Stargazing What can I get to improve telescope

[russ_watters]

Saladsamurai, try looking at www.clearskyclock.com to see what your sky conditions are like. It doesn't necessarily follow that a very clear night is good for observing due to bad transparency (which reduces contrast) or bad "seeing", which is mostly turbulent air causing the image to fail to become sharp.

Attached is an image I just took a few minutes ago using techniques that enhance detail. Cloud cover is near near-perfect, but both seeing and transparency are bad. The result: blurry and low contrast.

The second image, I took through a very thick haze, but it was dead calm, making the seeing good.

 

[Burnsys]

Yes, though if the red is on one side and the blue on the other, that's caused by the atmosphere when the planet is low on the horizon.

You where right! i tried it today when Jupiter was high and the effect was almos inexistent

Almost every webcam will allow you to disable the autoexposure and set it manually. Try AMCap (google it) to do the capturing - it has good menus for changing webcam options.

I couldn't found it, all i could found was an "Stop AE (Auto exposure)" option, but i had to point a flashlight to the camera and select the option to keep the autoexposure in that level

Well finaly here are my first pictures from jupiter, filmed in 640x480 and then stacked in registrax using your tutorial

The first picture is how it looked with the auto exopsure, at least i could see the moons!

 

[Saladsamurai]

Thanks for that link Russ. So now "seeing" is my primary concern on the chart correct. Here is a link to my area http://cleardarksky.com/c/PlmIsldMAkey.html

I just went out and viewed at 11:00 pm. If I am reading the chart correctly, the seeing should have been average correct?

I definitely saw things better tonight, but still no bands I noticed on the site it mentioned things looking like they were under a layer of rippling water during poor conditions of some sort.

What causes this? This seems to be what I have been experiencing a lot of the time.

Also: There appeared to be something small (relative to Jupiter) and bright red to the lower-right of Jupiter...what is that?? I thought it was a planet, but according to Skychart it was not.

 

[russ_watters]

That level of seeing isn't very good, though it is slightly better than what I had earlier tonight, and you see my results...

The rippling-water effect is the seeing and it is atomspheric turbulence caused by thermal effects (wind, updrafts, etc.). It is worstened by the planet being low on the horizon, since you have to look through much more of the atmosphere. So...

Look for Saturn!

I don't know what that object was below Jupiter - there was an 8th magnitude star in the area, though (a fair amount dimmer than the moons).

 

[Saladsamurai]

I will look for Saturn tomorrow; however, I don't see it being that much better (granted I know nothing about astronomy) but if is position that matters: I would have to get to Saturn by 9pm as it will be over 30deg to the horizon. Any later and I it looks like it will be around 24, which is what Jupiter was at all night.

Also, you probably already know, but on June 30, Saturn and Venus will cross orbits, so you should be able to see them both in the same eyepiece.

That red thing was awesome. No clue what it was, but it looked like a ruby.

 

[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

 

[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.