What’s the absolute Cheapest Telescope that can see surface of planets

[WolfLoverPro]

I have a 40x telescope........ I want the absolute cheapest one that I can see the surface of planets but idk how many X is should say? With my 40x I can’t hardly see surface of moon so

[Lurick]

How much surface are we talking? Like a nice overall picture or close up detail so you can see the martians running around?

You'll probably need a 300x to 500x I would imagine and depending on how good you want the images to be, it could easily be a few thousand dollars. There are cheap ones for like $200 but I doubt they'll let you see anything of quality.

[WolfLoverPro]

8 minutes ago, Lurick said:

How much surface are we talking? Like a nice overall picture or close up detail so you can see the martians running around?

You'll probably need a 300x to 500x I would imagine and depending on how good you want the images to be, it could easily be a few thousand dollars. There are cheap ones for like $200 but I doubt they'll let you see anything of quality.

Hmm I mean well idk actully one where u can see rings on Saturn around that close becuase if it can see them then it’s gonma be able to see close to the moon too

[Lurick]

Just now, WolfLoverPro said:

Hmm I mean well idk actully one where u can see rings on Saturn around that close becuase if it can see them then it’s gonma be able to see close to the moon too

From what I saw a 300x would probably do the job very nicely then. Just check the reviews but probably $200 or less should get you a pretty good one.

[WolfLoverPro]

7 minutes ago, Lurick said:

From what I saw a 300x would probably do the job very nicely then. Just check the reviews but probably $200 or less should get you a pretty good one.

So like eBay I searched 300x telescope and it comes up with these 

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/UK-Outdoor-QANLIIY-10-300x32-HD-Night-Vision-Travel-Monocular-Telescope-Tripod/173233846866?hash=item28558aba52:g:nTsAAOSwiqtZj~6Q

 

Handheld ones lol? 

[porina]

The magnification is pretty meaningless as a rating. Light diffraction affects the limit of what you can see, and that is primarily influenced by how big the primary optics are. Having said that, I don't know how small a scope you can get away with. The smallest I have used that does resolve the rings of Saturn is a 4" (100mm) Maksutov-Cassegrain type. You can then vary the magnification of the system by using different eyepieces.

 

In a quick look on ebay, there are some 90mm ones with mount under £200, or a 102mm without mount for similar. When you turn up the magnification, the planet's motion can appear pretty fast so an aligned equatorial mount could make tracking easier as you only have to do one axis.

[Sauron]

55 minutes ago, WolfLoverPro said:

I have a 40x telescope........ I want the absolute cheapest one that I can see the surface of planets but idk how many X is should say? With my 40x I can’t hardly see surface of moon so

If you want to see detail on the surface of mars you need some very expensive equipment. Consider that most of pictures we have of mars' surface come from the Hubble or martian missions. With a 100x or so telescope you should be able to see some decent detail on the moon, but planets are much farther away.

[bowrilla]

2 hours ago, WolfLoverPro said:

I have a 40x telescope........ I want the absolute cheapest one that I can see the surface of planets but idk how many X is should say? With my 40x I can’t hardly see surface of moon so

You are aware of the distances, are you?

The Moon's semi major axis is ~384 399 km which roughly (Earth is not the centre of Moon's orbit) gives you an idea of the mean distance between Earth and Moon. Venus' and Mars' semi major axis around the sun are ~108 208 000 km or ~0.723 AU (Venus) and ~227 939 000 km or ~1.524 AU (Mars). Compare that to Earth's semi major axis around the Sun: ~149 598 000 km or ~1AU. The closest distance (every couple of years) between Earth and Mars is ~54 500 000 km so at best 14–15 times farther away than the Moon's mean distance.

You are looking at some serious amateur telescopes to see anything more than a wild blur. In order for you to see any details you're looking at 100mm in focal length and above and potentialls as big of an aperture as you can afford. The better it is for showing details of planets the less it is useful for observing larger things like constellations. There are some great buyer's guides out there that answer your question in more detail.

But do not expect to get any high resolution shots like those you find from NASA or ESA. Sorry, but forget about that. Their equipment is worth many many millions of dollars. And then there's the issue with light pollution and atmospheric distortions. You might see some large features but that's most likely it.

See these links for more infos:  

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/04/10/mars_at_opposition_now_is_the_time_to_go_out_and_see_the_red_planet.html
https://lovethenightsky.com/observing-planet-mars/
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-equipment/telescope-buying-guide/
http://www.damianpeach.com/images/articles/mars_an_2012/Imaging mars AN.pdf

[GoldenLag]

4 hours ago, Keith W said:

Sir Patrick Moore when asked this question used to say get yourself a good pair of binoculars 

Well depending on the position of the moon and how the sun is positioned. You can spot the moon's surface creating shadows along the surface. 

[mariushm]

You're also gonna have to be somewhere quite far away from light pollution of cities and general pollution in the atmosphere, like maybe on top of a mountain or alaska

[porina]

12 hours ago, bowrilla said:

You are looking at some serious amateur telescopes to see anything more than a wild blur.

Depends how you define serious... for planetary work, optics from the hundreds of £ (or equivalent) give good utility for the bigger planets and the moon. I'm just not sure how far you could push the lower limit. I'd rank those in the budget zone. The stuff at tens of £ is essentially junk.

 

Image I took of Mars in 2014 using an 8" (200mm) scope which I bought used I think for £400. I don't recall if I actually looked at Mars visually. This was significantly more difficult to image than Jupiter or Saturn which appear bigger.

 

6 hours ago, mariushm said:

You're also gonna have to be somewhere quite far away from light pollution of cities and general pollution in the atmosphere, like maybe on top of a mountain or alaska

For faint stuff, yes, but planets and the moon are relatively bright and can easily fight their way past light pollution unless it is really extreme.

