvered mirror at a salvage business, mounted in a nice wooden frame with wingnut adjustments for angling the mirror. I built a binocular mount with some sturdy brackets attached to that wood frame, so I could sit at a table and look DOWN through the binoculars to see the reflection of stuff at very high elevations. Where do you find these nice framed front-surface-silvered mirrors? The are used in every optometrist's and ophthalmologists' exam rooms to bounce the Snellen chart images to your eye. The exam room may be fairly small, but bouncing the Snellen chart image a couple of times gives them a virtual "long" examination lane so they can check your visual acuity. These mirrors are all front-silvered and are very flat and accurate.

If you're not a DIY'er, simply take a nice reclining lawn chair to your observing site, lie back and gaze away.

 

[turbo]

I would definitely want a computer assisted target finder. Locating deep sky objects with star maps will have you talking to yourself [trust me]. You might want to look at the Celestron NexStar 8i. It is a nice instrument and well within your budget [more accessories!].

I would advise against the computer-drive for several reasons, not the least of which is that being able to star-hop with charts is one of the most rewarding skills you can acquire. When you wish to visit a faint fuzzy object, it can be pretty unsatisfying to punch in some coordinates into your scope's computer and have it slew to a patch of blank sky, or even worse, to a patch of sky that has numerous faint fuzzies, and you have no idea which is which. I have watched people do this, and the technology may be somewhat better now, but I'd bet against it being really usable. That technology sounds like a great thing, but your money is better spent on 1) better mount, 2) good charts, 3) a large aperture, fast finder scope, 4) good oculars, 5) better mount (see a pattern?). A nice instrument on a really solid mount is a joy to use, especially if you learn to polar-align it efficiently and accurately.

I'm not trying to poo-poo the high-tech commercial scopes - they have their place, but good, solid basic equipment (that won't blow a computer chip 5 years down the road) is a far better investment. Let's face it - if someone says they'd like to look at double stars and you can swing the scope over to Alberio or Epsilon Lyra (a bonus there!), you've gained some really valuable knowledge. If you have to punch the star names into the computer and hope the 'scope acquires them, you're at the mercy of the guys who programmed the 'scope. Blah! :yuck: I would not venture out without my Tirion Sky Atlas 2000 and Uranometria 2000.0.

 

[Physicsisfun2005]

i think this would be about 2k Euros...
http://www.astronomics.com/main/pro...e=QGBW0B3C76M88J3S9F5J5RP4D7&product_id=8210S

just get a f/6.3 focal reducer for ur SCT...use that with a 2" 56mm WF eyepiece and u get a WIDE field of vision...i'm a guy who has used the cheapest and the best scopes so i know my stuff:
Telescopes i regularly use are a 16" LX200 SCT and 5" APO :)

 

[turbo]

i think this would be about 2k Euros...
http://www.astronomics.com/main/product.asp?catalog_name=Astronomics&category_name=QGBW0B3C76M88J3S9F5J5RP4D7&product_id=8210S

just get a f/6.3 focal reducer for ur SCT...use that with a 2" 56mm WF eyepiece and u get a WIDE field of vision...i'm a guy who has used the cheapest and the best scopes so i know my stuff:
Telescopes i regularly use are a 16" LX200 SCT and 5" APO :)

The LX200 has all the bells and whistles, and comes in at about $20,000 street price with basic necessities only. For that money, I would buy an RC optical tube assembly and a very simple but solid mount without all the electronics. In a school situation, where you have many students using the scope (many with no working familiarity with the night sky) the computerized point+go system might be a good idea - I don't know. But for anybody thinking of buying a personal 'scope, I would strongly advise you to get the best optics you can afford on the most solid mount you can afford, and learn to point the 'scope yourself. My old Astro-Physics' mount doesn't even have setting circles. Good charts and a decent finder will get you there. Eventually, when that Celestron/Meade, etc, computer dies, you will own a mediocre optical tube assembly on a manual-only mount. The standard fork mounts that come with those mass-produced scopes are adequate at best, and should be avoided, if you think you might want to add heavy accessories later (like a camera and off-axis guider). I've had my 6" APO and mount for over 15 years now, and I fully expect it to last my lifetime. It has seen heavy use, often in -20F temperatures and it is as solid as a rock. Keep it simple and sturdy and avoid the high-tech features - they are the weak spot in what seems to be an attractive package.

 

[Artman]

I have a computerized telescope and several non-computerized ones including a few that I built myself. The computerized one rarely gets used anymore. Charging the batteries is a hassle, slewing is slow if you know where to find the object manually and you first have to align it, which may or may not work, depending on the visibility of bright stars in your area to use as alignment stars.

However, if you're hosting a star party and you are the only one who knows anything about telescopes, you can align the scope, set it on an object and it will track it until everyone can get an opportunity to see it (mine does not track well enough for photography, but does pretty good for observation). Otherwise, I have had to run from scope to scope adjusting the position, etc. Another nice thing is that this scope helped me get back into astronomy, by helping me to find some objects I may not have been able to put the time into locating.

All in all, I would also recommend not getting a computerized model. A good solid mount, and good optics are what you should start with.

 

[Physicsisfun2005]

Ritchey-Chretien's are nice...the astronomy org. i belong to is getting a $100k setup in a state park (mmmmmmmmmmmmm :) ) but RC's are more for imaging and research. Meade starts there SCT's at about $1,300 (no comp)...i think Celestron SCT's are find unless u get the Nexstar series, they are the devil (no setting circles...comp only) the link i had above in my last post was for a Meade 8" LX200 GPS-SMT for about $2,100...if u use it in ur backyard just get an AC adapter or if ur at star parties there are cig-adapters for ur car and/or "power tanks" to power ur scope.



and i like the 16" LX200 i use! (yes i'd like a RC since I'm starting up a research program with the new SBIG camera :) )...turbo-1 is right about APO's they are some quality scopes...images u get in them are razor sharp and they are buit rock solid...and they better be for the damn price!

 

[geometer]

Karl,

While this has been an interesting discussion of the merits of various types of telescopes, in answer to your original question, the 8" Celestron you are considering is a fine scope, and will do everything you want it to for now. As you gain more experience, you may decide you need a bigger or different scope, but cross that bridge when you come to it. My wife has used an 8" Meade SCT for years and loves it - she will not give it up. We have several scopes, including a 15" Obsession, but her favorite is still the 8" Meade.

 

[turbo]

turbo-1 is right about APO's they are some quality scopes...images u get in them are razor sharp and they are buit rock solid...and they better be for the damn price!

Actually, I've had my Astro-Physics 6" f:8 and AP mount for many years, and Roland wasn't backed up so badly then (I only had to wait 10 months and I paid only about a third of what a comparable scope would cost in today's dollars). I added a f5.6 90mm Vernonscope w/ 2" focuser as a finder/guide/wide-field astrograph, and that's the basic set-up. The images are razor-sharp and the mount is very heavy, solid, and smooth. There is a lot to be said for simplicity and ruggedness, and Astro-Physics products deliver that in spades. Their focusers and accessories are great, too. Yes, A-Ps are pricey compared to SC systems, but the quality is outstanding, and they hold their value very well. Highly recommended!

Oops! The Vernonscope is an 80mm f:6.25. Still, it's a VERY nice finder and a great guidescope. I have lots of 2" accessories, and having a 2" focuser on such a compact APO is quite a treat.

 

[turbo]

Yea Celestron or Meade is the only type in which I would think about purchasing. This is the scope here that I have my eye on.
I want to do my degree in physics with astrophysics or physics & astronomy so will a telescope like this be like a perfect tool in studying the course like.
And I was also thinking is it possible to find the composition of gases from astronomical clouds by focusing the light through a diffraction grating and onto a plate for the spectral lines (atomic emission spectra).
Ive never seen through a telescope before except my cheap 80 euro telescope, though i cud, if i looked hard enough, see saturn as a speck with its ring, and jupitar v. bright with its moons. But that's about all.

Here are the specifications of the telescope:


Celestron's famous Schmidt-Cassegrain optics on a HD mount

Schmidt-Cassegrain Scope With German Equatorial Mount
203mm (8") Diameter Schmidt-Cassegrain
2032mm Focal Length (f/10)
6x30 Finderscope
25mm (80x) SMA Eyepieces
1-1/4" Star Diagonal
1-1/4" Visual Back

Karl, if I could make another suggestion:
Instead of ordering this telescope new, have you considered buying one used? These are about the best-selling entry-level SCT's around, and there are a LOT of them on the used market (at least here in the US). People buy them and get discouraged when they can't see the bright colors and details that they see in astrophotos in the astronomy magazines. Then the scopes gather dust until the owner needs some cash. Typically they sell for about 1/2 of the cost of a new one. If you buy a used one, you have let the original purchaser pay for the (huge) depreciation, and you may get some pretty nice accessories thrown in, too. That way, when you outgrow the scope (as you almost certainly will, if you grow to love astronomy), you will get most of your money back when you sell it. If you buy used, try to get one on a sturdy German equatorial mount instead of a fork mount. You'll thank me when you are learning to polar-align the scope or if you want to add some accessories.

 

[EIRE2003]

No I never thought of buying one second hand, I might go up to astronomy Ireland during the week & see, I wonder if they sell them second hand up there. If not ill have a look through the buy & sell.
Anyway thanks for all the interesting replys!

 

[EIRE2003]

Is there anyway to that you can hook up the G8 to your computer, to display the images on screen?

 

[EIRE2003]

And also which is better?

The Celestron Nexstar 114GT or th Celestron G8?

Im thinking the G8 is better yea?

 

[chroot]

There are many ways to get an image from a telescope on your computer screen. The easiest is to use an "electronic eyepiece," which is nothing more than a small video camera in an eyepiece package, together with a video capture card. Meade, Celestron, AstroVid, and other companies sell these. The disadvantage is they are not very sensitive and cannot take time exposures. They're good for showing the moon or the planets to an audience mostly.

If you want to take photographs, you want a CCD camera. Look into the products sold by SBIG, Apogee, and others. These cameras are generally expensive, but if you want to take photographs, you can't beat them.

And yes, I'd much rather have the G8.

- Warren

 

[Physicsisfun2005]

i hate the Nexstar Gt series...G8 is far more superior than the GT...Astrovid makes the best "video eyepiece" but its expensive (approx $500-600) and is somewhat sensitive. if you just want to be able the hook ur scope to a TV to show the moon or say...saturn...Meade and Orion make video eyepieces for under $125 ...the Orion one for $125 is a color video eyepiece which may be useful if u purchase a white light solor filter to image the sun.


SBIG is the CCD camera god if u got the money...don't buy a Meade Pictor...they are terrible...trust me...but if u want to image with that G8 ur going to need a dual axis drive for long exposures to keep up with the movement of the stars.

 

[Chronos]

I endorse Turbo when he said shop around for some nice pre-owned equipment at a bargain. Many people lose interest after buying new gear. I sold most all of my nice stuff a couple of years ago for next to nothing. I regret really regret that now.

 

[Artman]

One last option that has not been mentioned is the possibility of building your own. Very rewarding, you can get a lot of aperture for the money, and decent mirrors and other components are available commercially for a reasonable price. This option doesn't sound quite right for you, but I just thought I should bring it up. Actually, a Newtonian scope on an equatorial mount might work for your needs and is easily built by amateur scope makers. Just something else to think about.

 

[singleton]

One last option that has not been mentioned is the possibility of building your own. Very rewarding, you can get a lot of aperture for the money, and decent mirrors and other components are available commercially for a reasonable price. This option doesn't sound quite right for you, but I just thought I should bring it up. Actually, a Newtonian scope on an equatorial mount might work for your needs and is easily built by amateur scope makers. Just something else to think about.

Have any good resources (book names or URLs) for building a telescope?

 

[chroot]

The general name for it is "amateur telescope making," sometimes abbreviated ATM. There are many yahoo groups and websites dedicated to it -- just do a little googling. You can also find lots of great ideas in back-issues of Sky & Telescope magazine, www.skypub.com[/url]. A company called Willmann-Bell, [url]www.willbell.com[/URL], sells a lot of books for amateur telescope making.

- Warren

 

[EIRE2003]

One last option that has not been mentioned is the possibility of building your own. Very rewarding, you can get a lot of aperture for the money, and decent mirrors and other components are available commercially for a reasonable price. This option doesn't sound quite right for you, but I just thought I should bring it up. Actually, a Newtonian scope on an equatorial mount might work for your needs and is easily built by amateur scope makers. Just something else to think about.

Yea that would be a good idea to build one just to see how it works and find out how good it is, but id still be buying one.

 

[Artman]

Have any good resources (book names or URLs) for building a telescope?

Chroot's response was right on the money.

I have a couple of sites to add

Telescope planner

http://members.aol.com/sfsidewalk/cdobplans.htm

Orion Mirrors

Good place for ready made mirrors.

It's a fun hobby, I've built 5 telescopes so far.