File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Some insightful anon over at /g/ suggested that I post this here.
So, are the nice people at /p/ into telescopes?
If so, which one do you own and what's your rig?

(orion always related)
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
I'm not anonymous.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>116243
... or insightful.

ZING!
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>116244
Best Post of the Day award.
>> Anonymous
I just realized that the amount of namefags/tripfags in this board reaches a staggering amount. I'm not saying it's bad, just pointing it out.
You can tell i'm the OP.
But /p/, c'mon tell me about your telescopes.
>>116243
Is this really worth it? You said it would be.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>116244
ICE BURN
>> Anonymous
>>116242
Isn`t this where aliens live, wonder why Nasa don`t send Space Shuttle for a closer look. Would it be possible to spot their home planet with a really good telescope?
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
>>116242

I have a 90mm Meade Maksutov and a 10" Orion Dobsonian. I probably use the small telescope more because I do a lot of lunar observing and because it tracks. I'm actually in to planetary geology and there's a good chance I'll get to do lunar research with one of my professors after LRO goes up.
>> Anonymous
I'm not "into telescopes", but considering I'm an astronomy major, knowing at least a little about them is a requirement. All I can really recommend to an ameture is to get one that tracks. bright objects are easy to see, but kinda boring (without some serious equipment, they just look like points). get one that tracks so you can do longer exposure shots and take pictures of something worth looking at.
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
>>116311

Define "bright objects". 99.99% of the "bright objects" are going to be stars and will never be anything BUT bright points, even with serious Hubble-like equipment.

How can you be an astronomy major and not be "in to telescopes"? Or are you one of those people who love astronomy but at the first mention of a random Messier object say, "lol wat?"
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
As far as recommendations, I say get an 8" or 10" Dobsonian. It doesn't have any tracking capability, but it's the biggest aperture for the lowest price. Most come with a few eyepieces, and I recommend getting a barlow and at least one 2" eyepiece around 30mm or 40mm for a nice wide view.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
Get one of the big ones. From what I gather the bigger the better. Then all you need to do is look in the small end and point the big end at something else.

Easy peasy. Noting to this telescope business.
>> Anonymous
We got a telescope person a few days ago.

Butterfly, is /g/ trying to start something with us?
>> Anonymous
>>116316
not as much as you would think.

from "An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics" by Carrol and Ostlie (my textbook for this quarter)

"Unfortunatly, despite the implications of Eq[uation] 6.6, the resolution of ground based telescopes does not improve without limit as the size of the primary lens or mirror is increased unless certain complex, real-time adjustments are made to the optical system...some of the best seeing conditions found anywhere in the world are at mauna kea observatories in Hawaii, located 4200m (13,800 ft.) above sea level where resolution is between .5" and.6" approximately 50% of the time, improving to .25" on the best nights"

equation 6.6: (theta)min = (1.22)(lambda/D)

plugging in 500 nm for lambda (visable red light), and .5" --> .000 002 4 radians, we get

D=(500x10^-9)((1.22)/(.000 002 4))=~.25 meters
=~9.8 inches for the other americans here

so there you go. because of the atmosphere, your 10 inch telescope has as good resolution as a government multimillion dollar telescope on a prime observing location about 50% of the time. mind you, you won't collect as much light, and things like dirt, light pollution, etc will throw you off, but in theory with a long exposure, a good CCD camera, and a good tracking system, you can take near-profession photographs with ameture equipment.
>> Anonymous
>>116316
actually, the reason why I am not "into telescopes" is because I live in seattle, and have for all of my life. the only visable constellations here are the big dipper and orion, so owning a telescope here is pointless. Also, I am only a junior, so at this point all our learning is textbook (well, not entirely. I have dome some observations on a 2m radiotelescope, but with a beam width of 7 degrees, about the only star you can see is the sun, so that doesn't count). next year I'll start doing actual observations, so I may become more interested then.
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
>>116331

How does this relate to my post?

>>116311said
>bright objects are easy to see, but kinda boring (without some serious equipment, they just look like points)

To which I said with or without serious equipment, most bright points are still going to be bright points (considering most bright points are stars).
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
>>116336

Oh, that actually does suck. Lots of cloud cover, I guess?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>116338
I was trying to say that the disparity in the ability to resolve objects between an ameture and a professional is much smaller than what what I felt you were implying.

I felt you were implying a statement to the effect of "all you will ever be able to see is points sources (stars) no matter how good your telescope is." I felt this statement was false and needed to be corrected.

It appears that I misinterpreted you, and I apologize for that.

P.S. pic is of something someone did on a 16" telescope.
http://www.telescopes.cc/default.htm
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>116340

could cover's pretty bad, but mostly it's the light pollution. here's a light pollution chart. note seattle being the little red spot.
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
>>116360

Light pollution is terrible here, too (Dallas-Fort Worth). But don't let that stop you from getting a telescope. I've seen magnitude 9 with my little 90mm.
>> Anonymous
Seattle is why God made AIDS.
>> Anonymous
>>116336
Yeah. I'm glad I'm leaving Seattle in March...but probably for California :(
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
aging a thread from three pages back.

there's a world of difference between being an amateur astronomer who enjoys the hobby of observation and the scientific astronomer who gets his jollies from math. a lot of astronomers get like, two weeks every two years with a real telescope and spend the next years computing and analyzing.

i would, however, kill any optical engineer who said he (or she) wasn't into telescopes.

i own a 90mm meade refractor and a 12" dob that i made one summer with my dad. ground my own glass and everything. currently saving up for a rich field scope or two. there's no point in going broke over a telescope when your local university holds a star party probably every week. that, and most galaxies still look pretty boring through even a 16" schmidt cassegrain.
>> Anonymous
>>116360
One reason I love living in Tasmania (Australia). The view is amazing.
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
>>116576

>there's a world of difference between being an amateur astronomer who enjoys the hobby of observation and the scientific astronomer who gets his jollies from math.

Partially true, but the two often mix. The few professional astronomers I know all enjoy the amateur aspect, as well.

There are amateurs that contribute meaningful science and data to the community with their home telescopes. Probably the only thing that makes them amateur is they don't have research grants. :)