The Very Best Telescope

BTW, if your thinking of buying a scope, you haven't asked the MOST important question: How hard is it to set up/take down?
The bigger the scope, the more work and hassle it is to lug it to your viewing site, set it up, etc.
The most important rule of amateur astronomy is that is doesn't matter how BIG your scope is if it just sits in the garage collecting dust, because it's too damned much work to drag it out.

It is for this reason that the best first instrument is a pair of good 7x50 binoculars.... or a compact, lightweight modest telescope. If you get hooked using that, then move up to a bigger scope.

Yeah, I had pretty much already sussed that for myself. I keep running across TAL reflector telescopes on Ebay. 4 inchers. Russian apparantly. They'd be about as much as I'd want to spend until I was sure I wanted to spend that much time doing it.

I like photography. I like SCUBA diving. But when I started both hobbies, I kept it low key until I realized "I like doing this". Once I realized I could take my Olympus Camedia underwater with me and make some pretty good shots (see my Freeper page for a couple- and keep in mind, these aren't the upper range of what I've done underwater photography-wise) I combined the two hobbies. It made me a better diver right away and I really enjoy the diving more. I find myself looking at smaller things- the details, you know? I don't need to fin all over the place any more trying to see everything. If I can study one species' behaviour for half the dive, that's fine with me.

Anyway, I've seen some of the big scopes people have made by hand and they look like you'd have to haul it around with a pickup truck. That's too much for me at this point. I want to see the rings of Saturn with my own eyes (scope aided of course), I want to look at Jupiter and see some detail. I want to look out there and know I'm looking at a galaxy and be able to show it to my son. What I don't want to do is exactly what you said- buy a big ass tube that I don't feel like lugging anywhere. I want a piece of equipment that's going to get me off without breaking my bank or my back.

What do you think of the TAL-1 and TAL-2(?).

At any rate, thanks for your time and your responses ;-)

First, I don't own any telescope currently.

But, I'm thinking of either making, or picking up an 8 inch Newtonian, however I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if I should spend cash on an equatorial mount, or if a Dobsonian mount is sufficient.

Any thoughts?

Optical interferometry is the way to go....

Yes! We just hired a faculty member interferometrist, and built him a lab to build instrumentation. His work is so interesting that I've half considered becoming a grad student again to work with him! Interferometry is some cool shiznit!

It's got to be the best bang for the buck (once the get it working, that is!)

Is this difficult to set up if you have the right scope (one that moves automatically to adjust for the earth's rotation)? How much does it cost (ballpark) to do it right?

Well, depends on what sort of time exposure you're talking about. If it is a short exposure, say a minute or less, you point a decent SLR with a 50mm lens at the sky and open the lens for a minute and close it. No telescope needed at all (just be sure to set the camera on something steady like a tripod, and don't touch it with your hand). If you use ASA 1000 or faster slide film, you should get nice sweeping shots of the heavens, with lots of stars... assuming it's a clear, dark night.

But if you want to take a photo THRU the telescope of a planet, it gets trickier.... the exposure will usually be pretty short (depending of ASA speed, etc.) The problem with short exposures is that the mirror retraction mechanism of the SLR camera causes vibrations that will ruin the photo, so you have to cover the end of the scope (a black felt hat is standard procedure), open the shutter, pull the hat out of the way AND replace it while hand timing the exposure, then clsing the shutter.

Worse still, if you want to photograph faint "deep space" objects (nebula, galaxies, etc.), it gets REALLY tricky First you have to align the scope/mount with the polar axis...... this is a non-trivial task that takes some practice. Then you have to point the scope in the right part of the sky where the object is. Then you have to select a guide star, put your cross hairs on it, and track it with a hand controller while the camera lens is open.

If you can do that for two hours while the temperature is freezing, and manage to not accidently bump the scope during exposure, or not have an airplane fly thru the field of view with it's landing lights on, and the lens don't fog up as it cools off, and you have the right exposure, etc., etc., I'm sure you'll get a WONDERFUL picture......

Perhaps you can now appreciate why amateur astronomers often take dozens and dozens of exposure to get just one that comes out "right."

The new CCD detectors (used in lieu of cameras and film) make things much easier, but it still is lots of work.

Cost: well, "sky's the limit," as they say. A good simple SLR with a MANUAL (NOT electric) shutter is the starting point.

Check with any decent library, book seller, or Amazon for books on the subject. I would advise reading one before spending any money.

Warning: the above information is based on what I've read on the subject: I'm not an astrophotographer, amateur or otherwise.

What do you think of the TAL-1 and TAL-2(?).

Sorry; not familiar with them....

3" to 4" is more than enough for planets. Even a 2" will let you see moons of Jupiter, rings of Saturn. Refractors cost more, but give better contrast than reflectors. OTH, even an achromatic refractor (two different types of glass) still has some chromatic abberation. OTH again, reflectors don't suffer from chromatic aberration, but Newtonians are notorious for off-axis comatic aberration.....

Dobsonian designs are very cheap for the apeture, but you can't automatically track the stars .... you have to bump it by hand to follow something.

But, I'm thinking of either making, or picking up an 8 inch Newtonian, however I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if I should spend cash on an equatorial mount, or if a Dobsonian mount is sufficient.

It all depends...... on what you want to look at. Dobsonians are cheap for the apeture, but are limited to low power otherwise, the object flies out of the field of view in only a few seconds, and it doesn't lend itself to tracking (unless.... you put your Dobsonian on a Poncet platform!) They are good for big, deep space object that require lots of apeture, like faint nebula.

If you want to see planetary detail, I don't think a Dobsonian is the way to go.

This is the reason that the catadioptric designs by Meade and Celestron are so popular: they are compact (due to the folded light path), do everything reasonably well, and are fairly reasonably priced.

You might consider a smaller scope, say a 4.5" or 5" catadioptric, even a used one, for your "first" scope. A used one would have the advantage of not depreciating much, in case you decide you don't like freezing your a** off in the winter and getting eaten by insects in the summer.....

For reference, I have an 8" Celestron sitting in the garage, collecting dust. I never use it anymore... too much hassle, especially if you have to drag it somewhere....

These magnetic storms on the sun contribute to global warming here on Earth, and his extensive survey should show whether spots and flares are common and constant on other stars, whether they come and go in cycles of, say, a thousand years, or whether our sun is abnormal for having them at all.

Global warming? How could the sun have anything to do with global warming? Doesn't everybody know that humans wasting energy producing CO2 causes global warming?