Have Telescope, Will Look

[lpetrich]

So you've bought yourself an astronomical telescope and you are asking yourself -- how do I get started?

If your telescope has more than one eyepiece lens, I suggest starting with the lowest-power one and moving to higher-power ones when you get practice. That's because one's field of view shrinks with higher magnification, for reasons that should not be difficult to guess.

You can practice by looking at terrestrial objects near the local horizon, like distant streetlights and towers and tall buildings and mountains. You can do this during the day as well as the night, of course. Astronomical telescopes typically invert the view, so you'll have to get used to that.


The first celestial object I recommend looking at is the Moon. It should be easy to find even if you are completely new with telescopes. And if doing so was good enough for Galileo, it ought to be good enough for us. :D

I recommend looking at it around half-phase, or at least not too close to new or full phase, so that its craters and mountains will stand out more easily.

Next would be Venus, Jupiter, or Saturn.

Without a telescope, Venus looks like a very bright star, but with your telescope, you will be able to see Moon-like phases.

Jupiter will always be in full phase, and its four biggest moons will look like faint stars nearby. Jupiter will have grayish bands on it, but I don't know how well you'd be able to see its Great Red Spot.

Saturn will also, and you may be able to see its rings, at least if they are not edge-on. You may be able to see Titan and perhaps some other satellites, but even Titan will be fainter than Jupiter's big ones.

It will be hard to see much on Mars unless it's at "opposition", when the Earth passes it as the two planets orbit. Mars will be at its largest angular size then, though even then, you may need to use your highest-powered eyepiece to make out much detail.

Outside the Solar System, there are various nebulae and galaxies you can see, like the Orion Nebula, the Crab Nebula, and the Andromeda Galaxy.

But for seeing them, you ought to get away from city lights, because they are often very faint.

[Alex]

I don't have a telescope, but I've tried looking at a few celestial objects using my 10x50 binoculars. Hand shake is a big problem and becomes tiresome after a short while. I suppose if they were mounted on a tripod it might be worthwhile persevering.

Incidentally, on a winter's night I can sometimes see the Andromeda Nebula with the naked eye.

[frazier]

Hey great topic.

So you've bought yourself an astronomical telescope and you are asking yourself -- how do I get started?

Actually, I would recommend getting started before you buy the scope. You'll make a much more intelligent purchase that way. There are a number of great books aimed at starters, such as Turn Left at Orion and The Backyard Astronomer's Guide, among others.

If your telescope has more than one eyepiece lens, I suggest starting with the lowest-power one and moving to higher-power ones when you get practice. That's because one's field of view shrinks with higher magnification, for reasons that should not be difficult to guess.

Also, many sights are better at low power, such as star fields, large open clusters, and expansive nebulae. The Andromeda Galaxy spans a region of sky that is five times bigger than the full moon. Zoom in too close and you'll miss it!

You can practice by looking at terrestrial objects near the local horizon, like distant streetlights and towers and tall buildings and mountains. You can do this during the day as well as the night, of course. Astronomical telescopes typically invert the view, so you'll have to get used to that.

Yeah, just don't get too close to the sun, you'll fry your eye before you can blink.

The first celestial object I recommend looking at is the Moon. It should be easy to find even if you are completely new with telescopes. And if doing so was good enough for Galileo, it ought to be good enough for us. :D

I recommend looking at it around half-phase, or at least not too close to new or full phase, so that its craters and mountains will stand out more easily.

Ditto on this. I'm a big fan of the moon.

Next would be Venus, Jupiter, or Saturn.

Saturn is always the jaw-dropper. This year the rings are edge-on, but still a good sight to catch. Over the next few years they'll open up, reaching maximum presentation in about seven years.

Outside the Solar System, there are various nebulae and galaxies you can see, like the Orion Nebula, the Crab Nebula, and the Andromeda Galaxy.

I would also suggest M13, the globular cluster in Hercules.

[Ray Moscow]

I don't have a telescope, but I've tried looking at a few celestial objects using my 10x50 binoculars. Hand shake is a big problem and becomes tiresome after a short while. I suppose if they were mounted on a tripod it might be worthwhile persevering.

Incidentally, on a winter's night I can sometimes see the Andromeda Nebula with the naked eye.

A tripod is supposed to help a lot.

I'm about to start shopping for a proper telescope soon. I only have binoculars and a birding scope at the moment.

[Coragyps]

The Double Cluster in Perseus is jaw-dropping even in binoculars. Other open clusters like these - M35, M37, M41, and the several in Scorpius and Sagittarius - are good for you poor sods that live in/near cities. They don't suffer quite as much from light pollution as galaxies, globular clusters, or nebulae.

I recommend setting out to see the whole Messier catalog with a new scope, but don't hurry to do it. I took a year or more with a three-inch refractor, and even found M74. And keep a logbook - you'll learn to look better if you note down what you see.

[crazyfingers]

Ya, I've got a Mead 6" reflector on a clock-drive mount. It weighs a ton so I don't get it out on the driveway a whole lot. But the planets are fun, Andromeda, 7-sisters, Orion nebula, etc..

My problem is that outside of Boston, MA where I live there is a lot of light pollution.
Up in Maine were we stay a few weeks in the summer there are truly magnificent dark skies but the mosquitoes are killer at night.

I would like some day to get a smaller and more portable scope to use in Maine. Or perhaps preferably, a good size set of image stabilizing binoculars.

[Puck]

Ashaman has a 12.5 inch 'scope that I've been privileged to view Saturn and Jupiter through. OMFG. The image of Saturn will forever haunt me. In the most stunning of ways.

[Alex]

Even without any optical instrument, looking at the sky at night is the best "free pleasure" I can think of. The immensity and beauty of it all is a reminder of how insignificant the earth is and of how paltry and transient human existence is.

Best not to get too "philosophical" about it.............;)

[Valheru]

:hitcomputer:

TTIUWP!!!!!

[Matty]

here is some solid free planetarium software. I find it helps quite a bit to have full browsy access to get your positioning right.
http://www.stellarium.org/

i have a 4inch Bushnell reflector azimuth mount (not that i have it all permanently set up) and so far have seen some great lunar detail, Jupiter plus moons, and last year i got a good view of Saturns rings.

My low mag lense is awesome since i switched up with a decent Nikon spare we had for the microscope at work (solid quality lens and much wider FoV than the stock browser eyepiece i got. The high mag eyepiece however is fucking awful, i am currently saving up for a half decent replacement.

[Ray Moscow]

Is anyone familiar with the Galileoscope approach (https://www.galileoscope.org/gs/)? I wonder if it would be a good beginner scope.

[Matty]

honestly it'd be fun for assembling but for actual viewing my money is on it being terrible. i paid 70bucks cad for this (decent but older model) bad boy at a Sears outlet/discount store, looks like similar price online these days.
http://ep.yimg.com/ip/I/opticsplanet_2052_774576034


http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.telescopes-binoculars-night-vision.com/gfx/small/bush-ts-785003.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.telescopes-binoculars-night-vision.com/contents/products/bush-ts-785003.html&usg=__GHnE7t7Z_EqQsaLiShL3K0DkQE4=&h=177&w=200&sz=8&hl=en&start=11&um=1&tbnid=lnUY0ib7DkCnHM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=104&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbushnell%2Btelescope%26hl%3Den%26clie nt%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1


the actual scope seems pretty good and the low mag lkenses are okay but i'm currently loking at replacing the eyepieces with this set
http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.telescopes-binoculars-night-vision.com/gfx/small/bush-ts-785003.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.telescopes-binoculars-night-vision.com/contents/products/bush-ts-785003.html&usg=__GHnE7t7Z_EqQsaLiShL3K0DkQE4=&h=177&w=200&sz=8&hl=en&start=11&um=1&tbnid=lnUY0ib7DkCnHM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=104&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbushnell%2Btelescope%26hl%3Den%26clie nt%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1
which has decent reviews for the money.

[Ray Moscow]

Yeah, the Galieoscope looked like a bare-minimum one just to get young folks interested -- which is a great thing.

But if we can afford a better scope, that's better still.

[Matty]

there are far better minds than mine for this issue but i get the impression that recent innovations in telescope tech have made a glut of good but more basic models much more accessible.

ALL of the new ones have motorised mounts and inbuilt planetarium software that auto guides the scope to where you want to look etc (cheating, in other words:) ) , for a couple hundred bucks (which is out of my league) but that means that year or two old decent quality manual scopes are much much cheaper at the mo (and there is a proper sense of reward when oyu manually zero in on something and get er done)

i also assume that as with microscopes, the core hardware is relatively simple, and it is the quality of the eyepieces that makes a big difference in cost. One day i'll have a dogs bollocks one, but for the moment on i can out of the shed on an opportune night to look at lunar craters etc, i have no complaints

[frazier]

ALL of the new ones have motorised mounts and inbuilt planetarium software that auto guides the scope to where you want to look etc (cheating, in other words:) )
There's no question that "Go To" mounts will let you see a lot of stuff, faster. Those of us who star-hop (like you Matty, I'm not up for spending a few hundred, unless it's for something directly in the optical train) may take longer to get there, but we get to enjoy the trip. Last time I went to a star party, the guy next to me spent an hour trying to get his GO TO set up and calibrated. Took me 5 minutes to get up and running.

Part of the fun is getting to know the sky; Go-To and Push-To mounts tend to bypass that part of the learning process.