Jump to content


Photo

There is the telescope "perfect" for the Moon?

  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#26 rg55

rg55

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1012
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2008
  • Loc: western US

Posted 23 April 2013 - 09:25 PM

Here's some Moon taken through my 5" Mak. NexImage 5 camera.

Attached Files



#27 doug mc

doug mc

    Mariner 2

  • *****
  • Posts: 209
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2009
  • Loc: Tamborine Mountain Australia

Posted 23 April 2013 - 10:32 PM

One that is well baffeled for stray light. The moon puts out a lot of light into your scope. scattered light ruins the view

#28 Eric63

Eric63

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 958
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2012
  • Loc: Ottawa, Ontario

Posted 24 April 2013 - 11:47 AM

:waytogo: That's really nice Richard. I'm new at lunar observing and I just love the view in my 127Mak. I often view at 200X and it can easily take 250X. I'm now flocking my 150F5 Newt and can't wait to test it on the moon.

To think that last year I hated when the moon was out since I affected DSO viewing. Now I'm dissapointed when it is NOT out. :grin:

Eric

#29 PhilCo126

PhilCo126

    Gemini

  • -----
  • Posts: 3254
  • Joined: 14 Jan 2005
  • Loc: coastline of Belgium

Posted 26 April 2013 - 05:00 AM

Visual observing Moon & Planets = refractor ( I use a 152 mm achro to observe visually ).

#30 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16848
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 26 April 2013 - 07:55 AM

Here's some Moon taken through my 5" Mak. NexImage 5 camera.


How did it look when you were actually using your eyes, not the camera? :poke:

:grin:
Mike

#31 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16848
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 26 April 2013 - 08:03 AM

Hello,
It is often said that to observe the moon, almost any telescope goes well.
But, in his opinion there is some model above the rest to be a little better for lunar observation?
From what aperture lunar observation becomes interesting, detailed and serious observation?
greetings


There are levels of lunar detail to suit most any aperture and type of telescope that you point at the Moon. But if you are interested in finer surface detail, you will need larger aperture. Of course, I can see the most detail with my 10" Dob, but I still enjoy taking out the 90mm Mak for grab-n-go views of the Moon.

The only telescope I have which I do not think is a good Moon scope is my ST80. IME, fast refractors, especially small ones, have too much chromatic aberration for enjoyable lunar observing. At least I didn't like it. My 100mm f/9.8 achromat wasn't bad for lunar, but I still prefer reflectors when viewing the Moon. Whether Newt, Mak or SCT, I think they give a cleaner, purer image. Just my preference. I'm sure an APO would be fine for lunar, but I doubt if I'll ever have one of those.

Also, IMO & IME, binoculars do not cut it for Moon viewing. Just not enough magnification for a good look, even in my 25x100 binos.

Mike

#32 Sarkikos

Sarkikos

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 16848
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2007
  • Loc: Per sylvam ad astra

Posted 26 April 2013 - 08:25 AM

Pete,

I realy considered mirror grinding some months ago. The hundreds of hours involved for the size I wanted and the improbability of success was a total downer. If I were younger with more hours in my day than I have now I'd be compelled. Such as it is tho - I have no such time budget or patience to make a 400 hour flop.


I agree. My time is worth something. I'd rather take my chances with the Chinese Mirror Lottery or buy a mirror special made for me by a skilled craftsman.

But so far my luck with the Chinese Mirror Lottery has been pretty good! :fingerscrossed:

Mike

#33 pdxmoon

pdxmoon

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1023
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2013
  • Loc: Oregon

Posted 05 July 2013 - 09:38 PM

Resurrecting this because I'm in the agony of buying a scope primarily for lunar viewing.

I have to tell you I prefer a refractor; I'm not up to messing with collmenation; if I have to worry about that, the scope will never get used.

I want to keep scope, mount and eyepieces in the 1k range.

I've had the following suggestions:

Vixen ED80s with a Porta II
SkyWatcher 100ED with Porta Mount or a cobbled together heartier mount that sets me back between $400 or $450 (and a bit over budget.)

I'm wondering about this:
Celestron Omni

I'd appreciate your thoughts.

#34 A6Q6

A6Q6

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 801
  • Joined: 31 May 2011
  • Loc: Stroudsburg,Pa,U.S.A

Posted 06 July 2013 - 03:50 PM

what do you have now? How about a used one. I just got a classic orange tube Celestron 5 that I think is from 1980-83 the optics are unbelievable. I got it at a pawn shop for only $100. Bigger is not always better. Its all about the time you have to setup, location(seeing)and what you have to spend. If you get a good used scope that is easy to set up you will use it more. Down the road you can get something bigger, but a good grab and go is always a great thing to have. The little C5 has become that for me.

#35 photonovore

photonovore

    Moonatic

  • *****
  • Posts: 2857
  • Joined: 24 Dec 2004
  • Loc: tacoma wa

Posted 06 July 2013 - 03:54 PM

Depends on how much of a hurry you are in. ~5" is the minimum aperture i'd want.

Hurry: The 120 omni seems a reasonable choice-- altho i know nothing about the optical quality--so i would only buy with return rights (which really goes for any scope--cause you never know...). I'd be sure and add the drives (129$) and an orion accufocuser (60$) as well.. Any aid that eliminates *touching* the scope during use is a big plus--elec focuser + driven mount= zero observing frustration.

If time is your friend:
AR-5 w/ the LXD-75 mount (~300$ota+500$mount). Little color and when unlimited by seeing the resolution you will get is simply extraordinary. The mount is much better then the Omni's too of course. But, downside, you'd have to wait, stalk the classifieds and spend a couple hundred extra for this option.

Either way, you'll need a diagonal: GSO/Owl dielectric 2" diagonal w/ 1.25 adapter is a good choice (~100$)-- but with just the Moon a good 90% reflectivity diagonal (GSO) will do just fine (~70$). And a good 2x ED barlow will keep ep costs down. EP's are easy to overspend on. My favs are unobtainium these days (Apogee orthos) but I can say this: "ortho" (or expensive) doesn't necessarily mean "good"--I have gotten *better* resolution from cheap GSO plossls (Owl Astronomy) than from UO orthos for example. Speaking of Owl, they currently carry the Parks line (Lumicon) which, if *i* was shopping ep's, i'd take a hard look at. He might make you a deal if you get a package of a barlow, a couple of parks silver line ep's (100$) and a diagonal. Limit minimum focal lengths based upon the 50x/inch rule. A good ~10mm and ~17mm is about all you'd need with either scope (1000-1200mm) to get started along with a decent ED barlow. If you really get into this you'll want a binoviewer down the road.

The Moon is, optically, a very pedestrian (undemanding) target. All you need to enjoy it is good narrow/mid field monochromatic resolution and this can be had without resorting to pricey optical exotica. A 1K budget, wisely spent, should set you up very nicely.

#36 pdxmoon

pdxmoon

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1023
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2013
  • Loc: Oregon

Posted 07 July 2013 - 11:30 AM

A6Q6, I have a Celestron Firstscope 80EQ. It's been a good scope, but I'm about to lose it to my son, so I'll be without. I'd like to stick with a refractor.

I've been thinking about moving up to a Skywatcher 100ED, or the 80ED, or the Vixen 80ED. If I could find any of these used, I'd probably go for it.

I want it almost exclusively for the moon. I'm also not opposed to another 80mm f/11. I can deal with the small amount of CA I may get.

#37 azure1961p

azure1961p

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 10386
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2009
  • Loc: USA

Posted 07 July 2013 - 02:46 PM

The refractor forum would offer excellent advice Barnum!

Pete

#38 pdxmoon

pdxmoon

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1023
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2013
  • Loc: Oregon

Posted 07 July 2013 - 02:50 PM

Thank you--the refractor forum has given me good counsel!

#39 coopman

coopman

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3468
  • Joined: 23 Apr 2006
  • Loc: South Louisiana

Posted 14 July 2013 - 06:47 PM

Back when I had my C8, it gave me some great views when it was cooled down & the atmosphere cooperated properly. Like Thomas said above, aperture is very important so that you can pump up the power w/o the image getting too dim due to the exit pupil issues. Contrast is the best with a refractor, but the small aperture limits how much power you can use effectively. More aperture = better resolution too. The moon usually looks impressive with any decent scope, but if you really want to get good, detailed close-up views at 300X or higher, I recommend at least 8" of aperture.

#40 Da Bear

Da Bear

    Viking 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 21 Nov 2006
  • Loc: Kali-Forn-Ya

Posted 17 July 2013 - 01:17 PM

My 8" f/8 Cave reflector is a great moon scope, and I can use a 4mm ep on nights with great seeing.

