What's the best planetary scope for a backyard observatory?

[overlord (Charles)]

I'm talking the best for planet viewing. I'm in a suburban environment so i'm not after deep sky. Deep sky doesn't change much any, so I'm mainly interested in the planets. I want the very best or the second from the very best as the best is often three times what it should be. Money is no object but I would like at least for it not to be too large as I don't want to have to fill the backyard with a huge observatory. I wanted a refractor since I reckon those have the best views. What I really want to ask is... would say a 8" refractor be better than a say, 14" Sct? What are people's views?

[overlord (Charles)]

BTW that scope in my AV is the exact scope i'm using at the moment, 8" f/5, had it since 2003, so this shall be a step-up for me. mwahhaha

[Sylvain (Jon)]

A 8" refractor isn't really gonna happen, especially if you want something pretty compact. This thing would be HUGE, and require a crazy mount esp for planetary where you wanna get good tracking and stability.
Also realistically, 14" SCT will require a fixed observatory. I am not saying it isn't possible to move by yourself, but it is a challenge and you have to be physically strong.

Another point is that best doesn't mean much. We can talk about best for a price or a given aperture, but best in itself doesn't mean much.

I would recommend getting a quality MAK, maybe 8" - that's pretty beaffy already. Images are very sharp, and thanks to the small obstruction you get a good constrast. In my view, the views are very refractor-like.
Intes is a quality brand you won't be disapointed with.

Good luck!

[Irish stargazer (John)]

If you want to do planetary imaging or even visual then cool down time is important. A compromise would be a C11 which could be mounted on a G11, EQ6 or an alt az mount (CPC11) and can be moved around. A good idea would be to check what your local seeing conditions are like. If they are good then a bigger scope is best. If seeing is consistently poor then a bigger scope may not be an advantage, An 8" scope, newtonian , sct or mak is still an 8" scope

[Satchmo]

SCT's have typically a 38% central obstruction at the baffle and give low contrast visual planetary images - its just the laws of physics.They also have a few more optical surfaces which all scatter light. The aspheric secondary mirror will also have less micro-smoothness than a flat spherical mirror. They are more useful for CCD imaging of planets where you are stacking lots of frames.

For visual observing - a good Newtonian with 20% or less obstruction performs almost as well as an equivalent sized retractor at a much lower cost. You may need to buy a tracking platform if it is on a Dobsonian mount or fit a servo -cat drive to keep the image centered while observing at high power.

[overlord (Charles)]

Originally Posted by Sylvain

A 8" refractor isn't really gonna happen, especially if you want something pretty compact. This thing would be HUGE, and require a crazy mount esp for planetary where you wanna get good tracking and stability.
Also realistically, 14" SCT will require a fixed observatory. I am not saying it isn't possible to move by yourself, but it is a challenge and you have to be physically strong.

Another point is that best doesn't mean much. We can talk about best for a price or a given aperture, but best in itself doesn't mean much.

I would recommend getting a quality MAK, maybe 8" - that's pretty beaffy already. Images are very sharp, and thanks to the small obstruction you get a good constrast. In my view, the views are very refractor-like.
Intes is a quality brand you won't be disapointed with.

Good luck!

thanks yeah! I was thinking something like Celeston c14, but Mak sounds good. people seem to really like it!

[overlord (Charles)]

Originally Posted by Irish stargazer

If you want to do planetary imaging or even visual then cool down time is important. A compromise would be a C11 which could be mounted on a G11, EQ6 or an alt az mount (CPC11) and can be moved around. A good idea would be to check what your local seeing conditions are like. If they are good then a bigger scope is best. If seeing is consistently poor then a bigger scope may not be an advantage, An 8" scope, newtonian , sct or mak is still an 8" scope

Oh yeah! Thanks!

[overlord (Charles)]

Originally Posted by Satchmo

SCT's have typically a 38% central obstruction at the baffle and give low contrast visual planetary images - its just the laws of physics.They also have a few more optical surfaces which all scatter light. The aspheric secondary mirror will also have less micro-smoothness than a flat spherical mirror. They are more useful for CCD imaging of planets where you are stacking lots of frames.

For visual observing - a good Newtonian with 20% or less obstruction performs almost as well as an equivalent sized retractor at a much lower cost. You may need to buy a tracking platform if it is on a Dobsonian mount or fit a servo -cat drive to keep the image centered while observing at high power.

Ah that's some good advice there!

A Newtonian is better than a SCT for planet viewing?!!!!!

k


So looks like i'll be skipping the SCT and getting a MAK or NEWT. : )