It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
I'm looking into buying a telescope, as I've always really wanted to make it a hobby of mine to look at the stars. Thing is, I'm on a tight budget, but want a decent beginner's telescope. Can anyone help point me to one? Thanks.
I'm not overly familiar with telescopes myself, but I remember one of the people I am subscribed to on YouTube - Thunderf00t - has published a video some time ago titled "Which telescope to buy?" that should help you out.

Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAzhOSbxMiI
If you can't afford a telescope, the next best thing may be to get a constellation simulation. There was a program on the computers at my previous college, that would show stars, planets, locations, distances, time zones and when they would be visible. I couldn't tell you what that program was called though. This would be useful if you live in a place that is particularly difficult to see stars from.
Post edited January 07, 2012 by QC
You may want to consider a good pair of binoculars instead, if you can find them cheaper than a telescope. You can do a lot of very interesting astronomy through a good set if binos as well.
I was listening to a radio show with an astronomer on it. Someone called in to ask him that question. He told her not to buy a toy. He said that if you don't want to get a decent one, then get a good pair of binoculars. He had a bunch of things he said to make sure the telescope has, but I forget. I know his biggest thing was something to do with the size of the lens. It needed to be bigger than what the cheap ones have. I had one of the cheaper ones before. I think it may have only been 100 to 200 USD. Going by my experience with it, I think he had good advice. The only advantage my telescope had over a good pair of binoculars was the tripod. It was more powerful than the binoculars of course, but when your looking at stuff THAT far away the difference was quite minimal. You need something better than that.

EDIT:
Coelocanth went all ninja on me!
Post edited January 07, 2012 by MobiusArcher
You could do worse than to have a look at what this guy thinks : http://www.badastronomy.com/bitesize/scopefaq.html

Then there's this guy : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCmESSthHA4

Buy a few astronomy mags - there's a good selection every month, and have a look through their reviews - most will tell you at what level they're for "beginner, amateur, pro" etcetera...

Basically somewhere around 6" mirror or lens will do (reflector or refractor).
avatar
Lone3wolf: You could do worse than to have a look at what this guy thinks : http://www.badastronomy.com/bitesize/scopefaq.html

Then there's this guy : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCmESSthHA4

Buy a few astronomy mags - there's a good selection every month, and have a look through their reviews - most will tell you at what level they're for "beginner, amateur, pro" etcetera...

Basically somewhere around 6" mirror or lens will do (reflector or refractor).
It sucks(to me anyways) that seemingly in order to see clearer or further you need larger and larger mirrors/lenses. If only someone could invent a new type of viewing device(or change the telescope's basic design somehow) to make it so that the lens size/viewable distance ratio wasn't so crazy.

(I do hope I don't sound totally dumb for these comments....I don't know alot about telescopes and the like.)
avatar
Lone3wolf: You could do worse than to have a look at what this guy thinks : http://www.badastronomy.com/bitesize/scopefaq.html

Then there's this guy : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCmESSthHA4

Buy a few astronomy mags - there's a good selection every month, and have a look through their reviews - most will tell you at what level they're for "beginner, amateur, pro" etcetera...

Basically somewhere around 6" mirror or lens will do (reflector or refractor).
avatar
GameRager: It sucks(to me anyways) that seemingly in order to see clearer or further you need larger and larger mirrors/lenses. If only someone could invent a new type of viewing device(or change the telescope's basic design somehow) to make it so that the lens size/viewable distance ratio wasn't so crazy.

(I do hope I don't sound totally dumb for these comments....I don't know alot about telescopes and the like.)
It's all about collecting light. Phil Plait has a good analogy about a bucket collecting rainwater - the bigger the bucket, the more it collects :P

Same goes for mirrors and light in telescopes - and stars are VERY faint - nebulae (the prettiest sky objects for me) and planets even more so.
avatar
GameRager: It sucks(to me anyways) that seemingly in order to see clearer or further you need larger and larger mirrors/lenses. If only someone could invent a new type of viewing device(or change the telescope's basic design somehow) to make it so that the lens size/viewable distance ratio wasn't so crazy.

(I do hope I don't sound totally dumb for these comments....I don't know alot about telescopes and the like.)
avatar
Lone3wolf: It's all about collecting light. Phil Plait has a good analogy about a bucket collecting rainwater - the bigger the bucket, the more it collects :P

Same goes for mirrors and light in telescopes - and stars are VERY faint - nebulae (the prettiest sky objects for me) and planets even more so.
I just read that oddly enough. Still, if someone desgined a more efficient telescope(better materials for lenses perhaps?) it would be awesome. Imagine the advances we could make then.
Mebbe, but short of an amazing breakthrough in trans-luminal rocketry and communications, I can't see how it would happen....
avatar
Lone3wolf: Mebbe, but short of an amazing breakthrough in trans-luminal rocketry and communications, I can't see how it would happen....
You never know. :\
avatar
QC: If you can't afford a telescope, the next best thing may be to get a constellation simulation. There was a program on the computers at my previous college, that would show stars, planets, locations, distances, time zones and when they would be visible. I couldn't tell you what that program was called though. This would be useful if you live in a place that is particularly difficult to see stars from.
I think the bigger issue these days is light pollution, unless one is in the middle of the pacific ocean it gets really hard finding anywhere that's dark enough to really see much these days.
avatar
QC: If you can't afford a telescope, the next best thing may be to get a constellation simulation. There was a program on the computers at my previous college, that would show stars, planets, locations, distances, time zones and when they would be visible. I couldn't tell you what that program was called though. This would be useful if you live in a place that is particularly difficult to see stars from.
avatar
hedwards: I think the bigger issue these days is light pollution, unless one is in the middle of the pacific ocean it gets really hard finding anywhere that's dark enough to really see much these days.
Well, that's kinda what I meant. I've read that most observatories have to be built into mountains or extend underground to get past the unnatural light produced around the world. I'm in a small town and even here I'm lucky to see 50 stars, part of it may be my eyesight though.
Utah is the best state I know for star gazing. Nevada, Montana, west Texas, New Mexico, they're all great too. But in any of those states visibility drops temendously as soon as you step foot in any small town.
I believe some astronomy groups organize outings to locations suitable for using telescopes away from light sources. It'd still be dependent on weather, of course.

Celestia is a 3D space simulator that has a massive database (18GB) of planets, solar systems, stars (100,000+), and such. The main page seems to be down at the moment, though.