IntJohn and txmnjim were discussing telescopes in a welcome thread, so I started a new thread to ask them for advice. I noticed John's telescope cost over $2K. Can you guys recommend a telescope for someone on a limited income? Do any budget telescopes even work? Eg. under $500
Telescopes
- Thread starter Carla618
- Start date
Help Support Van Living Forum:
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2017
- Messages
- 807
- Reaction score
- 690
For inexpensive entry level prolly a 3 or 4” refractor. Expect to pay 300 to 500$.
Do not buy something for less, really you want quality lenses and light gathering ability in an inexpensive scope for entry level or your experience will be disappointing.
ITS NOT ABOUT MAGNIFICATION per se’ this is biggest mistake people make at first. It’s about quality lenses/mirrors and light gathering ability.
Maybe a 3 to 5” refractor celestron or similar. A 4” reflector is good too; to start
INTJohn
Do not buy something for less, really you want quality lenses and light gathering ability in an inexpensive scope for entry level or your experience will be disappointing.
ITS NOT ABOUT MAGNIFICATION per se’ this is biggest mistake people make at first. It’s about quality lenses/mirrors and light gathering ability.
Maybe a 3 to 5” refractor celestron or similar. A 4” reflector is good too; to start
INTJohn
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2017
- Messages
- 807
- Reaction score
- 690
Idk your situation where you live etc.
If you’re some place where you don’t need to travel to get away from “light pollution” then you might want a telescope that is less portable.
Otherwise if you need to travel frequently to a place out aways where it’s treeless nice and dark then you’ll want something very portable with ease of take down and setup.
In txmnjims avatar is a classic Dobsonian “light bucket” reflector. You can get these in kit form for 400 or 500$ depending on diameter.
Galileo first built a 2” refractor so yeah you can have something waaay better today in a 3” or 4” refractor than what The Man himself first built.
Think about that! 400ish bux.
Meade or Celestron. They’re both quality good. I lean towards Meade but that’s just me. It’s like Chevy Ford; McDonalds Burger King.
INTJohn
If you’re some place where you don’t need to travel to get away from “light pollution” then you might want a telescope that is less portable.
Otherwise if you need to travel frequently to a place out aways where it’s treeless nice and dark then you’ll want something very portable with ease of take down and setup.
In txmnjims avatar is a classic Dobsonian “light bucket” reflector. You can get these in kit form for 400 or 500$ depending on diameter.
Galileo first built a 2” refractor so yeah you can have something waaay better today in a 3” or 4” refractor than what The Man himself first built.
Think about that! 400ish bux.
Meade or Celestron. They’re both quality good. I lean towards Meade but that’s just me. It’s like Chevy Ford; McDonalds Burger King.
INTJohn
Malamute
Well-known member
What do you want to use it for?
A telescope suitable for semi-serious stargazing is a different animal than one you want to use to look at stuff on the ground. I like a decent spotting scope for ground based things, but have no real need for a stargazing telescope.
I used a spotting scope on a tripod to watch the moons of Jupiter in the early 2000s, it worked pretty well for that level of looking, the moons could be easily seen moving in relation to the planet in a very short amount of time. I could also see the rings of Saturn with it. Its not as powerful as a true stargazing telescope but was adequate for my level of interest, and I use it quite a lot looking for animals and the distant scenery.
A telescope suitable for semi-serious stargazing is a different animal than one you want to use to look at stuff on the ground. I like a decent spotting scope for ground based things, but have no real need for a stargazing telescope.
I used a spotting scope on a tripod to watch the moons of Jupiter in the early 2000s, it worked pretty well for that level of looking, the moons could be easily seen moving in relation to the planet in a very short amount of time. I could also see the rings of Saturn with it. Its not as powerful as a true stargazing telescope but was adequate for my level of interest, and I use it quite a lot looking for animals and the distant scenery.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2017
- Messages
- 807
- Reaction score
- 690
Read/study this it covers the basics really well without getting too technical.
INTJohn
INTJohn
Last edited:
Thanks John and Malamute! Really appreciate all your help.
I have an 8" dobsonian, hand made in a class taught by John Dobson himself. It is WAAAYYYY too big for me to cart around, so sadly it's been stored for a good 10 years now. If anyone here has a place for it, I'd be happy to give it away...
So tempted but it would wind up the same for me 90% of the time... stuck in storage.
eDJ_
Well-known member
I have this Meade NG 60 SM that was given to me.
Dad got a newer Telescope and let the kids half destroy this one learning how to use it. One of the kids must have taken the eye piece out of it to keep the others from using it (and lost it) or maybe it was Dad trying to keep it from being completely destroyed all together.
The eyepiece opening is 1 1/8" but I don't know where to find another one that is use and affordable.
Other detail: F=700mm D=60mm
If I could find an eyepiece I'd take it apart and clean it up to restore it. I'm sure it was a nice outfit when it was new.
Dad got a newer Telescope and let the kids half destroy this one learning how to use it. One of the kids must have taken the eye piece out of it to keep the others from using it (and lost it) or maybe it was Dad trying to keep it from being completely destroyed all together.
The eyepiece opening is 1 1/8" but I don't know where to find another one that is use and affordable.
Other detail: F=700mm D=60mm
If I could find an eyepiece I'd take it apart and clean it up to restore it. I'm sure it was a nice outfit when it was new.
A place to read and learn is a forum like this one called ’cloudy nights’. They also have a classified section where you can get a setup from someone who is upgrading or just changing hobbies. The deals are much better there than retail. You will also need to get eyepieces and a mount, and decide if you want a smart mount (goto). Outside of the city you could do well with a 4 inch refractor. As mentioned a Dobsonian is also a good choice. A goto mount which knows where cool stuff is could be a good choice if you can afford it. I bought used eyepieces and they are fine. https://www.cloudynights.com/index
Also, binoculars are useful for stargazing.
Also, binoculars are useful for stargazing.
I recently bought a pair of astronomical binoculars and wow....they are impressive.
Heavy tho, so you pretty much have to use a sturdy tripod, which I already had.
This particular model is a Celestron Skymaster 18-40x80, I own a Celestron Spotting Scope so I decided to stay with Celestron...the price was right, about $150 on Amazon.
These are for casual nightime skysurfing....the moon looks very sharp and bright, you can easily see the texture and ridges around the craters....stars are...well stars are bright points of light. Planets are somewhat discernible as 'disks'...have not been able to get a good view of Saturn yet, due to hazy/cloudy skies and schedule conflicts, Plus its kinda farther away and so small in the binoculars this time of year that it's hard to see the rings. Maybe it will be better as time goes on and our third rock from the sun gets a bit closer.
Terrestrial viewing is...wow....I can easily read vehicle license plates that are 1/4 to 1/2 mile away....that's kinda scary!
Heavy tho, so you pretty much have to use a sturdy tripod, which I already had.
This particular model is a Celestron Skymaster 18-40x80, I own a Celestron Spotting Scope so I decided to stay with Celestron...the price was right, about $150 on Amazon.
These are for casual nightime skysurfing....the moon looks very sharp and bright, you can easily see the texture and ridges around the craters....stars are...well stars are bright points of light. Planets are somewhat discernible as 'disks'...have not been able to get a good view of Saturn yet, due to hazy/cloudy skies and schedule conflicts, Plus its kinda farther away and so small in the binoculars this time of year that it's hard to see the rings. Maybe it will be better as time goes on and our third rock from the sun gets a bit closer.
Terrestrial viewing is...wow....I can easily read vehicle license plates that are 1/4 to 1/2 mile away....that's kinda scary!
Attachments
txmnjim
Well-known member
i think a good used 8" dobsonian is a good entry scope as very easy to use and has tremendous light-gathering ability. they are usually under $500. a good site that is cloudynight.com, with used equipment and wealth of information. however, if travelling in tight quarters it is too big, so a smaller "desk top" scope is better such as Meade etx 90 or refractor as John suggests. i also hung out with a local astronomy club for quite a while and borrowed "loaner scope" where you can get a feel of what's out there, and many groups have "public nights" monthly. you can find many groups and resources including observing programs at https://www.astroleague.org/. i also love observing with the large field of views that binoculars (7x50 preferred) offer as tx2sturgis recommends. its a wonderful hobby and can be done on a budget and wish you well in your endeavors. pm if any questions...
jim
txmnjim
Well-known member
this would be awesome! Dobson was my hero and i hear a wonderful human being
He was a major character. Believed in a "steady-state" universe. I never quite got how he thought it worked though. But then I don't really understand big-bang that well either.this would be awesome! Dobson was my hero and i hear a wonderful human being
The funnest thing was going out with him and a bunch of other folks. We'd set up a couple telescopes in a supermarket parking lot, where he'd proceed to call to strangers - "come look! it's the moon!"
There's a documentary about him, which was made a year or so before I met him, where you can see him in action - well worth tracking down - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0450369/ Alas, my copy of the dvd was lost in the Great Van Heist of 2021, and they don't come up on ebay all that often.
Definitely one of the most memorable people I've ever had the privilege of meeting. A real treasure of a human being.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2017
- Messages
- 807
- Reaction score
- 690
Actually there’s very little evidence for either the Steady State hypothesis or the Big Bang hypothesis. Why theoretical physicists and cosmologists have so eagerly embraced one or the other to the exclusion of any other factually unknown possibilities is beyond me. I personally think it’s part of human psychology- even of scientists - of the need to believe in anything rather than to believe in nothing at all.
There does seem to be slightly more evidence in favor of the Big Bang but it’s really not that much more as they both embrace Red Shift measurements of distant galaxies and the determining factor for most scientists today that lead to the rejection of Steady State is the observed existence of so-called CMBR - Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation which calculations re the Big Bang hypothesis does in fact seem to predict……..
Whether or not this observed radiation is in fact the left over decayed radiation from the so-called Universe’s beginning has not been proven to my satisfaction but merely an intuitive assumption.
The logic being because it is both a calculated and observed existence and because we cannot prove a singular direction of it’s origin; it must be coming from every direction; and if it’s coming from every direction it must exist uniformly across the universe and the only way this can occur is if it’s existed since the beginning of the Universe hence it could only have occurred at the instance of the Big Bang.
This train of thought has several flaws the biggest one to me being that human observations regarding anything about the distant Universe is a piss poor guess at best that includes many assumptions hence I refer to it, unlike most theoretical physicists & cosmologists as simply a hypothesis and not a “theory”. Same goes for Steady State; they are both ideas; a hypothesis; having some evidence for each but not much more and not worthy to be called a Theory; little lone an existent preponderance of evidence which Humanity will never be alive long enough to determine.
I could go on & on & on but ummm I won’t. Tired of typing
INTJohn
There does seem to be slightly more evidence in favor of the Big Bang but it’s really not that much more as they both embrace Red Shift measurements of distant galaxies and the determining factor for most scientists today that lead to the rejection of Steady State is the observed existence of so-called CMBR - Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation which calculations re the Big Bang hypothesis does in fact seem to predict……..
Whether or not this observed radiation is in fact the left over decayed radiation from the so-called Universe’s beginning has not been proven to my satisfaction but merely an intuitive assumption.
The logic being because it is both a calculated and observed existence and because we cannot prove a singular direction of it’s origin; it must be coming from every direction; and if it’s coming from every direction it must exist uniformly across the universe and the only way this can occur is if it’s existed since the beginning of the Universe hence it could only have occurred at the instance of the Big Bang.
This train of thought has several flaws the biggest one to me being that human observations regarding anything about the distant Universe is a piss poor guess at best that includes many assumptions hence I refer to it, unlike most theoretical physicists & cosmologists as simply a hypothesis and not a “theory”. Same goes for Steady State; they are both ideas; a hypothesis; having some evidence for each but not much more and not worthy to be called a Theory; little lone an existent preponderance of evidence which Humanity will never be alive long enough to determine.
I could go on & on & on but ummm I won’t. Tired of typing
INTJohn
Now I'm using the browser version of the stellarium-web...works great!
Happy Camper
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2015
- Messages
- 1,023
- Reaction score
- 769
My daughter just went on a nine week road trip across the country and back.11k miles. Thank God it was in a small hybrid. They were extremely happy about being able to see Star clusters with the naked eye in some of the more remote desert areas. Was one of the highlights for them.
I'm debating on looking for a very inexpensive starter telescope that doesn't take up much space for them. Something they can put in the car and drive to see those shiny things.
And just for reference, $300 isn't in the cards. I'm talking really inexpensive. Just to see if they like it and want to upgrade to something good pricing lol
Any super cheap thoughts?
I'm debating on looking for a very inexpensive starter telescope that doesn't take up much space for them. Something they can put in the car and drive to see those shiny things.
And just for reference, $300 isn't in the cards. I'm talking really inexpensive. Just to see if they like it and want to upgrade to something good pricing lol
Any super cheap thoughts?
rruff
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2019
- Messages
- 1,048
- Reaction score
- 876
You run the risk of it being so crappy it's useless... but 70mm refractors seem to hold down the generic and cheap category. Note it's $68 after applying discounts.
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2016
- Messages
- 2,141
- Reaction score
- 994
^ WOW I'm impressed for less than $100...............Phone imaging..........
Now my nephew in Palo Alto...........Retired early from IT.........shoots this from his backyard as a HOBBY
Using something like this..... about a 9 HOUR exposure.........Liquid Nitrogen cooled
Now my nephew in Palo Alto...........Retired early from IT.........shoots this from his backyard as a HOBBY
Using something like this..... about a 9 HOUR exposure.........Liquid Nitrogen cooled
Last edited:
