Guideline |
1)
Aperture is the Most Important Factor
2) Don’t Get Hung Up on Power
3) Bigger is Better, But...
4) The Sky IS the Limit...
5) Telescope Mounts
6) Different Scopes for Different Folks
7) Price is a Consideration
8) What About Astrophotography?
9) The Bottom Line |
| Given
the bewildering array of telescopes on the market, how does an enthusiastic
but inexperienced consumer choose the right one? To answer this
question I will explain the differences between specific telescope
types, but for that discussion to be meaningful it is important
first to understand some very basic points about astronomical telescopes
in general. |
| Aperture
is the Most Important Factor : |
| The
single most important specification for any astronomical telescope
is its aperture. This term refers to the diameter of the telescope's
main optical element, be it a lens or a mirror. A telescope's aperture
relates directly to the two vital aspects of the scope's performance:
its light-gathering power (which determines how bright objects viewed
in the scope will appear), and its maximum resolving power (how much
fine detail it can reveal). There are other criteria to be considered
in selecting a telescope, but if you learn only one thing from this
article, let it be this: the larger a telescope's aperture (i.e.,
the fatter it is), the more you will see. |
|
|
| Don’t
Get Hung Up on Power : |
Unfortunately,
the first question most beginners ask is not "What is this telescope’s
aperture?" but "What is its magnifying power?" The
truth is, any telescope can be made to provide almost any magnification,
depending on what eyepiece is used. The factor that limits the highest
power that can be used effectively on a given scope is, you may have
guessed, its aperture. As magnification is increased, and the image
in the scope grows larger, the light gathered by the telescope is
spread over a larger area, so the image is dimmed. There is also an
absolute limit, determined by the physical properties of light, to
the resolution that is possible with any given aperture. As the magnification
is pushed beyond that limit the image fails to reveal any additional
detail and gradually breaks down into a dim, fuzzy blob.
The maximum useful magnification for any telescope is about 50 times
the aperture in inches, or two times the aperture in millimeters.
This equates to about 100x to 120x with the smallest telescopes, which
is enough to see such wonders as the rings of Saturn and cloud bands
on Jupiter. The 2x per millimeter figure is a rule of thumb, and can
vary up or down somewhat depending on the optical quality of the scope
in question and the vision of the individual observer. Experienced
observers usually use much less power; 0.5x to 1x per millimeter is
more appropriate for most objects. Any manufacturer claiming that
their 60mm scope can provide good views at 450x (7.5 times the aperture
in millimeters) is trying either to pull your leg or pick your pocket! |
|
|
| Bigger
is Better, But... |
| While
aperture is the most important specification of any telescope, there
are exceptions to the rule that "bigger is better." One
is obvious: the need for portability. The largest amateur telescopes
are very big indeed, and demand either housing in a permanent observatory
or possession of a strong back, a truck, and a gang of muscular and
motivated observing buddies! There is a line to be drawn between performance
and portability, and where it will be drawn varies with the individual
and his or her capacity for storage and portage. Beginners are encouraged
to start out with a scope of sufficient aperture to feed their interest,
but of a size that they can manage easily. Avoid succumbing to "aperture
fever." Those infected with this psychological malady choose
the largest telescope they can afford without regard to portability.
Their monster scopes soon gather dust in the garage, exiled for the
crime of being too heavy and bulky, while the once enthusiastic would-be
stargazers wind up frustrated or in traction. |
|
|
| The
Sky IS the Limit... |
| The
second limitation on very large telescopes is less obvious, but becomes
apparent after the first couple of viewing sessions: the Earth’s
atmosphere limits how much we can see. Stars and planets viewed through
a telescope appear to shimmer or wiggle, as their light passes through
the air and is distorted. This effect is known to astronomers as seeing,
and becomes more noticeable and bothersome as telescope aperture increases.
It especially affects observations of the Moon and planets, where
high power applied to reveal fine details also magnifies the air turbulence.
The amount of
distortion due to seeing varies, depending upon the behavior of
air currents in the upper atmosphere, and to a lesser extent upon
the altitude and topography of the observing site. But on an average
night, at an average site, air turbulence will limit useful magnification
to 250x or 300x, and prevent telescopes larger than about 8"
or 10" aperture from achieving their full potential for high-powered
viewing. Telescopes larger than 10" are most often chosen by
observers who want to gather as much light as possible for viewing
dim galaxies, nebulas, and star clusters. These "deep sky"
objects, affectionately called "faint fuzzies," are most
often viewed at much lower power than the planets, so seeing is
less of a problem.
|
|
|
| Telescope
Mounts : |
| The
last important topic to cover before delving into optical designs
is that of mounts. Telescopes are offered on either altitude-azimuth
(or altaz) mounts, which move up-down (altitude), left-right (azimuth),
or equatorial mounts, which are tilted to align with the rotational
(polar) axis of the Earth.
Altaz mounts
are generally lighter and simpler to use, and are preferred if the
telescope is to be used both for both astronomy and daytime observing
(or for daytime observing only). The better ones offer slow-motion
controls to aid in moving the scope by small increments, and are
useful for powers up to about 150x. The Dobsonian mount is a variation
on the altaz mount. It employs unconventional (for telescopes) materials
like plywood and Teflon in a compact mounting that moves easily,
is extremely stable, and can adequately support large telescopes
at a very low cost. Though there are no mechanical slow-motions
or electric drives on a Dobsonian, a well-made example glides so
smoothly on the Teflon bearings that with a little practice it is
quite easy to track objects manually at 200x or more!
Equatorial mounts
are designed specially for astronomy, and are not recommended for
terrestrial viewing. Their advantage is that they allow easier tracking
of the stars across the sky. This motion can be achieved with either
a single manual slow-motion control or an electric motor drive (or
clock drive). The easier viewing they provide at high power makes
equatorials preferred by observers who are most interested in the
Moon and planets. Also, you’ll need an equatorial mount if
you want to do astrophotography.
|
|
|
| Different
Scopes for Different Folks : |
| Now that we understand these basic points of telescope
performance and mounting, we can discuss the three basic optical designs
of telescopes: the refractor, the reflector, and the compound (or
catadioptric) telescope.
A refractor is what most non-astronomers think of when they hear
the word "telescope." Its tube is most often long and
skinny, mounted on a tripod, with a lens at one end and the eyepiece
at the other. Refractors were the first type of telescope invented,
and the finest refractors still provide the best images of any design
for a given aperture. They are often chosen by observers with a
dominant interest in the planets and Moon, because they can provide
sharp, high-contrast views at high magnification and are less bothered
by atmospheric "seeing" than the other designs. They also
require less maintenance than reflectors or compound scopes, and
are therefore popular with beginners. The refractor’s good
performance at high power and relative insensitivity to light pollution
makes it a good choice for a city-based observer, as the design
performs best on the objects that are most easily seen from urban
or suburban locations.
These advantages do not come without a price — literally:
refractors are the most expensive telescopes per inch of aperture.
Big refractors can cost several thousand rupees, and still are considered
too small in aperture for serious deep-sky observing. The long focal
length of most refractors restricts the field of view, making it
difficult to take in large extended objects like some clusters of
stars. And the long tube, with the eyepiece located at the back
end, requires a tall tripod, which, if poorly made, can allow the
scope to shake and shimmy in the breeze, rendering high-powered
observing difficult.
The reflector uses a mirror, rather than a lens, to gather and
focus light. By far the most common design is the Newtonian reflector,
which places a concave (dish-shaped) primary mirror at the bottom
end of the telescope tube. A small secondary mirror at the other
end directs the focused light out the side of the tube and into
the eyepiece. Newtonians offer the largest aperture available at
given price, and when well made, they can provide sharp, contrasty
views that rival all but the finest refractors. A Newtonian’s
low center of gravity and eyepiece location at the top of the tube
allow for comfortable viewing with a more compact mounting, which
can be made stable with much less bulk and cost than the tall mounting
required by a refractor of similar aperture.
Big reflectors of 10" aperture and larger on Dobsonian mountings
are the most popular telescopes for astronomers who seek to gather
"buckets of light" for deep-sky observing. These giant
scopes perform best at remote dark sky sites, away from the glare
of city lights. The value and versatility of the smaller 4.5"
to 8" Newtonians, mounted either equatorially or as Dobsonians,
makes them a fine choice for the beginner with general interests.
Newtonian reflectors require occasional maintenance. Unlike the
lenses in a refractor, the mirrors in a reflector need periodic
alignment, or collimation, for best performance. While many beginners
seem intimidated by collimation, it’s really not difficult,
and takes only a few minutes once you get the hang of it. A reflector’s
tube is also more open to air and humidity than that of a refractor,
and if left uncovered the mirrors can accumulate dust and grime,
which necessitates occasional cleaning. While these maintenance
concerns are often overstated, a Newtonian may not be the right
choice for someone who finds the prospect of occasional tinkering
with the telescope unappealing.
The most modern of the three common designs for amateur telescopes
is the compound, or catadioptric type, which uses a combination
of lenses and mirrors to gather and focus light. The greatest advantage
of this design is its compactness: the lenses and mirrors "fold
up" the light path inside the telescope, reducing large-aperture
scopes to a manageable size. If an equatorial mounting is desired,
the smaller tube can be carried on lighter and more economical mounts
than that required by a Newtonian of the same size. Compound telescopes
are most popular with observers who desire both generous aperture
and an equatorial mounting in a transportable package.
The names Schmidt-Cassegrain and Maksutov-Cassegrain refer to specific
designs of compound telescopes, which use differently shaped lenses
and mirrors to achieve a similar result. The Maksutov is often cited
as offering better image quality, though there is little in the
way of optical theory to support this opinion. Most probably the
Maksutov has developed its reputation as the superior catadioptric
design because its spherical optical surfaces are easier to make
to very high precision than the more complex shapes demanded by
the Schmidt. As a result, if a telescope maker practices anything
less than the strictest quality control, their "average"
Maksutov will outperform their "average" Schmidt. In top-quality
telescopes from careful manufacturers, both designs can yield excellent
images.
There are a few drawbacks to all compound designs.
As in any telescope that employs mirrors, occasional alignment is
required for peak performance. The cost of a compound is higher
than that of a Newtonian of the same aperture, though still lower
than the cost of a comparably sized refractor. Most significantly
for the planetary observer, the secondary mirror in a compound is
much larger than that in a Newtonian, and its presence in the light
path of the scope reduces contrast somewhat for high-powered viewing.
In general, astronomers who desire a highly capable, easily transportable
telescope find these worthwhile compromises, and have made the compound
scopes very popular.
|
|
|
| Price
is a Consideration : |
| Budget is a factor in almost every telescope purchase
decision, but there are at least three major price-related pitfalls
to be avoided.
Don’t buy a flimsy, el cheapo scope with the intention of
getting a taste of the sky and upgrading later. Many of those scopes
are so poor-quality and frustrating that they can turn budding stargazers
off of astronomy for good!
On the other hand, don’t give up on astronomy if the scope
of your dreams is financially out of reach at this moment. There
are many reasonably priced, high-quality beginner’s scopes
that can reveal incredible wonders, while helping a novice define
his or her particular observing interest.
Finally, if
you are one of the fortunate few for whom price represents little
obstacle, think twice before buying the biggest, most expensive
telescope in stock. Many of the large, fully featured scopes favored
by experienced observers are also the most complicated, and are
too much to grasp for someone still trying to find the Big Dipper!
|
|
|
| What
About Astrophotography? |
| Before
concluding, here’s a quick word for the beginner who wants to
jump right into astrophotography through their new telescope: Don’t!
At least, not until you have taken some time to learn the sky and
become familiar with operating your scope. Photography of the heavens
can be a wonderfully rewarding pastime, but is a combination of art
and science with a steep learning curve that can discourage beginners
who try to take on too much at once. Of course, if astrophotography
is a primary interest there is nothing wrong with selecting a first
scope based on its easy adaptability to camera work in the future.
While most telescopes can be used for picture-taking (with varying
prospects for success), the most important qualifications for a photographic
instrument are a rock-solid equatorial mounting, and ease of attaching
a camera so that it can be focused. For a variety of technical and
economic reasons, compound telescopes of 8" aperture and larger
are most popular for photography. They also make fine instruments
for general observing. |
|
|
| The
Bottom Line |
| Which,
then, is the right telescope? That’s a decision that must be
made individually, but the three best pieces of advice are:
The best telescope
for you is the one you will use most often. A huge, optically wonderful
scope will bring no joy if it is consigned to the closet!
All else being
equal, a larger-aperture (diameter) telescope will reveal more in
the night sky than a smaller one ("I know, already!" you
may be thinking.)
Buy
from a company that’s knowledgeable about telescopes and astronomy,
and who will support you even after your purchase (since you will
likely have questions).
The
advice is to select a well-made telescope, of a design matched as
well as possible to your primary observing interest and most frequent
observing site. Make sure it’s a size that can be handled
easily (by your standards and no one else’s) and used often,
and you will enjoy a lifetime of awe and wonder under the stars!
Of
course, should you need more assistance in choosing a telescope
or help just send us a note on nileshv@vsnl.com
or feel free to visit at http://www.atiindia.com
|
|
|
First
time use |
Children |
City
(Poor light condit ion) |
Lunar
/ Planetary Observ ation |
Deep
Sky Observ ation |
Day
time Nature Study / Sight seeing |
General
astrono mical Observ ations |
Serious
Astrono mical Observ ation |
Easy
Transpo rtation |
Budget |
Astro
& General
Photo graphy |
Tele-Micro
Pen scope
|
ü |
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ü |
|
20x
Tourist Telescope
|
ü |
ü |
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
30x
Handheld Telescope
|
ü |
ü |
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
|
|
ST50
- A 50x Spotting Telescope
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
ü |
|
|
ü |
|
|
Astronomical
Telescope D75mm
|
ü |
|
ü |
ü |
|
|
ü |
|
ü |
ü |
|
Astronomical
Telescope D100mm
|
ü |
|
ü |
ü |
ü |
|
ü |
|
ü |
|
|
Astronomical
Telescope D125mm
|
|
|
ü |
ü |
ü |
|
ü |
ü |
ü |
|
ü |
Astronomical
Telescope D150mm
|
|
|
|
ü |
ü |
|
ü |
ü |
|
|
ü |
Astronomical
Telescope D200mm
|
|
|
|
ü |
ü |
|
|
ü |
|
|
ü |
NTQ4
: A brass telescope
|
ü |
ü |
|
|
|
ü |
|
|
|
ü |
|
Skyview
|
ü |
ü |
ü |
ü |
|
ü |
ü |
|
ü |
ü |
|
Skyview
2
|
ü |
ü |
ü |
ü |
|
ü |
ü |
|
ü |
|
|
Skyview
3
|
ü |
|
ü |
ü |
ü |
ü |
ü |
|
ü |
|
ü |
Skyview
60
|
|
|
ü |
ü |
ü |
ü |
ü |
|
|
|
ü |
Skyview
80
|
|
|
|
ü |
ü |
ü |
ü |
ü |
|
|
ü |
Skyview
100
|
|
|
|
ü |
ü |
ü |
ü |
ü |
|
|
ü |
Skyview
120
|
|
|
|
ü |
ü |
ü |
ü |
ü |
|
|
ü |
|
|