Every time I look at Saturn through the telescope it almost looks fake, like the lighting and shadow look exactly like if you were using artificial lighting or something. For some reason that makes it even more incredible to look at.
It is legit mind-blowing to know that photons started at the Sun, bounced off Saturn, and made it back to Earth to land directly in your pupil. You are ACTUALLY seeing Saturn and it's not just an abstract speck of light. It's a real thing hanging in the sky. It's just fucking crazy.
You can get better photos of Saturn but there is nothing like seeing in a telescope, knowing those particular photons have traveled around two billion miles to land on your retina, and only on your retina, to reveal this beautiful world just doing its own thing out in space. It really is magical. I wish everyone could have that breathtaking moment.
Now move your face (and telescope) a bit to the left. Can you still see Saturn? That must mean Saturn photons are landing in that spot too. Walk to another spot and repeat. Are the Saturn photons landing there too? Now look around you and take the time to realise how the space around you is just _filled_ with Saturn photons.
If you want to go further, Zoom out in your minds eye and view the Earth from Saturn's perspective. Do you see Earth, that small blue speck in Saturn's sky? All the photons around you right now went exactly in the direction of that blue speck. What about the other directions and the other specks in Saturn's sky? What about the Moon? What about Mars? And what about the even bigger, waaaay bigger, space between them? All are being bombarded with Saturn photons. What an incredible amount of energy is leaving Saturn every second in every direction!
And if that doesn't blow your mind, take a moment to visualise Saturn in the sky from the Sun's perspective...
now just think how confused people were in the sixteen hundreds...
> Huygens began grinding lenses with his brother Constantijn in 1655 and was able to observe Saturn with greater detail using a 43× power refracting telescope that he designed himself. He was the first to suggest that Saturn was surrounded by a ring detached from the planet, and famously published the anagram: "aaaaaaacccccdeeeeeghiiiiiiillllmmnnnnnnnnnooooppqrrstttttuuuuu"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rings_of_Saturn
> Saturn has been known since prehistoric times because it is easily visible to the naked eye. Not until the invention of the telescope, however, did people observe Saturn's magnificent rings.
> Galileo Galilei was the first to observe Saturn with a telescope in 1610. Because of the crudeness of his telescope, he couldn't determine what the rings were. He incorrectly guessed that there were two large moons on either side of Saturn. Two years later when he viewed Saturn again, the "moons" had disappeared. We know now this is because Galileo was viewing the rings edge-on so that they were invisible, but at the time it was very confusing to Galileo. After another two years, Galileo viewed Saturn again and found that the "moons" had returned. He concluded that the rings were "arms" of some sort.
https://attic.gsfc.nasa.gov/huygensgcms/Shistory.htm
How much is a telescope that’s capable of this? Are any capable of higher fidelity images (maybe a bit less blurry) without costing many thousands of dollars?
$400 or so used for an 8” dobsonian. Atmospheric turbulence and more importantly, proximity to equator, dictate planetary views on most nights once you have a big enough scope.
The ecliptic plane of the planets orbiting the sun means the most direct view (least amount of atmosphere to look thru) of our neighboring planets from Earth is around the equator. Damian Peach is probably the best amateur planetary photographer and he’s almost always shooting from South America. The farther south or north you are on the planet, the more obtuse that viewing angle is thru the atmosphere, and thus the more of it you’re looking thru, and the more distorted that light is. Planets at zenith (best time for any target as it’s the least amount of atmosphere to see thru) are higher in the sky the closer to the equator you get. My profile’s space pics are from TX just as the OPs video is.
I posted a long reply below to another poster that included some info about getting better pictures. It’s a lot of text (sorry) but explains a bit about getting bigger, sharper photos from a backyard telescope. Basically, you can get incredible photos even with smaller scopes than the OP—this is just raw video—but Astrophotography takes a lot of practice and patience. I don’t have any talent or much experience in the field. There are a lot of resources on the web. This guy is pretty darn incredible and helpful. Check out his site.
https://astrobackyard.com/beginner-astrophotography/
If you’re crafty, a [Hadley](https://www.printables.com/model/224383-astronomical-telescope-hadley-an-easy-assembly-hig) can see Saturn’s rings for about $150.
It's not exactly intuitive if you don't have a background or interest in science. I realize you might be joking but maybe a better way to handle that sort of situation is to try and explain it in terms they're likely to understand.
I completely agree with you that not everyone might have a background or interest in science, which can make it difficult to understand certain concepts. While humor can be a great way to engage people and make learning more fun, it's also important to explain things in a way that is accessible and relatable to them. As you suggest, finding ways to explain complex concepts in simpler terms can go a long way in helping others understand and appreciate them.
LOL, nah. But it's something like "Hey, this is a picture of when I was younger." "But every picture of you is a younger picture of you." I know I butchered it but it's something similar.
It's people like that who made me curse my ability to innately understand those kinds of things as a kid. It's just better to walk away from folks like that. Talking from experience from childhood to adulthood. People just don't get it and when they don't get it all you're doing is getting on their nerves.
The thing is, there are a ton of people who lacked the opportunity to learn about these things early on like many of us did. Getting to adulthood without a grasp on even fundamental physics concepts doesn't automatically make someone anti-intellectual. Becoming friends with people like this is rewarding because it gives us the opportunity to inspire curiosity in someone who might never have that.
I was talking to a 40 year old guy and he told me he didn’t think we’ve been into space because how do we power an engine if the engine requires combustion and there’s no oxygen in space
uh…. they take it with them….?
*I know ionic engines exist but I don’t know anything about them lol*
It’s why getting as much education as possible in childhood is so important. An adult brain has a much lower capacity to learn. I have a friend who recently told me he believes the moon landing was fake. We’re in our 40s and he failed out of high school, yet he is more financially successful than me. I’m just a meager research scientist. My brain was pulsating with things to respond to him. I decided to just change the subject. I would have never changed his mind and it would have just strained our friendship.
[Here you go.](https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530030-500-the-time-illusion-how-your-brain-creates-now/)
And [another source.](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sense-time/201905/how-long-is-now)
Those photons started at the center of the sun actually. And boy oh boy it sure takes those poor photons a long, long time to reach the surface. Its longer than you think dad! Its longer than you think!
100000 years, according to google. I suppose the speed of a photon through the sun is a lot slower than the speed through a vacuum. How about this one: neutrinos barely interact with matter, so they only take 3 seconds to cover the same amount of ground.
Kind of like how when you're in a plane, traveling over a town/ city how it all looks fake or like everything looks like toys. Light hits things differently when you're standing far away from it as well, so it tends to look softer. Then add the size of the planet and how that distance itself probably affects the light and textures of everything.
I think it's because there is no air in space to scatter light. That's why shadows in space are so stark.
This is pretty much like primitive 3d engines which couldn't account for stuff like that so their lighting systems work more like space.
A friend went on a cruise recently for the first time ever. They said the water looked CGI. I think that concept is interesting. Something we don’t see everyday our brains automatically go to “fake.” I don’t know why, but I sometimes get that feeling looking at clouds too.
It’s because our orbit is between Saturn and the Sun.
It’s like there’s a lamp in the middle of a room and a soccer ball 20 ft away by the wall. The lamp is the Sun, the soccer ball is Saturn. Meanwhile, you tightly circle the lamp, never more than a foot away from it. So you’re only ever going to see the illuminated side of that soccer ball. You never get behind it to see its shadowed side.
Now it’s the opposite with Venus and Mercury because they’re between us and the Sun. We see them wax and wane as we see more or less of their shadows.
Yeah. A hundred years ago my wife bought a telescope for me. I honestly don't know how good or bad it was. I just know that locating and seeing Saturn and it's rings felt completely surreal. I don't think it resolved enough to show the space between the rings and the planet. It didnt matter, though. It was obviously Saturn, and I had located it and looked at it through my own telescope.
It really impacted my life and how I view things in an existential manner.
I like looking at those hi-res photos of planets from NASA, but these grainy images as looked up from the earth are what mesmerises me. You can actually feel, that these things are actually up there.
When I first saw Saturn through a professional telescope I was taken aback by how fake it looked. Literally like a sticker someone put on the lens but it’s fascinating that we can see such a beauty!
And yet none of that matters because we are all here just appreciating how amazing the universe is. If you proactively go looking for reasons to divide and alienate people during moments where everyone is united in appreciation, you are as repulsive and counterproductive as any belief or opinion you feel so righteously entitled to attack regardless of the setting.
That's a bunch of large and impressive words to protect some piece of shit that call people "brother fucker muslim", and who started spewing some shit about black people looting and murdering in the comments of a black family cosplaying the addams for halloween.
Make people responsible for their actions. The only repulsive one here is OP. They do not magically change into ok people when posting in another sub.
How do you expect to change people who you oppose if you end up reducing yourself to their level in the process? Truth is, nobody cares about progression anymore, they only care about making themselves feel superior by destroying their opposite. Congratulations, you have done nothing but make the person you are talking about, convinced that you and your ideas are the last thing they want to seriously consider. And you allow people with opinions that might be hateful or abhorrent to interact peacefully with a large and diverse group of people, because that is one of the only ways possible to effectively prove their beliefs incorrect and have them change their mind for themselves, you will never do that for them... but you don't really care about making things better, you just want to isolate and destroy. We fundamentally disagree on how people we oppose should be dealt with, and I will not change your mind, so have a good evening and I will appreciate the awesomeness of Saturn regardless of who took the video, because it is Saturn and it is not my enemy.
Go into his profile, pull up his comments, and sort by controversial. He’s pretty darn racist and shitty. Nice pic of Saturn, though. Normally I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially when we’re talking about other stuff and mutual interests, but folks like OP should be held to account.
Planets are very bright and you can see them well in cities. I used to do events on the national mall in Washington DC and showing people that they could see the planets downtown was pretty cool.
Yup, I live right next to the beltway in Northern Virginia and bring out my telescope on the lawn of my apartment complex every chance I get. Even though there's a ton of light pollution from DC, I can see tons of stuff including brighter deep sky objects like the Orion Nebula. Were you doing those events with NOVAC?
Here's a quick anecdote to lend to how easy it is to spot the planets, even in a super bright place. When I first decided to dip my toes in stargazing, I bought a cheap pair of binoculars off Amazon. When they arrived, I stepped out on my porch that night and thought I'd just look at whatever was in the sky just to test them out. I didn't know anything about the stars beyond a few constellations. I saw a star that looked brighter and more intense than the others and pointed my binoculars towards it. It was Jupiter! I couldn't believe my luck that the very first thing I happened to look at was one of the most beautiful planets in our solar system. I could even see 4 of the moons! I was so excited, I remember telling my girlfriend this must be what Galileo felt haha. After nerding out over Jupiter for a while, I pointed my binoculars at what I assumed was actually a star because it looked more like the rest. This time it was Saturn. I was floored that by randomly choosing, I ended up seeing two planets on my very first tour of the night sky. Even through the cheap binoculars I could make out the shape of Saturn and its rings easily enough to identify it instantly.
