what do you really see through a telescope?

Question

In books you see division of the rings of Saturm. Pictures show different colors of Jupiter. I can barely make out the rings around Saturn. I am not using a cheap scope (8" LX-50). When using higher powers (150X and up) you loose clarity. I live in the country with no light polution and this is also during the winter after the scope temperature has adjusted.

Answer 1

Pictures of astronomical objects in books are typically made using very large telescopes and with cameras with very long exposure times.

For instance the hubble space telescope is around 2 meters in diameter (6 feet) and for the famous picture of the deep field of galaxies, they exposed the image for -MONTHS-.

Most amateur astrophotography is done with 10"+ telescopes (14" is not uncommon, I know a guy with an 18") and with CCD cameras doing exposures of 30 minutes or more.

A friend of mine and I were discussing the horsehead nebula recently, and she was out in the desert with a 17" telescope and still could not tell that the thing she was looking at was the horsehead nebula, it just looked fuzzy.

Also remember that most pictures in books are VERY edited in photoshop and false-colored to give a much prettier image... thats life. :)

Answer 2

As Bill C said, what you'll see through an amateur 'scope is nothing like the pictures in the coffee table books! Things will improve with practice though - you have to learn to observe.

If you think about the eye, it's got a single, simple lens - that means the image on the retina is upside down and suffers from chromatic aberration. We see the world the right way up and without coloured fringes because the brain has worked out what to do with the information it's being sent by the eye. When you start using a telescope, your brain has to learn a new way of seeing things.

The best way to improve your observing skills is by drawing at the telescope. You don't have to produce a masterpiece, but the exercise will force you to think about what you're looking at and you'll be able to see more with your 'scope. If you're interested in planetary observing, try drawing eggs! I know it sounds like a joke, but there's a lot of very fine detail in eggs, and again, drawing forces you to learn to see it.

Answer 3

I see the rings around saturn just fine in all of my telescopes, the smallest being 4.5"

I typically use a low powered lens with a barlow to view it. I'm seldom able to view it with high powered lenses.

Jupiter does look washed out to me most of the time though.

Your problem may be that your telescope isn't collimated, you haven't let your telescope cool enough, atmospheric turbulence, bad eyepieces, or any combination of the above.

Out of all the nights I've spent under the stars, on only one have I ever been able to use super high magnification...a 9mm with a 2x barlow in my 13", giving me a magnification of 332.7x

The theoretical limit for that telescope is about 650 but that's in the vacuum of space. To achieve this, the night was very calm, the telescope had cooled for about two hours, and I had just recently collimated it. I popped the eyepiece in and got a somewhat fuzzy image of Saturn which would occasional clear enough for me to see it's cloud band and razor sharp rings.

The best way to get an idea of what others see is to take your telescope to a star party and consult with the people there, or, you can look at sketchings people have done at the eyepiece and posted online. Most of the time astrophotos will look better than what you actually see. The reason for this is they are timed exposures and often times are processed with computer programs that generate the best possible image. Saturn should look like Saturn in your telescope and Jupiter should look like Jupiter though you may not see as much detail as you'd like, but for the most part, you will not be able to see vibrant colors in galaxies and nebula and you will not be able to make out structure in many galaxies.

A good example of the differences between what you see and what the camera see's is M31, the Andromeda galaxy. Most photos show it in striking detail with swirling dustlanes:

http://www.caillat.org/laurent/albums/apod/m31_ware_big.jpg

But looking through you're telescope, you'll see something more akin to this:
http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/gallery/largegal/m31/m31_mosaic_JHK.jpg

Answer 4

Your 8 inch telescope would have been one of the best telescopes in the world in the early 19th century, perhaps better than any available to Herschel or Messier. Since then, there has been a vast improvement in the quality and power of professional instruments, and it is pictures from those telescopes, taken under the very best conditions, that you see in books. Furthermore, the human eye just isn't anywhere near as sensitive as CCDs or even photographic plates.

My suggestion: get a book on the Messier objects, and work through the list.

Answer 5

What you see through an 8" telescope will not resemble what you see in pictures. You should be able to see the main division in the rings of Saturn, and make out some texture in the belts and bands of Jupiter.

Once you've adjusted your expectations to match reality, there are still a variety of things that can interfere with your viewing experience. One of these is the steadiness of the atmosphere, what astronomers refer to as seeing. Some areas are plagued with poor seeing. Another factor is collimation. Your telescope mirrors must be properly aligned for it to work at its best. Collimation can make a major difference. Finally, although they are mercifully rare, Meade does produce an occasional bad telescope.

If there's an astronomy club near you, find someone to have a look at your scope. An experienced observer should be able to help you sort it out. You can search for clubs at http://skytonight.com/community/organizations .

Answer 6

Telescopes do no longer view stars and galaxies as they're at this 2d. Telescopes do no longer attain out and get gentle that's in basic terms leaving a star or galaxy. Telescopes can in basic terms see gentle that's accomplishing them at this 2d. If a star is 50,000 gentle years remote from us, meaning it takes 50,000 years for the gentle from that celeb to return and forth for the time of area to be triumphant in us. meaning that the gentle that's accomplishing the telescopes top now from that celeb, left that celeb 50,000 years in the past. meaning that what we see with the aid of the telescope is what the celeb appeared like 50,000 years in the past. meaning that we are seeing the previous with the aid of telescopes; no longer the destiny. .

Answer 7

When compared to the magnificent photos of planets, nebulae and galaxies which are readily available, a practical size telescope is a letdown. I enjoy the process of starhopping to find my target object though, and remind myself that even the views in a small telescope are better than the views Galileo had in his.

Answer 8

Those pictures are long exposures from very precisely controlled scopes. You get a lot more light in a 30 minute film exposure than with real time naked eye viewing.

Answer 9

Keep in mind that many of the astronomical objects you see in professional pictures, and especially from NASA are color enhanced. Nature is much more bland than the photos suggest.

Answer 10

obviously your telescope as good as you think it is, is still cheap, not to mention the telescopes that they take those pictures from are some of the most high tech telescopes and not offered on the market.