Telescope - Which Type/Model/Kind To Buy?

[W1UJR]

I've noticed a number of hams also have interest in things in the sky, so wonder if any amateur astronomers out there might give me a few tips on selecting a nice telescope?

I started studying celestial navigation early this year, and its really rekindled my interest in all heavenly bodies.
With winter coming on, seems it would be a prime time to watch the sky.
Fortunately I'm blessed with a very low light location here on the coast of Maine.

So, to that end, I've like to select a scope that would be quality instrument which I will not be bored with or discouraged.
I did that with my sextant, and have been quite pleased, so the telescope is next.

Suggestions?

[W3SLK]

Bruce, I just recently purchase a Meade LXD75N 6-AT 6" reflector. I built a 4 ¼" reflector many moons (pun intended). I was severely disappointed when I got the boxes and every one of them said 'Made in China.' However with some of the little idiosyncrasies aside, it is a sturdy telescope. I shudder to think what their cheaper one is like. I bought mine with the 'Go-To' option. After a fairly easy alignment, it will goto the object you specify. This is a great option if you don't have any idea what stars, constellations, nebulae, etc is where. Which is why I bought it. I knew where some where but neither my wife or son had any idea of the night skies. Also, check and see if there is an astronomy club in your area. Chances are if there is a college near-by, there will be a club. Check yahoo for different clubs, (that's where I joined ours). Do your homework and you won't be disappointed. Eventually, I would like to upgrade to a big old light bucket like the one that Jack, K9ACT has. BTW check out his website. Hope I helped.

[K1JJ]

Hi Bruce,

Good to see your interest in astronomy, OM.  It's a bonus you have a dark oberving location. It makes a tremendous difference.

The following message applies to VISUAL observing using the human eye - real photons from objects millions of light years away exciting your eyeball. There is a certain magic in visual viewing. However, CCD and astrophotography which integrates photons over a long time period is best for scientific and detail work. Go to Jack's incredible site for a collection of pictures or even view the Hubbles pics if ya want detail.

A smaller scope is FB for CCD/photography but the scope drive must be very smooth and accurate. You can always add a camera later on to a big scope once the scope is tracking well.


Anyway, your comment regarding not getting bored too fast is key.

For visual viewing, you need a scope that is of big aperture that will show you the details of galaxies, star clusters, nebula, etc. Planetary viewing will also be covered.

This calls for a big reflector. I would recommend you go with at least a 22" mirror.

I use two scopes here. One is in an observatory using a 22" parabola F8.5 and a 24" optical flat. This telescope is homemade and called a siderostat. Do a Googel on that term for more info.

I would also recommend you buy your optics (mirror) and build the infrastructure. A Dobsonian design is ideal.

Here's a great manufacturer of big Dobs called Obsession Telescopes - these are fully built for you, if you choose to buy:
http://www.obsessiontelescopes.com/

However, I would do a lot of reading on Mel Bartel's site. Homebrew, baby. He is a friend of mine for the last 15 years and has some excellent designs and scope drives using both stepper and servo motors.
http://www.bbastrodesigns.com/

Building your own scope is half the fun. It will keep you learning and very interested.

BTW, my second scope is a pair of homemade 10" binoculars using 10" mirrors and 20mm wide angle Teleview 2" eyepieces.  What a striking view.

I'm presently rebuilding the siderostat  observatory using new drives and a new military shelter. This permits me to observe inside while warm and bug-free... :-)

Do a lot of reading on Mel's site and hit the links. Spend at least a month reading before buying anything. And think BIG. Some guys have even built 41" Dobs.  The views are unreal.  You will get bored quickly with a small scope. An above all, stay away from the department store type scopes.

This is what I am talking about - a 22" pair of binoculars. Think BIG, OM.
http://www.foothill.net/~sayre/images/3RF%20SAO%20bino%20large.jpg

High tech building:
http://www.foothill.net/~sayre/images/Monocular%20large.jpg

Some customer testimonials of the 25" Obsession telescope -  this will give you an idea of the viewing league you will be in vs: a small scope:
http://www.obsessiontelescopes.com/obsessed/25-inch-owners.html



Good luck -

Tom, K1JJ

[W3SLK]

Tom Vu said:

You will get bored quickly with a small scope.

There is indeed merit in what you say Tom. However, I was told to start small, that way if I lose interest, I don't have that much invested. Do you want it to be portable? If so, maybe a Schmidt-Cassegrain might be better.
Bruce all I can say is do your homework and determine how long you believe your enthusiasm will be sustained.

[K1JJ]

There is indeed merit in what you say Tom. However, I was told to start small, that way if I lose interest, I don't have that much invested.

Yep, I hear ya, Mike.  It's nice to test the waters first.

Though, I think astronomy is one of those hobbies where a small or flimsy dept store scope drives away more beginners than anything else.

The problem is that we all see these wonderful Hubble CCD or photography photos of colorful nebuli, galaxies, etc. But the human eye cannot see much color or anywhere as much detail as a photo. Color, in real time viewing, is seen only in planets, stars and in a few bright nebula. In "deep space," we see what they call, "faint fuzzies," usually of gray color only. But to me, this is exciting just the same, cuz they are the real, age old and original photons coming from the stars to my eyes. (or should we say, the original electromagnetic wave or dominio effect of photons)

Some beginners get disappointed quickly and say, is that all there is?"... :-)    Even when looking through a big scope this can happen when expectations are too high.

When I was 11, I got a small 3" Gilbert reflector for Xmas. Because my expectations were low and my interest was high, I used it for years and was happy. But these days I see many beginners stop observing even after a few weeks when looking through the 6" or smaller apertures.  After the planets and  moon, an average light polluted sky can get boring to some.

Anyway, that's why I recommended for a man of means like Bruce to consider a big scope from the start. Besides, these scopes do hold their value reasonably well from what I have seen, especially the commercially-built high end stuff.

Probably an even better idea was for him to hit Stellafane in Springfield, VT every August for the annual star party. There are scopes there that will knock his socks off and give a wide sampling of what he may like or dislike.

Like radio, there are many, many ways to enjoy this hobby. 

Hope you're still having fun with your scope, Mike. As you know, the fall is one of the best times for observing cuz of the stable air.

I'm working on finishing my rebuilt siderostat every day to beat the cold wx deadline.

73,

T

[KC4KFC]

Hey Bruce,

I really enjoy the night sky but am only a casual observer. I built a 6" F8 Newtonian reflector with a commercial mirro. Very nice telescope but too powerful and narrow field. I was quickly bored and found I use my old WWII 7 x 50 binoculars more. Good binoculars through the milky way is awe inspiring!

So if I were just starting, I would find a wide field, sometimes called rich field because of the amazing number of stars, 4" to 8" reflector. Larger scopes need bigger and sturdier mounts. Any vibration is unacceptable. Dobsonians are wide field and Tom's must be amazing. But 22" is certainly huge and almost professional caliber.

Have you ever heard of Stellafane? Its a group of telescope makers that have a star party every year to show off home made scopes. Its in your neck of the woods, short drive to Vermont.

I've gone to many star parties and sampled lots of scopes. The Schmidt Cassegrain designs are common but here again they are very long focal length which means they would be considered for planetary study. Great closeup views of the moon and Saturn but too powerful to view the Pleides, the most observed star cluster.
The most enjoyable scope I 've used was a 6" Wide field Refractor. Tripod mounted, still this is a big scope and heavy.

Dobsonians are great. I think they are basically short focal length Newtonians but usually very large aperture, as Tom mentioned. I think 10" and above. Here again, a very large scope.

The smaller scopes of course are much more affordable but still plenty bang for your buck. I bet there are some Star parties in your area. I would go and try different scopes.

Tom, great info. 10" binoculars must be incredible!