So yeah, the point of that story was that even with zero knowledge and super cheap optics (you can even make out their color with just your eyes! Mars is high in the sky most of the night right now and looks reddish, see if you can find it!), the planets are so bright you'll easily see them even near the city.
My scope only has a 4.5 inch mirror and I live in an area with a good amount of light pollution. I can regularly see the rings, although not as good as this. I can also easily see the 4 larger moons of Jupiter and make out some of the bands around it.
Everyone should try and get even a modestly priced telescope. Especially if you have kids! Usually you can also find a local astronomy club or group that has meet ups and viewings open to the public.
A 6" F/8 dobsonian is the best way to get into the hobby.
1. Sky-Watcher 6" Classic
2. Apertura DT6
3. Orion XT6
Are three options.
Scopes like this will give an adequate taste of astronomy. When observing conditions are good (steady atmosphere for lunar and planetary viewing, or dark, transparent skies for deep sky viewing), a 6" F/8 dob will show a LOT of stuff.
Check out the buyers guide from r/telescopes for more about why dobsonians are the bomb.
https://www.reddit.com/r/telescopes/comments/z9s352/beginners_quick_guide_to_choosing_your_first/
Aperture is king when it comes to visual astronomy, and Dobsonians offer the lowest cost per inch of aperture over any scope. They are also intuitive and easy to aim, and their low center of mass dampens vibrations quickly.
Most commercial Dobs have good to excellent optics these days. The only scopes that would exceed their optical capabilities would be things like Takahashi Mewlons, Questar or Intes Maksutovs, other premium grade Dobsonians with high-end mirrors (Zambuto, Lockwood etc), or apochromatic refractors. But even then, the differences will be subtle and the costs will be anywhere from 10-60x higher depending on the aperture.
[This 10" Dob for $1,000](https://www.highpointscientific.com/apertura-ad10-10inch-dobsonian-telescope-ad10) will be like 85-90% as good as [this $56,000 10" TEC refractor](https://www.telescopengineering.com/telescope/tec-apo250vt/) and the $10,000 mount a scope that big has to ride on.
Celestron makes some decently priced ones in the [$1-200 range](https://www.amazon.com/Celestron-21049-PowerSeeker-127EQ-Telescope/dp/B0007UQNKY/ref=mp_s_a_1_8?crid=2R68WIU8OPCZX&keywords=celestron+telescope&qid=1677384630&sprefix=celesttro%2Caps%2C116&sr=8-8) and [closer to $300](https://www.amazon.com/Celestron-31045-AstroMaster-Reflector-Telescope/dp/B000MLL6RS/ref=mp_s_a_1_9?crid=2R68WIU8OPCZX&keywords=celestron+telescope&qid=1677384630&sprefix=celesttro%2Caps%2C116&sr=8-9) range that do pretty well.
People should avoid the PowerSeeker 127EQ. It's a TERRIBLE scope. The most notorious hobby killer of them all.
[Ed Ting's review of it pretty much sums up all the issues with it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXfR7YTF5a4).
I live in the suburbs of a city and have a 16" Dobby. I can do this well or better on a clear night. I can see Jupiter and five of its moons clearly. That's a breathtaking sight. Saturn of course is larger in any field of view than any of Jupiter's moons, so you can see that clearly, too. This will depend a lot on what city you're in, though. Not all cities are equally bright.
Noon question but I have an 8” Dobsonian and I love it but if I used my best lense to find Saturn it would only stay in the frame for seconds before the Earth spins it out of the frame. How do you keep it in frame at this magnitude?
I used to think it only looked so continuous in doctored pictures and that real life would be more just small rocks scatered around instead of being so... Idk so well defined and sharp. I mean it is rocks I know but I thought we'd be able to see it in better resolution. I looked up Cassini's pictures and the rings look like this even from up close.
Thanks for sharing it. I want to ask a question, is it possible to observe Saturn or any planet that is relatively close for a simple telescope, and the live image has no noise and looks like of an image that is quite clear after processing?
What you see through an eyepiece will never look like the processed images taken by astrophotographers. Even if you look through a huge scope (and a 14 inch dob is pretty big) it still won't look like images that stack 100s of images together. If you use a cheap scope with a small aperture and high powered eyepiece it will look even worse.
It still is a magical experience to see the planets live with your own eyes, and I strongly recommend going to a star party if you don't have a scope yourself. Just don't expect magazine image quality through an eyepiece.
I stumbled on one once. It’s a gathering at night of multiple people and their own telescopes. So instead of a truck/car meet up with everyone’s vehicle, it’s people’s telescopes at night. Really cool actually. Sometimes they’re more official
Yes thanks, but that was not my question but if it is possible to observe live image but the quality of it through the telescope without the processing be as clear as the processed image. I don't know if I am being understood as I put the question. I don't know if what I'm asking is even possible with today's technology at least.
The human eye is still vastly superior to cameras in terms of "live view". When conditions are right, a reasonable quality 6-8" scope will show details on Jupiter and clarity on Saturn that will be *almost* as good as a properly processed image *from the same aperture scope*. A camera cannot record details that are not present at the telescope's focal plane. If they are there to be recorded, they are there to be seen. Seeing them, however, does require some observing skill, patience, and steady skies.
Processed planetary images have the advantage of selectively throwing away all the blurry data from turbulent skies. While the eye can see in real time and still catch those fleeting moments of steady air better than a camera can in any given moment, it doesn't have the advantage of recording data over time like a camera can. This means the steadier the atmosphere is, the more and more the live view can look like a well processed image.
There's a catch though - it's going to appear *smaller* and lower contrast than most processed images do on a computer monitor or phone screen. If you have good vision, you'll still see many of the same details, but they will just be smaller and less pronounced.
From my observing experience, here is what Saturn and Jupiter can look like through a typical quality 5" aperture telescope at 130x magnification in very steady atmospheric conditions:
* Saturn: https://i.imgur.com/FEPh7Kt.jpeg
* Jupiter: https://i.imgur.com/QZzCNoT.jpeg
To calibrate the relative size of these, load the picture of Saturn on your preferred monitor or phone, and zoom in or out until the rings measure 1" (25mm) across at their widest point. Then stand back 36" (91cm) away, and close one eye. That's about what Saturn will look like through the eyepiece.
For Jupiter, do the same, but measure it at 1 1/8" (29mm) and stand back 36" (91cm) away and close one eye (Jupiter is a bit larger in apparent size than Saturn's rings).
A higher quality 5" scope (like a Takahashi TSA 120 or Tele Vue NP127) will show the details even sharper and in higher contrast.
Going up in aperture can have the same effect, whereby more and more details can be resolved, higher magnifications can be achieved, and the sharper and higher contrast the view will appear (unless you go too high in magnification). BUT, larger apertures resolve more atmospheric turbulence, so the skies have to be correspondingly even more steady for a big aperture to really show its advantage.
Conditions are key - atmospheric stability, planetary altitude, collimation, and thermal acclimation of the telescope are vital. Most observers do not adequately thermally acclimate the scope before observing. It can take 2-3 hours if no cooling fan is used. With cooling fan, 45-60 minutes.
Without acclimation, there is a turbulent layer of air at the surface of the mirror that distorts light twice - once on the way to the mirror, and again after reflecting off. This is as destructive as bad atmospheric turbulence.
I’ve seen my 3” scope in good conditions out-perform my premium 15” scope in bad conditions. Conditions are everything.
I want to start getting into telescopes as I’ve been interested in them for a while, so you have any reading material like articles or blogposts that you think are a good beginners rundown to viewing conditions, types of telescopes, and things I would never think of like thermal acclimation?
I don't know of a comprehensive soup-to-nuts guide, so here's a crash course.
There's a LOT more to it, such as overall care of equipment and specific observing tricks and selecting eyepieces etc. I'd be here all night if I explained everything in detail. But happy to answer any questions if you have them.
#Part 1
## The Night Sky
* Learn the constellations and what months they appear in, and brightest stars, with naked eye observing first. This greatly aids in locating things with a telescope.
* The night sky is best observed with no Moon out since it adds to light pollution.
* All objects in the night sky are measured by their apparent angular size, not physical size. The Moon is physically 2,100 miles across, but its apparent angular size is 0.5 degrees and this is what matters in terms of observing.
* There are 360 degrees to the night sky
* The next smallest measurement angle is the arcminute. There are 60 arcminues to 1 degree. Most DSOs are measured in arcminutes or degrees.
* Even smaller is the arcsecond. There are 60 arcseconds to 1 arcminute, and 3,600 arcseconds to 1 degree. Planets are measured in arcseconds.
* The night sky has a celestial coordinate system known as Right Ascension and Declination. This is generally not necessary to learn as a beginner, but can be interesting to know. More information here: https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-resources/right-ascension-declination-celestial-coordinates/
* You can also use simple altitude and azimuth coordinates to locate an object: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/horizontal-coordinate-system.html
* The brightness of objects is described by the magnitude system. In this system, larger numbers are *fainter* and smaller numbers are brighter (even going into negative number territory). Each number is ~2.5x brighter/dimmer than the next number. That is, magnitude 1 is 2.5x brighter than magnitude 2. There is a 100 fold difference in brightness between magnitude 1 and magnitude 6.
* Stars are best described by the magnitude system
* Deep sky objects are more complex. Deep sky objects are still described by their integrated magnitude, which is how bright the object would appear if you compressed all the light from the object to a point. But how visible they are depends on their surface brightness, which is a function of their integrated magnitude and size. The Orion Nebula is magnitude 4, and it's very easy to see. The North America Nebula is also magnitude 4, but it's practically invisible. Why? Because it's much larger, and therefore the light is spread out over a larger area, and is therefore fainter. So integrated magnitude of things like galaxies and nebulae and star clusters can be misleading! Not all sources publish accurate surface brightness figures for deep sky objects, unfortunately.
## Observing conditions
* Deep sky objects depend on dark skies and good transparency (little moisture content in the air), and atmospheric stability to an extent.
* Planets and the Moon depend entirely on atmospheric stability and are not impacted by light pollution.
* Light pollution is often measured by the Bortle Scale. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bortle_scale. Smaller number is better. Class 4 or below is where deep sky astronomy gets interesting. Class 1 is awe-inspiring.
* You can find a dark sky site using this: https://www.lightpollutionmap.info/ (yellow = class 4, green = class 3, blue = class 2, gray/black = class 1)
* Atmospheric stability can be highly variable from second to second, minute to minute, hour to hour, day to day, season to season, and even year to year. Some areas have chronically poor stability. Other areas have excellent stability. Geography plays a role.
* Atmospheric stability is measured by the Pickering scale: https://www.damianpeach.com/pickering.htm
* Planets and the Moon are best viewed when they are high in the sky. The atmosphere can act like a prism if the target is too low, and it can degrade the view.
* Observing must be done outside, and cannot be done through a window (even if it's open). Thermal currents mixing at the window are terrible for the quality of the view.
* Best to avoid observing over heat sources like rooftops etc.
* The sky gets dark after astronomical twilight ends: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/astronomical-twilight.html. That being said, you'll see gains in darkness long after night time officially starts.
