SHOAL'S ASTRONOMY CLUB

2007-05-28T13:44:00.000-07:00

The picture (above) is of the horseshoe nebula: (m17)

you can find it between m18 (in sagittarius) and m16 (in serpens cauda):

definitely observe this.... one of the spectacular nebula in the night sky!

2007-04-21T13:46:00.000-07:00

Members of the Shoal's Astronomy Club met with the VBAS on Montesanto mountain for

a Messier Marathon!! We had an awesome time.... can't begin to describe the amount

of things we learned and experienced, even gaining a new member to the club....

here are a couple of pics from the trip.... sorry if the photography is not that great... i'm waiting on Roy's photos perhaps if his is better... i'll put his on here too.

the first picture by the way is of a telescope Werner Vaun Braun used.....

Roy's pics - top of page (1st pic) - 1 -Gary Blackmon 2. Jason Green 3. Stan Peck 4. Roy Long

5. John Paul Daniel

(2nd pic) - 1. Jason Green 2. Stan Peck 3. unsure of his name VBAS member i'll get back to you on this one. 4. Gary Blackmon 5. John Paul Daniel....

2007-04-03T10:49:00.000-07:00

Pictures taken by Charles Martin of the 2007 lunar eclipse....

using a 400 mm lens and a 2x converter...

*Thanks Charles for your contribution to amatuer astronomy and astrophotography!

2007-03-29T21:33:00.000-07:00

Hey group,,, i took some photos of the moon with my 13.1"

through a 28mm at almost 54x and shooting using

a 3.3 megapixel camera... it was point and shoot

and there was haze around the moon...

these photos aren't as quality as philip's but

they are an attempt to do astrophotography

anyway...enjoy!

(photos by stan peck)

2007-03-21T21:47:00.000-07:00

Tycho Brahe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Tycho brahe)
Jump to: navigation, search

Tycho Brahe

Monument of Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler in Prague
Tycho Brahe, born Tyge Ottesen Brahe (December 14, 1546 – October 24, 1601), was a Danish nobleman from the region of Scania (in modern-day Sweden), best known today as an early astronomer, though in his lifetime he was also well known as an astrologer and alchemist.
The Latinized name Tycho Brahe is usually pronounced [ˌtai.ko ˌbrɑ.hi] or [ˌtai.ko ˌbrɑ.ə] in American English, and [ˌtʌɪ.kəʊ ˌbrɑː.hi] or [ˌtʌɪ.kəʊ ˌbrɑː.ə] in British English. The original Danish name Tyge Ottesen Brahe is pronounced in Modern Standard Danish as [ˈtˢyː.y ˈʌ.d̥ə.sn̩ ˈb̥ʁɑː.ʊ].
Tycho Brahe was granted an estate on the island of Hven and the funding to build the Uraniborg, an early research institute, where he built large astronomical instruments and took many careful measurements. As an astronomer, Tycho worked to combine what he saw as the geometrical benefits of the Copernican system with the philosophical benefits of the Ptolemaic system into his own model of the universe, the Tychonic system. From 1600 until his death in 1601, he was assisted by Johannes Kepler, who would later use Tycho's astronomical information to develop his own theories of astronomy. He is universally referred to as "Tycho" rather than by his surname "Brahe", as was common in Scandinavia.
He is credited with the most accurate astronomical observations of his time, and the data were used by his assistant Kepler to derive the laws of planetary motion. No one before Tycho had attempted to make so many redundant observations, and the mathematical tools to take advantage of them had not yet been developed. He did what others before him were unable or unwilling to do — to catalogue the planets and stars with enough accuracy so as to determine whether the Ptolemaic or Copernican system was more valid in describing the heavens.
Contents[hide]
1 Life
1.1 Early years
1.2 Death of his father
1.3 Family life
1.4 Tycho's Moose
1.5 Death
2 Career: observing the heavens
2.1 Supernova
2.2 Heliocentrism
2.3 Uraniborg, Stjerneborg, and Benátky nad Jizerou
2.4 Astronomy
2.5 Astrology
3 Bibliography
3.1 References
3.2 Further reading
4 External links
5 Named after Tycho
//

[edit] Life

[edit] Early years
Tycho Brahe was born Tyge Ottesen Brahe (de Knutstorp), adopting the Latinised form Tycho around age fifteen (sometimes written Tÿcho). He is often misnamed Tycho de Brahe. He was born at his family's ancestral seat of Knutstorp Castle, Denmark to Otte Brahe and Beate Bille. His twin brother died before being baptized. (Tycho wrote a Latin ode (Wittendorf 1994, p. 68) to his dead twin which was printed as his first publication in 1572). He also had two sisters, one older (Kirstine Brahe) and one younger (Sophia Brahe). Otte Brahe, Tycho's father, was a nobleman and an important figure in the Danish King's court. His mother, Beate Bille, also came from an important family that had produced leading churchmen and politicians. In his youth he lived at Hvedborg Manor, Funen, Denmark with his uncle and attended Horne Church in nearby Horne.
Tycho later wrote that when he was around two, his uncle, Danish nobleman Jørgen Brahe, "... without the knowledge of my parents took me away with him while I was in my earliest youth." Apparently this did not lead to any disputes nor did his parents attempt to get him back. Tycho lived with his childless uncle and aunt, Jørgen Brahe and Inger Oxe, in the Tostrup Castle until he was six years old. Around 1552 his uncle was given the command of Vordingborg Castle to which they moved, and where Tycho began a Latin education until he was 12 years old.
On April 19, 1559, Tycho began his studies at the University of Copenhagen. There, following the wishes of his uncle, he studied law but also studied a variety of other subjects and became interested in astronomy. It was, however, the eclipse which occurred on August 21, 1560, particularly the fact that it had been predicted, that so impressed him that he began to make his own studies of astronomy helped by some of the professors. He purchased an ephemeris and books such as Sacrobosco's Tractatus de Sphaera, Apianus's Cosmographia seu descriptio totius orbis and Regiomontanus's De triangulis omnimodis.
I've studied all available charts of the planets and stars and none of them match the others. There are just as many measurements and methods as there are astronomers and all of them disagree. What's needed is a long term project with the aim of mapping the heavens conducted from a single location over a period of several years. — Tycho Brahe, 1563 (age 17).
Tycho realized that progress in the science of astronomy could be achieved not by occasional haphazard observations, but only by systematic and rigorous observation, night after night, and by using instruments of the highest accuracy obtainable. He was able to improve and enlarge the existing instruments, and construct entirely new ones. Tycho's naked eye measurements of planetary parallax were accurate to the arcminute. His sister, Sophia, assisted Tycho in many of his measurements. These jealously guarded measurements became the possessions of Kepler following his death. Tycho was the last major astronomer to work without the aid of a telescope, soon to be turned toward the sky by Galileo.
While a student, Tycho lost part of his nose in a duel with rapiers with Manderup Parsbjerg, a fellow Danish nobleman. This occurred in the Christmas season of 1566, after a fair amount of drinking, while the just turned 20-year-old Tycho was studying at the University of Rostock in Germany. Attending a dance at a professor's house, he quarreled with Parsbjerg. A subsequent duel (in the dark) resulted in Tycho losing the bridge of his nose. A consequence of this was that Tycho developed an interest in medicine and alchemy. For the rest of his life, he was said to have worn a replacement made of silver and gold blended into a flesh tone, and used an adhesive balm to keep it attached. However, in 1901 Tycho's tomb was opened and his remains were examined by medical experts. The nasal opening of the skull was rimmed with green, a sign of exposure to copper, not silver or gold. Some historians have speculated that he wore a number of different prosthetics for different occasions, noting that a copper nose would have been more comfortable and less heavy than one of precious metals.

