Amateur telescope reccomendations?

Onebadhawk
madcow rocketry
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Keeping both eyes open is a great idea. It easier to do out in the dark. Much more difficult for me when there are lights around. A dark cloth can work wonders (be careful you don't fog up the eyepiece). Or a simple eyepatch (argh matey!).
 
Red flashlight is also a must, but only if under dark skies. If there is white light around you can see, and can not block it, a red light is sort of a waste of time because the moment you look at it, blam, dark adaptation is gone. There is some evidence dim green is also not too harmful to dark adaptation, but no one seems to try it. A decent star charting program like Cartes Du Ceil is a good idea as is a decent planetarium program like stellarium. Both are free. I nice app on your phone to orient yourself, tho without a red filter with hurt dark adaptation, is a great idea.

Other than that. Be comfortable and warm. Sitting helps (with that scope its a no brainer). Warm. repellent if need be. ear plugs (the buzzing always 'bugs' me). Knit cap. Gloves with peel back fingers if it gets cold. Lint free case where you can keep the dew off of the eyepiece(s) you are not using.

Etc.
 
Okay, I suspect that only those who are interested in telescopes and astronomy, that's why I'm posting here.

If you do NOT have a scope and are interested in astronomy, be the first to PM me and you'll have the opportunity to get the mirrors for a 4.7" reflecting telescope. For cost of postage. You'd have to build the mount and such...but we're rocket scientists! No problem!!

If you don't know how to build a telescope, that's ok. Let me know and I'll fix it for you.

Best -- Terry

Edit: optics have been claimed.
 
Last edited:
Blast it Tom! said:
@prfesser That really reflects well on your character and generosity. Now to mount up and focus my efforts, hopefully collimating in a fine amateur instrument. I don't want this legacy of your good will to go down the tubes... wait, err, maybe I do! ;)

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Those are terrible! Go away!! :p :angiefavorite:

Any pun that is written on a page of a notebook with perforated sheets is (wait for it)...........
.
.
.
.
.
a tearable pun.🤪

Best -- Terry
 
Telescope update:

OK, so I finally got the Celestron 130 from my friend. It was pulled apart, and tossed in the car (carefully, with blankets..)

Got it home, and started to look at it. I put the scope on the tripod, and started to look at the bits & pieces I got.

Later that evening, I brought the beast outside to try it out.. Yeah, the tripod is shaky & wobbly. The sight scope (lazer dot thing) was badly aligned.

I managed to get mars in the scope, and noted the offset in the lazer dot thingie. “Mars” seems centered. I did manage to get the scope pointed right, but only by massive manipulation (the knobs didn’t seem to work). Again, the shaky tri pod didn’t help things, and heaving it to & fro got it aligned..

Just a dot. Just like looking out the corrective lens I wear over my myopic eyeball.

Toss in the other eye piece I have. Again, a bit of manipulation to get it pointed right.. And again, just a dot. But it did need a lot of ‘re-focusing’

Gave up.


Night #2:
OK, so I gave it a real good look over, and realized the scope is on the tripod backward. I rotate the Ra part of the mount, and re-install the scope. The knob comes out the top now, not out the bottom..(not clashing with the other knob, and the locking knobs are also easier to finagle) The indicator pin on the dial is easier to read. So, I think it’s a bit better. I re-install the other knob on the Dec part of the mount. (It has a motor, but doesn’t seem to work / isn’t connected. But no biggie at this point.) The knobs seem to make finer adjustments much easier.

So, drag it out again for night #2. Yes, I have the mount aligned “roughly” true north. I’m only trying to sight onto Mars, to at least get “something”. Sure enough, it is easier, and I did manage to get eh laxer dot scope aligned. OK, making progress. I remove the ‘erecting’ eye piece (again, Mars is just a dot) nd I toss in the other eye piece I have; 10mm. And again, just a dot.

I try the 4mm eyepiece I got with my smaller ‘My first scope” scope. Again, just a dot. The wife & aren’t too impressed: All this just to see the same thing we can see by looking up.. A bright dot. While we weren’t expecting Hubble or National Geographic details of Mars, at least something that kinda looks like “Mars” (mainly reddish brown disk of some size, maybe the white polar caps, maybe some darker “Mars details”..)

Night #3. Ok, read up a bit more, and the set up seems to be ‘right”. But let’s look closer at the eyepieces.

