Jump to content

  •  

CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.

Moon and Planetary

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
20 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 26 October 2003 - 03:10 AM

Hi,

I'm still a relative newbie when it comes to refractors.. There exists an "aperture mafia" where I live, and they're slingin' 16-20" guns. I'll try to keep it quiet as possible lest I get frisbeed in the head with an enormous dew cap. :)

I sold my 10" f/5 dobsonian mounted reflector last week and bought a Skywatcher 4.7" f/8.3 on an HEQ5 mount with steel legs/dual motor drive axes, 9x50 finder, and a Orion V-Block filter.

Why did I do this? A number of valid reasons to start with: the scope is transportable. There's lots of light pollution and poor seeing most of the year in these parts; I can't just leave the city any old time. Also, the Planets and Moon are only crisp and show detail under excellent conditions around here through a big reflector. I finished two major observing programs this past year including 2/3 of the Herschel 400. Most important is the fact I love to sketch (peacefully and sitting). Our Solar System is still #1 to me and I will be leaning toward webcam imaging in the future.

You may take a peek at a few of my sketches:

http://www.regina.ra...zer/MHolzer.htm

I saw some razor fine views through my friends smaller 4" Chinese achro about two months ago. The views in his humble telescope to me, were comparable to an 8" f/6 reflector easily on the Moon and Planets under good seeing, if not substantially sharper- he uses an Orion V-Block filter with his setup. I certainly have seen the enormous difference the filter made on bright objects. Since then I have visitied websites and have received confirmations regarding my personal experience with an achro refractor.

I am not rich like some.. Last but far from least, a refractor is a nicer looking telescope than most others. :)


Michael

P.S. I have nothing against light buckets for deep sky performace.

#2 RGM

RGM

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1,107
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2003

Posted 26 October 2003 - 07:26 AM

I have much the same set up. Using an older Vixen Super Polaris mount. The 120mm size is just right. I have also bought an OIII filter which I have yet to try - 3 weeks of clouds. Eyepieces are my next concern. I have a mixed bunch of standard plossls, 16 mm konig, 12.3 mm ED, 2 inch 40 mm E-lux and TV 2.5 powermate. I am thinking about upgrading to Pentax XW's, TV's or Speers-Walers. What eyepieces do you find that work best. Bob

#3 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 26 October 2003 - 09:13 AM

I agree. A refractor looks like a telescope. Most impressive in the larger objectives and longer focal lengths.

I've never owned any other kind.

I'd love a 9" APO at f/10 or f/11 on a big massive mount and pier, but alas, I am not rich either.

#4 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 26 October 2003 - 11:00 AM

I have a couple compound scopes & a refractor, and the refractor shows its obvious fault as compared to the compound scopes when looking at the zenith. No perfect scope...it dews up the slowest tho between them all, especially when facing straight up into cold space which makes up for the inconvience of contortion. Dave

#5 Echo

Echo

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,320
  • Joined: 29 Sep 2003

Posted 26 October 2003 - 12:29 PM

[I'd love a 9" APO at f/10 or f/11 on a big massive mount and pier, but alas, I am not rich either. [/quote]

Tha sounds familiar! Here is a link to my dream scope!
http://www.binocular...l.asp?PID=10128

#6 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 26 October 2003 - 01:40 PM

WOW!! I nearly fell outta my chair. :bigshock:

#7 Ron B[ee]

Ron B[ee]

    Tyro

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,720
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2003

Posted 26 October 2003 - 01:59 PM

I sold my 10" f/5 dobsonian mounted reflector last week and bought a Skywatcher 4.7" f/8.3 on an HEQ5 mount with steel legs/dual motor drive axes, 9x50 finder, and a Orion V-Block filter.

Why did I do this? A number of valid reasons to start with: the scope is transportable. There's lots of light pollution and poor seeing most of the year in these parts; I can't just leave the city any old time. Also, the Planets and Moon are only crisp and show detail under excellent conditions around here through a big reflector. I finished two major observing programs this past year including 2/3 of the Herschel 400. Most important is the fact I love to sketch (peacefully and sitting). Our Solar System is still #1 to me and I will be leaning toward webcam imaging in the future.

Michael


Let's me whisper too Michael 'lest those 20-incher swallow us whole :jawdrop:. Being a 4-inch Tall Evangelist, I don't subscribe to the "mass" that aperture is everything and that the choice of aperture is a very personal, life-style and zen of satisfaction choice. Afterall, there's always a bigger "fish" :lol:.

Those are very fine sketches, Michael and I hope to see some new ones through your 4.7-incher. Enjoy your new refractor.

Ron B[ee]


#8 Stacy

Stacy

    Star Partyer

  • *****
  • Posts: 11,198
  • Joined: 15 Sep 2002

Posted 26 October 2003 - 03:40 PM

I was having a blast with my new (to me) AR-5 last night till the fog rolled in. A whole different experience. Now I think I want to "trade up" to a 6" but I'm not sure. I can only just reach the controls now!

Regards,
Stacy

#9 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 26 October 2003 - 04:40 PM

Thank you for the compliment, Ron. You're too kind considering that before October, 2002, I never sketched anything before in my life. I have a long way to go and much to learn. :) And you're totally right: there's always the bigger light-gulping fish. :)

Schultze, refractors are indeed "sexy" if I might say so compared to the other choices. I'm glad you agree they "look like a telescope".

Hi Echo, nice dream scope. At 390 grand USD I think I will have to draw the line on cost there, but who knows what I'd do if I was rich. . I bet it's the bomb! I'd like to see the Moon with that monster.

Sage, yes, the buisness of looking at zenith can be a challenge.

With this particular post titled "Moon and Planetary", I was wondering if we could talk about a refractor's performance for these purposes, and what we find their strengths to be. For deep sky reflector or catadioptric discussions and debates, I think we all can go to a different forum.