[edit] Death of his father
His foster father, uncle Jørgen Brahe, died in 1565 of pneumonia after rescuing Frederick II of Denmark from drowning. In April 1567, Tycho returned home from his travels and his father wanted him to take up law, but Tycho was allowed to make trips to Rostock, then on to Augsburg (where he built a great quadrant), Basel, and Freiburg. At the end of 1570 he was informed about his father's ill health, so he returned to Knudstrup, where his father died on May 9, 1571. Soon after, his other uncle Steen Bille helped him build an observatory and alchemical laboratory at Herrevad Abbey.

[edit] Family life
In 1572, in Knudstrup, Tycho fell in love with Kirsten Jørgensdatter, a commoner whose father, Pastor Jorgen Hansen, was the Lutheran clergyman of Knudstrup's village church. Under Danish law, when a nobleman and a common woman lived together openly as husband and wife, and she wore the keys to the household at her belt like any true wife, their alliance became a binding morganatic marriage after three years. The husband retained his noble status and privileges; the wife remained a commoner. Their children were legitimate in the eyes of the law, but they were commoners like their mother and could not inherit their father's name, coat of arms, or land property. (Skautrup 1941, pp. 24-5)
Kirsten Jørgensdatter gave birth to their first daughter, Kirstine (named after Tycho's late sister who died at 13) on October 12 1573. Together they had eight children, six of whom lived to adulthood. In 1574, they moved to Copenhagen where their daughter Magdalene was born. Kirsten and Tycho lived together for almost thirty years until Tycho's death.

[edit] Tycho's Moose
Tycho was said to own one percent of the entire wealth of Denmark at one point in the 1580s and he often held large social gatherings in his castle. He kept a dwarf named Jepp (who Tycho believed was clairvoyant) as a court jester who sat under the table during dinner. Pierre Gassendi wrote[1] that Tycho also had a tame Moose, and that his mentor the Landgraf Wilhelm of Hesse-Kassel asked about an animal faster than a deer. Tycho replied writing there were none, but he could send his tame Moose. When Wilhelm replied he would accept one in exchange for a horse, Tycho replied with the sad news that the Moose just died on a visit to entertain a nobleman at Landskrona. Apparently during dinner the Moose had drunk a lot of beer, fell down the stairs, and died.[2]

[edit] Death

Tycho Brahe as depicted in Carl Sagan's Cosmos series
Tycho died on October 24, 1601, eleven days after suddenly becoming very ill during a banquet. For hundreds of years, the general belief was that he had strained his bladder. It had been said that to leave the banquet before it concluded would be the height of bad manners, and so he remained, and that his bladder, stretched to its limit, developed an infection which he later died of. This theory was supported by Kepler's first-hand account.
Recent investigations have suggested that Tycho did not die from urinary problems but instead from mercury poisoning: extremely toxic levels of it have been found in his hair and hair-roots. Tycho may have poisoned himself by imbibing some medicine containing unintentional mercuric chloride impurities, or may have been poisoned[3]. There is substantial circumstantial evidence that Tycho may have been murdered, possibly by Kepler, who had the means, motive, and opportunity, and who on Tycho's death took immediate possession of Tycho's data that he had been seeking access to for years, in defiance of Tycho's specific deathbed request that his data be left to his family.[4] The latter study also strongly contradicts the theory that Tycho could have poisoned himself, since he was very familiar with mercuric chloride's high toxicity compared to other forms of mercury.
Tycho Brahe's body is currently interred in a tomb in the Church of Our Lady in front of Týn near Old Town Square near the Astronomical Clock in Prague.

[edit] Career: observing the heavens

[edit] Supernova
On November 11, 1572, Tycho observed (from Herrevad Abbey) a very bright star which unexpectedly appeared in the constellation Cassiopeia, now named SN 1572. Since it had been maintained since antiquity that the world beyond the orbit of the moon, i.e. that of the fixed stars, was eternal and unchangeable (a fundamental axiom of the Aristotelian world view: celestial immutability), other observers held that the phenomenon was something in the Earth's atmosphere. Tycho, however, observed that the parallax of the object did not change from night to night, suggesting that the object was far away. Tycho argued that a nearby object should appear to shift its position with respect to the background. He published a small book, De Stella Nova (1573), thereby coining the term nova for a "new" star (we now know that Tycho's star in Cassiopeia was a supernova 7500 light years from earth, today known as SN 1572). This discovery was decisive for his choice of astronomy as a profession. Tycho was strongly critical of those who dismissed the implications of the astronomical appearance, writing in the preface to De Stella Nova: "O crassa ingenia. O caecos coeli spectatores" ("Oh thick wits. Oh blind watchers of the sky").
Tycho's discovery was the inspiration for Edgar Allan Poe's poem, Al Aaraaf. In 1998, Sky & Telescope magazine published an article by Donald W. Olson, Marilynn S. Olson and Russell L. Doescher arguing, in part, that Tycho's supernova was also the same "star that's westward from the pole" in Shakespeare's Hamlet.

[edit] Heliocentrism

In this depiction of the Tychonic system, the objects on blue orbits (the moon and the sun) rotate around the earth. The objects on orange orbits (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn) rotate around the sun. Around all is sphere of fixed stars.
Kepler tried, but was unable, to persuade Tycho to adopt the heliocentric model of the solar system. Tycho believed in a modified geocentric model known as the Tychonic system, for the same reasons that he argued that the supernova of 1572 was not near the Earth. He argued that if the Earth were in motion, then nearby stars should appear to shift their positions with respect to background stars. In fact, this effect of parallax does exist; but it could not be observed with the naked eye, or even with the telescopes of the next two hundred years, because even the nearest stars are much more distant than most astronomers of the time believed possible. The Tychonic system is very similar to the Copernican one, except that it has a static earth instead of a static sun.
In the years following Galileo's observation of the phases of Venus in 1610, which made the Ptolemaic system intractable, the Tychonic system became the major competitor with Copernicanism, and was adopted by the Roman Catholic Church for many years as its official astronomical conception of the universe.

[edit] Uraniborg, Stjerneborg, and Benátky nad Jizerou

Watercolor plan of Uraniborg
King Frederick II of Denmark and Norway, impressed with Tycho's 1572 observations, financed the construction of two observatories for Tycho on the island of Hven in Oresund. These were Uraniborg and Stjerneborg. Uraniborg also had a laboratory for his alchemical experiments.
Because Tycho disagreed with Christian IV, the new king of his country, he left Hven in 1597 and moved to Prague in 1599. Sponsored by Rudolf II, the Holy Roman Emperor, he built a new observatory in a castle in Benátky nad Jizerou, 50 km from Prague, and he worked there for one year. The emperor then had him move back to Prague, where he stayed until his death.
In return for their support, Tycho's duties included preparing astrological charts and predictions for his patrons on events such as births, weather forecasting, and providing astrological interpretations of significant astronomical events such as the comet of 1577 and the supernova of 1572.

