Hello Everyone,

My name is Carl and I have always been interested in Astronomy and started to persue it seriously a few months ago. I am having fun right now reading and studying to figure out the night sky and all the tools that go with Astronomy and how to use them. However, I think the folks who named the constellations took some artistic liberties. How Leo looks like a Lion is beyond me. In time maybe it will come to me.  

 I currently have an Orion Starblast 4.5 Telescope. It is great scope and I enjoy it a lot, however I have some questions. I understand how the Earth's rotation will cause stars to move in my field of view when I am looking in my eyepiece, but what I don't understand, is sometimes stars seem to shake when I am looking at them. Is it some kind of atmospheric disturbance, or is there something wrong with my equipment? Anything I can buy to fix it? Also, when I look at stars, there always seems to be streaks of light coming out of them and I can't get a clear view. Anyway I can calm that down? I saw my first double star in Leo the other night and saw the separation between the two stars but it wasn't real clear. Expectations to high? And finally I realized, probably to late, that my scope is not good for planet detail. I can see the 'ring' of Saturn. Apparently there is more then one ring but I can't see the separation. Can someone suggest a good size scope that I can eventually upgrade to that will give me good planet detail but not put me in the poor house. I know there is no 'one size fits all' telescope but I have a strong interest in looking at the planets.

Thanks in advance for all and any help!

Carl

Hi and welcome to the forums. As to your questions I will be brief as I may not hold all the answer. First if you notice some distortion, the primary mirror may not be at ambient temperature, this will cause some ripples and other aberrations on your image. I alway wait one hour before I make any serious observation. The shaking can be also the mirror not at temp, but atmospheric conditions affect the image also and this may be the problem. As for your view of Saturn it all depends on the big lens corrector ( Atmospheric conditions) I just walked in the door from looking at Saturn and I have an 8 inch Orion and was not able to notice the Cassini division, two causes spring to mind The moon is washing out a lot of stuff and there seem to be some haze in the atmosphere tonight. Another thing to keep in mind is that the more power you extract from your scope the more the atmosphere plays a factor. I do not think there is anything wrong with your scope. Eye pieces also make a big difference, there are several posts on eye pieces selection. I like the Orion Epic ED-2 for the price when on sale they are 50 bucks and are very good for the price. With good conditions your scope should be fine until your itch for a better one, by then you should have a good idea of what will work for you best.

Hope I was helpful, and if I missed something or Iwas not accurate there are plenty of great people in here to help.

 Hello and welcome to the forums

Dr Evil,

 This is good advice and something I hadn't thought about. I typically just setup the telescope on my deck and start viewing. I will wait an hour or so next time before viewing. I will also check out those lenses you mentioned.

Thanks again!

CG

Thanks!

Welcome, Carl.  I've heard great things about that Starblast as a starter scope, congratulations.

CGRANT:

However, I think the folks who named the constellations took some artistic liberties. How Leo looks like a Lion is beyond me. In time maybe it will come to me.  

I know what you mean.  If you ever figure out how Cancer looks like a crab please let me know.

I understand how the Earth's rotation will cause stars to move in my field of view when I am looking in my eyepiece, but what I don't understand, is sometimes stars seem to shake when I am looking at them. Is it some kind of atmospheric disturbance, or is there something wrong with my equipment?

You telescope is very small and light.  Depending on how you choose to support it, it can very suseptable to vibration.  If you just set it on a table even the breeze can make the image shake and dance.  I read an article on time where the owner of a Starblast sank a 4 X 4 post in the ground and mounted a platform to the top of it for his scope to sit on.  The more solid the base, the steadier the views.

Also, when I look at stars, there always seems to be streaks of light coming out of them and I can't get a clear view. Anyway I can calm that down?

If the streaks of light were all coming out of one side of the star, making it look lke a little comet, you could be dealing with what is called coma.  The first thing to do is to make sure your mirrors are aligned (collimated) a good tutorial showing how to do that can be found at http://www.andysshotglass.com/Collimating.html .

If the streaks are coming out at the north, south, east, and west positions then what you are seeing are called defraction spikes caused by the 'spider' that holds the secondary mirror in place.  Defraction spikes are completely normal.

 And finally I realized, probably to late, that my scope is not good for planet detail. I can see the 'ring' of Saturn. Apparently there is more then one ring but I can't see the separation. Can someone suggest a good size scope that I can eventually upgrade to that will give me good planet detail but not put me in the poor house. I know there is no 'one size fits all' telescope but I have a strong interest in looking at the planets.

A 6" or 8" dobsonian mounted reflector would be a good upgrade that wouldn't break the bank.  The larger mirrors will gather more light, showing you more detail, and the longer focal length (1200mm compared to 450mm) will allow you to get higher magnification. 

Hope this helps.

Hello & Welcome,

Let me just add a little bit here to the advice, which is all spot on too, about your scope.  Enjoy it for awhile before you let the dollars out of your wallet.

There are 110 Messier objects and 109 Caldwell ones.  There is some overlap of course but every one of these will be visible in your telescope.  Some of them like M45 will actually look better in your little scope than a larger scope with a smaller field of view.  There are some 8,000 NGC objects.  Of these probably half can be seen as well with your scope.

There are nine, well um eight planets and the dwarf planet Pluto you cant see anyway unless you track its dim star-like point over several nights against the backround stars.  One you are standing on so that leaves seven. Of these Mercury and Venus will show no detail no matter how large a scope you have.  The phases can be seen in your scope just as well as in an eight inch, they will just be smaller. Of the five remaining, Uranus and Neptune are so far out that unless you buy an 18" Obsession you will see nothing other than a small greenish (Uranus) or Bluish (Neptune) orb. Your scope can see these colours just as well. That leaves three of which Mars will show nothing either except during periods of its opposition which occurs about every twenty six months.  We just had a Mars close approach in November 2007 so it is going to be awhile before anyone with any size telescope can see much of anything. That leaves just two, Jupiter and Saturn.  Jupiter is mired in the southern portion of the ecliptic and will not show as much detail as is usual because it will remain too close to the horizon.  The last is Saturn which also will be less interesting soon as we will see its rings edge on, and thus invisible to anyone, all too soon.

In short, enjoy your scope!  There are lots of great things to discover out there besides planets.  You might want to get that new telescope before the next Mars opposition, when Saturn's rings return, and Jupiter climbs higher in the firmament.  Save up and be ready for the future and enjoy the present with a very nice scope.

Just a little thought.

Keep looking up!

L

Zachsdad,

 Thanks for taking the time and replying to my post. I will try your advice about securing my telescope. I was out last night with my dog, and the dog dropped his bone on my deck and it casued the view in the telescope to shake. Plus my deck is attached to the second story of the house so it is grounded very well either. So securing the scope is a good first step in fixing my issues. Also, thanks for the advice about the scope for planet viewing.

Thanks again and it is good to get advice from people with experience!

CG

Leo731,

 Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post and for the informative information about the planets. Based on your comments my scope is working just fine and I am seeing what I should be seeing. That is good to know. I'll have to research the information about Mars and opposition to find out more. I've never come across Caldwell objects in all my reading. Again, I'll have to to some more reading.

Thanks again!

And as I am beginning to find out from other posters ...... Dark Skys!

CG

Wweelcome to the univerese.  If you think your colimation is off  be verry careful trying to adjust  it, it is all to easy to make it  worse  the voice  off experienve )  I thought mine was,which  it wasn,t took many frustratiiig hours   to get it tuned back in.  My problem was  the secondary mirror.  I realized that by not  seating the optical lens all the way downn  iit gave me a longeerfocal length it gave me a much sharper imaaage, this   is worth a try andd  irs free

Rock on

Blake

CG, 

The so-called Caldwell Catalog(ue) is merely a list, and not a particularly good one, of deep-sky objects that Sir Patrick Caldwell-Moore, a world-famous British amateur astronomer, submitted to Sky & Telescope some years ago.  Seeing the commercial potential, the magazine promoted and marketed this list out of all porportion to its importance, or lack thereof. 

The Caldwell Catalog(ue) is most definitely not a catalog in the astronomical sense since Moore, who is not a professional astronomer, certainly did not discover any of the objects nor did he do any scientific research on any of them.  Furthermore, a number of superior deep-sky object lists beyond the Messier Catalog(ue) existed long before the Caldwell objects were foisted upon amateur astronomers.

Moore was known primarily as a lunar observer (he himself admits as much) and was never considered to be among the ranks of important amateur deep-sky observers.  As a matter of fact, he reportedly held deep-sky observing somewhat in disdain as it became increasingly more important in amateur astronomy with the advent of large aperture Dobsonians.

For more on the topic, see http://members.aol.com/anonglxy/lingmoor.htm

Dave Mitsky

CGRANT,

Use whatever list of targets suits your needs.  All any of them are is a starting point and roadmap to plan an evening's observing session.  Each is just as valid as the next be it the Messier list, the NGC list, Astronomy Magazine's 100 Most Spectacular Deep Sky Wonders (talk about marketing!), the Caldwell list, or even the lists of deep space objects and double stars published in these forums each month.  You'll find easy targets in each list, and you will find targets to challange your skills.  You choose, the stars don't give a darn.

Good hunting!

zachsdad, 

What you said goes without saying.  However, it is important to keep in mind that the Messier Catalog(ue) and the NGC are legitimate astronomical catalogs, not mere lists, and the Caldwell Catalog(ue) is not.  It is a very haphazard collection of DSOs at best, some 30% of which are not even visible to most northern hemisphere observers.  It includes some nearly impossible visual objects (Sh2-155 for instance) and omits some of the very best southern hemisphere DSOs (both of the Magellanic Clouds for example), negating any claim to it being a "best of" non-Messier object list. 

The Astronomy magazine special edition that you mentioned is not being "marketed" as a "list" to the best of my knowledge, being just one of many special editions on a variety of topics that the magazine has published over the past few years.

Here are a few other DSO lists that deserve far more attention:

http://www.astronomyboy.com/saa/

http://homepage.mac.com/vicmenard/telescopes/TheList.pdf

http://observers.org/observing/eyecandy/index.html

http://www.saguaroastro.org/content/BEST-OF-DEEP-SKY-OBJECTS-NOT-IN-THE-NGC.htm

http://www.1000plus.com/2000plus/ 

Anyone wanting a real challenge object list to work on should have a look at http://www.maa.clell.de/Messier/E/Xtra/Similar/rasc-dsc.html 

Dave Mitsky

Thanks for the list of lists, Dave.  Those will be useful.  I like to have various sources to pull from when I plan an observing session.  I've never actually used the Caldwell list, but if it has astronomical targets, I will probably give it a shot someday.  The book based on that list has received many positive reviews from valid sources, so there are some out there who have a differing opinion on it's value. 

As for the 100 Most Spectacular . . . from Astronomy, it is a very good list and a visually stunning magazine at the same time.  My copy is already well used.

Well, I don't quite know why the Caldwell List deserves to be trashed like this.  Sure it is not perfect but it has its uses for those new to the stars and are not living at 40 degrees north. Messier's list is hardly perfect as it has some glaring omissions and some real head scratchers as well.  In any case that wasn't the point I was trying to make and New Guy picked it up and I hope is enjoying finding all the new things out there available to his scope.

Once our new friend has mastered his scope and is ready to move on to more things I would suggest a compilation of 400 objects from the Herschel Catalog.  Here is a link with more information as well as the list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herschel_400_Catalogue

Thanks for reading!

L

Informing novices about the real story behind the Caldwell list and its shortcomings can hardly be considered trashing it. 

The Messier Catalog is not a "list" and was compiled over two hundred years ago.  It certainly has mistakes but they certainly are understandable given the state of observational astronomy at the time.

"Messier's catalog was not intended as a Deep Sky catalog at all, but as a list of nebulae which can easily fool comet hunters by looking like comets. Thus it contains mainly objects which, at least in the rather small instruments Messier has used, or to the unaided eye, look like comets. Moreover, Messier did a more or less unsystematic search for comets, and thus it depended on chance to a good part if he found a particular object."

http://www.maa.clell.de/Messier/m-q&a.html

Perhaps people should read the considered opinions of a number of experienced deep-sky observers on the matter.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/4gpxo3

Dave Mitsky

Here's another list that's rather noteworthy due to the information supplied on each object.

http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/textcontent.html

Dave Mitsky

CGRANT,

I'm sorry.  Some of us have diverted this thread far off track into a debate over semantics and the inherent value of certain "lists" and "catalogs".  I hope somewhere in there you were able to glean the information you needed.