Cross-hobbies - trouble or not?

[lprellwitz]

For a while, I've toyed with the idea of getting into astronomy as a hobby. I'm just starting to learn more, and have yet to purchase a telescope; research on that topic continues.

I would like to purchase a scope that is somewhat portable, so I can occasionally take it out to sites with less light pollution than what we have here.

Idealy, I'd like one portable enough that it can accompany me on some cross country trips in the 182......

I've found some models that will meet the portability requirement quite nicely. However, my question concerns vibrations. From what I've gathered so far, the mirrors in telescopes need to be adjusted/'tuned' from time to time, particularly when they've been subjected to considerable amounts of vibration. Doesn't sound like a particularly onerous process, but I gather that this isn't something that's done frequently.

Guess I'm trying to find out if the vibrations generated from being carried about in a small plane will result in my having to adjust and align these mirrors much more often than they should be; don't want to spend lots of $$$ on a beautiful piece of equipment that won't be able to stand up to the travel requirements. Any insights/experience welcome....

Thanks, Leslie

 

[Iceman]

As a person that travels with a lot of expensive camera gear I think it's important to use everything you have without thinking twice about it. I see so many gear collectors (planes, cars, cameras, etc) that do not enjoy the stuff they have now because they are too worried about damage to the item.

 

[gprellwitz]

I wonder if it's worth investing in some of those foam-lined metal cases photographers seem to like. I'd think they would dampen the vibrations, and allow you to lug it around (okay, allow me to lug it around ) with fewer concerns.

 

[Frank Browne]

For a while, I've toyed with the idea of getting into astronomy as a hobby. I'm just starting to learn more, and have yet to purchase a telescope; research on that topic continues.

I would like to purchase a scope that is somewhat portable, so I can occasionally take it out to sites with less light pollution than what we have here.

Idealy, I'd like one portable enough that it can accompany me on some cross country trips in the 182......

I've found some models that will meet the portability requirement quite nicely. However, my question concerns vibrations. From what I've gathered so far, the mirrors in telescopes need to be adjusted/'tuned' from time to time, particularly when they've been subjected to considerable amounts of vibration. Doesn't sound like a particularly onerous process, but I gather that this isn't something that's done frequently.

Guess I'm trying to find out if the vibrations generated from being carried about in a small plane will result in my having to adjust and align these mirrors much more often than they should be; don't want to spend lots of $$$ on a beautiful piece of equipment that won't be able to stand up to the travel requirements. Any insights/experience welcome....

Thanks, Leslie

Hi Leslie,
I've been into backyard astronomy for several years. I love it! If you've never owned a good telescope before, probably the best bang for the buck will be an 8' Dobsonian telescope. They are very easy to set up and use, plus they are fairly inexpensive.

 

[lprellwitz]

Frank - thanks for the ideas on a good starting scope. There's certainly a lot to consider.
Have you found any difficulty with transporting the scope, and/or needing to align the mirrors more frequently as a result?

Thanks,Leslie

 

[Matthew]

A typical reflector will have the primary mirror held in place with some screw or spring mechanisms. The primary (typically 4/6/8 inch diameter for the more portable scopes) is adjusted with these screws. Adjustment is usually accomplished in just a few minutes. My scope just makes the rounds from inside the house to the back yard, and occasionally a trip in the car. A padded nylon case or just a buch of bubble wrap is pretty much all that's necessary.

That said, my scope is a simple 6" reflector with no motors or other moving parts, its about as simple as it gets. Refractors and other styles that use lenses, motors, ..., may need a little more care.

 

[Frank Browne]

Frank - thanks for the ideas on a good starting scope. There's certainly a lot to consider.
Have you found any difficulty with transporting the scope, and/or needing to align the mirrors more frequently as a result?

Thanks,Leslie

Not really. I bought my son a 10' Dob for Christmas last year, and it has proved easy enough for the two of us to transport. But we've never flown with it. An 8' scope is not too much IMO for someone new to the hobby to use. With a Dob mounted scope, you'll only have two pieces to carry, the scope tube and the cradle it rests in. No complicated drive mechanisms to mess with, just plain old looking through the eyepiece.

Here is a link so you can look at different models.
http://www.telescopes.com/php/specialty.php?LID=1&HID=20&cur=1&specid=71&specName=Dobsonian

If you purchase one, keep the shipping container. It's makes it easier to transport.

 

[cwyckham]

I haven't played with such things in some time, but I seem to remember that you can make a very simple collimation "eyepiece" out of a film canister. With practise, it shouldn't take more than a couple minutes to re-collimate a Dobsonian.

Chris

 

[gismo]

If you want a good telescope that's very portable I'd take a close look at Cassegrains. These telescopes provide great performance in a fairly compact package and I've not had any problems with alignment with it banging around in my car trunk.

This is the one I have:

http://www.telescope.com/shopping/p...=PRODUCT&iMainCat=4&iSubCat=10&iProductID=371

And this is the one I wish I had bought for slightly more money:

http://www.telescope.com/shopping/p...=PRODUCT&iMainCat=4&iSubCat=10&iProductID=373


One caution for you is that ambient light is a big problem for any telescope if you live within 30 miles of a medium sized city. I live on the outskirts of the Minneapolis metro area and the only times I can view much of the sky from my home are when there's a power blackout.

 

[fgcason]

A padded nylon case or just a buch of bubble wrap is pretty much all that's necessary.
Refractors and other styles that use lenses, motors, ..., may need a little more care.

I have a 60mm refractor with a manual equilaterial mount that I've had since I was a kid. It's traveled more than most people have. No alignment or other issues yet and still works like the day I got it.

Just pad everything sensibly and take it along. Towels or bubblewrap work good. If you're going to be transporting a lot, larger diameter PVC pipe, foam padding and a little practical application makes excellent bangup proof and waterproof cases. Pistol and camera cases or any hard sided cases are excellent for lenses, mounts and assorted hardware.

 

[lprellwitz]

If you want a good telescope that's very portable I'd take a close look at Cassegrains. These telescopes provide great performance in a fairly compact package and I've not had any problems with alignment with it banging around in my car trunk.

This is the one I have:

http://www.telescope.com/shopping/p...=PRODUCT&iMainCat=4&iSubCat=10&iProductID=371

And this is the one I wish I had bought for slightly more money:

http://www.telescope.com/shopping/p...=PRODUCT&iMainCat=4&iSubCat=10&iProductID=373


quote]

Lance - this is scary: the one you reference is precisely the one I've had my eye on; seems to have good reviews, and what I'm looking for in a scope.

One non-technical question: is the paint job as nice in person as it is in the picture? Looks pretty smooth....

Thanks, Leslie

 

[Dart]

For a while, I've toyed with the idea of getting into astronomy as a hobby. I'm just starting to learn more, and have yet to purchase a telescope; research on that topic continues.

It's important to know if you've gotten past the "Mark II eyeball" stage. First one should become familiar with the major astorisms (big dipper, zodiac etc). Then you'll be in a better position to enjoy binocular viewing. Most stellar phenomena of interest are visible to the naked eye. Conjunctions, eclipses, finding the planets, etc. For many of these things a big scope really doesn't help. Learn to find mercury, it's a challenge for the naked but it'll sharpen your understanding of astronomical movements.

The next step is to explore these now familiar objects and neighborhoods with binoculars. Big binos are rugged and can be used for far more than the simpler scopes. I drag out my binos far more often than setting up the 11 inch.

When you've got a grasp of finding extended objects "the Messier" catalogue is a perennial favorite intro. you can then move into the scope realm. At this point you'll rapidly learn that $200 scopes or binos on $800 equatorial mounts are better than $800 scopes on $200 stands.

Send me a PM if you would like some of my recent back-issues of Astronomy Magazine (I'll pay postage)

Bear in mind that what you see in the media is long exposure photography, even a large object such as the Orion nebula will appear to the naked eye as a greenish glow in an II incher. That is why the moon, jupiter and saturn are such perrenial favorites. Mars can be quite a challenge although at the right season and a close approach the poles are quite clear (this is changing as the Martian pole is shrinking dramatically as a result of Bush's global warming policy).

If you like the science you'll love the hobby. Just understand that it is a sublime pursuit of small thrills (except of 'course when a comet smacks jupiter and gives it a huge black eye ).

I would like to purchase a scope that is somewhat portable, so I can occasionally take it out to sites with less light pollution than what we have here.

Idealy, I'd like one portable enough that it can accompany me on some cross country trips in the 182......

There are some beautiful table top Maksutov's that are about the size of a large coffee can and are equiped with built in computer guided mounts. These can run a couple grand, or for less than a couple hundred you can buy a spotting scope that will split easy stars and brighten clusters . Gotta figure out where your comfort level lies.

I've found some models that will meet the portability requirement quite ...

Guess I'm trying to find out if the vibrations generated from being carried about in a small plane will result in my having to adjust and align these mirrors much more often than they should be; don't want to spend lots of $$$ on a beautiful piece of equipment that won't be able to stand up to the travel requirements. Any insights/experience welcome....

Thanks, Leslie

Binos and refractors suffer the least. Newtonian reflectors the most. It really isn't that hard to re-collimate once you get the hang of it casual collimation takes a few minutes.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Leslie,

I have no advice about the scope, but when you want to take it somewhere in the 182, I highly reccommend KISQ. Hotels & Restaurants nearby, camping on the field, but VERY little light pollution at all. About 3 people live up there and you have the lake on one side where there are no lights. The view up there on a clear moonless night is absolutely stunning. I'd even dare say you won't find a better one without going out to the Rockies.

 

[gismo]

Lance - this is scary: the one you reference is precisely the one I've had my eye on; seems to have good reviews, and what I'm looking for in a scope.

One non-technical question: is the paint job as nice in person as it is in the picture? Looks pretty smooth....

Thanks, Leslie

The coating on the tube looks fine and seems to be quite durable, but that's not why I like it. Compared to a Dobsonian it's way more portable, only the mount is a bit cumbersome to carry around. And the image quality is perceptably better than any reflector. It was recommended to me by a couple of the optical engineers at work.

Here's a little explanation of the design's evolution:

http://www.weasner.com/etx/guests/mak/MAKSTO.HTM

 

[Frank Browne]

The coating on the tube looks fine and seems to be quite durable, but that's not why I like it. Compared to a Dobsonian it's way more portable, only the mount is a bit cumbersome to carry around. And the image quality is perceptably better than any reflector. It was recommended to me by a couple of the optical engineers at work.

Here's a little explanation of the design's evolution:

http://www.weasner.com/etx/guests/mak/MAKSTO.HTM

Of course you are right Lance about the image quality of refracting telescopes. I guess the reason I recommended a Dobsonian mounted reflector is because my primary interest lay in observing deep sky objects such as star clusters, nebulae, galaxies, etc. The best scope for those type of objects are of course short focal length "light buckets". In a Dob mount they are supremely simple and easy to use, providing that you have no interest in photographing those objects. The only objects I have an interest in photographing are comets, and for those I have a tangent arm platform that I built for that purpose. Below is a photo I took of Comet Hyakutaki in 1996 using my barn door tracker. Kodak Gold 1000, 4 minute exposure.

 

[gismo]

Of course you are right Lance about the image quality of refracting telescopes. I guess the reason I recommended a Dobsonian mounted reflector is because my primary interest lay in observing deep sky objects such as star clusters, nebulae, galaxies, etc. The best scope for those type of objects are of course short focal length "light buckets". In a Dob mount they are supremely simple and easy to use, providing that you have no interest in photographing those objects. The only objects I have an interest in photographing are comets, and for those I have a tangent arm platform that I built for that purpose. Below is a photo I took of Comet Hyakutaki in 1996 using my barn door tracker. Kodak Gold 1000, 4 minute exposure.

Nice work on the tracker, but where's the comet picture you promised?