# What would be a good telescope to see pluto clearly?



## Chieve

Do they make a home telescope that will allow me to see pluto?

I was thinking about majoring in astronomy, and it would be cool if i can observe the cosmos at home.


----------



## Jcgrey

> Although there have been reports of seeing Pluto in a 5-inch, it would be pretty difficult, even with pristine skies. It would require sensitive eyes with high visual acuity. A decent set of optics and steady skies wouldn't hurt, either, as Pluto is so small (about 0.1 arcsecond across) that diffraction and optical aberrations dominate the image.
> 
> A 16-inch telescope should make it pretty straightforward, assuming dark skies. Personally, I've seen it without too much difficulty in a 10-inch, and I know quite a few people who have seen it in an 8-inch, which I haven't tried. I would guess that it would be possible for an "O'Meara type" observer to see it down in a 4-inch. It is one of those "highlight observations," however, which does tend to attract optimistic observations.
> 
> One thing about SCTs like your Nexstar--I have an late-1990s Celestron C5+, much like your N5--is that there's additional light loss when compared to a refractor or even a Newtonian. So if at any point your goal is to see it in as small a telescope as possible, you should probably try to use a refractor. Pick a very transparent night (no haze, far from city lights) with good seeing; atmospheric turbulence will spread out Pluto's light, potentially rendering it invisible.
> 
> By the way, I have tried and failed to see Pluto in the C5+.


.


----------



## Chieve

Yeah I saw that post actually. I've been looking at what a 26 inch telescope can see.

http://www.amazon.com/Celestron-Nex...=1353531602&sr=8-2&keywords=26+inch+telescope

But I want something that can get even closer and show the details better...is it possible? Like in the picture of Saturn, I want something better.

like










or










would be amazing...if I could get a close up at the rings, it would be cool.

although i guess were talking about 1000$ now...


----------



## Chieve

oh wow look at this

http://www.amazon.com/Celestron-Sta...UTF8&qid=1353532013&sr=1-1&keywords=see+pluto


----------



## Jcgrey

The Celestron CPC 1100 Is a nice telescope. But not for observing Pluto. And software/hardware to cancel out atmospheric aberrations. you would get liitle more than a blurry thing. as far as seeing Saturn. It would be spectacular. But nothing lake the last image shown


----------



## typemismatch

I've been told that 6 inches is plenty, but with 8 inches you can see heaven.


----------



## Jcgrey




----------



## DubnRun

I would love one but my budget doesnt stretch.

would like to see saturn up close


----------



## Chieve

Jcgrey said:


>


That's a neat picture, not clear, but if that's the best...well it's still kind of cool.

What type of telescope was used if you know?

What type of telescope would you suggest? I probably won't use it often, I just want a 100-200$ telescope. I would like to see a nebulae


----------



## Lonelyguy

Your price range will limit you on what you are able to see. You should be able to easily see M42 (the Orion Nebula) and M8 (the Lagoon nebula, located in Sagittarius) as well as several galaxies like Andromeda with a $200 scope. You'll also be able to see most of the planets, but don't expect to find Pluto. Even if you do, the most you would see is a faint white speck.

I have two Celestron refractors with equatorial mounts (see attached picture). One is a 6", the other is a 4". They cost around $900 and $450 respectively. I don't use either of them very often anymore, but I usually grab the 4" since its much lighter and easier to set up. The 6" is a beast to handle but it does go a little deeper into space. Neither of them will give views of the planets like the pictures posted above. I can easily see Saturn's rings and the cloud bands on Jupiter, but don't expect the kind of detail you see in those photos. Atmospheric conditions are also a *major* limiting factor in how much detail you will be able to see. Some nights the viewing conditions are terrible; turbulence in the atmosphere produces a wavy effect in the image, similar to heat radiating off of the pavement on a hot summer day. Most of the time I can't go over 200X magnification because the image quality really starts to degrade. You won't be able to view deep space objects like galaxies and nebula at high magnification either because they are simply too faint. Don't expect to see color in nebula, even the largest observatory telescopes can barely view color. You'll need long exposure photography equipment to capture that kind of stunning detail. That said, I still think M42 is breathtaking every time I see it, even though it only appears grayish white to me.