I am trying to think of a ham analogy.  22" Dobsonian is like a Broadcast Transmitter with 5 acres of wire. But a 6" is not QRP. More like 100 watts. Still very usable.

Long focal length is like a .5 kc filter.  Short focal length  (wide field) is like a 6 kc filter.

You've got great skies up there, much better than down here.....

Good luck
Mark

We posted the same time, Tom.

Sounds like you have an incredible setup. I had one of those Gilbert scopes. What junk. But optics have improved dramatically since then. I think building your own is good advice. Above all, use good optics.

73
Mark

[W3SLK]

Tom said:

The problem is that we all see these wonderful Hubble CCD or photography photos of colorful nebuli, galaxies, etc. But the human eye cannot see much color or anywhere as much detail as a photo.

Yepper, the eye's rods tend to take over in dark light as opposed to the cones which detect color. Go to Jack, K9ACT website and check out some of the stuff he has done with CCD http://schmidling.com/.

Mark said:

I really enjoy the night sky but am only a casual observer. I built a 6" F8 Newtonian reflector with a commercial mirro. Very nice telescope but too powerful and narrow field. I was quickly bored and found I use my old WWII 7 x 50 binoculars more. Good binoculars through the milky way is awe inspiring!

Mark, my Meade, (which I would hardly consider a dept. store scope), has an f5 ratio. Not too bad for looking at planets but pretty darn good for deep space. I can't wait until the moon passes this full phase to really see what it can do. I purchased mine from telescopes.com. There I was able to read reviews and such. I went with the heavier Meade reflector (47lbs) than the cheaper one (17lbs) because of stability. I had the wife out looking at Jupiter and she was stunned by the fact of not only seeing the planet but also its moons. The 'Goto' option helps pick out stars and objects I would otherwise know about. Also, I purchased a set of lenses and filters with it. All for about $1K.

[N3DRB The Derb]

I enjoy looking for cheap 1950's and 1960's Japanese 60 mm to 90 mm refractors on ebay. Cant afford a "real" scope but I like fixing up the japanese made stuff of that era. Similar style to 1950's radios.

me and the wife used to go down to Green Bank WV on weekends where they have the radio telescopes.  Best observation point on the east coast. Nearest light pollution 100 miles away. Too bad it's also a radio transmitter quiet zone for 70+ miles. No ham radio transmitters. The navy also has a listening post to communicate with it's submarines nearby.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idtUNKqzBVw&feature=related

[K9ACT]

Here are some things to keep in mind regarding amateur astronomy.

Unless you live in or view from a truly dark site, you will be disappointed with most of what you see in even a large telescope.  Deep sky objects do not look like even the crudest photos you see.  It's long exposure imaging that brings out this detail.

Planetary viewing depends on "seeing" (see my web page on the subject) and has little bearing on light pollution.  The larger the scope, the more subject it is to seeing conditions to the extent that one can usually see more detail on a planet with a modest scope than with a very large one unless seeing is perfect and it almost never is.  This is what makes Hubble vastly superior to Earthbound scopes, 10 times as large. The seeing is always perfect.

A so-called "go-to" scope only hastens the time when you get bored with the whole program.  Learning the sky and where things are make the hobby a challenge and fun.  Keying in some exotic galaxy number and seeing only a fuzzball like all the rest of the fuzzballs within 5 seconds is right up there with plug and play rice box no code ham radio.

As an addicted homebrewer, I would point out that peeping through a scope that you built yourself has the same ring of pride as building a ham radio rig.

What keeps it exciting is imaging or what we used to call photography. With today's cooled chip CCD technology, even a modest scope can produce far superior images than the largest scopes on Earth, just a few decades ago.

So, my final piece of advice is, put your money into a good mount that you can grow into and it makes no difference what kind of scope you start with.  There are about 500 photos/images on my web site that were taken with everything from a Tasco to the Yerkes 40".  A one inch, 3", 4", 6", 8", 10", 16" are all part of what I have strapped onto my mount and each produced pictures appropriate to the object imaged.

My one divergence from homebrewing was the mount.  Even with a decent machine shop, I gave up trying to make something that was up to the job.  I invested in an Astrophysics 1200 and never regretted it.

A few years ago, I decided that I had used up the sky and mothballed what I could not sell and returned to the other hobby that so captivates my attention these days.

I sold the mount within a few hours of posting it to an astro classified list for more than I had paid for it 10 years earlier.

Enough old buzzard for now.... browse my web site for ideas.

js

[W2DU]

Hi Bruce, it's great to know that some our hams are also into astronomy. My Dad, W8YNG, was an amateur astronomer, mechanical engineer, and machinist. He built several telescopes during the 1930's, beginning with 6" and then 12". He ground his own mirrors using a drill press with a crank in the chuck that was attached to the center of the mirror. As the mirror was moved circularly over the tool the bottom of the mirror was ground to the required spherical depth. He then parabolized the mirror by hand.

He was commissioned to build a 12" scope for the Daytona Beach Astronomical Society in 1938. I'm attaching a coupla pics of the scope as it stood in Daytona prior to WW2. It is mounted on two concrete stantions that support the two axes, one being the rear axle housing from a 1937 Chevrolet. The tracking mechanism was powered by a wind-up motor from an Edison phonograph.

The then director of the Mt. Palomar observatory with its 100" scope (can't remember his name) visited the Daytona location, and said that my Dad's scope had the most steady mounting of any amateur scope he had ever seen.

There is a book, "Amateur Telescope Making", by Albert Ingalls that has a picture and an article about this scope, I believe on Page 65. Ingalls was the astronomical editor of the Scientific American at that time, and he also published the picture and the article in the SA.

I hope you find this of interest.

Walt, W2DU

[W2DU]

Bruce, one of the pics didn't come out in my previous post.

Trying again.

Walt, W2DU

[K3ZS]

I had one of those 3" Gilbert reflectors when I was a kid.   I think they called it a "Moonscope".   I remember seeing one of the sputniks and a trailing rocket stage rotating as it went by.    In later years I picked up a refractor at a garage sale almost for nothing.   It was incomplete, no spotting scope, cable drives or eyepiece lenses.   I bought a medium power eyepiece from Meade for it.   When my children were young we used to set it up so they and their friends could see the rings of Saturn and the some of the planetary moons.    Now the trees have grown and the light pollution from all the the development have ruined the seeing conditions.   Now I use, on occasion, an average pair of 7X35 binoculars.

[K9ACT]

There is a book, "Amateur Telescope Making", by Albert Ingalls that has a picture and an article about this scope, I believe on Page 65. Ingalls was the astronomical editor of the Scientific American at that time, and he also published the picture and the article in the SA.

That's when men were men and they all wore jackets and ties no matter what they were doing.

ATM is actually a set of 3 volumes and is available in a re-print edition from Willman Bell.  They are the bible of the ATM community.  I don't see the article near any of the page 65's and would take a lot of thumbing to find it but it would be interesting to read.

The picture and your comments make my point about the importance of rigidity in the mount and this was only for visual observation which is infinitley more forgiving than photography.  In those days, they were content with the image staying somewhere in the field of field.  Now we think in terms of fractional arc seconds.

The other thought this brings to mind is that in those days, the subject of this thread would have been "Which type to build?"

For the record, the director was probably from Mt Wilson which is the home of the 100".  The Palomar Mt Observatory probably did not even exist at that time.  The Hale Telescope came on line about 10 years later.

Thanks for sharing the pics.  It's right up there with my collection of 1937 QST's.

js

[W2DU]

Thanks for the insightful response, John.

I'd a sworn that the 100" scope was at Palomar, but I could be wrong.