[edit] Astronomy

Mural quadrant (Tycho Brahe 1598)

Danish stamp of 1946 featuring Tycho Brahe.
Tycho was the preeminent observational astronomer of the pre-telescopic period, and his observations of stellar and planetary positions achieved unparalleled accuracy for their time. For example, Tycho measured Earth's axial tilt as 23 degrees and 31.5 minutes, which he claimed to be more accurate than Copernicus by 3.5 minutes. After his death, his records of the motion of the planet Mars enabled Kepler to discover the laws of planetary motion, which provided powerful support for the Copernican heliocentric theory of the solar system.
Tycho himself was not a Copernican, but proposed a system in which the Sun orbited the Earth while the other planets orbited the Sun. His system provided a safe position for astronomers who were dissatisfied with older models but were reluctant to accept the Earth's motion. It gained a considerable following after 1616 when Rome decided officially that the heliocentric model was contrary to both philosophy and Scripture, and could be discussed only as a computational convenience that had no connection to fact. His system also offered a major innovation: while both the geocentric model and the heliocentric model as set forth by Copernicus relied on the idea of transparent rotating crystalline spheres to carry the planets in their orbits, Tycho eliminated the spheres entirely.
He was aware that a star observed near the horizon appears with a greater altitude than the real one, due to atmospheric refraction, and he worked out tables for the correction of this source of error.
To perform the huge number of products needed to produce much of his astronomical data, Tycho relied heavily on the then-new technique of prosthaphaeresis, an algorithm for approximating products based on trigonometric identities that predated logarithms.

[edit] Astrology
Like the fifteenth century astronomer Regiomontanus, Tycho Brahe appears to have accepted astrological prognostications on the principle that the heavenly bodies undoubtedly influenced (yet did not determine) terrestrial events, but expressed skepticism about the multiplicity of interpretative schemes, and increasingly preferred to work on establishing a sound mathematical astronomy. Two early tracts, one entitled Against Astrologers for Astrology, and one on a new method of dividing the sky into astrological houses, were never published and are unfortunately now lost.
Tycho also worked in the area of weather prediction, produced astrological interpretations of the supernova of 1572 and the comet of 1577, and furnished his patrons Frederick II and Rudolph II with nativities and other predictions (thereby strengthening the ties between patron and client by demonstrating value). An astrological worldview was fundamental to Tycho's entire philosophy of nature. His interest in alchemy, particularly the medical alchemy associated with Paracelsus, was almost as long-standing as his study of astrology and astronomy simultaneously, and Uraniborg was constructed as both observatory and laboratory.
In an introductory oration to the course of lectures he gave in Copenhagen in 1574, Tycho defended astrology on the grounds of correspondences between the heavenly bodies, terrestrial substances (metals, stones etc.) and bodily organs (medical astrology). He was later to emphasise the importance of studying alchemy and astrology together with a pair of emblems bearing the mottoes: Despiciendo suspicio ("By looking down I see upward") and Suspiciendo despicio ("By looking up I see downward"). As several scholars have now argued, Tycho's commitment to a relationship between macrocosm and microcosm even played a role in his rejection of Copernicanism and his construction of a third world-system.

[edit] Bibliography

[edit] References
Brahe, Tycho. Tychonis Brahe Dani Opera Omnia (in Latin). Vol 1-15. 1913-1929. Edited by I.L.E. Dreyer.
Skautrup, Peter, 1941 Den jyske lov: Text med oversattelse og ordbog. Aarhus: Universitets-forlag.
Wittendorff, ALex. 1994. Tyge Brahe. Copenhagen: G. E. C. Gad.
^ Tycho Brahe's Nose And The Story Of His Pet Moose. www.nada.kth.se. Retrieved on 31 March, 2005. from a translation from Gassendi
^ J. L. E. Dreyer (1890). Tycho Brahe: A Picture of Scientific Life and Work in the Sixteenth Century. Adam and Charles Black, Edinburgh. unknown ISBN. page 210 refers to Tycho's elk as cited by:
^ http://www.tychobrahe.com/eng_tychobrahe/myt.html
^ Joshua Gilder and Anne-Lee Gilder (2005). Heavenly Intrigue: Johannes Kepler, Tycho Brahe, and the Murder Behind One of History's Greatest Scientific Discoveries. Anchor. 978-1-4000-3176-4 (1-4000-3176-1) ISBN.
Strange Cases from the Files of Astronomical Sociology. University of Notre Dame. Retrieved on 31 March, 2005.
Olson, Donald W.; Olson, Marilynn S.; Doescher, Russell L., "The Stars of Hamlet," Sky & Telescope (November 1998)
R. Cowen (1999). "Danish astronomer argues for a changing cosmos" (in English). Science News 156 (25 & 26). Retrieved on 2006-09-25.

[edit] Further reading
John Robert Christianson: On Tycho's Island: Tycho Brahe, science, and culture in the sixteenth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000 ISBN 0-521-65081-X
Victor E. Thoren: The Lord of Uraniborg: a biography of Tycho Brahe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990 ISBN 0-521-35158-8
Kitty Ferguson: The nobleman and his housedog: Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler: the strange partnership that revolutionised science. London : Review, 2002 ISBN 0-7472-7022-8 (published in the US as: Tycho & Kepler: the unlikely partnership that forever changed our understanding of the heavens. New York: Walker, 2002 ISBN 0-8027-1390-4)
Joshua Gilder and Anne-Lee Gilder Heavenly intrigue. New York: Doubleday, 2004 ISBN 0-385-50844-1

[edit] External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
Tycho Brahe
Brahe, Tycho MacTutor History of Mathematics
Tycho Brahe pages by Adam Mosley at Starry Messenger: An Electronic History of Astronomy, University of Cambridge
Astronomiae instauratae mechanica, 1602 edition - Full digital facsimile, Lehigh University.
Astronomiae instauratae mechanica, 1602 edition - Full digital facsimile, Smithsonian Institution.
Astronomiae instauratae mechanica, 1598 edition - Full digital facsimile, the Royal Library, Denmark. Includes Danish and English translations.
Brahe Bio

[edit] Named after Tycho
Geography
Tycho crater on the Moon.
Tycho Brahe crater on Mars.
Tycobrahe Sound Company of Hermosa Beach, California.
Things
A Scandlines ferry connecting Helsingør in Denmark and Helsingborg in Sweden.
A science college in Helsingborg [1]
The Tycho Brahe Planetarium in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Music
The name of American electronic musician Tycho: Tycho (http://www.tychomusic.com/)
The name of an Australian powersynth band: Tycho Brahe (http://www.tycho.com.au/)
An old name of an Irish synthpop band, now called Tychonaut (http://www.tychonaut.com)
The name of an album by french electronic duo Lightwave.
Pseudonyms
Tycho Brahe, pseudonym of Jerry Holkins and a character from the popular webcomic Penny Arcade.
Virtual worlds
The AI Tycho from Bungie's computer game Marathon.
Brother-Captain Tycho of the Blood Angels Chapter of Space Marines in Games Workshop's sci-fi tabletop wargame, Warhammer 40,000.
Tycho Brahe is the name of a mysterious planetoid in the computer game Descent II.
Tycho Celchu, a character from Star Wars.
In the PC game Tachyon: The Fringe, the TCG repair freighter in the third Bora mission is named Tycho Brahe.
Tycho is mentioned as the least offensive of all the magicians that the demon Bartimaus has served in the Bartimaeus trilogy
Tycho Tithonus, the main character in William Sleator's 1981 book The Green Futures of Tycho
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe"
Categories: 1546 births 1601 deaths Brahe Alchemists Danish astronomers Danish astrologers New Latin authors People from Copenhagen People with craters of the Moon named after them University of Copenhagen alumni
Views
Article
Discussion
Edit this page
History
Watch
Personal tools
Celestron
My talk
My preferences
My watchlist
My contributions
Log out

if (window.isMSIE55) fixalpha();
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Community portal
Featured content
Current events
Recent changes
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Make a donation
Help
Search

Toolbox
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link
Cite this article
In other languages
Bosanski
Български
Català
Česky
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Français
Galego
한국어
हिन्दी
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Interlingua
Íslenska
Italiano
עברית
Latina
Lëtzebuergesch
Lietuvių
Magyar
Nederlands
日本語
‪Norsk (bokmål)‬
‪Norsk (nynorsk)‬
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Scots
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / Srpski
Srpskohrvatski / Српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Türkçe
Українська
中文

This page was last modified 04:04, 22 March 2007.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a US-registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
if (window.runOnloadHook) runOnloadHook();

2007-03-14T16:16:00.000-07:00

The following is from an astronomy.com forum....
it concerns Celestron vs. Meade telescopes....
it is a little jumbled.... but it contains the opinions
of various users of these types of scopes...
i thought this important since some of us don't have
scopes yet...or are looking to upgrade...

