any astronomers here?

[mostsmooth]

how much would one expect to spend on a decent telescope? or can one get a decent scope for around $500?
and what type of details could one expect to see using such a telescope? i mean i would assume youd get some pretty good detail of the moon?, but what about say mars and other planets? im not expecting to see surface details, but in general.

[Borodog]

Unless you want something really high end, I would recommend the Edmund Scientific Astroscan, the Deluxe Package (it has the Barlow lens amongst other nifty things included). It's $400 and is an amazing piece of technology for the price.

If you want something higher end, you're going to have to spend more. I would recommend either a Meade or Celestron Schmidt-Cassegrain 8".

[Borodog]

On second thought, Holy Crap I Need One of These.

[chrisnice]

I may be a bit biased as my uncle is a vice president at Meade but they have got some awesome telescopes. Their ETX series is probably what you would be looking for. They go for $600ish plus but they are great for amatuer astronomer types. I would suggest finding a retailer for Meade as they could probably tell you what each model can do. The one ive got gives you a good view of mars, depending on the position, and a great view of the moon. A couple years ago when saturn was relativly close to earth I had a great view of its rings. If this is the kind of thing that interests you I suggest that you save and spend a little more as the good telescopes are realy quite amazing.

[Zygote]

what ones are quite amazing? what can you see out of those? what kind of expertise do you need to operate these things?

thank you very much

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
how much would one expect to spend on a decent telescope? or can one get a decent scope for around $500?
and what type of details could one expect to see using such a telescope? i mean i would assume youd get some pretty good detail of the moon?, but what about say mars and other planets? im not expecting to see surface details, but in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

This page from Meade should answer your questions about what you can expect to see. For your money, I don't think you can go too wrong with one of these Meade starter scopes, which are 3" refractors or 4-4.5" reflectors. There is quite a bit you should understand and consider before you purchase, so I suggest reading the appropriate sections on selecting a telescope on Sky and Telescope and also the information on Astronomics' website. These should tell you all you need to know, so I don't need to elaborate much here, but you can come back with any questions.

Besides planets, you will be able to explore other deep sky objects such as galaxies and nebulae, but your results will depend heavily on how dark the skies are in your area. You will almost certainly want a scope with motor drives which faciliate keeping the image centered in the eyepiece, otherwise they will drift away in a matter of seconds due to the rotation of the earth. You also will almost certainly want a scope with a computer controller such as Meade's Autostar system which greatly facilitates finding objects, since these have become standard equipment even on inexpensive scopes.

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
I would recommend either a Meade or Celestron Schmidt-Cassegrain 8".

[/ QUOTE ]
from reading a bit and looking at pricing, ive noticed the schmidt style is more expensive than the maksutov. im assuming there is some advantage to the schmidt over the mak. could you explain this for me? all i can tell so far is the optics are different, but im not sure what the results and pros/cons of the difference is.

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would recommend either a Meade or Celestron Schmidt-Cassegrain 8".

[/ QUOTE ]
from reading a bit and looking at pricing, ive noticed the schmidt style is more expensive than the maksutov. im assuming there is some advantage to the schmidt over the mak. could you explain this for me? all i can tell so far is the optics are different, but im not sure what the results and pros/cons of the difference is.

[/ QUOTE ]

They both have similar advantages and disadvantages, but Maksutov-Cassegrains actually have better contrast and resolution on the moon and planets than Schmidt-Cassegrains or reflectors because of their smaller secondary mirror obstruction. In this regard, they are the best of all the catadioptrics and reflectors, and nearly as good as refractors of the same aperture. Their thicker correcting lens makes them heavier than Schmidt-Cassegrains, and they take longer to cool down to a stable temperature, though that is mainly a problem with larger appertures > 90 mm. They cost less because they are easier to make, not because they have poorer performance.

This page from the Astronomics website I referenced discusses them briefly.

While both of these are fine instruments, most are above your $500 price range, especially with an 8" aperture. You could probably find some 3-4" Maksutov's in that range. Reflectors are generally much less expensive for the same aperture, though not as portable.

[ChipWrecked]

Be careful of salespeople when shopping.

When I worked in camera stores, we would carry telescopes during the holiday season only.

We would pretty much B.S. our way through any presentation. The question "What can I see?" was my personal favorite; I would launch into a torrent of crap including Jovian moon names and some M- numbers. Usually this would impress enough to elicit the desired "I'll take it!"

I never got a complaint. The average 'scope buyer spends maybe six hours total with the thing.

[mostsmooth]

thanks bruce
somehow i didnt come across that info at astronomics.
also, after further review, ive increased my price range to the $1000 neighborhood and probably will go over that [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]