Hey guys!

I will start off w/ my telescope specs:
Mead (Probably 1996 model)
Schmidt-Cassegrain
6" D=102mm F=1000mm f/10

When i was a boy i was told that this scope would easily see galaxies and planets really good... Since i've come to be a doubter, but I have never sat down and talked to anyone.  So here is my attempt.

Right now, just last night, I see Jupiter like this:
http://astronomyonline.org/SolarSystem/Images/Jupiter/FromTelescope.jpg

Only it is less of a purple hue and more of a yellow/white.  I want to see Jupiter with some detail and preferable a little larger.... kinda like:
http://www.raftermranch.com/Latest%20Images/Jupiter_180sec_2x5barlow_Ma.jpg

Even saturn kinda looks like the first image only you can tell it has rings they kinda look like nubs on ea end of the circle.

Is it achievable with my telescope? Was I duped as a child? Im positive 90% of the problem is I don't know what im doing.

Please Help!

Chris

Hi Chris: A parent duping their child? Nah, never been done! Well, there are several factors which affects your viewing of Jupiter. First, the planet is relatively low in the southern sky. This tends to magnify upper atmospheric turbulence. That is, you're looking at the planet from an angle where a big chunk of sky is the upper atmosphere. The higher the planet, the better the view, all else being equal. And since you cannot suspend the law of physics, you'll have to settle for the status quo. Second, Luna is also in that part of the sky right now, and it's big and its bright. This detracts from dark sky conditions and lowers the quality of the view. Third, if your location is polluted by ground light, that, too, will affect the views. Finally, your scope might be in need of collimation, which can make for fuzzy viewing even with your f/10 scope. I was out tonight til about 11:00 pm looking at both Jupiter and the moon with my 10" Orion Dob. Using either a 10mm or a 7mm results in the planet being just about the magification size you show in yours. I did see the two bands of the planet, though not the eye of the storm. Interestingly, when I used my 2x barlow, it certainly magified the planet but the view wasn't as sharp. I attribute it to the turbulence and the moon. Finally, what eyepiece are you using? If it's the eyepiece that came with the scope when new, it's quality might not be all that much, given the age of your scope. For planets, I use a 7mm planetary EP from BO/TMB. At present, it's a super buy at $59. Go to burgessoptical.com and check out their line of planetaries. They are clearing their inventory for an updated line which will sell for nearly twice their current price. Anyway, this is my 2 cents worth. I'll leave it to other, more experienced viewers to respond and to set me straight if I misspoke. BTW, with the second pic of what you showed, I suspect a much larger scope would be needed that will achive greater magnification. walt

Walt,
    Thank you so much for your reply. Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you, I didn't want to reply until I wrote down the eyepieces that I have.

Eyepieces:
Mead MA25mm
Mead MA9mm
Mead Series 3000 Plossl 5mm Multi-Coated

The two top ones came w/ the scope, and aren't too bad.  However, the bottom eyepiece cost me like 95-125 bux and I was also told it would be the piece... but all it does it the same thing as the 25 only zoomed in by 2x, i would say.  I was told that the 5/9/25mm was how big the hole that I look through is, personally it is so hard to look through the 9 and the 5.  I would greatly like to get an eyepiece that is easy to look through, even if i have to have a towel over my head, and can see the planets in detail as explained above.

What suggestions do ya got for me?  Is there formula's that I can use when picking out eyepieces, so that I know if it will see it or not?

P.S> Also noted that I thought my telescope was a 6"... but if i convert the D=102mm to inches it comes out to 4.0157480315004 if it's a 4" that just decreases my chances of seeing anything valuable, meaning detail in planets, by more :-S No?

~Chris~

The 7/9/25 is not the measurement of the hole you're looking through with each eyepiece(EP).  Those are the focal lengths of the EP's.  Dividing the scope's focal length by the focal length of the EP will give you the magnification for that EP.  The reason you may be having a hard time using the 7mm or 9mm EP is probably the short eye relief these two EP's probably possess.  The eye relief is a measurement of the distance your eye can be away from the "hole" in the EP and still be able to see the image.  Many of the shorter focal length EP's have very short eye reliefs.  This can be a nasty thing to put up with, especially if you wear glasses.  There are lines of EP's that offer more eye relief, even at shorter focal lengths.

