Which is better for moon and planets?

Hello:

I am fairly familiar with binocular astronomy but am new to telescope
astronomy.

After going to a number of astronomy club meetings in my area, and trying
out different kinds of scopes, I am finding that I would like to concentrate
more on lunar and planetary observing, mostly lunar actually, and am trying
to learn what telescope style/type would be best for this?

I'm open to any suggestions be it refractor or reflector (SCT) or otherwise.
I am willing to spend some money ~$1000+/-. Can I get something decent for
this price or should I keep saving more for something better.

Could you please include your reasons for any suggestions made, so that I
can learn what the thinking is on this subject.

I am not stuck on a specific brand of scope so any ideas would be
appreciated.

Thanks,
Francis Marion

"Francis Marion" wrote in message
news:WMr9c.20594$K91.64778@attbi_s02...
Hello:

I am fairly familiar with binocular astronomy but am new to telescope
astronomy.

After going to a number of astronomy club meetings in my area, and trying
out different kinds of scopes, I am finding that I would like to
concentrate
more on lunar and planetary observing, mostly lunar actually, and am
trying
to learn what telescope style/type would be best for this?

I'm open to any suggestions be it refractor or reflector (SCT) or
otherwise.
I am willing to spend some money ~$1000+/-. Can I get something decent
for
this price or should I keep saving more for something better.

Could you please include your reasons for any suggestions made, so that I
can learn what the thinking is on this subject.

Francis,

You've looked through some telescopes courtesy of the local astronomy club.
Have you gotten any sense of what you'd like from that? Your experience can
be far more important than any advice you will get from us folks here.

Generally, the best value for the money is a "Dobsonian," which is a
Newtonian reflector on a simple but effective altazimuth mount. This has
the advantage of giving you the most aperture for the money. Assuming good
optics, aperture is the most important factor in how much detail you can see
on the Moon and planets. The downside to a Dob is that it does not track,
which is a disadvantge for high power lunar and planetary viewing.

If you haven't seen them, I'd recommend checking out "Nigh****ch," by
Terence Dickinson, and "The Backyard Astronomer's Guide," by Dickinson and
Alan Dyer.

Clear skies, Alan

"Francis Marion" wrote in message
news:WMr9c.20594$K91.64778@attbi_s02...
Hello:

I am fairly familiar with binocular astronomy but am new to telescope
astronomy.

After going to a number of astronomy club meetings in my area, and trying
out different kinds of scopes, I am finding that I would like to
concentrate
more on lunar and planetary observing, mostly lunar actually, and am
trying
to learn what telescope style/type would be best for this?

I'm open to any suggestions be it refractor or reflector (SCT) or
otherwise.
I am willing to spend some money ~$1000+/-. Can I get something decent
for
this price or should I keep saving more for something better.

Could you please include your reasons for any suggestions made, so that I
can learn what the thinking is on this subject.

Francis,

You've looked through some telescopes courtesy of the local astronomy club.
Have you gotten any sense of what you'd like from that? Your experience can
be far more important than any advice you will get from us folks here.

Generally, the best value for the money is a "Dobsonian," which is a
Newtonian reflector on a simple but effective altazimuth mount. This has
the advantage of giving you the most aperture for the money. Assuming good
optics, aperture is the most important factor in how much detail you can see
on the Moon and planets. The downside to a Dob is that it does not track,
which is a disadvantge for high power lunar and planetary viewing.

If you haven't seen them, I'd recommend checking out "Nigh****ch," by
Terence Dickinson, and "The Backyard Astronomer's Guide," by Dickinson and
Alan Dyer.

Clear skies, Alan

"Francis Marion" wrote in message
news:WMr9c.20594$K91.64778@attbi_s02...
Hello:

I am fairly familiar with binocular astronomy but am new to telescope
astronomy.

After going to a number of astronomy club meetings in my area, and trying
out different kinds of scopes, I am finding that I would like to
concentrate
more on lunar and planetary observing, mostly lunar actually, and am
trying
to learn what telescope style/type would be best for this?

I'm open to any suggestions be it refractor or reflector (SCT) or
otherwise.
I am willing to spend some money ~$1000+/-. Can I get something decent
for
this price or should I keep saving more for something better.

Could you please include your reasons for any suggestions made, so that I
can learn what the thinking is on this subject.

I am not stuck on a specific brand of scope so any ideas would be
appreciated.

Thanks,
Francis Marion
The problem is that there is a very significant 'balancing act' with price.
Let's start with some 'fundamental' statements (many are 'arguable', but the
basic parts are pretty true):
A refractor _will_ show chromatic aberration. Getting this down to 'good'
levels is expensive. This is why 'cheap refractors', can be very
unsatisfying. The central obstruction in a reflector, will degrade contrast
slightly, _but_ this is almost indetectable for small obstructions.
A 'perfect' refractor, will for it's size beat a reflector.
You can buy much larger mirrors for a given price, than lenses.
You specifically say 'moon/planets', and this suggests that a relatively
long focal length might be worthwhile.
A little above you price I think (given the current $/£ ratio), the Orion UK
(not to be confused with Orion optics US), OMC140, is a 'cracking' planetary
scope. The quality of the optics is good. However on the most basic mount,
it works out at about $1150, and a more solid motorised mount, then pushes
the price well above your budget.
For a refractor, which works well, the Orion (US) 80ED, is worth looking at.
However a larger scope will normally see more (this sort of scope is popular
with people who allready have a bigger model, and want something small that
is good for it's size, for 'mobile' use).
Now, a Newtonian really does allways 'stand out' as the most 'scope per
buck'. If you get an 8" to 10" Newtonian, with a relatively small CO, this
will probably represent the best total 'value', but with the downside of
bulk.

Best Wishes

"Francis Marion" wrote in message
news:WMr9c.20594$K91.64778@attbi_s02...
Hello:

I am fairly familiar with binocular astronomy but am new to telescope
astronomy.

After going to a number of astronomy club meetings in my area, and trying
out different kinds of scopes, I am finding that I would like to
concentrate
more on lunar and planetary observing, mostly lunar actually, and am
trying
to learn what telescope style/type would be best for this?

I'm open to any suggestions be it refractor or reflector (SCT) or
otherwise.
I am willing to spend some money ~$1000+/-. Can I get something decent
for
this price or should I keep saving more for something better.

Could you please include your reasons for any suggestions made, so that I
can learn what the thinking is on this subject.

I am not stuck on a specific brand of scope so any ideas would be
appreciated.

Thanks,
Francis Marion
The problem is that there is a very significant 'balancing act' with price.
Let's start with some 'fundamental' statements (many are 'arguable', but the
basic parts are pretty true):
A refractor _will_ show chromatic aberration. Getting this down to 'good'
levels is expensive. This is why 'cheap refractors', can be very
unsatisfying. The central obstruction in a reflector, will degrade contrast
slightly, _but_ this is almost indetectable for small obstructions.
A 'perfect' refractor, will for it's size beat a reflector.
You can buy much larger mirrors for a given price, than lenses.
You specifically say 'moon/planets', and this suggests that a relatively
long focal length might be worthwhile.
A little above you price I think (given the current $/£ ratio), the Orion UK
(not to be confused with Orion optics US), OMC140, is a 'cracking' planetary
scope. The quality of the optics is good. However on the most basic mount,
it works out at about $1150, and a more solid motorised mount, then pushes
the price well above your budget.
For a refractor, which works well, the Orion (US) 80ED, is worth looking at.
However a larger scope will normally see more (this sort of scope is popular
with people who allready have a bigger model, and want something small that
is good for it's size, for 'mobile' use).
Now, a Newtonian really does allways 'stand out' as the most 'scope per
buck'. If you get an 8" to 10" Newtonian, with a relatively small CO, this
will probably represent the best total 'value', but with the downside of
bulk.

Best Wishes

"Roger Hamlett" wrote in message
news:KHA9c.81$h6.0@newsfe1-win...
[SNIP]
A refractor _will_ show chromatic aberration. Getting this down to 'good'
levels is expensive. This is why 'cheap refractors', can be very
unsatisfying. The central obstruction in a reflector, will degrade
contrast
slightly, _but_ this is almost indetectable for small obstructions.
A 'perfect' refractor, will for it's size beat a reflector.
[SNIP]

Keep in mind that the reputation of refractors for providing the best detail
for the aperture harks back to the days before APOs, when any refractor was
an achromat. In those days the choice of focal ratio in achromats was f/15.
A quality 3 or 4 inch f/15 refractor can do a very respectable job on the
Moon and planets, keeping in mind that it will be somewhat limited by its
aperture. The poor performance of "cheap" refractors is more likely due to
poor correction for spherical aberration, if they are small and f/12 to f/15
or so, with secondary color adding to the misery in faster versions.

Clear skies, Alan

"Roger Hamlett" wrote in message
news:KHA9c.81$h6.0@newsfe1-win...
[SNIP]
A refractor _will_ show chromatic aberration. Getting this down to 'good'
levels is expensive. This is why 'cheap refractors', can be very
unsatisfying. The central obstruction in a reflector, will degrade
contrast
slightly, _but_ this is almost indetectable for small obstructions.
A 'perfect' refractor, will for it's size beat a reflector.
[SNIP]

Keep in mind that the reputation of refractors for providing the best detail
for the aperture harks back to the days before APOs, when any refractor was
an achromat. In those days the choice of focal ratio in achromats was f/15.
A quality 3 or 4 inch f/15 refractor can do a very respectable job on the
Moon and planets, keeping in mind that it will be somewhat limited by its
aperture. The poor performance of "cheap" refractors is more likely due to
poor correction for spherical aberration, if they are small and f/12 to f/15
or so, with secondary color adding to the misery in faster versions.

Clear skies, Alan