![]() It defines the resolution of your telescope, which basically says, "How far apart do two stars, or other features, need to be before I can tell them apart?" Higher aperture means higher resolution. It defines how much light your telescope collects, making dim stars look brighter. A lot more.Īperture is basically everything. I don't like doing it, because it's a tight squeeze, and so I don't often lug that telescope to a dark site.Įdit: Also, keep in mind that there are smaller Dobsonians (4" or so) that are quite portable, and they will show you more than what I saw with that 70mm refractor. ![]() If necessary, I can fit my 8" Dob into my Hyundai Accent hatchback if I separate the tube from the base and fold down the back seat to get more room in the trunk. The telescope tube will likely be 48" or longer and length, and you'll need room for the base as well. Dobsonians are very popular in this range, but like I said, make sure you can transport it. The 6"-10" is sort of a happy medium that hobbyist DSO-gazers like to hang out in. 10", 12", and even 20"! You need a dark site to take full advantage of this, though, because most DSO's are too dim to be seen from urban and suburban settings. This is where the 8"+ telescopes really shine, and you'll find that people who are really into DSO's often get "aperture fever", where they are tempted to buy bigger and bigger telescopes. You usually want to use low-magnification, high aperture. With deep-sky objects (galaxies, nebulea, star clusters), magnification is not the name of the game. That's why I'm focusing on things that you can see with a smaller aperture. At a low budget, buying a compact/portable telescope often means buying a "smaller" (lower-aperture) telescope. So, it's not necessary to sacrifice aperture for portability - it's just often costly to do so. You could have an 8" Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope that is much more portable and compact than an 8" Dobsonian, but it will cost a lot more. Some designs are more compact than others, and one of the reasons that Dobsonians are so cheap is that no attention is paid to making the design compact. Keep in mind that, when I say "large" and "small" telescope, I'm talking specifically about aperture. This will give you a good idea of what is possible with a small telescope. In the latter category, they often tell whether a large or small telescope is needed. They break objects down by brightness - naked eye objects, objects you can see with binoculars, and objects that require a telescope. ![]() They have monthly sky maps that you can download to see what is observable that month. So, I am slightly contradicting myself here - even though magnification is the name of the game with planets, it doesn't take a whole lot to get a good experience.Įven with a small telescope, there are some beautiful double stars like Albireo that can be split. I later found that I could see Galilean moons even with a pair of 10x50 binoculars. With that telescope, I could see Jupiter and the Galilean moons, and I could even make out a faint cloud band on the planet. I'll tell you, though, that the first time I saw Saturn's rings was in an urban area with a 70mm Meade refractor, and although the planet was a lot smaller than I expected (about the size of a pea held at arm's length), it was a thrilling experience. Your aperture effectively limits your magnification - take your aperture and multiply it by 2 (if in mm) or 50 (if in inches) to get your max magnification. With planets, the name of the game is magnification. The nearby planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn) are usually bright enough to be seen, even with lots of light pollution. It also depends on what kinds of stuff you want to see. I guess it depends on how convenient it will be for you to lug a large telescope to a dark site.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |