Is 284X _really_ that bad?

Hi, I'm a newcomer to astronomy. And after first using my Mead ETX-60AT,
I found that while the images were sharp enough, the magnification was
so tiny that the images were impossible to make out, so I purchased a 3X
1.25" barlow lens and 4mm Plössl 1.25" eyepiece, then promptly didn't
get around to using them, until now.

Today(On my father's birthday) we went out to look at. Among other
things, Mars. And saw a slightly haloed pale fuzzy circle that I could
_just barely_ make out a whitish-orangeness toward the lower left on and
a bluish-grayness on the upper right of. But that's not the part I was
annoyed at, Mars, while just a tiny glowing dot on the included lenses,
was(Once properly focused) still smaller in visible diameter through the
284x barlow/Plössl than a toothpick held at arm's length.

Whether or not I get a better telescope(Detail-wise), am I doomed
forever to tiny little dots hiding upon an ocean of blackness in the
eyepiece. Or do even higher magnifications actually allow it to take up
a respectable amount of room(SayŠ 1/3rd of the eyepiece's visible
diameter)?

Also, how does optical magnification/blur in telescope/binocular
eyepieces work? Is it like zooming an image in a computer, where a
zoomed image is blurrier than a non-zoomed image, but has all the detail
of the same image prior to zooming. Or does optically magnifying an
image from telescopes/binoculars actually result in detail(I.E.: Data)
loss?






Eric,

Resolvability in a telescope is linked to its aperture. With larger scopes
you'll be able to use higher magnifications to greater advantage. But if
you push past a certain threshold (about 50x per inch of aperture), the
image will get dimmer and mushier.

Keep in mind also that Mars, even during it's current opposition, is a
pretty small object---not the best suited to a 60mm refractor. You should
be able to pick up the polar caps and a few dusky markings, but sharp images
will always be pretty small. You should have better luck with the moon,
Jupiter, Saturn, and a number of the brighter deep sky objects.


"Eric" wrote in message
...
Hi, I'm a newcomer to astronomy. And after first using my Mead ETX-60AT,
I found that while the images were sharp enough, the magnification was
so tiny that the images were impossible to make out, so I purchased a 3X
1.25" barlow lens and 4mm Plössl 1.25" eyepiece, then promptly didn't
get around to using them, until now.

Today(On my father's birthday) we went out to look at. Among other
things, Mars. And saw a slightly haloed pale fuzzy circle that I could
_just barely_ make out a whitish-orangeness toward the lower left on and
a bluish-grayness on the upper right of. But that's not the part I was
annoyed at, Mars, while just a tiny glowing dot on the included lenses,
was(Once properly focused) still smaller in visible diameter through the
284x barlow/Plössl than a toothpick held at arm's length.

Whether or not I get a better telescope(Detail-wise), am I doomed
forever to tiny little dots hiding upon an ocean of blackness in the
eyepiece. Or do even higher magnifications actually allow it to take up
a respectable amount of room(SayS 1/3rd of the eyepiece's visible
diameter)?

Also, how does optical magnification/blur in telescope/binocular
eyepieces work? Is it like zooming an image in a computer, where a
zoomed image is blurrier than a non-zoomed image, but has all the detail
of the same image prior to zooming. Or does optically magnifying an
image from telescopes/binoculars actually result in detail(I.E.: Data)
loss?






Eric,

Resolvability in a telescope is linked to its aperture. With larger scopes
you'll be able to use higher magnifications to greater advantage. But if
you push past a certain threshold (about 50x per inch of aperture), the
image will get dimmer and mushier.

Keep in mind also that Mars, even during it's current opposition, is a
pretty small object---not the best suited to a 60mm refractor. You should
be able to pick up the polar caps and a few dusky markings, but sharp images
will always be pretty small. You should have better luck with the moon,
Jupiter, Saturn, and a number of the brighter deep sky objects.


"Eric" wrote in message
...
Hi, I'm a newcomer to astronomy. And after first using my Mead ETX-60AT,
I found that while the images were sharp enough, the magnification was
so tiny that the images were impossible to make out, so I purchased a 3X
1.25" barlow lens and 4mm Plössl 1.25" eyepiece, then promptly didn't
get around to using them, until now.

Today(On my father's birthday) we went out to look at. Among other
things, Mars. And saw a slightly haloed pale fuzzy circle that I could
_just barely_ make out a whitish-orangeness toward the lower left on and
a bluish-grayness on the upper right of. But that's not the part I was
annoyed at, Mars, while just a tiny glowing dot on the included lenses,
was(Once properly focused) still smaller in visible diameter through the
284x barlow/Plössl than a toothpick held at arm's length.

Whether or not I get a better telescope(Detail-wise), am I doomed
forever to tiny little dots hiding upon an ocean of blackness in the
eyepiece. Or do even higher magnifications actually allow it to take up
a respectable amount of room(SayS 1/3rd of the eyepiece's visible
diameter)?

Also, how does optical magnification/blur in telescope/binocular
eyepieces work? Is it like zooming an image in a computer, where a
zoomed image is blurrier than a non-zoomed image, but has all the detail
of the same image prior to zooming. Or does optically magnifying an
image from telescopes/binoculars actually result in detail(I.E.: Data)
loss?






Eric,

Whether or not I get a better telescope(Detail-wise), am I doomed
forever to tiny little dots hiding upon an ocean of blackness in the
eyepiece. Or do even higher magnifications actually allow it to take up
a respectable amount of room(

Hi:

The amount of room taken up in a field by a planet really doesn't matter. At
250x - 300x you should see quite a bit of detail in Mars if your optics are up
to it. I'll often use 500x with 8 inch and larger telescopes on the planets,
but there's no denying that even at 500x even Jupiter is relatively "small." If
you want big, think imaging.

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

Whether or not I get a better telescope(Detail-wise), am I doomed
forever to tiny little dots hiding upon an ocean of blackness in the
eyepiece. Or do even higher magnifications actually allow it to take up
a respectable amount of room(

Hi:

The amount of room taken up in a field by a planet really doesn't matter. At
250x - 300x you should see quite a bit of detail in Mars if your optics are up
to it. I'll often use 500x with 8 inch and larger telescopes on the planets,
but there's no denying that even at 500x even Jupiter is relatively "small." If
you want big, think imaging.

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

true, but still it is strange that mars in his scope, with 284x still is
just a dot, isn't it? it should be a mushy disc.


Hi:

I'm guessing that's what he's got. He's calling it a "dot" since it doesn't
take up the whole field of view.

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

true, but still it is strange that mars in his scope, with 284x still is
just a dot, isn't it? it should be a mushy disc.


Hi:

I'm guessing that's what he's got. He's calling it a "dot" since it doesn't
take up the whole field of view.

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers!
Goto http://members.aol.com/RMOLLISE/index.html

"Eric" wrote in message
...
Hi, I'm a newcomer to astronomy. And after first using my Mead ETX-60AT,
I found that while the images were sharp enough, the magnification was
so tiny that the images were impossible to make out, so I purchased a 3X
1.25" barlow lens and 4mm Plössl 1.25" eyepiece, then promptly didn't
get around to using them, until now.

Today(On my father's birthday) we went out to look at. Among other
things, Mars. And saw a slightly haloed pale fuzzy circle that I could
_just barely_ make out a whitish-orangeness toward the lower left on and
a bluish-grayness on the upper right of. But that's not the part I was
annoyed at, Mars, while just a tiny glowing dot on the included lenses,
was(Once properly focused) still smaller in visible diameter through the
284x barlow/Plössl than a toothpick held at arm's length.

There is the distinct possibility that you are not looking at mars at all.
You are looking at something else.
At 284 X, mars is a clearly a disc, one or both polar caps are visible, (or
it looks like a flaming oil derrick if seeing is bad), I would guess the
apparent diamter is like that of a quarter or half dollar held at arms
length. If you are at 284 power, then you're not looling at Mars. You
moved your scope, or didn't set it up correctly, or some other factor.
Happy birthday to your dad.

Etok



__________________________________________________ ____________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

"Eric" wrote in message
...
Hi, I'm a newcomer to astronomy. And after first using my Mead ETX-60AT,
I found that while the images were sharp enough, the magnification was
so tiny that the images were impossible to make out, so I purchased a 3X
1.25" barlow lens and 4mm Plössl 1.25" eyepiece, then promptly didn't
get around to using them, until now.

Today(On my father's birthday) we went out to look at. Among other
things, Mars. And saw a slightly haloed pale fuzzy circle that I could
_just barely_ make out a whitish-orangeness toward the lower left on and
a bluish-grayness on the upper right of. But that's not the part I was
annoyed at, Mars, while just a tiny glowing dot on the included lenses,
was(Once properly focused) still smaller in visible diameter through the
284x barlow/Plössl than a toothpick held at arm's length.

There is the distinct possibility that you are not looking at mars at all.
You are looking at something else.
At 284 X, mars is a clearly a disc, one or both polar caps are visible, (or
it looks like a flaming oil derrick if seeing is bad), I would guess the
apparent diamter is like that of a quarter or half dollar held at arms
length. If you are at 284 power, then you're not looling at Mars. You
moved your scope, or didn't set it up correctly, or some other factor.
Happy birthday to your dad.

Etok



__________________________________________________ ____________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

In article ,
(Rod Mollise) wrote:

true, but still it is strange that mars in his scope, with 284x still is
just a dot, isn't it? it should be a mushy disc.


Hi:

I'm guessing that's what he's got. He's calling it a "dot" since it doesn't
take up the whole field of view.

Yeah, I suppose so, I actually could make out a slight difference
between the lower left and the upper right in color, so it definitely
wasn't a star. I guess that Mollise was probably correct, and that
astrophotography would likely be the way to go, especially since the
ETX-60AT has tracking capabilities.

After looking around a bit, I've noticed various disparaging terms such
as "Binocs with GoTo" applied to the ETXs, so I suppose I shouldn't get
my hopes up _quite_ so high.

Still though, I guess there's always the moon, which is an easy target
for sure, maybe I'll be able to make out the lander's shadow. :-)





Eric,