As a general rule: buy the biggest aperture you can afford. Don't be fooled by magnification claims, those numbers are meaningless if the aperture isn't large enough to let enough light through along with the limiting factor of atmospheric conditions. Refractors are easy to use but more expensive when compared to reflectors of the same aperture. Reflectors require collamination adjustment before use which isn't a big deal, but something you need to keep in mind. Schmidt-Cassegrains are the best of both worlds, but they come with a higher price tag. Personally I'd recommend a big reflector with a Dobsonian mount for a beginner. That will allow you to spend more on a larger diameter scope which lets you see more without spending a fortune on the more complex equatorial type mounts. I'd also highly recommend a good book on the Messier objects, which makes finding things a lot easier. Dark skies are also a must...I see you live in Long Island which might make things tougher unless you can get out in the country away from the light pollution of the city.


----------



## CeilingStarer

Wow, that second Saturn pic of the rings is awesome.


----------



## Strwbrry

I'm saving this thread. I was thinking of buying a decent telescope and looked around a bit, but I'm reading some good stuff here. Thanks!


----------



## Chieve

Lonelyguy said:


> Your price range will limit you on what you are able to see. You should be able to easily see M42 (the Orion Nebula) and M8 (the Lagoon nebula, located in Sagittarius) as well as several galaxies like Andromeda with a $200 scope. You'll also be able to see most of the planets, but don't expect to find Pluto. Even if you do, the most you would see is a faint white speck.
> 
> I have two Celestron refractors with equatorial mounts (see attached picture). One is a 6", the other is a 4". They cost around $900 and $450 respectively. I don't use either of them very often anymore, but I usually grab the 4" since its much lighter and easier to set up. The 6" is a beast to handle but it does go a little deeper into space. Neither of them will give views of the planets like the pictures posted above. I can easily see Saturn's rings and the cloud bands on Jupiter, but don't expect the kind of detail you see in those photos. Atmospheric conditions are also a *major* limiting factor in how much detail you will be able to see. Some nights the viewing conditions are terrible; turbulence in the atmosphere produces a wavy effect in the image, similar to heat radiating off of the pavement on a hot summer day. Most of the time I can't go over 200X magnification because the image quality really starts to degrade. You won't be able to view deep space objects like galaxies and nebula at high magnification either because they are simply too faint. Don't expect to see color in nebula, even the largest observatory telescopes can barely view color. You'll need long exposure photography equipment to capture that kind of stunning detail. That said, I still think M42 is breathtaking every time I see it, even though it only appears grayish white to me.
> 
> As a general rule: buy the biggest aperture you can afford. Don't be fooled by magnification claims, those numbers are meaningless if the aperture isn't large enough to let enough light through along with the limiting factor of atmospheric conditions. Refractors are easy to use but more expensive when compared to reflectors of the same aperture. Reflectors require collamination adjustment before use which isn't a big deal, but something you need to keep in mind. Schmidt-Cassegrains are the best of both worlds, but they come with a higher price tag. Personally I'd recommend a big reflector with a Dobsonian mount for a beginner. That will allow you to spend more on a larger diameter scope which lets you see more without spending a fortune on the more complex equatorial type mounts. I'd also highly recommend a good book on the Messier objects, which makes finding things a lot easier. Dark skies are also a must...I see you live in Long Island which might make things tougher unless you can get out in the country away from the light pollution of the city.


Wow, thanks for all the info!  I'll definitely keep it in mind.

and yeah there is a lot of light pollution. i know a good spot to bring it though. so i guess ill need a portable one..


----------



## Whatev

Nice thread, been saving up for one. Still so undecided.