The "size" of the cone of light that an EP will have is called the exit pupil.  Get this by dividing the EP's focal length by the scope's focal ratio(f/?).  OR  divide the scope's aperature by the magnification of the EP you want to know about.  Optimal exit pupil values will fall anywhere between around .5 mm to 5mm.  The older you are, the more crucial it is you use an EP that doesn't have an exit pupil value over 5mm because older people's pupils have a hard time dialating to anything over 5mm.  Younger people's pupils may dialate to 7mm or 8mm.  Say your pupil will only dialate to 5mm.  If you try to use an EP that gives an exit pupil of 6mm, you're either not going to be able to see all the image or you'll have to move your head around in a small circular motion to be able to see all of it.

Then there's the true field of view an EP will have.  Manufacturers will give you the apparent field of view.  Many EP's have a AFoV of 52 deg., some 55 deg, some 68 deg. and others offer 70 deg.  This is just to name a few.  True field of view is determined by multiplying the EP's field stop diameter by 57.3 and then divide that by the scope's focal length.  This will tell you how many actual degrees of the sky a certain EP will show you.  You can get the field stop diameter from the info a manufacturer or vendor gives in the EP's specs.  But, don't confuse true field of view with magnification.  A 25mm EP with 52 deg AFoV will give you a TFoV of a little over 1.10 deg.  whereas a 21 mm EP with 68 deg. AFoV will give you roughly the same TFoV.

Something that needs kept in mind is the fact that what you'll see through your scope will not look like the pictures you see in the books or on T.V.  This has to do with the human eye not being able to discern a whole bunch of color while you're in the dark.  Now, if you were to get into astrophotography, the camera is able to pick up the color offered by many of the celestial bodies.  But, it's MUCH better to see a galaxy, nebula, star cluster, etc. first-hand through your scope than it is to rely on books for your views of the sky.  When you see the pictures in the books, you can have the satisfaction of knowing that you have found and observed that particular object with your own eyes.  Or, by looking at a picture, you may be more motivated to find the object and see it for yourself.

And, just like what's been said before, the amount of light the Moon blesses you with and the amount of light pollution you have to contend with will affect what you'll be able to see, or at least, the clarity of the object.  Seeing and transparency are also factors that can't be overlooked.  Try to set up in the most open spot you can find that's clear of trees, bushes, houses, pavement and anything else that can let off heat it's gained from the daylight hours.

And, someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Saturn's postion right now one that is relatively "flat" to our line of sight?  Thus, the rings won't be as visible and stunning as they would have been earlier in the year?

Good luck and clear skies!!!

That was alot of info to take in, and while educationally awesome... i didn't get the answer i was kind of going for.

So far I understand that I need little light polution, but I doubt that light polution is the reason beyond seeing the object a little larger... i can see how it would interfere w/ detail though, definately.

I was thinking maybe I need a Barlow lense? or Meade's new TeleXtenders... this would help? If i have been reading correctly then it would be...

1000/5 = 200 x 2/3/5(teleXtender) = 400/600/1000 :)

Is that how it all works? w/ a 1000 zoom i bet I could deffinately see the planet in large style!

Feedback? am I totally newb'd and got it all wrong?  Also what is the f/10 or f/8 and is the bigger or smaller the number the better?

 ~Chris~

Well, maybe getting a few planetary filters may help you out in seeing a little more detail.  However, the more magnification you employ, the more that pesky issue of atmospheric conditions comes into play, no matter what filter(s) you use.  Plus, the more magnification you get, the less light is passed on to your eyes.  Thus, cutting down contrast and detail.

There are planetary eyepieces that could help you with your goal.

I only gave you the info in hopes it would help you with any further thinking.  You asked for some formula that might help tell you what you can see.  There is no formula that will tell you what specific type of object you will be able to see by using a specific EP.  But, by using the formulae(?) given, they may help you get an idea of how your scope and a given EP might perform.  Thus, kind of giving you an idea of what you may be able to see.(ie., shorter focal length EP's give higher magnifications and smaller TFoV's=good planetary views;  longer focal length EP's give lower magnifications and larger TFoV's=good star cluster and nebula views;  and then there's everything in between)  These are only generalizations.  Sometimes, your best views of a planet may be using an EP that offers only 50x to 100x.  While higher magnifications are needed to resolve the stars in a globular cluster. 

I totally agree with you.  I wouldn't be happy with seeing anything through my scope that looked as washed out and over-exposed and shakey as the first image you have for an example.  Jupiter shows it's two equatorial belts, the GRS(when I'm lucky enough to haved timed it out correctly), and on nights with better conditions, there will be some detail in the belts and GRS.  That's in an 8" relfector at 48x and 96x.  Things start getting fuzzy at 120x most of the time.  But, that's in the Summer with high humidity and poor seeing.

Another thing, a scope has a limit concerning the amount of magnification it can handle.  Your scope has 4" of aperature?  Then, take 4 times 50, or 102mm times 2.  This equals 200x or 204x respectively.  That will be the maximum amount of magnification your scope will handle, and this is ONLY under the best of the best conditions(see, there's that atmosphere thing popping up again).  Point is, don't get carried away buying EP's that will give you magnifications over 200x.  You'll be wasting your money.

I'll fade into the woodwork now.  Hopefully the more experienced ones here can give you the answer you're looking for. 

Hmm okay... I think im following..  So a barlow may not be too bad of an idea or ya it is?  Also I don't mind degregation in detail as long as i can tell it's a planet and not some distant sun lol

But deffinately you would recomend planetary eyepieces?  Will these planetary eyepieces work for seeing galaxies and nebulas too?

At which point does my little 4" become no good for what I want?  heh if it hasn't already :-D

Go back and read my last post.  I ammended it, adding some info about the upper limit your scope will possess concerning magnification.

Well I appreciate your help.  I have moved on to start looking at purchasing a new telescope.  One that can handle INSANE zoom and probably one w/ a larger Focal Length.  I would love to sell mine but i just don't think i could sell it to someone knowing it doesn't peek into the unknown very well.  I would say my little 4" is good at looking at the moon and the land with beginner planet viewing :)

Thank you guys again! I now know what to focus on and look for!

~Chris~

O.K., let me be clear here.  My intention was not to imply your scope was not a good scope or to imply you needed to buy a new scope.  If that's YOUR decision, fine.  I am in no way an expert.

Buying a new telescope is a fairly big decision, in my mind.  So, as long as you've done the research(other than listening to what I've said), more power to ya!

Good Luck!!

A 4", 1000mm SCT telescope should easily get you what you are looking for in planetary viewing.  The rule-of-thumb on maginfication is, 50X per inch of aperture, so the theoretical max for your scope is about 200X on a really clear steady night.

The fuzzy view could be caused by a couple of things:  As has been mentioned before, poorly collimated optics (getting all the mirrors lined up right) will cause a blurred image.  And poor atmospheric conditions will riun the view too..  Can you focus the scope on a distant house or telephone pole during daylight hours?  If not there may be a problem with the focuser itself.

A barlow, or tele-extender won't fix a poorly detailed image.  It will just magnify the blur.

You should be able to find many of the Messier DSOs with your scope from a relatively dark location, and you should be able to see detail on Jupiter very similar to the link you posted. 

 

Good luck.

You need to understand the limitations of a 4" aperture.  This helps to keep expectations realistic.  As aperture increases, so does light grasp and resolution, the ability to discern fine detail.  However, from a dark site you'll be able to detect all of the Messier objects and many NGC and IC objects with your telescope, including dozens of galaxies.  One of the telescopes that I own is a 4" apochromatic refractor and I have seen hundreds of deep-sky objects with it from dark sites.  Needless to say, there is a world of a difference between detecting a galaxy through an eyepiece and what you see in an astrophoto of the same object. 

A tele-extender is the same thing as a Barlow lens (or Powermate).  Well-made, modern Barlows do not degrade images to any great degree.

"Planetary" eyepieces are usually simple designs such as monocentrics, orthoscopics, symmetrics, and Ploessls.  The idea is to provide high magnification, high contrast views with little light scatter.  However, the best of them can be rather expensive because of superior manufacturing standards.  Such designs also have limited eye relief and rather small apparent fields of view, as low as 30 degrees.  Designs such as the Pentax XW line and the Tele Vue Radians use additional lens elements, at a much higher cost, of course, to improve eye relief and AFOV.  