First off, this is a repost from another part of the forum that I'm posting here as it is more appropriate here. Second, TKerr, thank you for that incredible post...I have read much and will read the rest tonight.
I do not plan on buying a scope until about this time next year since I'm in the military and will be deploying. So in the meantime, I'm going to take up TKerr's advice about binos, a blanket and star charts. The telescope a year from now will be my "graduation" present to myself. Now, on to the original post...
I'm a newcomer to this forum and to astronomy...I've just been bitten by the bug pretty bad and am now hopelessly fascinated. My question: Can anyone tell me if there is a big difference in quality between Meade and Celestron Schmidt-Cassegrain telescopes? I'm trying to compare similar models and the Meades always are way more expensive and, in some instances, seem to have less to offer (Celestron usually has a larger aperture than the Meade "equivalent"). Yet for some unknown reason, I trust the Meade name more, although this is completely baseless since this will by the first telescope I've purchased. Here are some of the comparisons I'm making:
Meade 8" LX90 GPS ($2000) and Celestron NexStar 8 SE ($1400)
Meade EXT-150AT ($900 with some free accessories) and Celestron 5 SE ($800 but has 20% more aperture)
I've been told that Meades are much better for astrophotography, which I want to get into eventually. There are several more, but I'm pretty much using telescopes.com to make all of my comparisons while using the Celestron and Meade websites to research additional details of the telescopes.
Thanks!
- John
- JohnFort Walton Beach, FL

Report Abuse
01-22-2007, 09:05 PM
-->tasco-60mm
-->Joined on 06-29-2006 alpha cygnuss II delta quadrant Posts 461
Re: Meade vs. Celestron -- Choice for first scope

1st off, the celestron/meade debate is like opening a can of worms!!--for some reason it gets overheated, but i dont see where meades optics are superior to celestron's for photo, for AP its like putting a puzzle together- 1st piece is a good EQ mount, followed by the OTA and camera
http://mo.forumup.us/ -- relaxed astro forum with the daily astro gameC9.25- ASGT 12" GSO dobWO66 ED C 6"SCT EQ5

Report Abuse
01-22-2007, 09:22 PM
-->jballauer
-->Joined on 05-06-2001 Fort Worth, Texas Posts 3,184
Re: Meade vs. Celestron -- Choice for first scope

John:
First, thanks so much for your service. It's a pleasure to help those who help us.
This is the classic argument, and essentially, the answer is "six one way, half-a-dozen the other." Comparable models from both companies are quite equal in most every way.
The Meade LX90 series is best compared to the Celestron CPC series, not the Nexstar SE, which is more of a budget-minded choice.
Keep in mind that if you eventually want to do photography, you'll need a scope with sturdy forkarms (don't get the Nexstar SE for this reason) and you'll need an equatorial wedge with the purchase. This will allow for polar alignment so that your stars don't rotate in the field of view over time.
Either scope will be optically on par. The Celestrons generally have the aperture advantage, but the Meades have very good, high transmission coatings that makes up for that, somewhat. Even so, traditionally, the Celestrons are more associated with better optics, though that is not a fair or accurate distinction today.
You may have more brand-comfort with Meade, but among amateur astronomers, again traditionally, Celestron is the more accepted name for high quality gear. Again, today, it's not much of a issue, though most people would still say that while Meade produces some really good gear, they'll also be the first to produce some department store crappola!
You can't make a bad choice with either the CPC or LX90 scopes.
As for the Maksukovs, like the Meade ETX and comparable Celestrons, you might want to avoid these if you are wanting to do astrophotography, mostly because of the smaller mounts and tracking systems. Likewise, you are losing a lot of aperture here compared to 8" SCTs or larger. In addition, the Maks are longer in focal length for their apertures, which mean photography will place good tracking at a higher premium.
A good 8" SCT, from either Meade or Celestron, is a very good choice, and it's often one of the first "serious" scopes a person will get.

jaywww.allaboutastro.com

Report Abuse
01-22-2007, 09:27 PM
-->jballauer
-->Joined on 05-06-2001 Fort Worth, Texas Posts 3,184
Re: Meade vs. Celestron -- Choice for first scope

Oh, one more thing. The control systems for both types are generally quite good, both very similar, and both equally frustrating. The choice between the Meade Autostar and Celestron Nexstar should be made by comfort level. In general, one doesn't offer unique capabilities when compared to the other. Some like Autostar, other like Nexstar.
As John said, the debate can get heated, and generally you'll have more Meade bashers than Celestron bashers. This is largely because of bad experiences in some of the cheaper Meade lines, and the subsequent need for support...which is where Meade often falls a few notches compared to Celestron.
jaywww.allaboutastro.com

Report Abuse
01-23-2007, 08:08 AM
-->Mark_S
-->Joined on 12-31-2005 Chapel Hill, NC Posts 88
Re: Meade vs. Celestron -- Choice for first scope

I'm not a Meade fan. I'm going to break the silence and tell it like it is from my experience. I own a Meade LX6 from the 90's and back then it was constructed with high quality parts and gears...this is a great scope, but I don't believe you can find the same quality products today.
First let me say, their optics are good, but everything else seems to be sub-par for the following reasons:
1) They have horrible customer service-- that is, on many occasions I've been on the phone for > 1hour and still the call was dropped or the question was not answered. You better have lots of money for cell phone bill surprises.
2) I also have no faith in paying lots of cash for a scope that has internal plastic gears. One scope I owned (ETX) quickly had the internal gears "break" or were "loose." I payed a lot of cash for this scope. I believe that these scopes should be constructed with better quality internal gears.
3) I have no confidence in inaccurate GO-TO systems or long set-up times.
4) There's a feeling that they don't stand behind the products the make, so as one home-made telescope maker told me...it's kinda like buying a used scope. In other words, "good-luck --your own your own, baby." It would be adviseable to buy Sky Assurance...but be sure to read the fine print, because some plans don't cover the cost of shipping it to them.
5) This past Saturday, some one at our small 'star party' told me his Meade scope computer couldn't work < ~45 degrees. (How much sense is that for most observing conditions). He put heat pads around it to no avail... the temp was in the low 30's. After spending well over an hour setting up, the computer of course failed and he was unable to enjoy the evening. If you can't starhop, your'e outta luck. Being a recovered Meade junky, I was happy to know that with my dobsonian that I would have no trouble enjoying the pleasures of star-hopping and the simple pleasures of using my scope. I've renounced buying computer equipment that is sure to fail...
I've never bought a Celestron product, but with my experience over the last year with Meade products, I'm interested in checking their products out. I'm sure others may post their opinions of Celestron. Hopefully, the customer service and products are better.
I know I shall incur the wrath of the dedicated, but I believe that if we are going to fork out the $$$$ we should get a quality product and demand that. Astronomy is a hobby where even with the few clear nights that we do get, we should have stuff that works. It also makes me sad to see folks pay lots of money for expensive tripods and go-to when they could be getting aperture.
For these reasons, I cannot recommend a Meade telescope. I would consider other vendors.
Mark
Discovery 15" Truss Dobsonian (f/5)Orion 6" Skyquest XT (f/8)Meade 8" LX6 SCT (f/6)Orion Scenix 10x50 BinocularsMember of Chapel Hill Astronomical Observation Society (CHAOS), NC

Report Abuse
01-23-2007, 08:56 AM
-->tasco-60mm
-->Joined on 06-29-2006 alpha cygnuss II delta quadrant Posts 461
Re: Meade vs. Celestron -- Choice for first scope

i shouldnt make this post, but i will since you havent bought a scope yet- my experience is with mid size EQ mounts- i wanted the LXD55 for the longest time- but the back order was ridiculous along with contacting meade- i finally bought the ASGT when it 1st came out- im now on my 2nd ASGT mount- celestron has been superb with my support and repair- the 2nd actually broke after using it 6 times- it was sent it to celestron and totally upgraded with motors/re-greasing/software/testing etc- it came back 'better' then new IMO- i never seen a RA axis swing to smoothly- i also had a CG5 type that needed an RA motor (user abuse)- -orion gave me absolutely no support in this at all, saying i need to buy a complete dual axis drive set-up, to me, this type of service is ridiculous -celestron sent me a replacement motor for my non-celestron mount, the ASGT is a better mount then what people think it is- much better then the LXD75's and other CG5 clones IMO-im computer stupid myself- and only wish i could ultilize the ASGT autoguider feature- but overall, i 'need' support and repair service- not yahoo groups- so ill stay with celestron for that reason- if none other- mind you, im not trying to bash the other scopes- you can see yourself great images through both scopes, i just went with what i considered the better support and service for my benefit
http://mo.forumup.us/ -- relaxed astro forum with the daily astro gameC9.25- ASGT 12" GSO dobWO66 ED C 6"SCT EQ5

Report Abuse
01-23-2007, 09:27 AM
-->Mark_S
-->Joined on 12-31-2005 Chapel Hill, NC Posts 88
Re: Meade vs. Celestron -- Choice for first scope

Let me say, I don't want to be a Meade-basher. I do feel folks should know the facts. If folks have some positive experiences with Meade, post them here. Restore my confidence!!! Is this just the ETX and LX90's?
mark
Discovery 15" Truss Dobsonian (f/5)Orion 6" Skyquest XT (f/8)Meade 8" LX6 SCT (f/6)Orion Scenix 10x50 BinocularsMember of Chapel Hill Astronomical Observation Society (CHAOS), NC

Report Abuse
01-23-2007, 10:15 AM
-->Kevin Bozard
-->Joined on 01-14-2006 South Carolina Posts 1,109
Re: Meade vs. Celestron -- Choice for first scope

I can't comment on Meade products other than the 114mm EQ which was the first scope I owned. Of course, it was a piece of junk from Walmart. I quickly rid myself of that one. I can comment on Celestron products however, because I own two of those. I have Celestron's 6" 150mm refractor on the CG-5 mount, and the 80ED refractor that piggybacks the 6". The only problem I have had was with the mount. The RA motor went out in it after less than a year of use. Contacting Celestron wasn't that hard for me. I got someone on the same day I began calling, though it did take a few times before getting through.
With Celestron, their repair policy states that you must pay for the shipping of the product to them, and for the return shipping once the product is repaired. It cost me about $75 to ship the mount to them, insured. I settled back for what I thought would be a long wait, but got my mount back within a weeks time and I did not have to pay the return shipping. Maybe that was because the mount was still covered under their 2 year warranty. The RA housing was broken during the return shipment, and I promptly notified Celestron. In three days, I received a new RA housing for replacement. Celestron's customer service went above and beyond in my case, and hopefully will continue to do so should I ever need them again.
Equipment (so far):Celestron C6R-GTCelestron C80mmED Orion Dobsonian XT10 ClassicCoronado Personal Solar Telescope Orion Starshoot Deep Space CCDPhilips SPC900NCTasco 7x35mm Bino (hey, don't laugh... they were free!) Beaufort, SC

Report Abuse
01-23-2007, 10:47 AM
-->tasco-60mm
-->Joined on 06-29-2006 alpha cygnuss II delta quadrant Posts 461
Re: Meade vs. Celestron -- Choice for first scope

kevin, when i spoke with them, i told them i didnt want the expense of shipping in the whole mount- so they said just ship the head and hand controller- so it cost me $10 at FedEx to ship the mount head/hand control/ and all the cables/ ins was extra, but that only a couple bucks- it took acouple days to get the service by phone, but after that, the repair went rather quickly
http://mo.forumup.us/ -- relaxed astro forum with the daily astro gameC9.25- ASGT 12" GSO dobWO66 ED C 6"SCT EQ5

Report Abuse
01-23-2007, 05:26 PM
-->Headbanger51
-->Joined on 01-22-2007 Fort Walton Beach, FL Posts 84
Re: Meade vs. Celestron -- Choice for first scope

Wow...great conversation and flow of information. Yeah, I guess the Celestron CPC is about more on par with the LX90 GPS from Meade. And let me tell you all...I spend more time on hold with companies (like my cable company) putting up with their belligerence that customer service makes all the difference in the world. I'm not passing judgement just yet, but it does make a difference. I've also read many posts/reviews about how Meade's gears are plastic and fail quickly, especially when its cold out (like, at NIGHT). I had thought about the Celestron SE single "fork" mount being inadequate for astrophotography due to excessive vibration/lack of sturdiness. Although astrophotography is going to be phase II of my venture...phase I being actually buying the scope and the absolute required accessories like a dew shield.
Has anyone had a good experience with Meade's support? I haven't heard anything good about it yet, although I have read good reviews.
Anyone had any other experiences with Meade or Celstron and their customer support?
Thanks for a great discussion!
- John
- JohnFort Walton Beach, FL

Report Abuse
01-23-2007, 05:39 PM
-->Headbanger51
-->Joined on 01-22-2007 Fort Walton Beach, FL Posts 84
Re: Meade vs. Celestron -- Choice for first scope

Jay (and everyone),
Thanks for the response. Couple of things...looked at the CPC on telescopes.com and in the area where you can ask questions to telescopes.com staff someone did ask about the differences between the CPC and a Meade...the answer that came back was that for general viewing, they're six of one, half dozen of the other (to use your phrase ) but that for photography, the Meades are much better (he didn't elaborate as to why). Also, you mentioned that I'd have to get an equatorial wedge since the CPC comes with an altazimuth mount. I've never heard this before. Can you (or anyone else) explain why? One would think this would be a "recommended accessory" along with the obligatory astrophotography stuff that they always try and get you to buy with the scope.
Thanks!
- John
- JohnFort Walton Beach, FL

Report Abuse
01-23-2007, 06:27 PM
-->jballauer
-->Joined on 05-06-2001 Fort Worth, Texas Posts 3,184
Re: Meade vs. Celestron -- Choice for first scope

John:
Although alt-az scope can track the stars for hours on end, some weird happens in the eyepiece or on the chip...the star rotate around the center of the field of view. This is something called "field rotation" and will show trails after 30 to 60 seconds of exposure time, depending on the focal length and area of the sky being imaged. For an article on this, see...
http://www.allaboutastro.com/Articlepages/fieldrotation.html
So, what you have to do is literally tilt the scope so that the fork arms point toward the north celestial pole, or near Polaris. This will take away the field rotation. The best way to do this is to place a "wedge" between the tripod and the scope itself. Celestron and Meade make wedges as accessories, but for an 8" scope, I'd recommend either the Meade Superwedge, or preferably, a wedge from either Mitty, Milburn, or Mettler. The latter wedge are more expensive ($500 or more), but worth it. The regular wedges for the 8" scopes by Meade and Celestron will work, but they are somewhat weak, and thus will oscillate a little bit...but for $150 or so, it's okay if you are budget conscious.
Many people avoid these issues and mount their SCT tubes on a German equatorial mount (GEM). The Celestron CGE-series is an example of this, and needless to say, it's a very nice setup. But that mount itself can cost as much as the whole CPC alone.
Curiously, you don't hear Meade and Celestron trying to sell wedges all that often. Lots of people are interested in long exposure imaging, so you'd think their market that a bit.
For lunar and planetary work, or shorter DSO images less than 30 second or so, there's no need for a wedge.
As far as Meade being better for astrophotography, that's largely an opinion, but scopes like the LX200 series have things like lock-down mirrors and electronic, zero-shift focusers as standard equipment...and this would certainly be a welcome addition to an imaging package - you'll most likely find yourself purchasing these items from a third-party vendor at some point, even on your Celestron.
However, the LX90 doesn't offer those features, so it gains nothing on the CPC in that regard. Both are equal when it comes to imaging.
Not many people are using the CPC for imaging, but that doesn't mean you can't do it...same as with the LX90, which has been around longer and probably has a larger user-base. However, Celestron tubes have been used for YEARS by thousands to produce all sorts of world-class images, so that shouldn't scare you away. But it's usually the accessories that determine if something is more equipped for imaging, or not.
jaywww.allaboutastro.com

Report Abuse
01-23-2007, 09:15 PM
-->Headbanger51
-->Joined on 01-22-2007 Fort Walton Beach, FL Posts 84
Re: Meade vs. Celestron -- Choice for first scope

Thanks again for the info. Like I said, I think I'm going to spend the year acquainting myself with the sky with just a pair of binos and a star chart, then this time next year I'll get the scope I feel is best. I won't be getting into astrophotography until I've mastered my scope since that I'm finding out that that can be just as expensive as the scope...if not more so.
Does anyone have anything they'd recommend other than SCTs? It has to be a portable scope since my backyard is horrible...so a Dobsonian won't work. Thoughts?
- JohnFort Walton Beach, FL

Report Abuse
01-23-2007, 10:34 PM
-->Mark_S
-->Joined on 12-31-2005 Chapel Hill, NC Posts 88
Re: Meade vs. Celestron -- Choice for first scope

Headbanger51 wrote:
Does anyone have anything they'd recommend other than SCTs? It has to be a portable scope since my backyard is horrible...so a Dobsonian won't work. Thoughts?
I, along with many others, would recommend dobsonians. They are very portable. I have a very portable grab-n-go 6" and a very portable 15" truss dob. Dobs give you more aperture/solid mounting at low cost and up until 8-10" (depending on your strength) the solid tubes are quite portable. Above 10" truss dobs are very portable (discovery, obsession, starmaster, and yes, even meade).
I am so happy with my scopes and love observing more than ever now. It is all about simplicty and enjoyment of the sky. Personally, I work in IT during the day, so it's nice when I get out in the sky to forget about techonology for awhile. Astronomy for me needs to be unplugged (except for dewzappers) and that's why I enjoy dobs. Finally, I enjoy starhopping vs. pushing a button and hoping if you are lucky the object is there. It's learning and knowing the sky vs. not knowing the sky... for me, dobs+starhopping = happiness
Discovery 15" Truss Dobsonian (f/5)Orion 6" Skyquest XT (f/8)Meade 8" LX6 SCT (f/6)Orion Scenix 10x50 BinocularsMember of Chapel Hill Astronomical Observation Society (CHAOS), NC

Report Abuse
01-24-2007, 08:26 AM
-->Mark_S
-->Joined on 12-31-2005 Chapel Hill, NC Posts 88
Re: Meade vs. Celestron -- Choice for first scope

Also...
For Dobs: There's nothing like having more aperture and having the ability to put in your short focal length eyepieces and still get a bright image as you see planetary nebulas/globulars up close. Dobs give us the opportunity to see more detail and a brighter image for less money.
For example, to buy a Meade scope at 16" (has to be permanently mounted) would be in the ~$10,000 range verses a Meade (Lightbridge) Truss 16" Dob (that's portable) that will cost $2000.
Not to sound contradictory, but I guess I would be open to buying a Meade truss dob for that kind of money as long as I replaced the focuser and painted the metallic truss bars.
Let me say again, buying a telescope is completely an individual decision. We recommend to join an astronomy club to see all the different kinds of scopes out there. For example, I was wary at first at buying anything but a SCT or refractor. I assumed that a Dob was a terrible scope, but until a friend in my club let me borrow his 12.5" dob, I completely changed my mind. There was no turning back for me. I felt like I had complete control of the telescope since the motions were so intuitive and natural (left-right, up-down)... and the views were amazing. In that dark sky, the Trifid looked like a black and white photograph.
Just something to think about as you consider your alternatives.
Discovery 15" Truss Dobsonian (f/5)Orion 6" Skyquest XT (f/8)Meade 8" LX6 SCT (f/6)Orion Scenix 10x50 BinocularsMember of Chapel Hill Astronomical Observation Society (CHAOS), NC

Report Abuse
01-24-2007, 11:46 AM
-->Headbanger51
-->Joined on 01-22-2007 Fort Walton Beach, FL Posts 84
Re: Meade vs. Celestron -- Choice for first scope

I guess I was under the impression that dobs were too big to really transport effectively. I have thought about a dob a lot though...TKerr on this site has recommended them as a great first scope and I'm kinda starting to agree with him on that, even though I like the idea of GOTO and autotracking. I would like to get into astrophotography and, correct me if I'm wrong, a dobsonian would not be good for that...I'd have to get a new scope. But because of the huge aperture for the low $$$, I've been really considering a dobsonian. Again, though, I think I'm going to get a nice pair of binos and a star chart for the next year and get what is appropriate for the cash I have saved up around this time next year. I do plan on joining the local astronomy club...oddly enough, one has been hard to find around the Ft Walton Beach, FL area. Strange considering the island just off shore in the gulf has an observatory about every two miles.
- JohnFort Walton Beach, FL

Report Abuse
01-24-2007, 12:25 PM
-->Mark_S
-->Joined on 12-31-2005 Chapel Hill, NC Posts 88
Re: Meade vs. Celestron -- Choice for first scope

hi again,
Dobs are not for astrophotography, but some obsession telescope truss dob owners with tracking are able to do some good photos....this is way too expensive.
Consider this approach:
1) Binos (your wise current plan). Good books: 365 nights, starware, astronomy hacks
2) a beginner scope get a 6-8" dob first as a starter scope. Look at this as an investment you will keep for a long time. It is portable so you can grab-it-and-go.
3) 2nd scope depends on what "specialty" you want to "major".
a) astrophotography-- a good mount and SCT (or refractor) that doesn't have to be large in aperture. (i'm not an astrophotographer so i'll defer here to the pros).
b) observing-- get the most aperture you can i) afford, ii) carry. Consider getting Orion dobs which have good dobs 10" and up, but the 12" is really heavy since it's solid-tube. That's why > 10" I recommend Truss-dobs from other vendors. Anything higher than 12" is going to need some time to save some cash flow... in considering aperture, think about how much you want to pack up at 2am in the morning including your gear. You want something quick and easy to set up and tear down.
In my case, I went with Discovery TRUSS dobs since they have the best prices for the aperture, and a 15" since I have a mid-size sedan, a condo on the 2nd floor w/ elevator, and I don't want to carry more than 50 lbs on a dolly. The transport and setup is easy.
Meade has a 16" truss dob, has a great price and should be easy to transport. you'll have to check the weight. The premium Truss dobs like starmaster and obsession have wheelbarrow wheels you can add with the purchase so they are really easy to wheel around. You would need at least a SUV for 18" and up. These scopes are pricey. www.obsession-telescopes.com or www.starmastertelescopes.com Take a look at the obsession sight and compare the views of M13 with different apertures. Consider getting them to email you their DVD. you'll learn about these amazing scopes from this DVD. I have a friend how owns a Starmaster 20" with tracking and it's a dream scope. the views are spectacular. It's cool to think you can reach scope apertures that rival some astronomy departments. My other friend built his own 25" scope and it is 1 inch bigger than the UNC Department of Astronomy's observatory at Morehead Planetarium! It's really fun to go to dark sky sites, set up scopes and discover for yourself the wonders of the heavens.
Just a plan to consider as you look at scope choices now and in the future. Bottom-line start small, learn the sky, and if you take the observing route get the most aperture you can afford and carry.
Mark
Discovery 15" Truss Dobsonian (f/5)Orion 6" Skyquest XT (f/8)Meade 8" LX6 SCT (f/6)Orion Scenix 10x50 BinocularsMember of Chapel Hill Astronomical Observation Society (CHAOS), NC

Report Abuse
01-24-2007, 05:07 PM
-->Headbanger51
-->Joined on 01-22-2007 Fort Walton Beach, FL Posts 84
Re: Meade vs. Celestron -- Choice for first scope

What's the main difference between truss dobs and regular dobs. I mean, I know the obvious difference, but what advantages does a truss dob have over a regular dob? And does a truss dob that has a covering (like a black nylon sheet or something) have a disadvantage to a regular dob? I'm just curious since I've seen pictures of people with truss dobs, some with covers, some without, and there is usually a price difference between a truss dob and a regular dob. Hopefully I didn't sound like too much of an idiot on this one.
- JohnFort Walton Beach, FL

Report Abuse
01-24-2007, 05:56 PM
-->Mark_S
-->Joined on 12-31-2005 Chapel Hill, NC Posts 88
Re: Meade vs. Celestron -- Choice for first scope

Headbanger51 wrote:
What's the main difference between truss dobs and regular dobs. I mean, I know the obvious difference, but what advantages does a truss dob have over a regular dob? And does a truss dob that has a covering (like a black nylon sheet or something) have a disadvantage to a regular dob? I'm just curious since I've seen pictures of people with truss dobs, some with covers, some without, and there is usually a price difference between a truss dob and a regular dob. Hopefully I didn't sound like too much of an idiot on this one. Actually these are GREAT questions. I love to share what I've learned from mistakes I've made so others can avoid mistakes. Also remember I'll probably be accused of giving you aperture fever but think of this as future planning... with that said... Truss dobs for LARGER scopes make them easy to transport. Therefore, a smaller scope like my solid tube Orion Dob XT6 is easy to lift the whole thing and has no need for truss tubes. However, the XT12 is a solid tube and is like lifting a large water heater. I would need a larger vehicle to transport it and some muscles. If you, instead, have a 12" truss dob, you can have the "rocker box" and "mirror box", poles, and the upper cage all seperated and easy to throw it in a mid-size car. Remember that my 15" mirror box is ~ 50 lbs and is somewhat heavy, so I use a small dolly and carry it to my mid-size sedan...but it's worth it because the views are sweet. Remember when I said the 6"-8" could be an investment? It is a great investment, because I use it most of the time, esp. during the week. I just grab it to look at the moon or a DSO and quickly come back inside. I use the 15" about once every new moon at a dark sky site. The shroud (the nylon sheet) is nice to have because a) it looks cool :) , b) blocks ambient light, c) MAY prevent some dewing of the secondary mirror. I also use my shroud to keep my wires coming from my eypiece dew zappers organized and out of the way. However, a shroud is NOT essential. Mark
Discovery 15" Truss Dobsonian (f/5)Orion 6" Skyquest XT (f/8)Meade 8" LX6 SCT (f/6)Orion Scenix 10x50 BinocularsMember of Chapel Hill Astronomical Observation Society (CHAOS), NC

Report Abuse
01-24-2007, 08:34 PM
-->Headbanger51
-->Joined on 01-22-2007 Fort Walton Beach, FL Posts 84
Re: Meade vs. Celestron -- Choice for first scope

I had aperture fever awhile ago. Incidentally, of all the dobs I looked at, the 12.5" Discovery looked the most well-made as opposed to the Celestron and especially the Meade. People had some bad things to say about the Meade, mixed in with the usual good...and I give most reviews a little skepticism since most people tend to review only when there is negative and they really try and hit those points home which makes it sound worse than it is. But sometimes the negative (and the positive) is right on the money. Anyway, the Discovery dob looked very nice and very well made. How do you like your Discovery 15"?
- JohnFort Walton Beach, FL

Report Abuse
Page 1 of 2 (40 items)
1 2 >
Astronomy.com Forums » Equipment » Telescopes
Forum Jump: (please select) Forums Home - Search Forums - Active Topics - Unanswered Posts User Options - Login - Register - Forgot Password About the Forums - Forum guidelines - Community assistance General discussion - Welcome: Introduce yourself - General astronomy discussion - Polls - Off topic discussions Observing - General stargazing - Solar system objects - Deep-sky objects - Observing reports - Extreme astronomy - Aurora observations Astro imaging - Your astrophotos - Digital cameras - CCD imaging - Conventional film cameras - Astroimage processing Equipment - Telescopes - Amateur telescope making - Binoculars - Accessories - Resources News - Recent discoveries - Space missions - Cosmology Astronomy clubs - Community events - North American clubs - International clubs Education - Becoming an astronomer - Astronomy in the classroom Astronomy magazine - Feedback - Current and previous issues - Future issues

2007-02-12T22:34:00.000-08:00

Friends, the dumbell nebula (right)

is an awesome sight even in small

telescopes.... i had my first look at it

this past fall... although you may not

see it like the picture, it's size is huge

even in a 4 1/4" telescope... i haven't

viewed it through my 13" but hope to.

there's also a nebula called, 'the little dumbell'...

gee, why are their so many dumbell's out

there? maybe us amatuer's are dumbells for getting out there in the cold weather to view deep sky!

2007-02-11T22:42:00.000-08:00

double click the picture to see it in elarged view:

note: i am not advocating the big bang

i do think theologically it can be explained...

any thoughts?

2006-06-08T09:16:00.000-07:00

Moon Pictures taken on June 2 at the Shoal's Astronomy Club site

Taken by: Philip Beck... 10" dobsonian by focusing camera into eyepiece

2006-05-05T13:29:00.000-07:00

The Veil Nebula....i've seen some of this in an 8" scope with a focal reducer making it f(5).... should be visible in any 8"...not sure about anything smaller

2006-05-05T13:27:00.000-07:00

The Crab Nebula...remant of a supernova explosion...1054 a.d i believe....visible in any small telescope

2006-05-05T13:22:00.000-07:00

The Lagoon (LL) and Trifid Nebulas (UR). Very prominent in the summer night sky, these 2 nebulas can be distinguished markedly in any small telescope and also seen with the naked eye.