If certain facets of 'apertureism' cannot be totally avoided, then what exactly are the pros of using an achro refractor?? All I ever seem hear about achro refractors tends to lean toward the negative. Since we're refractor lovers (assuming because this is a refractor forum), perhaps we can share why we are refractor affectionados. What Moon and Planetary experiences are memorable through our refractors?


Michael

#10 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 26 October 2003 - 06:20 PM

Hi Quicksilver,
Its a close tie between my 7" Mak & my 5" refractor. The big refractor is just plain PURDY sitting on the LXD55 EQ. I use the Mak only over my refractor for zenith viewing like the ring nebula etc...ive noticed double stars show the best colors thru the refractor hands down. Of course, id gladly go Echos way of a 9" APO and loose the other 2 scopes anytime! Heck, I love all my scopes what am I to do!Its too hard to just say the refractor rules when I go out to do deepsky my 8" schmidt is king, the refractor is king on doubles, and the Mak with its f15 is king on the moon & planets! What more can I say? Dave

#11 Trever

Trever

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,152
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2003

Posted 26 October 2003 - 07:24 PM

390,000 dollars!!! I would never pay that much for anything let alone a scope. My kidneys arent even worth that. lol

I'll stick with my 700 dollar refractor..lol

#12 Trever

Trever

    Gemini

  • *****
  • Posts: 3,152
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2003

Posted 26 October 2003 - 07:28 PM

Now that the shock has died down looking at that Tak..

Loved the artwork on your site, Quicksilver...

#13 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 26 October 2003 - 07:30 PM

It is a thing of beauty...no doubt...ahhh, to be rich and infamous...

#14 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 27 October 2003 - 02:42 AM

Wow..I don't know what to say....artwork? Thanks!

Maksutovs are great scopes indeed with their long focal ratios. Amazing telescopes for lunar and planetary work. I find that the four to six inch achromats are very good performers, on the Moon for example, with one of the minus violet filters on the market (Orion, Sirius Optics, etc.) The views are made even more impressive to discriminating observers, eventhough the trade-off is a noticeable yellowish cast at high magnifications. It is worth the $70 odd dollars for such a filter.

My friend's telescope which sold me on my new scope, was his combination of modest achro refractor and minus violet. I was stunned! This comes from a guy that used to jump on the dobsonian bandwagon tat "bigger is always better". Having fine tuned my perspective, I am going in the direction of discovering a modest refractor's full potential. Double stars are truly phenominal and very pleasing.

You all must admit that Echo's dream scope would work absolute wonders on the Moon and planets. . :) As soon as I win a lottery, you can bet that I would build a permanent observatory at a really dark site which housed some miraculous large refractor or Maksutov-Cassegrain.

Michael

#15 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 27 October 2003 - 08:15 AM

Id be quite happy just to be able to look thru a 6" or larger APO let alone own one, but I doubt that will ever happen in my lifetime. Have to travel to a starparty for that.........Yup the Mak is really fine for Lunar, Ill never sell that scope um.... unless someone wants to trade a 5" APO? Yea right! The v block filters are nice, ive got one on a 5" Meade that dosent have bad violet to begin with since its a f9+ anyway, but the fine focus at high mags is much better using the filter. Best filter I own to date yet. Just wish this overcast Fall weather would clear up and loose the clouds so I could use it some more! Dave

#16 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 27 October 2003 - 12:32 PM

While that giant apo would be nice, if I had that kind of money to burn on an observatory, I'd go with a very large (>1meter) Ritchey-Chretien (coma free cassegrain).

Playing with the numbers on RCoptics website, it looks like 400grand would get me something with around 50inches aperature.

www.rcopticalsystems.com/

#17 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 27 October 2003 - 03:44 PM

If I had 400 grand to blow, id RETIRE, then move to New Mexico or AZ depending on location that provided best darkskys within reasonable drive of a city, and smooze at all the starpartys I could attend & look thru their big $$$$$ scopes all the time while using my modest equipment and getting a nice tan during the day, maybe even do a few honey doos once in a blue moon, yea I think thats the proper way to spend 400 grand, thats 25yrs of work background already talking here..........................Dave

#18 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 28 October 2003 - 09:37 PM

I'm not much of a planetary observer. If there happens to be one up when I'm out that's great, but I don't usually plan on that type of observing while I'm out.

Mars didn't really do anything for me. I think I saw it twice. The moon is alright to look at. Some nights it's so bright it's about the only thing I can look at. I usually stay in those nights.

I love deep space; all kinds of clusters and nebulae, and galaxies. The harder it is to see, the more I want to look at it. I'll spend an hour looking for one little faint nebulae I probably can't even resolve, but I'll sure give it a try.

I think the thrill of the hunt is better than the kill in some cases.

#19 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 28 October 2003 - 10:08 PM

You have to admit, after the long hunt for an object, finding it is very rewarding.

#20 Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*

Guest_**DONOTDELETE**_*
  • -----
  • topic starter

Posted 03 November 2003 - 04:10 PM


I think the thrill of the hunt is better than the kill in some cases.


Well said - locating faint fuzzies can be annoying, infuriating, disappointing but when it clicks and you finally pin them down -- boy is it great :bow:

#21 Ron B[ee]

Ron B[ee]

    Tyro

  • *****
  • Posts: 4,720
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2003

Posted 03 November 2003 - 06:34 PM

I think the thrill of the hunt is better than the kill in some cases.



Or be killed as in the case when I can find it, but unable to see it (case example: Leo I) :bawling:.

Ron B[ee]



CNers have asked about a donation box for Cloudy Nights over the years, so here you go. Donation is not required by any means, so please enjoy your stay.


Recent Topics






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics