serious lunar detail
Posted 29 September 2013 - 10:16 AM
any suggestions on a best telescope for serious lunar observing details ? is large aperture better ? thanks,kevin
Posted 29 September 2013 - 12:34 PM
Now for the "affording it" part. Remember, you have to think about price, where the scope will be used, where it will be stored, and how it will be moved, and all of this relative to your living situation and physical prowess. The only reason I have a 12" dob is because I store it in the garage and have installed 60" wheelbarrow handles and 14" wheels on it. Otherwise, I would not be able to move it around alone. I roll it into the garage just inside the door, so moving it in and out is easy. The wheels are held on by 1/2" wing nuts and can be removed in seconds to observe. Feel free to ask as many questions as you need.
Posted 29 September 2013 - 07:57 PM
Posted 29 September 2013 - 11:31 PM
My 70mm shows a serious amount if detail.
Posted 30 September 2013 - 07:34 AM
Of course an advantage to larger aperture is that - in general - you will see more detail than through smaller aperture. Another advantage is that a larger aperture will provide your eye a larger exit pupil at the same magnification of a smaller telescope. If you have eye floaters, a larger exit pupil will make them less obvious.
Posted 02 October 2013 - 01:23 PM
Posted 02 October 2013 - 04:25 PM
I would give a try with a good 8" and after several seasons, you can then decide what is the best from your own experience.
Posted 02 October 2013 - 05:24 PM
Posted 03 October 2013 - 08:56 PM
Posted 04 October 2013 - 06:12 AM
A more important limitation is the stability of the atmosphere where you live. I live under a very unstable bit of sky and at times can only use X 75 on my 10" newt. that can magnify up to X 500 before the image goes so wobbly I get sea sick! Ontario should be stable, so it might be OK with a bigger scope.
In my area, the more aperture you use, the more wavy the image seems to be due to atmospheric issues. My 120mm ED refractor gives a very nice view. In general, the max. magnification that you should plan on being able to use is 2 times the aperture (in mm). Beyond that magnification, the image gets too dim for my tastes.
I routinely travel 100 miles round trip to enjoy darker skies for deep sky objects. Maybe you can find an observing site within about 50 miles that has better seeing for the Moon? Something to think about. It's a shame to limit your aperture due to local seeing conditions.
Posted 04 October 2013 - 05:03 PM
It all depends on the seeing.
Posted 04 October 2013 - 05:12 PM
Posted 04 October 2013 - 07:18 PM
Yup, I tried looking a a full moon with a 14.5"f4 with no filter. I thought I'd gone blind. 1/4 to 1/2 Moon, push it right up to 1000x without a 2nd thought.
Clear Dark Skies
Posted 06 October 2013 - 04:00 PM
I can easily spend 3 hours studying the moon in my 80mm. Am I seeing "serious detail"? Dunno. I'd prefer to call it, "enjoyable detail".
Some years ago I had a 12.5" Discovery. IMO, you'd have to be crazy serious to need something larger than that. My 8" is all I need these days so getting back to your question. I hazard an opinion that anything in the 8" to 12" range would satisfy most anyone's definition of "serious detail".
Posted 07 October 2013 - 03:36 PM
Because of the size, weight, and setup time for larger telescopes and the bulky mounts they need, I'm starting to prefer smaller, lighter ones and find myself looking through my 90 mm more often than my 250 mm scope. Just getting older I guess
Posted 07 October 2013 - 03:53 PM
Posted 07 October 2013 - 04:28 PM
Posted 07 October 2013 - 06:02 PM