I have the ‘erection’ eye piece, and a 10mm eyepiece. I also have a 2x Barlow that has a threaded end. This is for the camera mount, but I don’t see how this fits. OK, the ‘lens part’ unscrews from this body, and does fit into the eyepiece port on the scope. Is that right? But the removed threaded portion does have a thumbscrew.. and the eye pieces do seem to fit this …. Hey, maybe I have it backwards! The lens part of this Barlow eyepiece fits into the eyepiece port on the scope, and then the 10mm eyepiece slides into this! OK, this kinda makes more sense.

But the clouds have moved in, and what was once Hurricane Delta is now parked over Montreal & the area. Will have to wait a few nights before trying this new arrangement!

As for my little ‘my first scope’ scope. I tried it too on night #2, but it’s small, and a bear to try & hold. And I need a table or something to put this on..
 
Through smaller scopes mars often appears as just a orangish-red disc and details are often hard to pick out. Try Jupiter and Saturn, they are still incredibly prominent in the sky and seeing Jupiter's moons and cloud bands or Saturn's rings is easier than finding martian surface details.
And you can definitely see those features and be certain when the telescopes are in proper focus. Mars may just always look like a disc, but Saturn's rings will be super obvious when you have it aligned right.

Also I have to recommend trying to find the double cluster and the orion nebula. These are visible naked eye so getting them in the finder and then the eyepiece view itself shouldn't be too much of a chore. I always show these to kids because of how rewarding they look.

Almost forgot, the double cluster will be up all night but the orion nebula is up after midnight and is more of a winter target unless you're a total night owl.
 
One other tip, don't necessarily try to sight in a planet right away, I am not sure if you were doing this with mars but that's what it sounds like. Pick a bright star and make sure you can bring it to a point (and it WILL be a point if your optics are setup right) as you focus the telescope and get a feel for when you have gone just past this, then refocus it and aim it at your 'real' target like one the planets (aka not a point). IMO this works especially well for deep sky objects that you aren't as sure of when the fuzziness 'comes into focus'.
 
aerostadt said:
Over the past 10 years I have looked at Mars with my 11" Celestron and all I have seen is a red dot. I agree with the previous post above that you go to Jupiter and Saturn. I enjoy the Andromeda galaxy, which will look like a fuzz ball. You won't be able to see the galactic disk.
Click to expand...
I saw said "fuzz ball" on my trip to Montana in July through an 80mm Celestron refractor. It was, as one would expect, barely discernable and quite dim. So are you saying that it looks like to you as well? 11" is a "purty durn big" 'scope!
 
dr wogz said:
OK, so I gave it a real good look over, and realized the scope is on the tripod backward. I rotate the Ra part of the mount, and re-install the scope. The knob comes out the top now, not out the bottom..(not clashing with the other knob, and the locking knobs are also easier to finagle) The indicator pin on the dial is easier to read. So, I think it’s a bit better. I re-install the other knob on the Dec part of the mount. (It has a motor, but doesn’t seem to work / isn’t connected. But no biggie at this point.) The knobs seem to make finer adjustments much easier.
Click to expand...

If you hear the motor on the drive when it's switched on/plugged in, it is probably working correctly. Since the polar axis makes one revolution in 24 hours, it takes a little while for the motor to take up any play in the drive train.

I have the ‘erection’ eye piece, and a 10mm eyepiece. I also have a 2x Barlow that has a threaded end. This is for the camera mount, but I don’t see how this fits. OK, the ‘lens part’ unscrews from this body, and does fit into the eyepiece port on the scope. Is that right? But the removed threaded portion does have a thumbscrew.. and the eye pieces do seem to fit this …. Hey, maybe I have it backwards! The lens part of this Barlow eyepiece fits into the eyepiece port on the scope, and then the 10mm eyepiece slides into this! OK, this kinda makes more sense.
Click to expand...

You are correct, the Barlow is supposed to be between the secondary mirror and the eyepiece:
1602688408561.png
In some Barlows, the concave lens itself can be moved to a different position in the barrel. The greater the distance between that lens and your eyepiece, the greater the magnification that the Barlow provides. That's *IF* you can still get a sharp focus; at some point the distance becomes too great and you can't focus "in" enough (or maybe out enough) for a sharp image.
 
Blast it Tom! said:
I saw said "fuzz ball" on my trip to Montana in July through an 80mm Celestron refractor. It was, as one would expect, barely discernable and quite dim. So are you saying that it looks like to you as well? 11" is a "purty durn big" 'scope!
Click to expand...
Tom, I am not sure that my 11" is collimated correctly. However, I don't think that it would make much difference in seeing the Andromeda galaxy. The galaxy's disk is really taking up a large amount of the Field of View (FOV) and our eyes don't accumulate those diffuse photons. Remarkably, I think my 20 X 80 binoculars give just as good a view as the 11" scope of Andromeda. However, in way the binoculars are more exciting for me for finding Andromeda, because I find the target by star-hopping using my bare hands. It is like this ghost of a fuzz ball comes out of nowhere. It is not a ghost, because it is really there. Of course, the Go-To system that comes with the 11" can find a lot of deep space objects very quickly. I have tried finding M81 and M82 with the binoc's over the years and have never succeeded.
 
Last edited:
I looked at Mars with my new 120mm refractor (on Oct 13) and could even see features on the surface with a 10mm eyepiece. Definitely not 'a dot'. Jupiter was big and bright, and again, was able to see some of the bands.
 
It is entirely possible that the limiting factor is the visual accuity of the observer.

Most commonly this is caused by 1.) astigmatism of the eye and 2.) the tendency to remove corrective eyeglasses when looking through an eyepiece to overcome short eye relief.

Another factor to consider is that some scopes excel on faint deep sky objects (”light buckets” like Dobsonians) while others are designed for lunar/planetary observing (Refractors). “Cat“ scopes are a compromise between the two modes in that they use relatively large mirrors but employ folded lightpath to achieve a long focal length in a short tube. The Maksutov design particularly seems well suited to planetary use.
 
Well, I will admit that I did have mine out the other night, and had the 10mm & 2x barlow in properly..

It was a bigger dot, blurry as a pompom.. bright, orange, blurry.. I am expecting to see a disk about a 1/4" with "some" detail.. I ust get a fuzzy bright dot, about 1/16" or 1/8". WOndering it I need a filter of some sort (was about to get my ND filter or even my polerizer from my photo kit..)

And yes, I do wear glasses (just more blurry without them) About -4.5 in each eye if you are curious..

So, it's either a garbage scope / mirror.. Or it needs colminating / aligning, or a larger eye piece (or that my eyes just aren't set up for more than a 12" viewing distance.)

I will be dragging it out further into the yard to see Jupiter & Saturn.. once the rain passes..
 
Tonight was good for planets. Clear sky, mild temperatures, low humidity and no mosquitoes. Jupiter, Saturn and Mars all well placed from my backyard. Mars presented a nice clean disc with subtle albedo features in my 72mm ED refractor. Tonight is one of those nights I wish I had a little bit more good glass! Oh well. Also noticed how my right eye is no longer good for observing at high power due to torn retinas. Too much crap in there. Another oh well.
 
OK, maybe I'm missing something.. (Sorry if this sounds like a rant or .. ) Or maybe I just don't get it..

Dragged the telescope out deeper into the park behind my house, to get a view of Saturn & Jupiter last night. Sadly, I was a little late, so Jupiter was just behind the tree line. I was able to pick out Saturn.

Again, I can tell it's Saturn. I could barely make out the rings. But as with Mars. Just a dot really. OK, an oval more than a circle, but still a really small fuzzy "thing" in the eyepiece. A little better than Mars.. but.. Meh.. (like watching a space launch from your hotel balcony at Disney world..) And I figure if Mars & Saturn are just blurry dots, what will other space objects look like? Is it really worth it? (the trouble to drag the scope out & try to find said nebulae & clusters..) I must admit, the wife thought it was pretty cool. But again, she looked thru, saw it, said "wow that's cool".. (then asked it I was going to stay out or go back home.. back home we went) We were out for about 20 minutes..

I joined a few FB groups about backyard astronomy & astrophotography, and I see some lovely pics (And some not so lovely pics) and they all see to get at least "some" detail of mars. I guess it is the scope. The EQ 130 is, what, a 5" scope.. And, as most said; at least a 6" or even an 8" is best to start.. And I see a lot seem to have a 9" for at last "some" detail..

So, until the Moon pops out again, I think I'll pack it up.. I was looking forward to seeing "something" that I can stare at..


Catching satellites as they pass overhead while waking the dog seems more fun..
 
dr wogz said:
OK, maybe I'm missing something.. (Sorry if this sounds like a rant or .. ) Or maybe I just don't get it..

Dragged the telescope out deeper into the park behind my house, to get a view of Saturn & Jupiter last night. Sadly, I was a little late, so Jupiter was just behind the tree line. I was able to pick out Saturn.

Again, I can tell it's Saturn. I could barely make out the rings. But as with Mars. Just a dot really. OK, an oval more than a circle, but still a really small fuzzy "thing" in the eyepiece. A little better than Mars.. but.. Meh.. (like watching a space launch from your hotel balcony at Disney world..) And I figure if Mars & Saturn are just blurry dots, what will other space objects look like? Is it really worth it? (the trouble to drag the scope out & try to find said nebulae & clusters..) I must admit, the wife thought it was pretty cool. But again, she looked thru, saw it, said "wow that's cool".. (then asked it I was going to stay out or go back home.. back home we went) We were out for about 20 minutes..

I joined a few FB groups about backyard astronomy & astrophotography, and I see some lovely pics (And some not so lovely pics) and they all see to get at least "some" detail of mars. I guess it is the scope. The EQ 130 is, what, a 5" scope.. And, as most said; at least a 6" or even an 8" is best to start.. And I see a lot seem to have a 9" for at last "some" detail..

So, until the Moon pops out again, I think I'll pack it up.. I was looking forward to seeing "something" that I can stare at..


Catching satellites as they pass overhead while waking the dog seems more fun..
Click to expand...
At least you are putting in an honest effort. I am not familiar with that telescope, so can’t really say about the quality. For Jupiter this is about what I can see on a good night.
7F9D6E8D-DEEC-4AB6-B6DA-A868979333B3.png
Though only the darker bands are really discernible. As for Saturn it is smaller, the rings are clearly separated from the planet itself, but I cannot see the Cassini division or any banding on the planet in my telescope.
48DBBBF9-50A1-472C-BBA0-27464457F1E3.png
As for Mars it is a bright orange-white disc with a slightly darker smudge or band. I have seen the polar cap stand out as a brighter area.
 
Hi Nolan,

Yeah, that's about what I get, but waaaay less detail.. (and that is, if your entire screen is the view circle of the scope..) fuzzy too.. None of the moons (but not expecting any..)
 
I'm not surprised that mars is not very impressive or detailed, you're only getting 65x with your 10mm eyepiece. 65x is an excellent magnification for galaxies, nebula, star clusters, the moon and sun (with a solar filter).....not great for planets.

For me, mars look best with 200x or more.

With your telescope the useful upper limit of magnification is 260x under exceptional conditions. Rule of thumb, a telescope's maximum useful magnification is 2x the aperture in mm (or 50x the aperture in inches).

Unfortunately for viewing mars, I think you are limited by the telescope and eyepieces that you have.

Other things to consider are collimation and allowing the mirrors enough time to reach ambient temperature.


Some objects to view with your telescope over the next few months:

Andromeda (November)
Pleiades (December)
the Orion nebula (January).

These will be due south at 10PM on the 15th day of the month in parenthesis.
 
OK, so according to Celestron, I can get 307x max. But their documentation has me asking more questions!!

Celestron's guide also say that with the upper 307x, the biggest eyepiece should be 2.1mm (650mm/307x = 2.11mm), and suggest their 2.3mm (which would yield 282x) (With Seth's calculations: 650mm/260x = 2.5mm eyepiece)

How does the Barlow 2x work on this? does it double it? (So I would need a 4.2mm [2.1 x 2] ?) or half it? (meaning a 1.1mm) )

I guess, as well, that the lower mag for farther objects seems counterintuitive.. They are farther away, so wouldn't you want a higher mag to brig them closer? I guess some inverse thing?
 
A 2x Barlow effectively doubles the focal length of the mirror (or the optical train, for a Mak or Schmidt-Cass). So a 4.2 mm eyepiece should give the same magnification as a 2.1 mm eyepiece without the Barlow.

Unless you get one of those humongous, expensive eyepieces (Nagler?), even a 4.2 mm f.l. eyepiece is gonna bring your eye awfully close to the lens (short eye relief is the term).

Best -- Terry
 
With your telescope

A 10mm eyepiece will give you 65x (650mm/10mm)
Add a 2x Barlow (2x is the most common) and it doubles the magnification to 130x

This is the same as using a 5mm eyepiece (650mm/5mm) without a Barlow.

Using the 2x Barlow and the 5mm eyepiece yields 260x - that's rule of thumb limit for your telescope.



If I had your set up and was shopping for a new eyepiece, I'd get something in the 6 or 7mm range:


With 2 eyepieces (10mm and 7mm) and one 2x Barlow you'll have the following magnifications:

65
93
130
186

Substitute a 6mm for the 7mm and you'll have the following magnifications:

65
108
130
217
 

Latest posts

Back
Top