It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A cheap telescope? for around 150 quid?.

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 11:56 PM
link   
All you need to do is drink two or three bottles of wine, and lay back in your chair while gazing into a kaleidoscope. It's the best result you can get.




posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Cheers all.
I have been reading various sites given to me and many suggest binoculars first before a telescope.
So any ideas on them also?.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 04:06 AM
link   
Nexstar SLT130 but it might be more like 175-200quid



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 04:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Agit8dChop

325 quid



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Yeah, a simple tip I would give,would be to get a model with sturdy legs and solid at that!

Telescopes are so sensitive and just standing next to it whilst using it,can/will create a kind of vibration effect in your lens,they say it may be best using it on soft ground,as patios and balcony etc seem to have a surface that promotes vibration,I thought to myself, maybe i could construct my own viewing 'area' but that's up to you of coarse! I was also thinking of a specially designed 'seat' type thing to make viewing easier as it can become a strain over a long session.

Best of luck to you it is a great hobby you won't look back.

All the best!



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 05:19 AM
link   
Cheers all I have been looking up for clubs and stuff and I found one near me
.

www.huddersfieldastronomy.org...


Gonna contact them and pop along



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 06:13 AM
link   
I bought mine at telescopes.com also as already stated. The celestron astromaster is a decent starter with a 2x barlow lens with a decent equitorial mount. Definitely go out with the club, you will be able to check various scopes and get more insight. You might even be able to get a decent used one through their members.

edit on 1/9/2015 by mugger because: sp.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 06:21 AM
link   
It will be very difficult to get a halfway decent 'scope for $150.

I recommend that you should look into what's called "Dobsonian" telescopes, such as from Skywatcher, their Skyliner series.
I think their smallest is the Skywatcher 6".

Do not buy one new but try to get a used one, check second hand sites and astronomy forums.

If you're lucky you might get a small Skyliner for $150-$200 used and it will be 1000x better than buying a "store telescope" for $150.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: mugger
I bought mine at telescopes.com also as already stated. The celestron astromaster is a decent starter with a 2x barlow lens with a decent equitorial mount. Definitely go out with the club, you will be able to check various scopes and get more insight. You might even be able to get a decent used one through their members.


This *looks* actually decent but I fear that for such a low price you will get pretty crappy optics, $199 for a small reflector with EQ mount is incredibly cheap. But I could be wrong and it could be "relatively decent".
edit on 1/9/2015 by NoRulesAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Gonna look on ebay later and If you lot don't mind can I ask you If I find one if it is any good?.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 06:30 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74

sure : )



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 06:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71


You need a refactor for terrestrial. Reflectors are useless for that.

Beg your pardon?

The better the telescope the better the image quality, regardless. In fact the less lenses the light travels through the less distortion added to the picture in the eye piece.

Thats why reflectors are the best for image quality.



Ok genius, read a book instead of giving your opinion.
Reflector telescopes do not work for terrestrial viewing. They will not give you a usable image. Thats the reason that bionoculars, spotting scopes, cameras and gun scopes are "refractors"
Yes they have a better image for celestial viewing.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71


Ok genius, read a book instead of giving your opinion.
Reflector telescopes do not work for terrestrial viewing.


My opinion is based on experience. I read, too…


A singularly important denote be noted is actually that reflectors don't suffer from chromatic aberrations that happens to be a common issue for refractors. Due to the fact, unlike refraction which alters just how different wavelengths tend to be refracted, mirrors really do not affect the wavelengths whatsoever.

Link

Emphasis added.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


If you had been reading the thread, phoenix asked for a recommendation for "terrestrial" viewing and moon gazing.
A reflector does not work for "terrestrial" viewing. This has nothing to do with image quality. Yes a reflector has a clearer image for stargazing. your link only says reflectors have better image quality.
and I agree, I have two of them.

Tell me why you recommend a telescope that will not work for him/her?



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Whether it works "for terrestrial" has nothing to do with Reflector or Refractor.

Any telescope that shows things upright correctly for terrestrial viewing needs a second lens which turns the picture "up" again. (Most of the time you can get such an additional lens for astronomical telescopes or it's already included as an accessory).

In astronomy, there is no "up" or "down", and every additional lens will degrade the image, this is why astronomical telescopes by default show things upside-down.

if you buy a astronomical Refractor, it will almost certainly not show terrestrial things "correctly" unless you attach the second lens for terrestrial viewing. (Or the scope is a terrestrial scope with the second lens already built in, but then it's not optimal for astronomy.) Sorry for nit-picking here.



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71


A reflector does not work for "terrestrial" viewing.


You keep saying that. Got a link?



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

This was taken directly off of telescope.com website on the understanding telescopes page. Please note the first line under disadvantages.


Advantages
* Easy to use and even construct
* Excellent for faint deep sky objects such as remote galaxies, nebulae and star clusters because of their larger apertures for light gathering.
* Low in optical irregularities and deliver very bright images
* Reasonably compact and portable
* A reflector costs the least per inch of aperture compared to refractors and catadioptrics since mirrors can be produced at less cost than lenses

Disadvantages
* Generally, not suited for terrestrial applications
* Slight light loss due to secondary obstruction when compared with refractors
* The tube is open to the air, which means dust on the optics even if the tube is kept under wraps
* Reflectors may require a little more care and maintenance


www.telescopes.com...
edit on 9-1-2015 by Hoosierdaddy71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   
This puppy, a Mead 5.1"" is $170, US, and your best bang for the buck. Comes with 3 eyepieces, a barlow and software for your PC. , Plus a decent equitorial mount. Great machine to get aquainted with RA/DEC and finding your way around the sky.
www.amazon.com...



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71


A reflector does not work for "terrestrial" viewing.


You keep saying that. Got a link?



Yup

www.thescienceshop.ca...

"Terrestrial viewing can easily be achieved with both short and long optical tube refractors, but shorter refractors with apertures of 70mm to 100mm, and focal lengths of 400mm to 700mm are preferred. Shorter scopes have wider fields of view than longer scopes and for land as well as night viewing, gathering more light gives better resolution which is more important than magnification. When choosing a scope for this purpose keep in mind that you will also be trying to look through the air in front of you, and at higher magnifications the image will shimmer, especially on hot, windy days. Newtonian reflectors are not suitable for terrestrial viewing because observing is done through the side of the tube and you therefore have to turn sideways to the target. Since there is no reasonable way to compensate for this, refractors make better terrestrial scopes. For dual purpose viewing, the refractor is a better choice but with larger apertures you do not have to magnify as much to achieve the same resolution. When using your refractor for daytime viewing, a 45 degree erect image diagonal is required to turn the image right side up. For night sky use, a 90 degree star diagonal is almost a necessity to avoid a strained neck."



posted on Jan, 9 2015 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: boymonkey74
Cheers all I have been looking up for clubs and stuff and I found one near me
.

www.huddersfieldastronomy.org...


Gonna contact them and pop along


Good deal, test driving is always better than taking someone's word. In which ever you decide to purches, don't get aggravated take your time and learn as you go and research.




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join