I have three ATM's, two first editions and the third an advanced ATM. Son Rick, W8KHK, has them now, so I'll ask him to look into the one where my Dad's scope appears and have him scan the page and post it.

After WW2 the ambient light level became so high the Daytona members abandoned the site and donated the scope to Stetson University in DeLand, my home town. It was used for many years until the location was usurped by dorms---I guess they call it 'progress'. Anyway, the scope is now in storage.

I'm attaching two more pics, one at Daytona and the other at Stetson U in DeLand.

Walt, W2DU

[W2DU]

For some reason I can't get more than one pic in each post, so here is another attempt to get the second pic posted.

Walt, W2DU

[W2DU]

Still couldn't get the second pic to show up.

One last try.

Walt, W2DU

[w8khk]

"Amateur Telescope Making" Copyright  1935, 1941 Albert G Ingalls, Editor. 

Pg 65 images:

[W1UJR]

Wow guys, that was a great amount of information, excellent tips as always!

Tom, thanks for your points, and suggestions.
You're quite right, the cheaper scopes disappoint, but it was a cheap used $35 Celestron scope that got me going a few years ago.
I found it at the Windsor, ME hamfest, and it started the celestial navigation thing, sky watching, etc.
Fortunately, where I live, out on the end of a peninsula in the midcoast of Maine, light pollution is very slight, the stars here are nothing short of amazing.

So now, with the boat out of the water, and the cold winter months upon us, I was thinking of spending some more time looking at the night sky.

I agree that the Stellafane Meeting is the place to go, just missed this year's, was in August 2008, so its a wait.

I've got a fellow ham up the road who is into astronomy, quite into it, need to look him up.
Then I'll do some more reading, and take your suggestions to heart, will report back on what I decided to do.
The homebrew thing sounds most tempting, I like that idea, and the photos which Walt shared were amazing.

So thanks to each and every one for your input, looking at the replies, this really started the ball rolling!
  

[W1UJR]

Walt, I'll again say very interesting photos, thanks for taking the time to post here.

I noted that the spindle appears to be made from the rear end or differential of an automobile, and I'd almost bet that the engine flywheel and ring gear was use on the other end. Quite a creative use.

Update -->> Just checked the schematic you posted, it is from an old Chevrolet, clever.

[W2DU]

Yeah, Bruce, you started a very interesting thread.

I told John I'd contact Rick to scan the ATM that has the pic and article re the Daytona scope built by my Dad, but Rick beat me to it. I was just about to call him on the phone when I saw his post containing the data from the ATM. His post is above.

Now for John, my memory says that the Palomar observatory occurred in the 1930's. But I mispoke myself re the 100" scope. I mean't the 200" scope, the mirror of which was molded of Pyrex by Corning Glass in 1936 and transported to Palomar in 1937, where it began the grinding a polishing procedures. But it didn't see light until 1947. I just now recalled the director at that time--he was Russell Porter, who also reigned at Stellafane.

The material re Palomar I found on Google confirms the dates I presented above.

Walt, W2DU

[W3RSW]

Quite a nice looking double yoke equatorial mounting. Walt, you must be very proud of your dad.

I have the third edition of ATM, 1933 and my page 65 shows a Guatemalan 10."

I found hand written notes in the back showing grinding progress on a 12" mirror, f/8 from a L. A. Booth. He'd bought the book at Precision Optical Supply, NYC. He kept a running total of rough grinding Beginning Jan 24, 1940, along with grade of carborundum and radius of curvature.  Finished 35.5 hours , 16' 2".
(RC = twice focal length. )  Changed to 2nd grade of carbo, another 6.5 hours, etc. Found a scratch from 7th grade of emery on Sept. 11. , changed back to 6th. This went on through Dec. 11 when he started polishing which was finished June 30, 1941.  Figuring was finished Oct. 14, 1941 just in time for who knows?  Joined armed forces after Pearl?  Drafted later? In all probability he was in some sort of technical field.  Fascinating.

