Telescope Question

I'm looking to buy a new telescope in the range of about $1500 AUD (approx.
750 USD) Can someone give me a suggestion as to what to get?

I've looked at the Meade telescopes and they look pretty neat, and have
contemplated the 11" over the 8"... is the difference very noticable?

I really would like to see the Orion nebula and have been told that both of
them do it... if someone could perhaps provide a link to a page where
pictures have been taken from either of these telescopes it would be greatly
appreciated... or perhaps point me in the right direction as far as
choosing the right telescope to view deep space with...

Also, i've noticed that saturn looks pretty impressive, allthough still
yellow in my 115mm telescope... i would like to get better quality of it as
it is quite impressive... i'm sure that a telescope with the capability of
viewing nebula would be able to give me a damn good picutre of what saturn
is like up close and personal?

Regards

Niko Holm

Niko Holm wrote:

I've looked at the Meade telescopes and they look pretty neat, and have
contemplated the 11" over the 8"... is the difference very noticable?


The light-gathering power of the telescope is directly proportional to the
area of lens or mirror. The area of a circle is proportional to the radius
SQUARED: Area = pi * r^2.

So yes, an 11" mirror will have substantially more light-gathering ability
than will an 8" mirror. Do the math to confirm.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.

In article , Herb Schaltegger wrote:
Niko Holm wrote:

I've looked at the Meade telescopes and they look pretty neat, and have
contemplated the 11" over the 8"... is the difference very noticable?


The light-gathering power of the telescope is directly proportional to the
area of lens or mirror. The area of a circle is proportional to the radius
SQUARED: Area = pi * r^2.

So yes, an 11" mirror will have substantially more light-gathering ability
than will an 8" mirror. Do the math to confirm.

Alternately, just remember how scammed you feel when you buy an 8" pizza
instead of a 12", "because it's two-thirds the size" ;-)

It might be worth adding, though, that an 11" scope is likely to be
pushing the limits of "easy to carry around"; I don't know if that's
important in this case.

--
-Andrew Gray

Andrew Gray wrote:

It might be worth adding, though, that an 11" scope is likely to be
pushing the limits of "easy to carry around"; I don't know if that's
important in this case.


Good point, especially given that big mirrors are heavy and generally
require even heavier mounts. Even relatively lightweight Dobsonians
require pretty bulky and heavy mounts once you get to that size.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

Good point, especially given that big mirrors are heavy and generally
require even heavier mounts. Even relatively lightweight Dobsonians
require pretty bulky and heavy mounts once you get to that size.

And if it's a classic Newtonian; as opposed to a low F-ratio Rich Field
or a Dobsonian or Cassegrain, you are probably going to need something
to stand on to get your eye up to the eyepiece on an 11 incher. Heck,
you might need something on the 11 inch Dobsonian as well.
I've lugged around a 8 inch Celestron Cassegrain, and that's about the
limit for easy portability.

Pat Flannery

Pat Flannery wrote:

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

Good point, especially given that big mirrors are heavy and generally
require even heavier mounts. Even relatively lightweight Dobsonians
require pretty bulky and heavy mounts once you get to that size.

And if it's a classic Newtonian; as opposed to a low F-ratio Rich Field
or a Dobsonian or Cassegrain, you are probably going to need something
to stand on to get your eye up to the eyepiece on an 11 incher. Heck,
you might need something on the 11 inch Dobsonian as well.
I've lugged around a 8 inch Celestron Cassegrain, and that's about the
limit for easy portability.

Pat Flannery

For that matter, if it were a classic Newtonian of that size, you might end
up requiring a scaffold (forget the ladder!) to see out of the eyepiece
while lying horizontally on your back several feet off the ground, unless
you REALLY want to hurt your neck . . . ;-)

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.

I would suggest a tour on www.scopereviews.com or www.cloudynights.com

Plenty of advice on telescope choice in both site; for individual scope
reviews
you can read the users comments in www.excelsis.com

Clear Skies, Giovanni Galeazzi

"Niko Holm" a écrit dans le message de
...
I'm looking to buy a new telescope in the range of about $1500 AUD
(approx.
750 USD) Can someone give me a suggestion as to what to get?

I've looked at the Meade telescopes and they look pretty neat, and have
contemplated the 11" over the 8"... is the difference very noticable?

I really would like to see the Orion nebula and have been told that both
of
them do it... if someone could perhaps provide a link to a page where
pictures have been taken from either of these telescopes it would be
greatly
appreciated... or perhaps point me in the right direction as far as
choosing the right telescope to view deep space with...

Also, i've noticed that saturn looks pretty impressive, allthough still
yellow in my 115mm telescope... i would like to get better quality of it
as
it is quite impressive... i'm sure that a telescope with the capability of
viewing nebula would be able to give me a damn good picutre of what saturn
is like up close and personal?

Regards

Niko Holm