What can I get to improve telescope

[russ_watters]

Huh, yeah, it's getting lower faster than I realized - It's been a while since I've looked at it (it's on the wrong side of my house!). I see now that a month ago it was at 55 degrees at 9:30 and now it's at 35 degrees (and it is brighter at 9:30 now than then).

 

[Saladsamurai]

Hey Russ,
Whatever that red star was last night is still near Jupiter at this hour. If you get this you should check it out. You can see that it is red with the naked eye; it is to the right (a couple of "inches" w/naked eye) and slightly below Zeus.

Also,
I still hate my telescope; the mount and tripod have me

Are there any scopes below $300 that you recommend for starters?
Keep in mind that I do not need (or want) a "go to" motorized scope.

I don't know what kinds are out there, but if I could focus the bulk of that $$ on getting quality mirror and other constituent parts of the scope instead of something with a motor, that would be best.

I enjoy having to find ordiscover things. That is my interest for now in Astronomy. Not observing things that I alreadt know about.

If I could find a scope with a really nice mirror, and a mount that someone can testify is quality (i.e. does not slip and is able to make smooth slow adjustments) and a solid tripod (that does not bounce with every tectonic shift) that would be awesome.

Thanks,
Casey

 

[russ_watters]

Oh, that must be Antares, a red supergiant star.

If you don't mind the way you push them around, these have the best optics of a beginner scope in that pricerange: http://www.telescope.com/shopping/p...RODUCT&iMainCat=4&iSubCat=8&iProductID=238462

If you like the equatorial mount (I do), this is probably your best bet: http://www.telescope.com/shopping/p...e=PRODUCT&iMainCat=4&iSubCat=8&iProductID=288

 

[Saladsamurai]

Thanks Russ.

I was looking around Telescopes.com and I found this in the clearence section. http://www.telescope.com/shopping/p...3&iProductID=901&relateInfo=3&add=yes#tabLink

I believe this is just the longer version. there are some differences in the specs, but they seem minor (i.e. different brand of eyepieces, different focal length, different magnification with the included lenses, but the same theoretical max.)

If you get a chance to check it out, that would be appreciated. Let me know if you think that something like thus is worth it, or if there is something else slightly above my price range that would be worth the wait.

 

[Saladsamurai]

Also, for some reason when you click on the product specs, the short version says that it is best for "Deep Sky" while the longer one that I found says "General Use" . . .what is that about?

By the way, thanks for taking time out to respond to all of my ridiculous questions.

 

[Saladsamurai]

If you don't mind the way you push them around, these have the best optics of a beginner scope in that pricerange: http://www.telescope.com/shopping/p...RODUCT&iMainCat=4&iSubCat=8&iProductID=238462

If you like the equatorial mount (I do), this is probably your best bet: http://www.telescope.com/shopping/p...e=PRODUCT&iMainCat=4&iSubCat=8&iProductID=288

So, does the Dobsonian have better optics than the EQ? If so, is it worth the compromise in mount style? I am not exactly sure how the Dobsonian works. . .what is slewing? I assume it is the way you move the tube...how is it different from the EQ?

Thanks,
Casey

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner - the difference between the shorter and longer focal length is magnification (it is a little more complicated than that) and lower magnification is better for deep-space, higher for planets.

The dobsonian is better optically simply because when you spend less on the mount, you can spend more on the optics and get a bigger scope for the same money.

"Slewing" is pointing the tube - and you do that by pushing it around with your hands. It pivots on the side and at the bottom.

 

[Saladsamurai]

I see. So you would not be able to move the tube in slow motion like with the EQ.

Do you think that Orion 130 ST is a good choice, or would you invest a little more?

I know with things like musical instrments you ned to spend a fairly decent amount of money to get out of the really low-end stuff...I assume it is the same with scopes... I just do not know how much should be spent to get into a decent scope; one that would hold me off until I felt like spending the big bucks.

Know what I mean? I want to get the best I can get for now. How much do you think would be sufficient to get a good scope? Will this suffice given my interests?

 

[BillJx]

It's been years since I was into amateur astronomy but - -
The "best" depends on what you want to look at. In general astronomy, the faintness of the light is the biggest limitation, so you want a good big mirror. The telescope and eyepiece have to be configured to converge the light into a beam about the size of the pupil of your eye. That, of course, ties in with magnification but high magnification isn't always what you want.

Magnification is good for detail of inherently bright objects like the moon and planets, but even then, the limit of detail is determined first by the seeing conditions and second by the aperture. If a wide aperture telescope is too bright for looking at the moon you can always obstruct the center of the opening or use a filter. But under ideal conditions, a wide mirror will give you a better image.

If you're handy with tools you can build a Dobsonian telescope with a square section plywood tube. They can be awesome.

 

[Saladsamurai]

So I bought an eyepiece so I could try collimating my scope (since I have been driving around with it in my backseat for two months:) and I went o adjust it; I am looking down the focuser with no eyepiece; I have turned every screw on this piece of crap and nothing moves. I see no difference in the position of the mirrirs whatsoever. WTF:grumpy:

 

[JeffKoch]

With my scope (7" Mak-Newtonion) the single most important factor in getting a good sharp view is collimation (well, seeing conditions first, but then collimation). It's a bit of a crapshoot, and I haven't figured out how to get it perfect reliably, but when I get lucky and get it perfect, the views through my short focal-length Pentax eyepiece are fantastic.

 

[chemisttree]

With my scope (7" Mak-Newtonion) the single most important factor in getting a good sharp view is collimation (well, seeing conditions first, but then collimation). It's a bit of a crapshoot, and I haven't figured out how to get it perfect reliably, but when I get lucky and get it perfect, the views through my short focal-length Pentax eyepiece are fantastic.

I've been considering buying a mak-newt. Is yours the Intes brand? How much does the collimation change between observing sessions? Are you using a laser collimater with a grid display?

 

[JeffKoch]

I've been considering buying a mak-newt. Is yours the Intes brand? How much does the collimation change between observing sessions? Are you using a laser collimater with a grid display?

The collimation changes frequently, even during an evening of observing if the temperature changes (it often changes a lot where I live between dusk and midnight). I use a Cheshire eyepiece and an autocollimating eyepiece.