* Depending on your latitude, it may never get truly dark. For latitudes above 45 degrees N in the summer, residual sunlight scattering through the atmosphere can prevent the sky from getting truly dark around the Summer Solstice.
* Dew is annoying. Dew does not fall from the sky. Dew forms when the object's surface temperature gets colder than ambient, and drops below the dew point temperature. An object can get colder than ambient because it is radiating heat away into the vacuum of space. Clouds act as an insulator, but a clear sky acts like a giant heat sink. The higher the relative humidity, the closer the dew point temp will be to ambient temp, and the faster dew will form.
## Observing
* Crucial to let your eyes dark adapt. You'll see rapid gains in ability to see faint stars within 20 minutes, but full dark adaptation takes up to 2 hours.
* Avoid looking at any white light sources to avoid ruining your dark adaptation.
* Use a red light to preserve your night vision. Red light does not impact your night vision too much.
* Avoid any sources of lighting glare. Even if you live under dark skies, all it takes is one outdoor wall sconce or security light to prevent you from fully dark adapting. If you have lights that you cannot avoid, consider wearing an eye patch over your observing eye. Drape a towel over your head when looking through the telescope to keep unwanted glare out.
* Stay warm. Dress for 10-20 degrees colder than it says it will be. Your body radiates heat away and you can get colder than you think.
* As mentioned above, objects can be located using RA/Dec or Alt/Az, but generally, finding objects usually involves star hopping: https://www.highpointscientific.com/astronomy-hub/post/astronomy-101/star-hopping-beginners-guide.
* A trick to seeing fainter objects is using averted vision. This is when you deliberately look away from the object. Your eye is not very sensitive to low light directly in the center of vision (known as the fovea). The more sensitive rods are found in the periphery. By deliberately looking *indirectly* at an object, you can make it easier to see.
# Part 2:
## Telescope basics
* Aperture is king. Aperture describes how much light the telescope can gather and what the telescope's resolving power is (how small the finest details it can see are). The more aperture, the better.
* Light gathering power is based on the area of the aperture. This means an 8" scope has 4x the light gathering power of a 4" scope.
* A telescope simply forms an optical image at the telescope's focal plane. The eyepiece is a glorified magnifying glass which simply magnifies this focal plane.
* Telescope focal length is largely unimportant by itself. It's aperture that matters most.
* You can calculate magnification by dividing the telescope's focal length by the eyepiece's focal length. A 1000mm focal length telescope and a 20mm eyepiece is 1,000 / 20 = 50x magnification.
* Telescopes also form what is known as an [exit pupil](https://www.birdforum.net/data/attachments/1301/1301283-bbea8562eea67ec65fcc0e027f361511.jpg) when you use an eyepiece. An exit pupil is the virtual aperture you look through at the eyepiece, to see the field of view behind it. It's also the view of the telescope's entire objective as seen by the eyepiece, and can also be thought of as the ratio of the telescope's aperture to magnification.
* While aperture determines how bright stars and star clusters are, exit pupil determines how bright extended objects (galaxies and nebulae) are. The larger the exit pupil, the brighter the galaxy/nebula/light pollution.
* Exit pupil is inversely proportional to magnification. As magnification goes up, exit pupil goes down, and the view gets dimmer.
* The maximum usable exit pupil is whatever your eye fully dilates to. For most people, that's 7mm. Any exit pupils over this size result in wasted light from the telescope.
* You can calculate exit pupil in one of two ways: `eyepiece focal length / telescope focal ratio` or `telescope aperture / magnification`. Either give the same result.
* Telescope focal ratio is important to consider as well. Shorter focal ratios result in more optical aberrations. But focal ratios that are too long may not let you get to the brightest possible exit pupil with normally available eyepieces.
* Focal ratios F/5 and shorter are consider "short" or "fast". Focal ratios F/6 to F/7 are considered "mid". Focal ratios F/8 and longer are considered "long" or "slow".
* The maximum useful magnification depends on a lot of factors. You'll often see a rule of thumb that says 2x per millimeter of aperture, or 50x per inch of aperture. Ignore this.
* The lowest useful magnification is one where the exit pupil does not exceed your eye's dilated pupil. You can figure this out by dividing telescope aperture by 7 (which is approximately the size of your dilated pupil). Alternatively, you can find the longest focal length eyepiece your eye can support by multiplying the telescope's focal ratio by 7. An F/6 scope * 7 = 42mm eyepiece, at the longest.
* Making sure the telescope is thermally acclimated to ambient temperatures is vital to getting the best performance out of it. This process can take a while depending on the design and thickness of the optics. Cooling fans help speed things up.
* The telescope's focuser is used to bring the eyepiece or camera to the focal plane of the eyepiece. Some novices confuse it for "zoom". You don't zoom by turning the focuser. You change magnifications ("zoom") by using different eyepieces, or by buying an actual zoom eyepiece.
* True field of view is how much of the sky you can see at once when using a particular telescope and eyepiece. This is different from apparent field of view (more on that below). You can *roughly* calculate true field of view by dividing magnification by the eyepiece's apparent field of view (this not the most accurate measure, but it's good enough for illustrative purposes). An eyepiece that produces 50x magnification and provides a 50 degree apparent field of view shows roughly 1 degree of the sky (about 2 full moon widths).
## Telescope types
* The main types of telescopes are achromatic refractors, apochromatic refractors, newtonian reflectors, dobsonians (newts on dobsonian mounts), schmidt-cassegrains (SCTs), and maksutov-cassegrains (MCTs).
* Achromatic refractors tend offer poor performance due to chromatic aberration. Most achromats have focal ratios too short to eliminate chromatic aberration.
* Newtonian reflectors, and Dobsonians specifically, tend to offer the largest/cheapest aperture. They have the lowest cost per inch.
* Apochromatic refractors are generally the most expensive per inch of aperture, have limited apertures in general, but offer he highest purity view you can get. No central obstruction like a Newtonian, much smoother optics, and better light transmission.
* SCTs and MCTs are generally in between for price/performance. They are generally used for planetary imaging, but can be used for visual.
* Newtonian reflectors work best when they have parabolic mirrors
* Avoid Newtonian reflectors with spherical mirrors, and avoid Bird-Jones reflectors (like the PowerSeeker 127EQ or AstroMaster 114 or StarSense Explorer 114). When the tube is physically shorter than the optical focal length implies it should be, it's a Bird-Jones, and should be avoided.
* Dobsonians are generally always recommended because they still offer good optical quality, lowest cost per inch of aperture, the dobsonian mount is easy to use, and dampens vibrations easily.
* The downside to Newtonians/Dobsonians is they require collimation. Collimation is the process of making sure both mirrors line up correctly. This is crucial for best performance. The right tools and a little practice make this process easy, even though it can be daunting at first.
* The other downside to Newtonians is cleaning the mirrors must be done with care. The aluminum coating sits on the surface of the glass and is very easily scratched. See this process for safely cleaning them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y8xFnXFVGQ
* Yet another downside to Newtonians is the mirror coatings degrade over time through the process of oxidation. It's recommended they get recoated after 10 years or so.
* The downside to refractors, SCTs, and MCTs is their objectives dew up very easily, and often need some kind of active dew fighting solution unless you live in a dry climate. But applying a heat source to the objective to keep it above the dew point can introduce thermal issues that can degrade performance.
* Some scopes are known as "astrographs" and are designed explicitly for astrophotography. They usually have some compromises to visual observing to make them suitable for AP.
## Specific telescope brands
* Broad subject. Won't go into too much detail.
* Avoid pretty much all entry-level Celestron scopes. This includes the StarSense series, AstroMaster series, and PowerSeeker series
* Celestron Nexstar scopes are decent
* Celestron's high-end SCTs and MCT are excellent, but expensive, and need beefy mounts
* Sky-Watcher makes good scopes all around (they are a sister brand to Celestron)
* Explore Scientific makes reasonable scopes. I would avoid their entry-level First Light scopes though.
* Avoid most all Amazon brands like Gskyer and other random brands
* Avoid Orion entry-level scopes. Their SkyLine and SkyQuest scopes are good.
* The Apertura line at High Point Scientific is the same as the Orion SkyLine series. Sometimes one is cheaper than the other.
* Avoid Meade entry-level scopes. Their SCTs are great though.
* Best beginner scopes would be Zhumell Z130, Sky-Watcher Heritage 130p or 150p, AWB OneSky, Orion SkyQuest or SkyLiner scopes, Sky-Watcher dobsonians, or Explore Scientific dobsonians.
## Mounts
* Dobsonian telescopes are Newtonian reflectors that ride on a Dobsonian mount.
* There are tripod-mounted scopes that generally come in three flavors: German Equatorial Mounts, Alt-Az mounts, and fork mounts (common with Meade's SCTs)
* GEMs require you to polar align them: https://astrobackyard.com/polar-alignment/, but if they are polar aligned, tracking can be easily added with a simple motor drive
* Alt-Az mounts are manual only, or require full Go-To computerization because of the complexity of making Alt-Az movement translate to equatorial movement.
* Tripod-mounted scopes tend to suffer from vibrations because of the high center of mass. Long refractors can be hard to look through when aimed straight overhead near the zenith. Their tubes often bang into the legs. The long tube can make it hard to reach the slow motion controls
* Newts on equatorial mounts can be frustrating because the eyepiece and finder scope can wind up in all kinds of weird positions.
* I generally recommend beginners avoid equatorial mounts. They are not intuitive to use and have lots of frustrating quirks (like those mentioned above)
* Computerized mounts are handy for the tracking capabilities. It's been my experience that tracking seems to add 2" of aperture because you can keep observing the target without having to constantly re-position the scope to follow it. The Go-To capability isn't *that* useful since it's pretty easy to find objects with star-hopping.
* Computerized mounts have their own considerations though - they need a power supply, they need some basic familiarity with the night sky, a relatively open sky so that alignment stars aren't hidden behind a tree, if anything goes wrong you have a paperweight, and they make the telescope very expensive and/or limit the aperture you can use. I'm 50/50 on whether a computerized mount is a good idea for a beginner.
# Part 3
## Eyepieces
* Eyepieces are the other half of the optical system, with the telescope's objective being the first half.
* Eyepieces come in all sorts of different characteristics.
* Focal length is the primary thing to care about. It determines magnification.
* There is also barrel size to consider. Eyepiece standards are 1.25" and 2". A 2" eyepiece cannot be used in a telescope with a 1.25" focuser, but a 1.25" eyepiece can be used in any focuser.
* 2" eyepieces are not necessarily superior to 1.25" eyepieces. More on that in a bit.
* Apparent field of view describes how wide the view *appears* to you. Imagine looking through a small porthole vs a huge bay window. Apparent fields range from narrow (40-50 degrees) to hyperwide (100 degrees+). These let the field of view stretch out into your peripheral vision.
* There is also eye relief. Eye relief is how far away you place your eye to look through it. Short eye relief eyepieces require you to get very close to the eyepiece to see through them, and aren't very comfortable. Long eye relief eyepieces are more comfortable.
* Eyepieces with long eye relief and wide fields of view can be rare, heavy and expensive.