About the two piers:
The difference in elevation between the two piers corresponds to your declination.  The greater the difference, the more northerly latitudes for mounting the scope.  Roughly, the tangent of declination (or tan of angle from the horizon to the celestial pole) is equal to the two piers elevation difference divided by the base line or distance between the center line of the piers.  If you were on Earth's equator the piers would be approx. the same height. (not counting atmospheric refraction, you have to mention everything these days to not get pounced on  )  

I pretty much agree with a lot of thoughts so far. Yes, views through your own telescope are generally not as spectacular as the glossy photo spreads from Hubble.  But there's nothing like the thrill of seeing a real image of Saturn against a velvet black sky, or seeing the real and actual photons from a globular cluster, say M13 with your own eyes.  No photograph can reproduce the pin-point intensity of actual stars on your retina... the ghostly flickering of images just at your visibility threshold and in moments of good seeing, the jumping of the cluster's star count to perceived "zillions."  Then there's the summation your mind does with the image as it "clicks to a whole."   Computer /LCD screens almost yield the same intensity, but the real view cannot be easily duplicated.  It's a gestalt experience.  Ya just have to be there.

So yes,  go to a star party, look through several types of good scopes. Ask to see double stars, e.g., Eplison Lyra (a double double) or Albrio ( a beautiful gold and blue double.)  Ask to see some globular clusters and right now's (autumn) the best time to see the Great Nebula in Andromeda, M31.

A good set of binoculars that are collimated well (the barrels are parallel to eliminate eye strain), a good refractor of medium focal length for 'grab and go' quick, all around views (or when travelling,) and a good reflector of 10 to 12" aperture would be a nice setup.  These days hardly anyone "serious" has just one scope.  There are so many choices. I do agree that you should learn the night sky, have a very solid mount regardless of the scope and have first class optics right up to your budget's allowance.

Here's a good site for guidance to scope types, general astronomy, observation, links, CCD imaging, & you name it";
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/

right down to picking your first scope.
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/equipment/basics

Have fun!  You won't be sorry. Your about to enter another realm of wonder, of man's fascination with the universe.  In another era I might have said, "your about to touch the hand of God."

[W2DU]

Here's another pic from the Daytona Beach scope built by my Dad, W8YNG.

It is of the right ascension drive. The mechanical drive motor from an old Edison phonograph with cylinder records is in the box with the  wind-up crank on the side, and yes, Bruce, the drive wheel with the graduation in degrees is a ring gear from a Chevrolet flywheel.

Son Rick, W8KHK, furnished the scans from the ATM, shown in a post above.

Walt, W2DU

[KC4KFC]

Wasn't Hiram Percy Maxim also an amateur astronomer? I think he was mentioned in those Scientific American ATM books, if I recall.

I have the set which are great reading, Volume One the most practical. I built my 6" f8 reflector from Berry's book, How to Build A Telescope. Basic ALT AZ mounting, plywood with teflon bearings.  I bought the optics from Jaegers, now defunct. Saturn is amazing and watching Jupiter's moons change hour to hour is cool, too.

Let's see, Bruce, if you want to learn the sky you need a good book on constellations. I learned the sky from a very basic book, called THE STARS, by H. A. Rey.  Star charts come in great detail but you need to learn the constellations first. This may be too basic for you. Perhaps others have a better suggestion.

Walt, I have looked at that photo many times. Very prestigious to get an article in those books.

I was out in the country Sat. night and saw Orion under very dark skies after the moon set. Too bad the splendor of the stars is harder to see.

73
Mark

[W2DU]

Mark, just so you aren't misled, the pics in the ATM that Rick submitted were of my Dad's work, not mine. My Dad was very creative in many ways, not just in astronomy.

Walt, W2DU

[W2DU]

I've shown pictures of the telescope my Dad built in 1938, so now it think it's appropriate to show a picture of him, Bill Maxwell, W8YNG, my Dad and Rick's Grandfather.

Walt, W2DU