Beginner questions and one crazy question

[junk]

Hi - I'm just beginning to get interested in amateur astronomy and read a little about the different telescopes and such and have several questions. Unfortunately I got hooked by the hubble heritage images and am hoping to have similar views at home - even though I know this is impossible.

My first is regarding the type of telescope I should consider buying. My main goal would be to be able to see galaxies and nebulae as clearly as possible from my backyard. I may want to take the scope to other places but it would be infrequently. I am moving soon to a place with significant winter snows and am not planning on building an observatory - so I would need something I can take in and out of the house fairly easily. I would also like it to be child friendly so the taller than man-size scopes won't work if the eyepiece requires a ladder. At present I am thinking I may try and do photography once I get used to the whole thing, so I would prefer the scope have good photographing abilities.

Given the above, I was wondering what a good size aperture would be, and which kind of scope would people recommend if I only plan on buying one scope for the next 20 years?, and approximately what it will cost now - holding off on the camera euqipment? I'm pretty sure I don't want to spend >$1000 unless I can be convinced that it's necessary.

I was also wondering if home scopes had infrared, ultraviolet, xray and/or radio capabilities?

I have found a several resources that list the different objects to see in space organized by either type and/or catalog number, but I haven't seen any lists that sort them by brightness and what size scope would be needed to view them. Is there such a list?

Thanks in advance. I know people have strong opinions in this matter but I am just trying to get an idea if there is a consensus for this particular situation.

p.s. I also had a crazy idea - my limited understanding of how some of the reflector scopes work is by using a parabolic mirror to focus the light - and then a second mirror at the focal point to send the image out. If this is correct - then I was wondering if anyone had considered taking an old satellite dish - coating it with a reflective substance (making it smooth would be very hard to do - but probably doable), and then using it as a primary mirror. It would already have a motorized drive and stable mount. Is that completely crazy or is remotely possible?

[budcamp]

OK. Several answers to your several qustions.

Two books that give good observing data including brightness. (1) Turn Left at Orion (2) Nightwatch. Both are probably available at your local library. Check them out. If you like them buy them. They are designed to be used outdoors on observing sessions.

No Telescope is going to do what you want!

Within the price that you declare, your best bet is a 12" Dobsonian with a motorized mount (Without the motor drive it is almost impossible to take photos). Little kids can stand on a box to see.

If you get the satelite dish to work, You can go into the telescope business. Let me know and I might buy one.
Lots of luck, and clear skys.

[junk]

Thanks for the reply and for the book references.

That's dissapointing that no telescope fits the description - maybe I asked the wrong question then. Let me try asking this:

What is the minimum magnification/aperture that are necessary for good views of nebula (planetary size at least) and glaxies?
And how much might it cost?

I'll let you know about the satellite dish idea once I get a regular telescope ;)

Thanks again,
junk

[budcamp]

Don't think in terms of magnification. That is changed by swaping eyepieces. Never buy a scope that advertizes it's power. The only thing that counts is size of lens and quality of lens.

I have a 5" Meade reflecter with a motorized mount. About $600.00. You can use it for photos, and see many deep space items.

An eight inch to twelve inch is best for viewing nebula etc., but the cost goes way up if you want to take photos. They are also a problem to move around.

[PhysBrain]

It's been a while since my last optics class, so I hope I'm remembering this correctly. In general, I think refractor telescopes are best for planetary viewing because they usually have longer focal lengths which gives better magnification. For nearby objects, like planets, this is a good thing, but for far away objects like stars and nebulae, it won't make a bit of difference. Reflector telescopes, on the other hand, are better for deep sky observing because they typically have a much larger light gathering area. This means that they can see much fainter objects and can resolve finer details.

I don't really have a decent telescope, but I do have a really nice pair of binoculars. The binoculars are really good if you are just getting into astronomy. In addition to being much cheaper than telescopes, they allow you to get used to navigating the night sky. A good pair will let you see much fainter objects than can be seen with the naked eye, even in a light polluted city.

I do still have a 3" Tasco refractor scope that I got when I was like ten years old. It's only good for looking at the moon, but it served the purpose of getting me hooked on astronomy. I've decided that I don't really want another telescope until I can afford to drop a couple of thousand on a good one.

Good luck with your search.

[irizarry]

For years I have been an “on-again-then-off again” amateur astronomer. And yes, The Hubble Telescope has been so good at what it does and there is no way an earth bound telescope is going to add up, the hobby is pure love of the art. It can grow to be expensive. However, there are some note worthy possibilities to inspire one to pursue this further, other than the discovery of comets, etc..

(1) A few years back a professional astronomer was attempting to build an amateur database that could be shared with professional astronomers. Thus the amateur and the professional could contribute together in research. Unfortunately I do not remember her name or organization.
(2) Magazines are always interested in good photographs, especially those from CCD cameras (expensive items).
(3) Consider amateur radio astronomy as a compliment to optical astronomy. I just got into this and am in the process of building an antenna platform on some land I have. This is another expensive hobby. So take small steps that are well thought out and your hobby will very enjoyable.

Good Luck Comrade

[junk]

Thank you for the responses. I think I may wait until I have a few grand to invest in a good setup.

Hope you all have dark skies :)
Junk

[irizarry]

I hope I did not discourage you with “could be” expenses. You could build your own telescope at minimum expense. I’ve seen some of these home grown telescopes and they look very good and work very well. You could also buy or barter for one someone else has built. I’ve seen many levels of high craftsmanship that have gone into some of these telescopes. Not to mention there is the used brand name telescope arena. There is also solar astronomy you could dabble in, where by you project the light onto a table. Don’t give up!

Irizarry

\|/
O
/|\

[leprechaun]

Hi Junk!

I was googling for some crazy idea i had and
BANG there you were with the same one.
Maybe it's because we're newbies to thos astronomy world... :)

some considerations about (well, you had it first...) your idea of using a sattelite dish for the main mirror in a BIG aperture reflector.

One thing is the small focal distance of these parabolic dishes. usualy half a meter or a bit less. as i learned recenlty there wouldn't be a very big magnification as the X factor is the ratio between the FD's of the main mirror/lens and the eyepiece.
Nevertheless the aperture would be very large (one or two meters) so there would be lots of light to amplify...

I have a Skywatcher D=130, F=900 in a EQ2 mount. the F ratio for this is 6.9.~

Lots of beginner's fun (Jupiter, Saturn-rings and all, the sun - I bought a filter paper and made the filter cap, no nebulaes yet).

the usable magnification for my scope is (rule of thunb 2X/Dmm) about 250X.

for the generic sattelite dish telescope we'd have D=2000 & F=50.
F ratio of 40!!!!
and the usable mag would be 400X. WOW!

all this to say that I'm also very interested in this "carzy" idea. did you find out more about this? also some links about the refelctive coating to apply in the project would be appretiated.

Note. be very free to correct the notions and calculations I gave, please...

Clear skys everyone.
JP.
:)

[irizarry]

Hello leprechaun,


Yes, a dish is good news. If youy have one. You can use a screen or a cluster of dishes. I personally am experimenting with Yagi antennas. It turns out the antennas are relatively simple compared to the signal processing part of radio astonomy. Some market filters (software) for home PC's are outrageously expensive. Theres that word again. But for hobbies and serious research money rules! I am almost finished with my tower. Local building codes want a railing and some other safty features that are always a good idea. I have been at it for three years and have three antenas mounted to a 35 foot tower with three platforms. Coaxial switchs are also a pain and expensive so a built a temporary one for three antennas. Its a challenge and seasonal work since were I live it snows. But not in the summer. I also built a PC dedicated to signal analysis but I am still looking for some reasonable software. If anyone knows of any let me know. I want to plot radio graphs of different sky surveys. Very simple stuff at first.

Anyway if I have time I try to put together some notes on amateur radio astronomy. Since I have not completed my set up I'm still in the design phase I wont have much to offer. I am surprised there are no inputs from the people who do this for a living?

Good Luck and let me Know if you find any good stuff!

Irizarry
\|/
O)
/|\

[lhianeaivee]

well im a crazy girl wodering how does a satellite radio work? well my brother got his stilleto 2 (http://www.sirius.com/freeradio) from sirius radio its a satellite radio then and i was thinking that how does it work then? i know its a silly question but can someone explain it to me?

---------
many thanks!
Lhianeaivee

[irizarry]

Hello Ihianeaivee,


To answer your question about satellite radio I probably would not do it much justice but I find wikipedia has good explanations. Try this site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius_Satellite_Radio and see if that helps. Anyway they don't get into the signal formatting much so we will both have to find a site about that. I wonder if The Sirius frequency spectrum 2320 and 2332.5 MHz interfere with professional radio astronomers? We can look in space on any spectrum. If anyone knows drop us your thoughts.

Hope this is of some help.

Irizarry


\ | /
O)
/ | \

[!!!Abbi]

always go on the quality of the lens - not the magnification