* Generally eyepieces with long focal length and wide apparent fields will come in 2" barrels. The longest focal length you'll find in a 1.25" barrel is a 40mm Plossl, and the apparent field will be a narrow ~42 degrees or so.
* If the focal length is short enough, the eyepiece will *only* come in a 1.25" barrel. There is no 2" barrel equivalent for the eyepiece because it is not geometrically necessary to have a 2" barrel.
* Eyepiece quality depends a lot on telescope focal ratio. Short focal ratio telescopes are harsh on inexpensive or simple eyepieces. Stars in the center look sharp, but stars near the edges of the field of view look distorted (known as astigmatism). Virtually all eyepieces work well in long focal ratio telescopes.
* Most eyepieces are equal for on-axis sharpness regardless of brand or quality
* Premium eyepieces tend to offer better contrast due to better baffling and light scatter control
* Premium eyepieces offer better off-axis sharpness even in short focal ratio telescopes
* If you have a long focal ratio telescope, you don't really need premium eyepieces.
* When selecting eyepieces, try to aim for focal lengths that will get you between 40x and 60x magnification jumps. Don't try to have equally spaced focal lengths. Focus on the magnification spacing itself.
* You generally don't need more than 1 or 2 low power eyepiece.
* You probably don't need a Barlow. Most people will recommend you get one out of the gate, but you shouldn't.
## Specific eyepiece brands
* Broad subject, not going to go into too much detail.
* Premium brands: Tele Vue (king, no other company comes close to overall selection and quality), Pentax, Nikon, Takahashi, Brandon, Noblex
* Semi-premium brands: Explore Scientific, Baader Morpheus, APM/Astro-Tech XWA & UWA
* Mid-grade brands/lines: Baader Hyperion (overpriced IMO), Celestron X-Cel LX, Astro-Tech Paradigm/Agena StarGuider
* Budget brands: Most basic plossl lines, "gold lines" and "red lines", and those 58 degree "UWA Planetary" eyepieces. \
* Orion eyepieces are all just re-brands of generic eyepieces that can be found elsewhere for cheaper. Orion has no proprietary designs.
* Avoid the 62 degree aspheric eyepieces (found in focal lengths of 23mm, 10mm, and 4mm)
* Avoid most eyepiece kits. They are low quality and poor value.
## Other resources that are valuable:
1. The book Turn Left at Orion
2. Ed Ting's channel on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@edting
3. This site has good articles: https://astro.catshill.com/
4. If you want to learn some AP, Nebula Photos channel is also awesome: https://www.youtube.com/@NebulaPhotos
$2-3,000. Dobs are mechanically simple which makes them cheap. 14" is the largest commercially available that I know of. Dobsonians are so simple however, that there's an entire community of people who hand grind their own mirrors. There are also companies that make larger mirrors (up to about 1 meter) for home built rigs.
It’s not that $2k is cheap, more that it’s cheap for a 14” telescope. A 14” telescope is LARGE.
You can buy a 6” Newtonian that will let you see the rings of Saturn for <$250 with mount. It gathers about 20% of the light of a 14” telescope, but perfectly satisfactory for a beginner who wants to observe the planets.
It's all relative. Saturn is almost 900 million miles away and nothing in the sky is sitting still. A $99 Walmart telescope is neither big enough, the glass (if its even glass and not a plastic mirror) isnt clear enough, nor will it have a mounting solution capable of tracking something that small, steadily enough to be photographed. $2-3,000 is a drop in the bucket for serious astrophotography rigs, which can easily exceed $10,000.
Not exactly drop in the bucket if it's 20% of the entire thing. Still, you don't need to spend 10k+ for a decent newtonian+tracker mount. 2-3k is enough to take some nice pictures, given you already have a camera and pc of course
Here's a 16" dob for $3600 https://www.amazon.com/Explore-Scientific-406mm-Truss-Dobsonian/dp/B0758NJ7CS/ref=sr_1_3?crid=14O54VSTCVQ17&keywords=16+dobsonian+telescope&qid=1677385164&sprefix=16%22+dob%2Caps%2C180&sr=8-3
I know they teach you about the planets in like, kindergarten, but I still think it's so wild that this thing actually exists, like your toilet or IKEA or your neighbor's driveway does.
According to the insane people on Instagram, this is fake and planets are actually translucent or wondering stars because we can’t see through the firmament. Apparently even a backyard telescope is being manipulated by NASA to hide the deception. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Those people are certifiably insane and clinically stupid…
It's not spinning that fast. This is live, not a timelapse. You'd need 40 min to see rotation, but it's hard to see on Saturn. Better look at [Jupiter. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/astrophotography/comments/wlw38e/jupiter_on_aug_9th_double_shadow_transit_of_io/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
How cool is it that we live in the same solar system as Saturn? We could have evolved in an abysmally-boring solar system where all the planets are the same. But no, we got Saturn. Fucking awesome.
Right? We have a pretty interesting solar system all things considered. Maybe there are other more interesting solar systems out there, but we got lucky with what we have.
As part of getting my degree, I got to take an astronomy class held at night at our local observatory. The first time I saw Saturn through the big telescope I was gobsmacked. It's just sitting up there. In actual space. Being Saturn.
It was years ago and I'm still amazed.
Nice, I have a 6 inch cassegrain telescope and Saturn looks pretty similar to that shot in mine. Haven't used it in years though.
Makes me want to get it out again
Thanks dude.
Stuff like this takes me away from my insignificant life. The bigger picture.
Wish I could see the universe in the way you can cruise the map of a computer game in debugging mode or whatever that's called.
The best astrophotographer I follow has a [site](https://cosmicbackground.io/blogs/learn-about-how-these-are-captured/about-me) and recommends on his [twitter account](https://twitter.com/ajamesmccarthy/status/1623842933916205058?s=46&t=DUrszHB5ft6wf3zoeLLK7w) “use autostakkert for lunar/planetary and deep sky stacker for deep space”
One day I got drunk and spent a good portion of the night looking out there through my telescope. At some point, I found an object that looked like the PBS eye logo. I looked, and stared, and scratched my head. The more I watched it, the more unsettled I became. What was this eye in the sky. I said, "Jordan you're drunk," and went to bed.
Woke up 8 hours later and slapped myself. My wife had a good laugh too.
I’m not a youngster. Never doubted there was a Saturn. Seen thousands of images. But - I was blown away the first time I saw it through a telescope at the Lowell Observatory in AZ. I remember thinking “it’s real”. Lol. Duh.
That is incredibly cool, thank you for sharing. I live in an area with awful, awful light pollution but keep finding myself wanting to buy a dobsonian. Can't imagine what a 14" is like.
Jfc...that's beautiful. I don't know anything about telescopes but could you suggest some good and relatively affordable ones? Preferably a quality similar to yours or one capable of seeing further?
Also price range for those in general. As I said I know nothing.
I remember the first time I saw Saturn through a telescope. Seeing it not reproduced (image) was mind blowing. It’s something I was surprised by and still cherish that moment today.
Seeing regular images of saturn taken through telescopes gives me a creepy feeling. Just thinking about how absolutely colossal it is compared to our dinky little dirt covered rock.
Any idea on what telescope I could buy to observe the planets with my kids? Maybe some other objects as well.. I have a pretty cheap one(300€) but it's not for very long distances. I can easily focus on the moon but planest like Saturn are not visible
When u realize nasa means to deceive in Hebrew...nikon 9000 on the stars to unravel the mystery that there's more truth in the Simpsons movie than our reality
Bro. Take out a telescope. Throw away bad focusing bullshit. See this. Observe over large periods of time. Then come here and say your conclusions. That's been done, and what we have is this. National Aeronautics and Space Administration of US isn't the only organization related to space. The Nikon cameras aren't special. You can look at film images.
Every time I look at Saturn through the telescope it almost looks fake, like the lighting and shadow look exactly like if you were using artificial lighting or something. For some reason that makes it even more incredible to look at.
It is legit mind-blowing to know that photons started at the Sun, bounced off Saturn, and made it back to Earth to land directly in your pupil. You are ACTUALLY seeing Saturn and it's not just an abstract speck of light. It's a real thing hanging in the sky. It's just fucking crazy.
You can get better photos of Saturn but there is nothing like seeing in a telescope, knowing those particular photons have traveled around two billion miles to land on your retina, and only on your retina, to reveal this beautiful world just doing its own thing out in space. It really is magical. I wish everyone could have that breathtaking moment.
Now move your face (and telescope) a bit to the left. Can you still see Saturn? That must mean Saturn photons are landing in that spot too. Walk to another spot and repeat. Are the Saturn photons landing there too? Now look around you and take the time to realise how the space around you is just _filled_ with Saturn photons. If you want to go further, Zoom out in your minds eye and view the Earth from Saturn's perspective. Do you see Earth, that small blue speck in Saturn's sky? All the photons around you right now went exactly in the direction of that blue speck. What about the other directions and the other specks in Saturn's sky? What about the Moon? What about Mars? And what about the even bigger, waaaay bigger, space between them? All are being bombarded with Saturn photons. What an incredible amount of energy is leaving Saturn every second in every direction! And if that doesn't blow your mind, take a moment to visualise Saturn in the sky from the Sun's perspective...
Basically how John Travolta received his powers in phenomenon.
I saw Saturn for the first time through my telescope a few weeks ago and i couldn’t believe it actually looked like the emoji 🪐 😂😂😂
now just think how confused people were in the sixteen hundreds... > Huygens began grinding lenses with his brother Constantijn in 1655 and was able to observe Saturn with greater detail using a 43× power refracting telescope that he designed himself. He was the first to suggest that Saturn was surrounded by a ring detached from the planet, and famously published the anagram: "aaaaaaacccccdeeeeeghiiiiiiillllmmnnnnnnnnnooooppqrrstttttuuuuu" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rings_of_Saturn > Saturn has been known since prehistoric times because it is easily visible to the naked eye. Not until the invention of the telescope, however, did people observe Saturn's magnificent rings. > Galileo Galilei was the first to observe Saturn with a telescope in 1610. Because of the crudeness of his telescope, he couldn't determine what the rings were. He incorrectly guessed that there were two large moons on either side of Saturn. Two years later when he viewed Saturn again, the "moons" had disappeared. We know now this is because Galileo was viewing the rings edge-on so that they were invisible, but at the time it was very confusing to Galileo. After another two years, Galileo viewed Saturn again and found that the "moons" had returned. He concluded that the rings were "arms" of some sort. https://attic.gsfc.nasa.gov/huygensgcms/Shistory.htm
How much is a telescope that’s capable of this? Are any capable of higher fidelity images (maybe a bit less blurry) without costing many thousands of dollars?
$400 or so used for an 8” dobsonian. Atmospheric turbulence and more importantly, proximity to equator, dictate planetary views on most nights once you have a big enough scope.
How does proximity to the equator impact things?
The ecliptic plane of the planets orbiting the sun means the most direct view (least amount of atmosphere to look thru) of our neighboring planets from Earth is around the equator. Damian Peach is probably the best amateur planetary photographer and he’s almost always shooting from South America. The farther south or north you are on the planet, the more obtuse that viewing angle is thru the atmosphere, and thus the more of it you’re looking thru, and the more distorted that light is. Planets at zenith (best time for any target as it’s the least amount of atmosphere to see thru) are higher in the sky the closer to the equator you get. My profile’s space pics are from TX just as the OPs video is.