----------



## Jcgrey

Lonelyguy said:


> Your price range will limit you on what you are able to see. You should be able to easily see M42 (the Orion Nebula) and M8 (the Lagoon nebula, located in Sagittarius) as well as several galaxies like Andromeda with a $200 scope. You'll also be able to see most of the planets, but don't expect to find Pluto. Even if you do, the most you would see is a faint white speck.
> 
> I have two Celestron refractors with equatorial mounts (see attached picture). One is a 6", the other is a 4". They cost around $900 and $450 respectively. I don't use either of them very often anymore, but I usually grab the 4" since its much lighter and easier to set up. The 6" is a beast to handle but it does go a little deeper into space. Neither of them will give views of the planets like the pictures posted above. I can easily see Saturn's rings and the cloud bands on Jupiter, but don't expect the kind of detail you see in those photos. Atmospheric conditions are also a *major* limiting factor in how much detail you will be able to see. Some nights the viewing conditions are terrible; turbulence in the atmosphere produces a wavy effect in the image, similar to heat radiating off of the pavement on a hot summer day. Most of the time I can't go over 200X magnification because the image quality really starts to degrade. You won't be able to view deep space objects like galaxies and nebula at high magnification either because they are simply too faint. Don't expect to see color in nebula, even the largest observatory telescopes can barely view color. You'll need long exposure photography equipment to capture that kind of stunning detail. That said, I still think M42 is breathtaking every time I see it, even though it only appears grayish white to me.
> 
> As a general rule: buy the biggest aperture you can afford. Don't be fooled by magnification claims, those numbers are meaningless if the aperture isn't large enough to let enough light through along with the limiting factor of atmospheric conditions. Refractors are easy to use but more expensive when compared to reflectors of the same aperture. Reflectors require collamination adjustment before use which isn't a big deal, but something you need to keep in mind. Schmidt-Cassegrains are the best of both worlds, but they come with a higher price tag. Personally I'd recommend a big reflector with a Dobsonian mount for a beginner. That will allow you to spend more on a larger diameter scope which lets you see more without spending a fortune on the more complex equatorial type mounts. I'd also highly recommend a good book on the Messier objects, which makes finding things a lot easier. Dark skies are also a must...I see you live in Long Island which might make things tougher unless you can get out in the country away from the light pollution of the city.


Nice post! Thanks.


----------



## kast

What you're able to see through a telescope is determined by the size of its aperture, and to some extent the right eyepieces will give you a little extra.

I have a 6-inch reflector on a Dobsonian mount (around the $500 price range). This is similar to how I see Saturn and this is how Jupiter looks. If you search youtube for "6 inch telescope" (and 8, 10, etc.) some people have posted footage from their telescopes, so that should give you an idea of what is possible. Once you get past 10" telescopes you're looking at a price range in the thousands, and you'll probably need to store that in your own outdoor observatory (more $$) because you can't haul that out your back door every night. My 6-inch scope is 40kg and about 140cm tall, which is okay to carry on most surfaces but going down steps is nerve-wracking to say the least.

That first image of Saturn that you posted was probably taken with a 16-inch scope at least. Close-ups of Saturn's rings are taken by the Cassini spacecraft which has orbited Saturn to take those photographs. Sorry, even the largest professional observatories won't see such sights from Earth.

Pluto is so tiny (smaller than the moon) and too far away to observe in any detail. These blurry photos from NASA by the Hubble Telescope are the clearest you'll see. It's basically impossible to see Pluto from your backyard.

If you've got money to spare and you're serious about keeping the hobby, I wouldn't go any lower than a 6-inch. But don't be disappointed when a backyard telescope doesn't live up to Hubble. You'll still see some amazing things and it's a great experience even to make out the blurry gas bands of Jupiter. I've seen the Orion Nebula and I can just make out four of Jupiter's moons. The detail of observing the Moon is fantastic and I love identifying the craters.


----------



## Classified

CeilingStarer said:


> Wow, that second Saturn pic of the rings is awesome.


It is also a painting.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/main/index.html

This will be my telescope in about 3 years.


----------