Da Bear

Attached Files



#41 russell23

russell23

    Skylab

  • *****
  • Posts: 4407
  • Joined: 31 May 2009
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 19 July 2013 - 03:41 PM

I prefer a moon that doesn't blind me. It actually at 2mm exit pupil is just on the edge of tolerable. My favorite view is 1.2mm exit pupil(with a #8 yellow filter and 83x) to cut down the glare. I see more when able to have my eye at the eyepiece and I see nothing when I have to take frequent brakes due to eye comfort.


I have a similar preference. I use a 107mm aperture mask with my 140mm refractor and enjoy the views the best at 100-120x.

Dave

#42 Dave Mitsky

Dave Mitsky

    ISS

  • *****
  • Moderators
  • Posts: 35937
  • Joined: 08 Apr 2002
  • Loc: PA, USA, Planet Earth

Posted 20 July 2013 - 09:15 PM

Over the years, I've observed the Moon through many dozens of different telescopes of varying designs and apertures. One of the scopes that I've used quite often is a 17" f/15 classical Cassegrain reflector, usually at magnifications ranging from 162 to 324x. I feel no need to use filters at smaller exit pupils. Occasionally, I'll use the old trick of turning on a white light.

Dave Mitsky

#43 Javier1978

Javier1978

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 833
  • Joined: 12 Feb 2009

Posted 21 July 2013 - 10:03 PM

I became a really enthusiastic lunar observer in the last year. I have a Syntha 8" f6 dob an it´s a terrific performer. A couple of nights ago I saw the Alpine Valley Rille at 270x for the first time, impressive experience. Catena Davy also looked terrific.

With a 1" thick mirror, I think it´s a really powerful "semi" grab an go.

#44 pdxmoon

pdxmoon

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1023
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2013
  • Loc: Oregon

Posted 21 July 2013 - 10:21 PM

Since I first wrote my first post in this thread, I've observed the moon through several scopes:

The Celestron 80ED has given me wonderful views, with 200x bright and clear, about all I can push it to with good seeing.

The Cometron 60mm has also been lovely at low power; crisp, clean, helped me learn the basic selenology of the lunar surface.

A 70mm Celestron short scope that I got at a garage sale gave me some very good grab and go views--a 10mm barlowed at 2x was sharp and bright.

And finally, a new to me late 60s Tasco gave me a very acrobatic (I had to lay on the ground, haha) view of the moon last night. But there was magic looking through that ep and that small FOV and seeing THE MOON there.

At a star party last night, I looked through 8" dobs, a 13?" dob, a Vixen 100mm Mak, the Orion 90 Mak, a few gigantic maks with complex computers, 102 4" achro, and even a reflector or two. And I came away with this overwhelming feeling that just about every scope will do service as a moon scope. They all have their special properties, and one may have a two speed focus pull and one more aperture, but I no longer worry that I don't have enough scope for the moon.

Thank goodness there is one celestial object where just about anybody, at any entry price point, can have the joy of exploration!No matter how you observe it, with whatever instrument you use, the moon is always more than just a faint dot in a black field. Lady Luna always puts on a show.

#45 cpsTN

cpsTN

    Mercury-Atlas

  • ****-
  • Posts: 2502
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2007
  • Loc: Rutherford Co, TN

Posted 27 July 2013 - 08:33 AM

I commonly use my 12" f/5 dob (FL 1520mm) on the Moon at 243x (12.5x and 2x barlow). Great detail and smooth-ish surface.

#46 ed_turco

ed_turco

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1389
  • Joined: 29 Aug 2009
  • Loc: Lincoln, RI

Posted 31 July 2013 - 12:16 PM

It does NOT take 400 hours to work that size mirror. What mfg told you this?

#47 67champ

67champ

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 583
  • Joined: 03 Jul 2006
  • Loc: Ohio, USA

Posted 01 August 2013 - 05:35 PM

Eric,

I also have a 127mm Mak-cass and I love it. However, for about 3 weeks I had a 180mm Mak-cass, and it was noticably better! One day I would like to get another 180mm mak or bigger again. Probably need a focal reducer with them though.....

dana t

#48 TomCorbett

TomCorbett

    Mariner 2

  • -----
  • Posts: 279
  • Joined: 08 Jul 2013

Posted 06 August 2013 - 01:04 PM

Nice scope . . . nice retriever.

#49 pdxmoon

pdxmoon

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1023
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2013
  • Loc: Oregon

Posted 18 August 2013 - 05:00 PM

Well, I'd like to nominate a scope for darn near perfect grab and go for the moon:

The AT72ED

Great views!

Attached Files








Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics