Surely there must be some people here who ask:"Why is it I cant see Uranus's and Neptune's moons wherelse I can see Jupiter's and Saturn's?"

Well,you could the moons,but you will need at least a 8 inch aperture telescope to see the brightest ones.It also needs magnification of 400x and more.Here is some of the info:

Uranus Major Moons:

Titania and Oberon-13.2 magnitude

Ariel and Umbriel-almost 15 magnitude

Miranda-16 magnitude

Neptune Major Moons:

Triton-13.4 magnitude

Nereid-around 18 magnitude(only 25 inches and above telescopes are needed to view this moon,but make sure it is near Neptune as it has a highly eccentric orbit)

How about Pluto?

This year,it is no dimmer and brighter than 13.9 magnitude.Hey,How about Charon-around 17-17.5 magnitude(That is if Charon is far away from Pluto.)

Is it possible to see the dwarf planet Eris?Yes.But,you will need an observatory telescope:Eris is around 19 magnitude,now found between the borders of Cetus(The sea monster) and Pisces(The Fishes),but it is nearer to Cetus,about 2Degrees above its left spine.

I have:

Titania at 14.1 magnitude
Oberon at 14.3 magnitude

Even at those magnitudes, you should be able to see these with apertures 4" and above. Large magnification and good skies - yes! Triton should be fairly easy magnitude-wise if it is 13.4 magnitude.

Pluto might be interesting with small apertures, too bad it is too low from here. 

Never,that is impossible,even if a 4-inch scope had many magnifications.And Titania and Oberon aint that dim,and Titania and Oberon do not have that much brightness different..Pluto requires at least a 8-inch scope.And if you think Triton is easy to spot even if you have a 10-inch telescope,you're wrong.Neptune's glare gives it a harder to find situation.

If small apertures are used on Pluto,you will only see NBD.

However,a 7-inch aperture is possible to see at least 1 of those moons,but still almost impossible to Pluto instead of NBD.Unless you have eyepieces with magnifications of 80x and above,it is possible.

At 450x(A normal 9-inch scope without eyepieces power),it is a possible to see Uranus in detail as well as its 2 brightest moons.

Dark Neptune wrote:

If small apertures are used on Pluto,you will only see NBD.

If large apertures are used on Pluto, you will only see NBD. I have seen it in a 25" reflector and it still appears star-like.

At 450x(A normal 9-inch scope without eyepieces power),it is a possible to see Uranus in detail as well as its 2 brightest moons.

I'm sorry ... I don't understand the above sentence at all. First, you don't get magnification without an eyepiece, so what do you mean?

At 450X you still are not going to see Uranus in detail, unless what you mean by "detail" is: "see it as a disc" (not star-like). I've seen it as a disc many times in 6" telescopes at less than 300X. I saw it in November of last year at 1,700X in the 82" Cassegrain at McDonald Observatory and there was no "detail" in the view.

Jeff,do you know what is NBD? I am just describing that the power of magnification of 450x is equal to a 9 inch scope's power without magnification!

My "detail" means that you could see a little of Uranus's cloud smudges(Very few astronomers have reported with that using normal-commercial telescopes) and appear non-stellar.

I hope you are not testing me,although there was a possibility of misunderstanding.

Dark Neptune wrote:

Never,that is impossible,even if a 4-inch scope had many magnifications.And Titania and Oberon aint that dim,and Titania and Oberon do not have that much brightness different..Pluto requires at least a 8-inch scope.And if you think Triton is easy to spot even if you have a 10-inch telescope,you're wrong.Neptune's glare gives it a harder to find situation. If small apertures are used on Pluto,you will only see NBD. However,a 7-inch aperture is possible to see at least 1 of those moons,but still almost impossible to Pluto instead of NBD.Unless you have eyepieces with magnifications of 80x and above,it is possible. At 450x(A normal 9-inch scope without eyepieces power),it is a possible to see Uranus in detail as well as its 2 brightest moons.

Dark Neptune,

Your information is once again in error.  Pluto has been observed, with great difficulty, from Lowell Observatory's dark site at Anderson Mesa, Arizona, by a professional astronomer who I met in 2001.  He used a 70mm Tele Vue Pronto refractor.

Two other personal acquaintances, one being a fellow DVAA member who is also a Tele Vue employee and an award-winning ATMer and the other an extremely knowledgeable amateur astronomer and former Sky & Telescope contributing editor, have seen Pluto with 4.5" Newtonians.

http://www.pietro.org/Astro_C5/Articles/PlutoVisualLog.htm

Detecting any detail visually on Uranus is extremely difficult and has only been accomplished a few times by very competent observers.

Observing all but the brightest satellites of the outermost planets is far more difficult than you seem to think it is, even through rather large apertures.

http://skytonight.com/observing/objects/planets/3310476.html

Most amateurs are simply not very interested in attempting these observations.

Dave Mitsky

DaveMitsky wrote:

Dark Neptune wrote: Never,that is impossible,even if a 4-inch scope had many magnifications. Your information is once again in error.

Thank you Dave... like I said, 14th magnitude is not impossible with a 4 inch telescope...

Dark Neptune wrote:

Jeff,do you know what is NBD? I am just describing that the power of magnification of 450x is equal to a 9 inch scope's power without magnification!

Possibly not ... I assumed it meant "no big deal" ... right?

My "detail" means that you could see a little of Uranus's cloud smudges(Very few astronomers have reported with that using normal-commercial telescopes) and appear non-stellar.

I first observed Uranus and Neptune in 1963 with a 17" classical Newtonian (don't recall its focal length, but it was about 12 feet long) at a college observatory. I have observed them hundreds of times since then in scopes ranging from 4" to 82" without seeing detail. On a night of good seeing, you can certainly tell either is a disc using apertures as small as 4" but I  most commonly observe them with 6" refractors.

I hope you are not testing me,although there was a possibility of misunderstanding.

I certainly do misunderstand a "9 inch scope's power without magnification" ... what does that mean, exactly?

If by "power" you mean magnification, then the 450X you quoted must include an eyepiece (but you said it does not).

If you meant resolving power, then that is a function of the diameter of the aperture, but has nothing to do with the magnification. The ability to resolve a disc does, in fact, include both magnification and resolving power.

If you meant light-gathering power, then that is a function of the area of the aperture. For very dim objects, you simply don't seem them without sufficient aperture.

If by "power" you meant the size of the image circle of a 9-inch scope, then that is an entirely different matter and includes the entire field of view and is not denoted by X (times magnification).

So, what precisely are you talking about when you say "9 inch scope's power without magnification"?

NBD stands for "Nothing But Dust". The 450x,I was just describing that the power of 450x is the same as a 9-inch telescope's power WITHOUT any magnification.

Lets not fight more about this again,ok?

Never wrote:

DaveMitsky wrote:  Dark Neptune wrote: Never,that is impossible,even if a 4-inch scope had many magnifications. Your information is once again in error. Thank you Dave... like I said, 14th magnitude is not impossible with a 4 inch telescope...

I never said it is impossible to see 14th magnitude objects with a 4 inch aperture,but Uranus's moons and Pluto require a better powered aperture in order to know you located them.Sometimes we see it but others dont;because we had this thing called "mind illusion" which our mind and eyes work together to see much better to see it.Since Uranus and Neptune are about 50000km in diameter,and their moons are about 1/500 or 1/450 their sizes,do you think it is that easy to spot them?

And Dave,you cant simply make assumptions that I "think is easy to see them".Even if I had a giant dobsonian,do you think I will say "its easy to find them"? My answer is No.

Comparing 14th magnitude SS objects and 14th magnitude deep-sky objects is a lot of difference,with the deep-sky objects having different materials and thus colour of it,and the colour of dim SS different,be sure to find these correct 14th magnitude.

Although you all have more observing experiences than me,dont assume I am stupid.(But I never say you guys say I am stupid,otherwise this sentence will come out in the next posts:"No one say or assume that you are stupid")

Dark Neptune,

Your statement still makes no sense.  A telescope has no "magnification" without an eyepiece.

Do you perhaps mean light-gathering power, which is also known as light grasp?  If so, the light grasp of a 9-inch aperture is about 1070 times that of the unaided eye, not 450x.

Dave Mitsky

DaveMitsky wrote:

Dark Neptune, Your statement still makes no sense.  A telescope has no "magnification" without an eyepiece. Do you perhaps mean light-gathering power, which is also known as light grasp?  If so, the light grasp of a 9-inch aperture is about 1070 times that of the unaided eye, not 450x. Dave Mitsky

Just something to understand my meaning at least 74%:

http://www.celestron.com/c2/product.php?ProdID=416

Look into the spefications column,and the then the row with the red words "Highest useful magnification"

Then you know what I mean and correct my mistake again(If I had one)

OK, now we're getting somewhere. That specification is a calculation, not a measurement. Therefore it will be seeing-dependent, of course.

But it refers to the telescope used with an eyepiece ... it does not refer to any "native" property of the primary and secondary alone.

The objective of a refractor, or the primary of a reflector, forms an image. The eyepiece of the telescope magnifies that image. That's how a telescope works.

Dark Neptune wrote:

Never wrote:  DaveMitsky wrote:  Dark Neptune wrote: Never,that is impossible,even if a 4-inch scope had many magnifications. Your information is once again in error. Thank you Dave... like I said, 14th magnitude is not impossible with a 4 inch telescope... I never said it is impossible to see 14th magnitude objects with a 4 inch aperture,but Uranus's moons and Pluto require a better powered aperture in order to know you located them.Sometimes we see it but others dont;because we had this thing called "mind illusion" which our mind and eyes work together to see much better to see it.Since Uranus and Neptune are about 50000km in diameter,and their moons are about 1/500 or 1/450 their sizes,do you think it is that easy to spot them? And Dave,you cant simply make assumptions that I "think is easy to see them".Even if I had a giant dobsonian,do you think I will say "its easy to find them"? My answer is No. Comparing 14th magnitude SS objects and 14th magnitude deep-sky objects is a lot of difference,with the deep-sky objects having different materials and thus colour of it,and the colour of dim SS different,be sure to find these correct 14th magnitude. Although you all have more observing experiences than me,dont assume I am stupid.(But I never say you guys say I am stupid,otherwise this sentence will come out in the next posts:"No one say or assume that you are stupid")

I'm not assuming anything, Dark Neptune.    

Very few deep-sky objects have visible color, even when viewed through large apertures.  Every solar system body, except the Sun, is simply seen as the result of reflected sunlight.  The real difference is that the magnitude of an extended deep-sky object is an integrated magnitude, which is the apparent magnitude the object would have if all its light is concentrated into a stellar point.  This means that a 14th magnitude galaxy is a lot harder to see than a 14th magnitude star (or planetary satellite).

You seem to bring up the word stupid rather frequently.  I don't think anybody here thinks you're stupid but you are very highly opinionated for a 13-year-old and inexperienced.  If you don't make doctrinaire statements that prove to be incorrect, then you won't be corrected.  If you do, you will be.

Dave Mitsky

Even though I am a highly(Not too) inexperienced observer,it doesnt always mean I am that unknowledgable about these observing experiences.From your posts Dave,you seem to be Underestimating me,especially I am way much younger then you.

I did not say that you were highly inexperienced, only inexperienced. 

I can only judge your level of knowledge, regardless of age, from the frequency of incorrect information that you've posted here in recent months.

Dave Mitsky

Dark Neptune wrote:

I never said it is impossible to see 14th magnitude objects with a 4 inch aperture,but Uranus's moons and Pluto require a better powered aperture in order to know you located them.Sometimes we see it but others dont;because we had this thing called "mind illusion" which our mind and eyes work together to see much better to see it.Since Uranus and Neptune are about 50000km in diameter,and their moons are about 1/500 or 1/450 their sizes,do you think it is that easy to spot them?

I'm sorry I have no idea what you just said. All I'm saying is you can see Pluto with 4" telescope and smaller apertures. Besides, I'm a deep sky observer, I don't really observe solar system things

DaveMitsky wrote:

I did not say that you were highly inexperienced, only inexperienced.  I can only judge your level of knowledge, regardless of age, from the frequency of incorrect information that you've posted here in recent months. Dave Mitsky

You did say that.You most probably edited the post.Evidence:

1.In my email,there were 2 of your recent posts,and the begining and ending parts have different words.

2.On this forum page,I have been refreshing,to await your and maybe another person's reply.So thus I was able to see the difference,by reading your and Jeff's posts again and again.

Never wrote:

Dark Neptune wrote: I never said it is impossible to see 14th magnitude objects with a 4 inch aperture,but Uranus's moons and Pluto require a better powered aperture in order to know you located them.Sometimes we see it but others dont;because we had this thing called "mind illusion" which our mind and eyes work together to see much better to see it.Since Uranus and Neptune are about 50000km in diameter,and their moons are about 1/500 or 1/450 their sizes,do you think it is that easy to spot them? I'm sorry I have no idea what you just said. All I'm saying is you can see Pluto with 4" telescope and smaller apertures. Besides, I'm a deep sky observer, I don't really observe solar system things

Ha!Dont make me laugh till my window glasses break!A 4-inch and smaller aperture can see Pluto?I only heard of reports seeing Pluto with instruments no less powerful than 6 inches.

Never,have you ever even see Pluto with that lower power?If your eyes are gifted to see at least 7.5 magnitude stars like Gerard Kuiper,than I will understand.And your statement:

"All I am saying is you can see Pluto with 4" telescope and smaller apertures."

Does that mean you could see Pluto with a 60mm CTS Refractor as well?(Christmas Trashscope)

Dark Neptune wrote:

DaveMitsky wrote: I did not say that you were highly inexperienced, only inexperienced.  I can only judge your level of knowledge, regardless of age, from the frequency of incorrect information that you've posted here in recent months. Dave Mitsky You did say that.You most probably edited the post.Evidence: 1.In my email,there were 2 of your recent posts,and the begining and ending parts have different words. 2.On this forum page,I have been refreshing,to await your and maybe another person's reply.So thus I was able to see the difference,by reading your and Jeff's posts again and again.

So now I will make an assumption, i.e. that you are calling me a liar.  Is that the case, Dark Neptun? 

I do  make revisions and additions in my posts after making them from time to time but did not change in essence what I said about your level of experience.  My statement stands and I expect an apology.  Note that highly does not modify inexperienced in the deleted post that follows:

 

Dark Neptune wrote:

Never wrote:  DaveMitsky wrote:  Dark Neptune wrote: Never,that is impossible,even if a 4-inch scope had many magnifications. Your information is once again in error. Thank you Dave... like I said, 14th magnitude is not impossible with a 4 inch telescope... I never said it is impossible to see 14th magnitude objects with a 4 inch aperture,but Uranus's moons and Pluto require a better powered aperture in order to know you located them.Sometimes we see it but others dont;because we had this thing called "mind illusion" which our mind and eyes work together to see much better to see it.Since Uranus and Neptune are about 50000km in diameter,and their moons are about 1/500 or 1/450 their sizes,do you think it is that easy to spot them? And Dave,you cant simply make assumptions that I "think is easy to see them".Even if I had a giant dobsonian,do you think I will say "its easy to find them"? My answer is No. Comparing 14th magnitude SS objects and 14th magnitude deep-sky objects is a lot of difference,with the deep-sky objects having different materials and thus colour of it,and the colour of dim SS different,be sure to find these correct 14th magnitude. Although you all have more observing experiences than me,dont assume I am stupid.(But I never say you guys say I am stupid,otherwise this sentence will come out in the next posts:"No one say or assume that you are stupid")

I make absolutely no assumptions, Dark Neptune.    

Very few deep-sky objects have visible color, even when viewed through large apertures.  Every solar system body, except the Sun, is simply seen as the result of reflected sunlight. 

You seem to bring up the word stupid rather frequently.  I don't think anybody here thinks you're stupid but you are highly opinionated beyond your years and inexperienced.  If you don't make doctrinaire statements that prove to be incorrect, then you won't be corrected.  If you do, you will be.

Dave Mitsky