The Burgess Optical/TMB Planetary eyepiece line, however, provides excellent performance at bargain prices.  They come highly recommended.

http://www.burgessoptical.com/EPs/Planetary.html

Planetary eyepieces can certainly be used to observe deep-sky objects, if they don't yield excessively high magnification, that is.  (Most DSOs are best observed with an exit pupil of about 2mm.)  One type of DSO that can "take" high power, ironically enough, is the planetary nebula.  However, wide-field eyepieces such as the Tele Vue Naglers and Panoptics are usually more desirable for DSO observing.

By the way, atmospheric steadiness, which is referred to as seeing, often limits magnifications to about 300x, no matter what size aperture you're using.  There are rare times when very high magnifications can be used on bright objects, however.

You may want to pick up a copy of Terence Dickinson's Nightwatch to learn more about telescopes and observing. 

The following links may prove useful, as well:

http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=2282

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/equipment/basics/3303996.html?page=1&c=y

Dave Mitsky

 

Hi, I have a 4.5" scope so maybe I can fill you in a little.

First off I'm not sure where you are. From my location LP isn't that bright, but still an issue. So I can get some good planetary views. This summer despite it's location Jupiter has provided some good views. I saw the satellites and the two cloudbands. Try for those before looking for more. Be patient at the eyepiece, steady moments of seeing are hard to come by.

I have a 25mm, 10mm and 2X Barlow with my scope. All the eyepieces were fine when viewing Jupiter. However the size of the scope will limit what on Jupiter you'll see. I don't really care about seeing every detail on the disk, everytime I look. Just so long as I can see it!

As for galaxies. Well stick to the bright and big ones. A 4" scope will see many, but they'll be a white smudge. Galaxies need a 6" or above to been seen well. Don't be disheartened though... A 4" scope will take you around the universe and back. Just be patient and pick your targets carefully.

A scope is for life, not just untill aperature fever kicks in!

Guys,

    I read all of your comments and some answer my questions and others.... I think are misunderstanding.  Really I think it's me newbspeaking and not using the proper words.

Honestly, Jupiter isn't blurry. I have had my scope proffessionally cleaned and calibrated, I just no longer talk to the guy who did it.  My scope is on par and viewing jupiter is on par and crisp.  It is a crisp dot.

I just want to see it more zoomed in.  Right now it, really, looks like the sun at a far distance just a yellow-white circle, with clean edges mind ya, and it is smaller than an eraser head on a pencil.  I can see all 4 moons in a straight line and they look like crisp dots. I want to take that small sun-like circle and at least make it the size of a dime.  That is the part that I am unsure my telescope can do.

In later responces many of you pulled out the fact that I should be able to view deep sky objects.  I spoke w/ a telescope company in my state and she had mentioned that my type of scope was better for that as well, but not limited to not viewing planets.   Just that it tends to see better w/ object in the deep and dark.

In accordance to that, our next clear day I am going to go and try to find some nebula's and galaxies.

Wannabe - you didn't discourage me from my scope not being a valuable piece of equipment.  You just have helped enlighten me that I may want and expect bigger things than what my little 4" can do.  Buying a new telescope I don't see is a big jump, other than maybe accidently buying one that isn't good.  I was thinking of going for a 10" cassegrain.

Again thank you all for your help, especially the ones who replied with their experience w/ simular size scopes. Although the guy who wrote w/ the 4.5, I do ask should I use a 2x barlow to try and get Jupiter to look like the second image? Will it enlarge the size of the planet, I would prefer to enlarge the size of it by 3 but I think 2 would make it significantly more distiguishable.

Cheers ya'll!

Even with your 25mm eyepiece (which would give you 40X) you should be able to distinguish the two major bands on Jupiter.  at 111X with the 9mm they should be easily seen.  If you are seeing no detail the issue is with resolution, not magnification.  Achieving a larger image through higher magnification will not show more detail, just the same image, larger.

Hehe I think i need to find and explore the skies with a more advanced astronomer in Seattle.

I only briefly read through this thread, however, from your previous reply it seems that your expectations might be a bit to much for your telescope.

hansonc:

Hehe I think i need to find and explore the skies with a more advanced astronomer in Seattle.

This is probably the best idea here.
Seek out a local astronomy club if you can and attend one or more of the star parties.. This will give you some great hands on experience with a variety of telesocpes.

To get a close idea of what you can expect from a larger telescope, review this thread.
http://cs.astronomy.com/asycs/forums/p/34748/387937.aspx#387937 

 

Have A Nice __________

Chris:  I posted earlier.  One of the great things about this forum is that people are willing to help.  I've learned quite a bit reading the other replies.

No matter what size aperature or make of scope, going beyond 300X won't give you better views.  Bigger, yes, but you'll most often lose detail due to light and particle pollution, and atmospheric conditions.  So, yes, going for a larger scope will enable you to reach up to that 300x threshold, but realistically, magnifications lower than that will most often give you a better (i.e., clearer) view.  I sometimes use my 7mm eyepeice with a good quality 2x barlow.  With an aperature of 1200, that gives me about 342x.  Looking at Jupiter with that setup makes for a more magnified planet, but detail is degraded.  I'm finding (here in southcentral PA from a fairly good dark sky location) that the "best" view is with the 7mm eyepiece alone (about 170x).  Summer skies, while clear, still produce humidity and heat which affects atmospheric conditions.  Last winter the views were clearer.

One more thing and I'll go away.  Like it's been said, high power eyepieces below 10mm usually give cramped eye relief, making you move your head around to try to get the whole view.  More higher priced eyepieces, however, provide wider FOVs.  One work around is using the barlow with it.  The downside, depending on your scope's aperature, is that, again, the magnidfication may be too much for the sky conditions. 

I recommend reading this forum and other forums ( like cloudynights).  Then read reviews on scopes and eyepieces from experienced amatuer astronomers who have no bias in their reviews, and attend a star party or sit in with a local astronomy club.  Don't be in a hurry to buy.  Get to know the different type of scopes.  And then spend your sheckles on one.   walt  

stringer:

Chris:  I posted earlier.  One of the great things about this forum is that people are willing to help.  I've learned quite a bit reading the other replies.

No matter what size aperature or make of scope, going beyond 300X won't give you better views.  Bigger, yes, but you'll most often lose detail due to light and particle pollution, and atmospheric conditions.  So, yes, going for a larger scope will enable you to reach up to that 300x threshold, but realistically, magnifications lower than that will most often give you a better (i.e., clearer) view.  I sometimes use my 7mm eyepeice with a good quality 2x barlow.  With an aperature of 1200, that gives me about 342x.  Looking at Jupiter with that setup makes for a more magnified planet, but detail is degraded.  I'm finding (here in southcentral PA from a fairly good dark sky location) that the "best" view is with the 7mm eyepiece alone (about 170x).  Summer skies, while clear, still produce humidity and heat which affects atmospheric conditions.  Last winter the views were clearer.

This is true to a point. Most any earth based telescope no matter how large is limited to the amount of magnification it can use effectively due to atmospheric limitations. i.e. astronomical seeing. Generally 350x to 400x.   However, I must also point out that that a larger aperture telescope will allow you to see much more detail even at lower magnifications, say for example when you compare a 4.5"(114mm) telescope to a 10"(254mm) telescope.  
Although the 4.5" will most often be limited to a maximum of about 228x magnification, the detail would not compare to what you would see in a 10" telescope at the same or even less magnification. Magnification only increases the size of the object. You can use 228x magnification in either telescope. the Planet will look the same size, but the detail in the 10" will be much better.  The Light Grasping surface area of the telescope (Aperture) is what will determine the resolving power, or ability to resolve fine subtle detail in small objects through the telescope.  The larger the telescopes aperture the higher the resolving power.    

 

Have A Nice __________

I'll do the peanut gallery thing from tkerr's coattails.

I saw that point first hand when I looked at Jupiter the other night with both my 60 mm refractor at 56x and then with my 8" (203 mm) reflector at 40x.

The images were crisper, clearer, and more detailed through the bigger aperture scope, even at lower magnification: at 56x through the 60mm, I can barely make out two faint bands on Jupiter and the moons look like slightly smeared out stars, while through the 8" scope at 40x, I can clearly see not only two bands, but even a third, albeit faintly right below the north equatorial band... and even the great red spot!... even if rather small (but I saw it!)... and the moons were discernable as somewhat larger roundish dots.  (And all this when the images from the 60 mm stopped vibrating due to whatever nano-level phenomenon that made it shake violently.)