[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: optical telescope choice



HI 

A few thoughts to help this along:
We have two Celestron 4 inch that we use for viewing nights with our Astronomy class and they are more than adequate for viewing planets and moons of Jupiter and such, but not much more than that - so an upgrade makes sense.  I would advocate for the 8 inch with all the accessories - and if that comes in with enough money to spare - two telescopes really make for a better viewing night so there is not so much waiting in line and you can set up two targets at once.

They do require some practice to set up.

Mike

On Wed, Jun 7, 2023 at 2:59 PM Ken Olum <kdo cosmos phy tufts edu> wrote:
Hi, all.  I asked my friend Alan MacRobert, who used to be an editor at
Sky & Telescope, for his opinion and mentioned the CPC Deluxe 1100 HD.
His comments are below.  (He talks about photographic equipment because
I mentioned the possibility of lending the telescope to some student
keen to do a project with it.)

                                Ken

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Good choice of type and brand; Celestron computerized scopes have a solid
reputation.

But I question the choice of the big, very heavy 11-inch unless it's going
to be permanently mounted in an observatory. I see the optical tube weighs
28 pounds. The mount and tripod each weigh only a little less. Three big,
awkward, heavy things to carry in three trips from storage to car, then
from car to site. How big a car will you need to fit everything? How strong
are the people? Can they lift the tube and mount to tripod height, and
delicately get the bolts to fit in the holes in the dark?

Where will it be stored? Is there really room for it and all its
accessories there? Damp basements not allowed.

Find a wastebasket about the size of the optical tube and fill it with
rocks to that weight (use bathroom scale), and get a feel for what it's
like to carry that 50 or 100 feet.

The same model in the more manageable 9.25-inch (21 lbs optical tube) or
even 8-inch (14 lbs) size will provide nearly the same observing experience
for novices, especially if you take care to choose only brighter targets.
11 inches aperture gets you only 0.4 magnitude deeper than a 9.25-inch, and
only about 0.8 mag deeper than an 8-inch.

As for using up the available money -- don't forget a set of at three
quality, wide-field eyepieces (low, medium, high power); dew shield,
vibration-reduction pads under the tripod legs (all telescopes wiggle),
portable power supply, red flashlight(s), maybe a sky atlas (such as the
Pocket Sky Atlas), accessory bag for this stuff, and perhaps a stool or
chair with adjustable height. And whatever is needed for using a camera:
the camera itself, mounting attachment or bracket, and astro-imaging
software package (PixInsight is the most popular; free license for 45 days,
about $300 after that. This may or may not be more software than you need
for "acceptable" results.)

Some person will need to be seriously committed to putting in real time
mastering the setup and operation, including learning the computer tech.
Same for the setup and operation of the camera, camera accessories, and any
imaging software you'll use.

_______________________________________________
PhysicsTheoryNet mailing list
PhysicsTheoryNet cosmos phy tufts edu
https://cosmos.phy.tufts.edu/mailman/listinfo/physicstheorynet