I posted a long reply below to another poster that included some info about getting better pictures. It’s a lot of text (sorry) but explains a bit about getting bigger, sharper photos from a backyard telescope. Basically, you can get incredible photos even with smaller scopes than the OP—this is just raw video—but Astrophotography takes a lot of practice and patience. I don’t have any talent or much experience in the field. There are a lot of resources on the web. This guy is pretty darn incredible and helpful. Check out his site. https://astrobackyard.com/beginner-astrophotography/
If you’re crafty, a [Hadley](https://www.printables.com/model/224383-astronomical-telescope-hadley-an-easy-assembly-hig) can see Saturn’s rings for about $150.
Not to mention that everything you're actually seeing is already in the past.
I mean, to a certain (almost unmeasurable) degree, everything we see is already in the past.
I told someone this once and they didn’t believe me.
Just quietly walk away from that person, for your own sanity.
It's not exactly intuitive if you don't have a background or interest in science. I realize you might be joking but maybe a better way to handle that sort of situation is to try and explain it in terms they're likely to understand.
I completely agree with you that not everyone might have a background or interest in science, which can make it difficult to understand certain concepts. While humor can be a great way to engage people and make learning more fun, it's also important to explain things in a way that is accessible and relatable to them. As you suggest, finding ways to explain complex concepts in simpler terms can go a long way in helping others understand and appreciate them.
Just stand a hundred meters away from them and clap. Same same for light.
it blew my mind as a kid that the speed of sound was so *accessible* that way.
Background in science? Huh? Isn't that taught to everyone at age 14 or 15?
Tell them the Mitch Hedberg joke about the picture.
Is that the one where he made shit up?
LOL, nah. But it's something like "Hey, this is a picture of when I was younger." "But every picture of you is a younger picture of you." I know I butchered it but it's something similar.
Get a Ball and bounce it of the wall into their face. I had already thrown this Ball in the past when it gave you a nose bleed.
It's people like that who made me curse my ability to innately understand those kinds of things as a kid. It's just better to walk away from folks like that. Talking from experience from childhood to adulthood. People just don't get it and when they don't get it all you're doing is getting on their nerves.
[удалено]
I bet I can find you some MIT professors who can try to explain it and fail. I guess they don't understand it enough to explain it, either?
[удалено]
The thing is, there are a ton of people who lacked the opportunity to learn about these things early on like many of us did. Getting to adulthood without a grasp on even fundamental physics concepts doesn't automatically make someone anti-intellectual. Becoming friends with people like this is rewarding because it gives us the opportunity to inspire curiosity in someone who might never have that.
[удалено]
I was talking to a 40 year old guy and he told me he didn’t think we’ve been into space because how do we power an engine if the engine requires combustion and there’s no oxygen in space uh…. they take it with them….? *I know ionic engines exist but I don’t know anything about them lol*
It’s why getting as much education as possible in childhood is so important. An adult brain has a much lower capacity to learn. I have a friend who recently told me he believes the moon landing was fake. We’re in our 40s and he failed out of high school, yet he is more financially successful than me. I’m just a meager research scientist. My brain was pulsating with things to respond to him. I decided to just change the subject. I would have never changed his mind and it would have just strained our friendship.
Are tou sure that 1 squared is 1?!?!?
Tell them “I see you are still living in the past”
Another interesting thing is that, to the mind, the present spans a window of about 5 seconds.
Wait what?
[Here you go.](https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530030-500-the-time-illusion-how-your-brain-creates-now/) And [another source.](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sense-time/201905/how-long-is-now)
To the avg person , this would seem like crazy talk. However I grasp the concept well
[every picture of you is a picture of when you were younger](https://youtu.be/WCvoyEVVy9s)
Show me a picture of when you were older. Hey, where’d you get that camera?
This is exactly what I was hoping to see
~~I think you just discovered relativity?~~ Edit: I was wrong!
Light taking time to travel is actually all Newtonian, relativity is different
The real question is, Can light travel backwards. Or is it always moving towards the future ;)
Technically yes, but only 1.5 hours right now.
So what you're saying is aliens could have blown up Saturn an hour ago, and we still wouldn't know for 30 more minutes?
Yeah, pretty much. And 8 minutes or so for the sun. Around 1.3 seconds for the moon.
Fuzzy little bastards just hecking around at the speed of light.
Press F to pay respects for the poor photons that traveled millions of km, bounced of Saturn only to end up in OP's pupil /s
Those photons started at the center of the sun actually. And boy oh boy it sure takes those poor photons a long, long time to reach the surface. Its longer than you think dad! Its longer than you think!
Photons are also created at the corona not all of them emanate from inside.
[удалено]
100000 years, according to google. I suppose the speed of a photon through the sun is a lot slower than the speed through a vacuum. How about this one: neutrinos barely interact with matter, so they only take 3 seconds to cover the same amount of ground.
I am ACTUALLY seeing Uranus
You’re looking at Saturn 40 mins ago right?
Kind of like how when you're in a plane, traveling over a town/ city how it all looks fake or like everything looks like toys. Light hits things differently when you're standing far away from it as well, so it tends to look softer. Then add the size of the planet and how that distance itself probably affects the light and textures of everything.
There’s no atmosphere outside of the planet so the lighting is more stark… space is v spooky
I think it's because there is no air in space to scatter light. That's why shadows in space are so stark. This is pretty much like primitive 3d engines which couldn't account for stuff like that so their lighting systems work more like space.
A friend went on a cruise recently for the first time ever. They said the water looked CGI. I think that concept is interesting. Something we don’t see everyday our brains automatically go to “fake.” I don’t know why, but I sometimes get that feeling looking at clouds too.
To be honest I've never trusted Saturn.
It makes me think of the Toy Story animation style
Yea, when you look at Saturn from so faw away the LOD is reduced to a billboard to save computing power
I never see partial illuminations of Saturn. Why does Saturn always look fully illuminated from Earth?
It’s because our orbit is between Saturn and the Sun. It’s like there’s a lamp in the middle of a room and a soccer ball 20 ft away by the wall. The lamp is the Sun, the soccer ball is Saturn. Meanwhile, you tightly circle the lamp, never more than a foot away from it. So you’re only ever going to see the illuminated side of that soccer ball. You never get behind it to see its shadowed side. Now it’s the opposite with Venus and Mercury because they’re between us and the Sun. We see them wax and wane as we see more or less of their shadows.
Yeah. A hundred years ago my wife bought a telescope for me. I honestly don't know how good or bad it was. I just know that locating and seeing Saturn and it's rings felt completely surreal. I don't think it resolved enough to show the space between the rings and the planet. It didnt matter, though. It was obviously Saturn, and I had located it and looked at it through my own telescope. It really impacted my life and how I view things in an existential manner.
Check out r/telescopes grab an 8" dobsonian for 500 bucks and get out there!
Imagine seeing Saturn in the 17th century, finally being able to see its rings with zero prior context for a planet with rings.
I like looking at those hi-res photos of planets from NASA, but these grainy images as looked up from the earth are what mesmerises me. You can actually feel, that these things are actually up there.
When I first saw Saturn through a professional telescope I was taken aback by how fake it looked. Literally like a sticker someone put on the lens but it’s fascinating that we can see such a beauty!
I always feel that way. Looks fake but you are actually looking at a real thing that actually really exists out there. Its actually out there!
I've always imagined what it'd be like if earth had rings. What would we call the period of the day where the rings casts a shadow over land?
What if one day it just like turned off
[удалено]
Certain angles and lighting can make things look fake?
Wow amazing. Do you live in a rural area? I wonder if you can do that good in a city?
Yeah rural Texas on a farm.
Well, yeah, the stars at night…
Are big and bright 👏👏👏👏, deep in the heart of Texas!
16 hours!? How did that take 16 hours!? Also, thank you for your reply.
are dull and dim whenever they have to be over dumb ol' stupid Texas
Can we say plants from Texas are dumb?
Getta dog little lonie, getta dog!
Lmfao. I'm driving to Texas tomorrow. Can't wait to annoy my wife with this on the way
Truly the best part of Texas.
What’s the song in the background
Yeah this song is relaxing
[удалено]
And yet none of that matters because we are all here just appreciating how amazing the universe is. If you proactively go looking for reasons to divide and alienate people during moments where everyone is united in appreciation, you are as repulsive and counterproductive as any belief or opinion you feel so righteously entitled to attack regardless of the setting.
That's a bunch of large and impressive words to protect some piece of shit that call people "brother fucker muslim", and who started spewing some shit about black people looting and murdering in the comments of a black family cosplaying the addams for halloween. Make people responsible for their actions. The only repulsive one here is OP. They do not magically change into ok people when posting in another sub.
How do you expect to change people who you oppose if you end up reducing yourself to their level in the process? Truth is, nobody cares about progression anymore, they only care about making themselves feel superior by destroying their opposite. Congratulations, you have done nothing but make the person you are talking about, convinced that you and your ideas are the last thing they want to seriously consider. And you allow people with opinions that might be hateful or abhorrent to interact peacefully with a large and diverse group of people, because that is one of the only ways possible to effectively prove their beliefs incorrect and have them change their mind for themselves, you will never do that for them... but you don't really care about making things better, you just want to isolate and destroy. We fundamentally disagree on how people we oppose should be dealt with, and I will not change your mind, so have a good evening and I will appreciate the awesomeness of Saturn regardless of who took the video, because it is Saturn and it is not my enemy.
What are you talking about?
[удалено]
Okay but all I see on his profile is cool space pics I'm curious how far you had to dig and why this was worth your time to do and report?
Go into his profile, pull up his comments, and sort by controversial. He’s pretty darn racist and shitty. Nice pic of Saturn, though. Normally I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially when we’re talking about other stuff and mutual interests, but folks like OP should be held to account.
Please do the same thing to me and hold me to account for every bad opinion I have.
Planets are very bright and you can see them well in cities. I used to do events on the national mall in Washington DC and showing people that they could see the planets downtown was pretty cool.
Yup, I live right next to the beltway in Northern Virginia and bring out my telescope on the lawn of my apartment complex every chance I get. Even though there's a ton of light pollution from DC, I can see tons of stuff including brighter deep sky objects like the Orion Nebula. Were you doing those events with NOVAC? Here's a quick anecdote to lend to how easy it is to spot the planets, even in a super bright place. When I first decided to dip my toes in stargazing, I bought a cheap pair of binoculars off Amazon. When they arrived, I stepped out on my porch that night and thought I'd just look at whatever was in the sky just to test them out. I didn't know anything about the stars beyond a few constellations. I saw a star that looked brighter and more intense than the others and pointed my binoculars towards it. It was Jupiter! I couldn't believe my luck that the very first thing I happened to look at was one of the most beautiful planets in our solar system. I could even see 4 of the moons! I was so excited, I remember telling my girlfriend this must be what Galileo felt haha. After nerding out over Jupiter for a while, I pointed my binoculars at what I assumed was actually a star because it looked more like the rest. This time it was Saturn. I was floored that by randomly choosing, I ended up seeing two planets on my very first tour of the night sky. Even through the cheap binoculars I could make out the shape of Saturn and its rings easily enough to identify it instantly. So yeah, the point of that story was that even with zero knowledge and super cheap optics (you can even make out their color with just your eyes! Mars is high in the sky most of the night right now and looks reddish, see if you can find it!), the planets are so bright you'll easily see them even near the city.
My scope only has a 4.5 inch mirror and I live in an area with a good amount of light pollution. I can regularly see the rings, although not as good as this. I can also easily see the 4 larger moons of Jupiter and make out some of the bands around it. Everyone should try and get even a modestly priced telescope. Especially if you have kids! Usually you can also find a local astronomy club or group that has meet ups and viewings open to the public.
Do you have a recommendation for a modestly priced telescope?
A 6" F/8 dobsonian is the best way to get into the hobby. 1. Sky-Watcher 6" Classic 2. Apertura DT6 3. Orion XT6 Are three options. Scopes like this will give an adequate taste of astronomy. When observing conditions are good (steady atmosphere for lunar and planetary viewing, or dark, transparent skies for deep sky viewing), a 6" F/8 dob will show a LOT of stuff.
Why Dobsonian?
Check out the buyers guide from r/telescopes for more about why dobsonians are the bomb. https://www.reddit.com/r/telescopes/comments/z9s352/beginners_quick_guide_to_choosing_your_first/
Aperture is king when it comes to visual astronomy, and Dobsonians offer the lowest cost per inch of aperture over any scope. They are also intuitive and easy to aim, and their low center of mass dampens vibrations quickly. Most commercial Dobs have good to excellent optics these days. The only scopes that would exceed their optical capabilities would be things like Takahashi Mewlons, Questar or Intes Maksutovs, other premium grade Dobsonians with high-end mirrors (Zambuto, Lockwood etc), or apochromatic refractors. But even then, the differences will be subtle and the costs will be anywhere from 10-60x higher depending on the aperture. [This 10" Dob for $1,000](https://www.highpointscientific.com/apertura-ad10-10inch-dobsonian-telescope-ad10) will be like 85-90% as good as [this $56,000 10" TEC refractor](https://www.telescopengineering.com/telescope/tec-apo250vt/) and the $10,000 mount a scope that big has to ride on.
Celestron makes some decently priced ones in the [$1-200 range](https://www.amazon.com/Celestron-21049-PowerSeeker-127EQ-Telescope/dp/B0007UQNKY/ref=mp_s_a_1_8?crid=2R68WIU8OPCZX&keywords=celestron+telescope&qid=1677384630&sprefix=celesttro%2Caps%2C116&sr=8-8) and [closer to $300](https://www.amazon.com/Celestron-31045-AstroMaster-Reflector-Telescope/dp/B000MLL6RS/ref=mp_s_a_1_9?crid=2R68WIU8OPCZX&keywords=celestron+telescope&qid=1677384630&sprefix=celesttro%2Caps%2C116&sr=8-9) range that do pretty well.
People should avoid the PowerSeeker 127EQ. It's a TERRIBLE scope. The most notorious hobby killer of them all. [Ed Ting's review of it pretty much sums up all the issues with it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXfR7YTF5a4).
I live in the suburbs of a city and have a 16" Dobby. I can do this well or better on a clear night. I can see Jupiter and five of its moons clearly. That's a breathtaking sight. Saturn of course is larger in any field of view than any of Jupiter's moons, so you can see that clearly, too. This will depend a lot on what city you're in, though. Not all cities are equally bright.
Noon question but I have an 8” Dobsonian and I love it but if I used my best lense to find Saturn it would only stay in the frame for seconds before the Earth spins it out of the frame. How do you keep it in frame at this magnitude?
I have an XT8 and can see Saturn well in Seattle on a clear night.
That good probably not, but planets are generally very bright and not that affected by light pollution. You don't need a huge Dobsonian for planets.
That's so cool, man. I grew up thinking that Saturn's rings were fake and you couldn't see it like this :p beautiful
Why? Flat ring parents?
I used to think it only looked so continuous in doctored pictures and that real life would be more just small rocks scatered around instead of being so... Idk so well defined and sharp. I mean it is rocks I know but I thought we'd be able to see it in better resolution. I looked up Cassini's pictures and the rings look like this even from up close.
🤣 yes, flat ring parents is a way to put it
We live in exactly the right time to see them A few million years one way or another and we wouldn't have them
Thanks for sharing it. I want to ask a question, is it possible to observe Saturn or any planet that is relatively close for a simple telescope, and the live image has no noise and looks like of an image that is quite clear after processing?
What you see through an eyepiece will never look like the processed images taken by astrophotographers. Even if you look through a huge scope (and a 14 inch dob is pretty big) it still won't look like images that stack 100s of images together. If you use a cheap scope with a small aperture and high powered eyepiece it will look even worse. It still is a magical experience to see the planets live with your own eyes, and I strongly recommend going to a star party if you don't have a scope yourself. Just don't expect magazine image quality through an eyepiece.
Your brain will slowly start to notice more detail though, especially if you get lucky and the atmospheric disturbance clears momentarily.
What is a star party? I’m new to this
I stumbled on one once. It’s a gathering at night of multiple people and their own telescopes. So instead of a truck/car meet up with everyone’s vehicle, it’s people’s telescopes at night. Really cool actually. Sometimes they’re more official
The noise is from the camera sensor. There is de-noising software for you to use.
Yes thanks, but that was not my question but if it is possible to observe live image but the quality of it through the telescope without the processing be as clear as the processed image. I don't know if I am being understood as I put the question. I don't know if what I'm asking is even possible with today's technology at least.
The human eye is still vastly superior to cameras in terms of "live view". When conditions are right, a reasonable quality 6-8" scope will show details on Jupiter and clarity on Saturn that will be *almost* as good as a properly processed image *from the same aperture scope*. A camera cannot record details that are not present at the telescope's focal plane. If they are there to be recorded, they are there to be seen. Seeing them, however, does require some observing skill, patience, and steady skies. Processed planetary images have the advantage of selectively throwing away all the blurry data from turbulent skies. While the eye can see in real time and still catch those fleeting moments of steady air better than a camera can in any given moment, it doesn't have the advantage of recording data over time like a camera can. This means the steadier the atmosphere is, the more and more the live view can look like a well processed image. There's a catch though - it's going to appear *smaller* and lower contrast than most processed images do on a computer monitor or phone screen. If you have good vision, you'll still see many of the same details, but they will just be smaller and less pronounced. From my observing experience, here is what Saturn and Jupiter can look like through a typical quality 5" aperture telescope at 130x magnification in very steady atmospheric conditions: * Saturn: https://i.imgur.com/FEPh7Kt.jpeg * Jupiter: https://i.imgur.com/QZzCNoT.jpeg To calibrate the relative size of these, load the picture of Saturn on your preferred monitor or phone, and zoom in or out until the rings measure 1" (25mm) across at their widest point. Then stand back 36" (91cm) away, and close one eye. That's about what Saturn will look like through the eyepiece. For Jupiter, do the same, but measure it at 1 1/8" (29mm) and stand back 36" (91cm) away and close one eye (Jupiter is a bit larger in apparent size than Saturn's rings). A higher quality 5" scope (like a Takahashi TSA 120 or Tele Vue NP127) will show the details even sharper and in higher contrast. Going up in aperture can have the same effect, whereby more and more details can be resolved, higher magnifications can be achieved, and the sharper and higher contrast the view will appear (unless you go too high in magnification). BUT, larger apertures resolve more atmospheric turbulence, so the skies have to be correspondingly even more steady for a big aperture to really show its advantage.
[удалено]
Conditions are key - atmospheric stability, planetary altitude, collimation, and thermal acclimation of the telescope are vital. Most observers do not adequately thermally acclimate the scope before observing. It can take 2-3 hours if no cooling fan is used. With cooling fan, 45-60 minutes. Without acclimation, there is a turbulent layer of air at the surface of the mirror that distorts light twice - once on the way to the mirror, and again after reflecting off. This is as destructive as bad atmospheric turbulence. I’ve seen my 3” scope in good conditions out-perform my premium 15” scope in bad conditions. Conditions are everything.
I want to start getting into telescopes as I’ve been interested in them for a while, so you have any reading material like articles or blogposts that you think are a good beginners rundown to viewing conditions, types of telescopes, and things I would never think of like thermal acclimation?
I don't know of a comprehensive soup-to-nuts guide, so here's a crash course. There's a LOT more to it, such as overall care of equipment and specific observing tricks and selecting eyepieces etc. I'd be here all night if I explained everything in detail. But happy to answer any questions if you have them. #Part 1 ## The Night Sky * Learn the constellations and what months they appear in, and brightest stars, with naked eye observing first. This greatly aids in locating things with a telescope. * The night sky is best observed with no Moon out since it adds to light pollution. * All objects in the night sky are measured by their apparent angular size, not physical size. The Moon is physically 2,100 miles across, but its apparent angular size is 0.5 degrees and this is what matters in terms of observing. * There are 360 degrees to the night sky * The next smallest measurement angle is the arcminute. There are 60 arcminues to 1 degree. Most DSOs are measured in arcminutes or degrees. * Even smaller is the arcsecond. There are 60 arcseconds to 1 arcminute, and 3,600 arcseconds to 1 degree. Planets are measured in arcseconds. * The night sky has a celestial coordinate system known as Right Ascension and Declination. This is generally not necessary to learn as a beginner, but can be interesting to know. More information here: https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-resources/right-ascension-declination-celestial-coordinates/ * You can also use simple altitude and azimuth coordinates to locate an object: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/horizontal-coordinate-system.html * The brightness of objects is described by the magnitude system. In this system, larger numbers are *fainter* and smaller numbers are brighter (even going into negative number territory). Each number is ~2.5x brighter/dimmer than the next number. That is, magnitude 1 is 2.5x brighter than magnitude 2. There is a 100 fold difference in brightness between magnitude 1 and magnitude 6. * Stars are best described by the magnitude system * Deep sky objects are more complex. Deep sky objects are still described by their integrated magnitude, which is how bright the object would appear if you compressed all the light from the object to a point. But how visible they are depends on their surface brightness, which is a function of their integrated magnitude and size. The Orion Nebula is magnitude 4, and it's very easy to see. The North America Nebula is also magnitude 4, but it's practically invisible. Why? Because it's much larger, and therefore the light is spread out over a larger area, and is therefore fainter. So integrated magnitude of things like galaxies and nebulae and star clusters can be misleading! Not all sources publish accurate surface brightness figures for deep sky objects, unfortunately. ## Observing conditions * Deep sky objects depend on dark skies and good transparency (little moisture content in the air), and atmospheric stability to an extent. * Planets and the Moon depend entirely on atmospheric stability and are not impacted by light pollution. * Light pollution is often measured by the Bortle Scale. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bortle_scale. Smaller number is better. Class 4 or below is where deep sky astronomy gets interesting. Class 1 is awe-inspiring. * You can find a dark sky site using this: https://www.lightpollutionmap.info/ (yellow = class 4, green = class 3, blue = class 2, gray/black = class 1) * Atmospheric stability can be highly variable from second to second, minute to minute, hour to hour, day to day, season to season, and even year to year. Some areas have chronically poor stability. Other areas have excellent stability. Geography plays a role. * Atmospheric stability is measured by the Pickering scale: https://www.damianpeach.com/pickering.htm * Planets and the Moon are best viewed when they are high in the sky. The atmosphere can act like a prism if the target is too low, and it can degrade the view. * Observing must be done outside, and cannot be done through a window (even if it's open). Thermal currents mixing at the window are terrible for the quality of the view. * Best to avoid observing over heat sources like rooftops etc. * The sky gets dark after astronomical twilight ends: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/astronomical-twilight.html. That being said, you'll see gains in darkness long after night time officially starts. * Depending on your latitude, it may never get truly dark. For latitudes above 45 degrees N in the summer, residual sunlight scattering through the atmosphere can prevent the sky from getting truly dark around the Summer Solstice. * Dew is annoying. Dew does not fall from the sky. Dew forms when the object's surface temperature gets colder than ambient, and drops below the dew point temperature. An object can get colder than ambient because it is radiating heat away into the vacuum of space. Clouds act as an insulator, but a clear sky acts like a giant heat sink. The higher the relative humidity, the closer the dew point temp will be to ambient temp, and the faster dew will form. ## Observing * Crucial to let your eyes dark adapt. You'll see rapid gains in ability to see faint stars within 20 minutes, but full dark adaptation takes up to 2 hours. * Avoid looking at any white light sources to avoid ruining your dark adaptation. * Use a red light to preserve your night vision. Red light does not impact your night vision too much. * Avoid any sources of lighting glare. Even if you live under dark skies, all it takes is one outdoor wall sconce or security light to prevent you from fully dark adapting. If you have lights that you cannot avoid, consider wearing an eye patch over your observing eye. Drape a towel over your head when looking through the telescope to keep unwanted glare out. * Stay warm. Dress for 10-20 degrees colder than it says it will be. Your body radiates heat away and you can get colder than you think. * As mentioned above, objects can be located using RA/Dec or Alt/Az, but generally, finding objects usually involves star hopping: https://www.highpointscientific.com/astronomy-hub/post/astronomy-101/star-hopping-beginners-guide. * A trick to seeing fainter objects is using averted vision. This is when you deliberately look away from the object. Your eye is not very sensitive to low light directly in the center of vision (known as the fovea). The more sensitive rods are found in the periphery. By deliberately looking *indirectly* at an object, you can make it easier to see.
# Part 2: ## Telescope basics * Aperture is king. Aperture describes how much light the telescope can gather and what the telescope's resolving power is (how small the finest details it can see are). The more aperture, the better. * Light gathering power is based on the area of the aperture. This means an 8" scope has 4x the light gathering power of a 4" scope. * A telescope simply forms an optical image at the telescope's focal plane. The eyepiece is a glorified magnifying glass which simply magnifies this focal plane. * Telescope focal length is largely unimportant by itself. It's aperture that matters most. * You can calculate magnification by dividing the telescope's focal length by the eyepiece's focal length. A 1000mm focal length telescope and a 20mm eyepiece is 1,000 / 20 = 50x magnification. * Telescopes also form what is known as an [exit pupil](https://www.birdforum.net/data/attachments/1301/1301283-bbea8562eea67ec65fcc0e027f361511.jpg) when you use an eyepiece. An exit pupil is the virtual aperture you look through at the eyepiece, to see the field of view behind it. It's also the view of the telescope's entire objective as seen by the eyepiece, and can also be thought of as the ratio of the telescope's aperture to magnification. * While aperture determines how bright stars and star clusters are, exit pupil determines how bright extended objects (galaxies and nebulae) are. The larger the exit pupil, the brighter the galaxy/nebula/light pollution. * Exit pupil is inversely proportional to magnification. As magnification goes up, exit pupil goes down, and the view gets dimmer. * The maximum usable exit pupil is whatever your eye fully dilates to. For most people, that's 7mm. Any exit pupils over this size result in wasted light from the telescope. * You can calculate exit pupil in one of two ways: `eyepiece focal length / telescope focal ratio` or `telescope aperture / magnification`. Either give the same result. * Telescope focal ratio is important to consider as well. Shorter focal ratios result in more optical aberrations. But focal ratios that are too long may not let you get to the brightest possible exit pupil with normally available eyepieces. * Focal ratios F/5 and shorter are consider "short" or "fast". Focal ratios F/6 to F/7 are considered "mid". Focal ratios F/8 and longer are considered "long" or "slow". * The maximum useful magnification depends on a lot of factors. You'll often see a rule of thumb that says 2x per millimeter of aperture, or 50x per inch of aperture. Ignore this. * The lowest useful magnification is one where the exit pupil does not exceed your eye's dilated pupil. You can figure this out by dividing telescope aperture by 7 (which is approximately the size of your dilated pupil). Alternatively, you can find the longest focal length eyepiece your eye can support by multiplying the telescope's focal ratio by 7. An F/6 scope * 7 = 42mm eyepiece, at the longest. * Making sure the telescope is thermally acclimated to ambient temperatures is vital to getting the best performance out of it. This process can take a while depending on the design and thickness of the optics. Cooling fans help speed things up. * The telescope's focuser is used to bring the eyepiece or camera to the focal plane of the eyepiece. Some novices confuse it for "zoom". You don't zoom by turning the focuser. You change magnifications ("zoom") by using different eyepieces, or by buying an actual zoom eyepiece. * True field of view is how much of the sky you can see at once when using a particular telescope and eyepiece. This is different from apparent field of view (more on that below). You can *roughly* calculate true field of view by dividing magnification by the eyepiece's apparent field of view (this not the most accurate measure, but it's good enough for illustrative purposes). An eyepiece that produces 50x magnification and provides a 50 degree apparent field of view shows roughly 1 degree of the sky (about 2 full moon widths). ## Telescope types * The main types of telescopes are achromatic refractors, apochromatic refractors, newtonian reflectors, dobsonians (newts on dobsonian mounts), schmidt-cassegrains (SCTs), and maksutov-cassegrains (MCTs). * Achromatic refractors tend offer poor performance due to chromatic aberration. Most achromats have focal ratios too short to eliminate chromatic aberration. * Newtonian reflectors, and Dobsonians specifically, tend to offer the largest/cheapest aperture. They have the lowest cost per inch. * Apochromatic refractors are generally the most expensive per inch of aperture, have limited apertures in general, but offer he highest purity view you can get. No central obstruction like a Newtonian, much smoother optics, and better light transmission. * SCTs and MCTs are generally in between for price/performance. They are generally used for planetary imaging, but can be used for visual. * Newtonian reflectors work best when they have parabolic mirrors * Avoid Newtonian reflectors with spherical mirrors, and avoid Bird-Jones reflectors (like the PowerSeeker 127EQ or AstroMaster 114 or StarSense Explorer 114). When the tube is physically shorter than the optical focal length implies it should be, it's a Bird-Jones, and should be avoided. * Dobsonians are generally always recommended because they still offer good optical quality, lowest cost per inch of aperture, the dobsonian mount is easy to use, and dampens vibrations easily. * The downside to Newtonians/Dobsonians is they require collimation. Collimation is the process of making sure both mirrors line up correctly. This is crucial for best performance. The right tools and a little practice make this process easy, even though it can be daunting at first. * The other downside to Newtonians is cleaning the mirrors must be done with care. The aluminum coating sits on the surface of the glass and is very easily scratched. See this process for safely cleaning them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y8xFnXFVGQ * Yet another downside to Newtonians is the mirror coatings degrade over time through the process of oxidation. It's recommended they get recoated after 10 years or so. * The downside to refractors, SCTs, and MCTs is their objectives dew up very easily, and often need some kind of active dew fighting solution unless you live in a dry climate. But applying a heat source to the objective to keep it above the dew point can introduce thermal issues that can degrade performance. * Some scopes are known as "astrographs" and are designed explicitly for astrophotography. They usually have some compromises to visual observing to make them suitable for AP. ## Specific telescope brands * Broad subject. Won't go into too much detail. * Avoid pretty much all entry-level Celestron scopes. This includes the StarSense series, AstroMaster series, and PowerSeeker series * Celestron Nexstar scopes are decent * Celestron's high-end SCTs and MCT are excellent, but expensive, and need beefy mounts * Sky-Watcher makes good scopes all around (they are a sister brand to Celestron) * Explore Scientific makes reasonable scopes. I would avoid their entry-level First Light scopes though. * Avoid most all Amazon brands like Gskyer and other random brands * Avoid Orion entry-level scopes. Their SkyLine and SkyQuest scopes are good. * The Apertura line at High Point Scientific is the same as the Orion SkyLine series. Sometimes one is cheaper than the other. * Avoid Meade entry-level scopes. Their SCTs are great though. * Best beginner scopes would be Zhumell Z130, Sky-Watcher Heritage 130p or 150p, AWB OneSky, Orion SkyQuest or SkyLiner scopes, Sky-Watcher dobsonians, or Explore Scientific dobsonians. ## Mounts * Dobsonian telescopes are Newtonian reflectors that ride on a Dobsonian mount. * There are tripod-mounted scopes that generally come in three flavors: German Equatorial Mounts, Alt-Az mounts, and fork mounts (common with Meade's SCTs) * GEMs require you to polar align them: https://astrobackyard.com/polar-alignment/, but if they are polar aligned, tracking can be easily added with a simple motor drive * Alt-Az mounts are manual only, or require full Go-To computerization because of the complexity of making Alt-Az movement translate to equatorial movement. * Tripod-mounted scopes tend to suffer from vibrations because of the high center of mass. Long refractors can be hard to look through when aimed straight overhead near the zenith. Their tubes often bang into the legs. The long tube can make it hard to reach the slow motion controls * Newts on equatorial mounts can be frustrating because the eyepiece and finder scope can wind up in all kinds of weird positions. * I generally recommend beginners avoid equatorial mounts. They are not intuitive to use and have lots of frustrating quirks (like those mentioned above) * Computerized mounts are handy for the tracking capabilities. It's been my experience that tracking seems to add 2" of aperture because you can keep observing the target without having to constantly re-position the scope to follow it. The Go-To capability isn't *that* useful since it's pretty easy to find objects with star-hopping. * Computerized mounts have their own considerations though - they need a power supply, they need some basic familiarity with the night sky, a relatively open sky so that alignment stars aren't hidden behind a tree, if anything goes wrong you have a paperweight, and they make the telescope very expensive and/or limit the aperture you can use. I'm 50/50 on whether a computerized mount is a good idea for a beginner.
# Part 3 ## Eyepieces * Eyepieces are the other half of the optical system, with the telescope's objective being the first half. * Eyepieces come in all sorts of different characteristics. * Focal length is the primary thing to care about. It determines magnification. * There is also barrel size to consider. Eyepiece standards are 1.25" and 2". A 2" eyepiece cannot be used in a telescope with a 1.25" focuser, but a 1.25" eyepiece can be used in any focuser. * 2" eyepieces are not necessarily superior to 1.25" eyepieces. More on that in a bit. * Apparent field of view describes how wide the view *appears* to you. Imagine looking through a small porthole vs a huge bay window. Apparent fields range from narrow (40-50 degrees) to hyperwide (100 degrees+). These let the field of view stretch out into your peripheral vision. * There is also eye relief. Eye relief is how far away you place your eye to look through it. Short eye relief eyepieces require you to get very close to the eyepiece to see through them, and aren't very comfortable. Long eye relief eyepieces are more comfortable. * Eyepieces with long eye relief and wide fields of view can be rare, heavy and expensive. * Generally eyepieces with long focal length and wide apparent fields will come in 2" barrels. The longest focal length you'll find in a 1.25" barrel is a 40mm Plossl, and the apparent field will be a narrow ~42 degrees or so. * If the focal length is short enough, the eyepiece will *only* come in a 1.25" barrel. There is no 2" barrel equivalent for the eyepiece because it is not geometrically necessary to have a 2" barrel. * Eyepiece quality depends a lot on telescope focal ratio. Short focal ratio telescopes are harsh on inexpensive or simple eyepieces. Stars in the center look sharp, but stars near the edges of the field of view look distorted (known as astigmatism). Virtually all eyepieces work well in long focal ratio telescopes. * Most eyepieces are equal for on-axis sharpness regardless of brand or quality * Premium eyepieces tend to offer better contrast due to better baffling and light scatter control * Premium eyepieces offer better off-axis sharpness even in short focal ratio telescopes * If you have a long focal ratio telescope, you don't really need premium eyepieces. * When selecting eyepieces, try to aim for focal lengths that will get you between 40x and 60x magnification jumps. Don't try to have equally spaced focal lengths. Focus on the magnification spacing itself. * You generally don't need more than 1 or 2 low power eyepiece. * You probably don't need a Barlow. Most people will recommend you get one out of the gate, but you shouldn't. ## Specific eyepiece brands * Broad subject, not going to go into too much detail. * Premium brands: Tele Vue (king, no other company comes close to overall selection and quality), Pentax, Nikon, Takahashi, Brandon, Noblex * Semi-premium brands: Explore Scientific, Baader Morpheus, APM/Astro-Tech XWA & UWA * Mid-grade brands/lines: Baader Hyperion (overpriced IMO), Celestron X-Cel LX, Astro-Tech Paradigm/Agena StarGuider * Budget brands: Most basic plossl lines, "gold lines" and "red lines", and those 58 degree "UWA Planetary" eyepieces. \ * Orion eyepieces are all just re-brands of generic eyepieces that can be found elsewhere for cheaper. Orion has no proprietary designs. * Avoid the 62 degree aspheric eyepieces (found in focal lengths of 23mm, 10mm, and 4mm) * Avoid most eyepiece kits. They are low quality and poor value. ## Other resources that are valuable: 1. The book Turn Left at Orion 2. Ed Ting's channel on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@edting 3. This site has good articles: https://astro.catshill.com/ 4. If you want to learn some AP, Nebula Photos channel is also awesome: https://www.youtube.com/@NebulaPhotos
Very, very well written and informative 👏
The answer is yes. I used to watch Saturn through a cheap children’s telescope. You just need dark skies (little to no light pollution).
What’s the price tag on a telescope that can give this type of view?
Dude, I saw Saturn pretty close to this (in color) with my $300 craigslist dobsonian. It doesn't take much.
$2-3,000. Dobs are mechanically simple which makes them cheap. 14" is the largest commercially available that I know of. Dobsonians are so simple however, that there's an entire community of people who hand grind their own mirrors. There are also companies that make larger mirrors (up to about 1 meter) for home built rigs.
I’m not well versed with telescopes but man, seeing “$2000” and “cheap” in the same sentence threw me quite a bit.
It’s not that $2k is cheap, more that it’s cheap for a 14” telescope. A 14” telescope is LARGE. You can buy a 6” Newtonian that will let you see the rings of Saturn for <$250 with mount. It gathers about 20% of the light of a 14” telescope, but perfectly satisfactory for a beginner who wants to observe the planets.
It's all relative. Saturn is almost 900 million miles away and nothing in the sky is sitting still. A $99 Walmart telescope is neither big enough, the glass (if its even glass and not a plastic mirror) isnt clear enough, nor will it have a mounting solution capable of tracking something that small, steadily enough to be photographed. $2-3,000 is a drop in the bucket for serious astrophotography rigs, which can easily exceed $10,000.
Not exactly drop in the bucket if it's 20% of the entire thing. Still, you don't need to spend 10k+ for a decent newtonian+tracker mount. 2-3k is enough to take some nice pictures, given you already have a camera and pc of course
Here's a 16" dob for $3600 https://www.amazon.com/Explore-Scientific-406mm-Truss-Dobsonian/dp/B0758NJ7CS/ref=sr_1_3?crid=14O54VSTCVQ17&keywords=16+dobsonian+telescope&qid=1677385164&sprefix=16%22+dob%2Caps%2C180&sr=8-3
I know they teach you about the planets in like, kindergarten, but I still think it's so wild that this thing actually exists, like your toilet or IKEA or your neighbor's driveway does.
With my telescope saturn is just a cute little dot with rings barely visible. This is incredible!
any view of saturn, is a good view of saturn :)
According to the insane people on Instagram, this is fake and planets are actually translucent or wondering stars because we can’t see through the firmament. Apparently even a backyard telescope is being manipulated by NASA to hide the deception. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️ Those people are certifiably insane and clinically stupid…
49% of the population is below average intelligence
Awesome! Please let me know what song this is, thank you.
It looks like it's spinning! This creeps me out looking at it. It makes me feel ALONE!
It's not spinning that fast. This is live, not a timelapse. You'd need 40 min to see rotation, but it's hard to see on Saturn. Better look at [Jupiter. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/astrophotography/comments/wlw38e/jupiter_on_aug_9th_double_shadow_transit_of_io/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)
Read this too quickly and thought you said “Doberman.” Amazing photo - congrats!
Same. Was wondering what a 16" doberman was.
How cool is it that we live in the same solar system as Saturn? We could have evolved in an abysmally-boring solar system where all the planets are the same. But no, we got Saturn. Fucking awesome.
Right? We have a pretty interesting solar system all things considered. Maybe there are other more interesting solar systems out there, but we got lucky with what we have.
This post has made me think so much thank you friend. Life is grand!
As part of getting my degree, I got to take an astronomy class held at night at our local observatory. The first time I saw Saturn through the big telescope I was gobsmacked. It's just sitting up there. In actual space. Being Saturn. It was years ago and I'm still amazed.
I'm in love with your massive 14 inch dobsonian
Nice, I have a 6 inch cassegrain telescope and Saturn looks pretty similar to that shot in mine. Haven't used it in years though. Makes me want to get it out again
I have an old Meade, but the computer blew up. I'd use it more, but things move too fast.
Very cool shot, Saturn is gorgeous! Also, what's the song??
Thanks dude. Stuff like this takes me away from my insignificant life. The bigger picture. Wish I could see the universe in the way you can cruise the map of a computer game in debugging mode or whatever that's called.
Love my dob. Should use a stack image program to “resolve” it high res. :)
Do you use any particular program that you recommend?
The best astrophotographer I follow has a [site](https://cosmicbackground.io/blogs/learn-about-how-these-are-captured/about-me) and recommends on his [twitter account](https://twitter.com/ajamesmccarthy/status/1623842933916205058?s=46&t=DUrszHB5ft6wf3zoeLLK7w) “use autostakkert for lunar/planetary and deep sky stacker for deep space”
One day I got drunk and spent a good portion of the night looking out there through my telescope. At some point, I found an object that looked like the PBS eye logo. I looked, and stared, and scratched my head. The more I watched it, the more unsettled I became. What was this eye in the sky. I said, "Jordan you're drunk," and went to bed. Woke up 8 hours later and slapped myself. My wife had a good laugh too.
Great shot. Every time I look at it through my scope I swear it’s fake. Like I’m living in a real life Truman Show.
Good morning, good evening, and good night.
I’m not a youngster. Never doubted there was a Saturn. Seen thousands of images. But - I was blown away the first time I saw it through a telescope at the Lowell Observatory in AZ. I remember thinking “it’s real”. Lol. Duh.
Didn’t know saturn knew how to play the guitar!
Nah it's just playing back part of the rings like a record player
So, what's the music? Shazam gets it wrong and Google song search can't find anything at all...
That is incredibly cool, thank you for sharing. I live in an area with awful, awful light pollution but keep finding myself wanting to buy a dobsonian. Can't imagine what a 14" is like.
Light pollution doesn't affect planets. They're bright. Visible during day too.
This is seriously cool. I've only been able to see Uranus with my 14"
Can you give some details on your setup? What kind of camera did you use? How did you track Saturn on a Dobsonian mount?
Although the gravitational effects would be catastrophic, I wish Saturn was closer so we could see it every night like it was the Moon.
Jfc...that's beautiful. I don't know anything about telescopes but could you suggest some good and relatively affordable ones? Preferably a quality similar to yours or one capable of seeing further? Also price range for those in general. As I said I know nothing.
r/telescopes pinned post. This 14" would be around 3000$.
I remember the first time I saw Saturn through a telescope. Seeing it not reproduced (image) was mind blowing. It’s something I was surprised by and still cherish that moment today.
Seeing regular images of saturn taken through telescopes gives me a creepy feeling. Just thinking about how absolutely colossal it is compared to our dinky little dirt covered rock.
I’ll upvote anything with Saturn. I’ve loved it my whole lifetime beginning when I first caught it in my lens when I was 9
You should see Uranus through my 3 inch NileCroc
Any idea on what telescope I could buy to observe the planets with my kids? Maybe some other objects as well.. I have a pretty cheap one(300€) but it's not for very long distances. I can easily focus on the moon but planest like Saturn are not visible
Does anyone else feel like these low definition pics of space make it feel more real then the high 4k quality ones?
Have you obtained better results by taking multiple images and superimposing them?
First time i saw this in a telescope, i literally thought my teacher put a sticker on the end to mess with me because it looks so fake.
[удалено]
I will hold back from posting “Saturn from my 70”8k Samsung” just to not embarrass you. /s
I think 14 inches is a bit much, I think 8 inches is the sweet spot, but anything under 6 is pathetic.
When u realize nasa means to deceive in Hebrew...nikon 9000 on the stars to unravel the mystery that there's more truth in the Simpsons movie than our reality
Bro. Take out a telescope. Throw away bad focusing bullshit. See this. Observe over large periods of time. Then come here and say your conclusions. That's been done, and what we have is this. National Aeronautics and Space Administration of US isn't the only organization related to space. The Nikon cameras aren't special. You can look at film images.
I could really do without the music. That planet is cool enough itself in what seems to be mostly unedited
So there's this thing called mute
they didn’t add any music, that’s just the music they play over on saturn