2006-04-10T11:18:00.000-07:00

Instruments of Astronomy
'Telescopes'

Until the Italian scientist Galileo Galilei aimed his crude "spyglass" skyward in 1609, all stargazing had been done naked-eye. Over the years, many telescope designs have been created, but they are all only modifications of the two basic types: refractor and reflector. The word "telescope" was coined in 1648 from the Greek word teleskopos meaning "farseeing."A refractor passes light through a glass objective lens or combination of lenses at the front opening (aperture) of the telescope tube. The light then passes through the focusing lens called an eyepiece (also called an ocular lens). Refractors excel at lunar, solar, and planetary views. Small refractors (under 4-inch aperture) are easy to transport and will give you decent views of nebulae. The larger the aperture, the longer the refractor has to be to work properly. Refractors with apertures larger than 100mm (four inches) require very long tubes which in turn makes them very expensive and bulky. The bending of the light through the objective also causes the various light wavelengths to come into focus at different distances from the objective. This can be overcome to a certain extent by the use of different configurations of lenses, but not entirely. Except for the most expensive models, small refractors generally suffer from some amount of achromatism, which results in colored haloes and cross-like patterns around bright stars. For deep sky work, you would need a large high-quality refractor, but their size and bulk make them difficult to transport to a dark site. Focusing is accomplished by moving the eyepiece closer to or farther away from the objective lens. Refractors require very little maintenance ast the lenses are the only optical components exposed to dust and moisture. Good refractors with an aperture over four inches are very expensive. You can get more telescope power for your money by purchasing a telescope with mirrors.A reflector bounces and focuses the light off a curved mirror and passes the light through an eyepiece. Reflectors are best at deep-sky work, are generally easy to transport, and are the cheapest per inch of aperture to manufacture. Reflectors are better for deep-sky observing than refractors, because they give sharper star images and are more compact thana similar power refractor. The size of a reflector is determined by the diameter of its primary mirror. The most popular reflector style is based on the design created by Scottish mathematician James Gregory (1638-75) in 1663, then improved five years later by Sir Isaac Newton. The Newtonian design employs a secondary mirror, angled at 45 degrees to the primary, mounted in the light path to direct the image to the eyepiece. Focusing is accomplished by moving the eyepiece drawtube in and out of the telescope until the sharpest image is obtained. To align (collimate) the optics, the primary mirror is adjusted to be in alignment with the secondary mirror. One problem with refleftors is that their mirrors are exposed to dust and moisture and are hard to keep clean. Their reflectiveness slowlyh degrades as the mirrors tarnish.A popular telescope design is the Schmidt-Cassegrain. In this catadioptric type of instrument, the light passes through a glass corrector plate, bounces off a primary and secondary convex mirror mounted on the corrector plate, passes through a hole in the primary, then through the eyepiece. This design allows for a long focal length telescope in a compact package that is easy to transport and set up. These telescopes are good overall astronomical units. They give excellent views of solar system and deep sky objects. The closed design also protects the mirrors from dust and tarnishing moisture. The design for this type of reflector was conceived, in 1672, by the French doctor Jacques Cassegrain (also known as Guillaume Cassegrain and N. Cassegrain) (1652-1712). Little is known of him and it is believed that he never constructed a telescope of this design. James Short (1710-68) was the first person known to build a Cassegrain-type telescope. Estonian astronomer Berhnard Voldemar Schmidt (1879-1935) developed the concept of passing the light beam through a curved corrector plate as it entered a reflecting camera. (Robert Garfinkle, Star Hopping Your Visa to Viewing the Universe, pp. 25-28).Dobsonians are reflecting telescopes constructed from cheap materials. They were invented by John Dobson, a populist proselytizer who championed the view that the worth of the telescope should be measured by the number of people who get to look through them. Dobson is credited for saying, "To me, it's not so much how big your telescope is, or how accurately your optics are figured, or how beautiful the pictures you can take with it; it's how many people in this vast world less priviliged than you have had a chance to see through your telescope and understand this universe. That is the one thing that drives me!"Dobsonians employed the same simple design that Isaac Newton dreamed up when he ewanted to study the great comet of 1680- a tube with a concave mirror at the bottom to gather starlight, and a small, flat secondary mirror near the top to bounce the light out to an eyepiece on the side- but they were made from such inexpensive materials that you could build or buy a big Dobsonian for the cost of a small traditional reflector. You couldn't buy a Dobsonian from John Dobson, though; he refused to profit from his innovation. Poverty was his habit, and the mother of his invention. Dobsonians made it possible for stargazers of average means to own large telescopes. Observers armed with big Dobsonians didn't have to content themselves with looking at planets and nearby nebulae: They could explore thousands of galaxies, invading deep-0space precincts previously reserved for professionals. (Timothy Ferris, Seeing in the Dark, pp. 37-39).

2006-03-30T07:39:00.000-08:00

Greetings Shoal's Astronomy Club members. I wanted to demonstrate the website a little more so i uploaded a picture of the Lagoon Nebula. This nebula if visible to the naked eye, so binoculars or any small telescope will do to observe it. Of course, a telescope will suit you more to see it in fine detail. Anyway, i just wanted to upload a picture and maybe tell a little about the object. This description isn't my own. I found it in a book i have, called, 'Star-Hopping', by Robert Garfinkle.

When any of you get ready to upload pictures you have, you will need to download, 'Hello', by Picasa2...also maybe download the Picasa software... i have found Picasa excellent for pictures. The software that came with my digital camera won't even dowload the pictures all at once from the memory card. Picasa, i found, does do that. Anyway, i don't think, 'Hello' takes up much space, Picasa2 either. It's a simple click to send pictures from your, 'MyPictures' to the, 'Shoals Astronomy Club' Blogsite. So if you see anything neat on the internet you'd like to share, that is possible with, 'Hello' and 'Picasa'. Anyway, check them out!

enjoy!

A very popular Messier object is the Lagoon Nebula (NGC 6253); M8). Flamsteed recorded the existence of this object around 1680. De Cheseaux, Le Gentil, and De Lacaille all noted it in their separate listings around 1750. Messier took his first look at this magnitude 5.8 object, on May 23, 1764. Use a wide-field eyepiece to view all of this great object. A nebula filter helps to see the wispy nature of the cloud.

2006-03-28T05:25:00.000-08:00

Greetings,

Welcome to the Shoal's Astronomy Club Blogsite!!!

This Blog is created for use by the Shoal's Astronomy Club, established February 16th, 2006. We at the Shoal's Astronomy club are committed to excellence in the Shoal's Area in areas related to and of observance of solar system and deep sky objects. This would inlcude: planets, the Sun, the Moon, and any and all deep sky objects. Members of the club are also recommended to be outstanding in character. As a blogsite, site modification and update is limited to Shoal's Astronomy Club members only. Residing President and Vice President are as follows: President- John Paul Daniel, Vice President- Mike Beck. The Shoal's Astronomy Club is a community project, intended to support Amatuer Astronomy in any way in the Shoal's (Florence, Muscle Shoal's, Sheffield, Tuscumbia) area. Hopefully, those reading the Shoal's Astronomy Club blogs will find information relevant, educational and of extreme benefit.
We all hope to further our understandings of Amatuer Astronomy and become better aquainted with our Universe.

With all this in mind, enjoy our Shoals' Astronomy Club BlogSite!!!