[asus killer]

14 hours ago, porina said:

The magnification is pretty meaningless as a rating. Light diffraction affects the limit of what you can see, and that is primarily influenced by how big the primary optics are.

what he just said.

[bowrilla]

6 hours ago, porina said:

Depends how you define serious... for planetary work, optics from the hundreds of £ (or equivalent) give good utility for the bigger planets and the moon. I'm just not sure how far you could push the lower limit. I'd rank those in the budget zone. The stuff at tens of £ is essentially junk.

It seems as if manufacturers specifically made some telescopes for the entry market with pretty decent optics while saving money on the dampening. Still. Below ~100€/£ just for the optics it's basically impossible to find anything useful. Add the mount, a good eyepiece, a mount for the eyepiece, a finder … boom you're looking at ~350-400€/£.

Those two could be a viable option as entry levels: 

https://www.astroshop.eu/telescopes/omegon-telescope-advanced-n-152-750-ota/p,33344
https://www.astroshop.eu/telescopes/omegon-telescope-advanced-n-203-1000-ota/p,33345

 

The larger one will require a larger mount though which will add another 100 bucks. You could always hunt for a good used telescope and get more for your money.

[wasab]

 

22 hours ago, WolfLoverPro said:

So like eBay I searched 300x telescope and it comes up with these 

 

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/UK-Outdoor-QANLIIY-10-300x32-HD-Night-Vision-Travel-Monocular-Telescope-Tripod/173233846866?hash=item28558aba52:g:nTsAAOSwiqtZj~6Q

 

Handheld ones lol? 

Electron microscope can magnify stuffs millions of times. Does that mean you can use it to see the moon? 

[wasab]

20 hours ago, bowrilla said:

You are aware of the distances, are you?

The Moon's semi major axis is ~384 399 km which roughly (Earth is not the centre of Moon's orbit) gives you an idea of the mean distance between Earth and Moon. Venus' and Mars' semi major axis around the sun are ~108 208 000 km or ~0.723 AU (Venus) and ~227 939 000 km or ~1.524 AU (Mars). Compare that to Earth's semi major axis around the Sun: ~149 598 000 km or ~1AU. The closest distance (every couple of years) between Earth and Mars is ~54 500 000 km so at best 14–15 times farther away than the Moon's mean distance.

You are looking at some serious amateur telescopes to see anything more than a wild blur. In order for you to see any details you're looking at 100mm in focal length and above and potentialls as big of an aperture as you can afford. The better it is for showing details of planets the less it is useful for observing larger things like constellations. There are some great buyer's guides out there that answer your question in more detail.

But do not expect to get any high resolution shots like those you find from NASA or ESA. Sorry, but forget about that. Their equipment is worth many many millions of dollars. And then there's the issue with light pollution and atmospheric distortions. You might see some large features but that's most likely it.

See these links for more infos:  

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/04/10/mars_at_opposition_now_is_the_time_to_go_out_and_see_the_red_planet.html
https://lovethenightsky.com/observing-planet-mars/
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-equipment/telescope-buying-guide/
http://www.damianpeach.com/images/articles/mars_an_2012/Imaging mars AN.pdf

You are confusing the poor kid lol. Not like just having the equipment is enough. He also needs to get away from all the light pollution to see them properly.

[geo3]

Telescopes have a limit to how high they can magnify usefully and it's roughly 50x per inch of aperture. Sure you could technically magnify to beyond that, but it's never going to be clear and sharp. So an 8"(203mm) aperture telescope has at most 400x of magnification. If the atmospheric conditions (seeing or stillness of the air) are not absolutely pristine it's going to be closer to 30x per inch of aperture, so around 240x maximum. This also assumes good quality optics.  So a cheep ebay scope isn't going to give you even 30x per inch of aperture. A good 8" scope will at minimum run you around $500.

[geo3]

Just now, wasab said:

You are confusing the poor kid lol. Not like just having the equipment is enough. He also needs to get away from all the light pollution to see them properly.

For planetary viewing light pollution is almost irrelevant.  Light pollution interferes with viewing dim stuff, nebula and galaxies mostly, planets are bright.

[WolfLoverPro]

3 hours ago, geo3 said:

Telescopes have a limit to how high they can magnify usefully and it's roughly 50x per inch of aperture. Sure you could technically magnify to beyond that, but it's never going to be clear and sharp. So an 8"(203mm) aperture telescope has at most 400x of magnification. If the atmospheric conditions (seeing or stillness of the air) are not absolutely pristine it's going to be closer to 30x per inch of aperture, so around 240x maximum. This also assumes good quality optics.  So a cheep ebay scope isn't going to give you even 30x per inch of aperture. A good 8" scope will at minimum run you around $500.

U seen that camera ?

 

look YouTube for type this 

 

Nikon p900 moon test 

 

a camera can see that close to the moon tho wtf?

[geo3]

10 minutes ago, WolfLoverPro said:

a camera can see that close to the moon tho wtf?

I saw it. It's not that close. Looks to be between 100x and 150x zoom.  Certainly doable for that cameras massive lenses. 

[WolfLoverPro]

16 minutes ago, geo3 said:

I saw it. It's not that close. Looks to be between 100x and 150x zoom.  Certainly doable for that cameras massive lenses. 

You know the telescope things I have now can I somehow get them make them into one of them phone things? You know say my 50x and turn it into a uhh phone telescope things u can buy but when I tried placing g it I too my phones lens it was just cloudy can’t see nothing wtf?

[dalekphalm]

20 minutes ago, geo3 said:

I saw it. It's not that close. Looks to be between 100x and 150x zoom.  Certainly doable for that cameras massive lenses. 

The 900p has an 83x Zoom Lens. It's also possible that they are using some digital zoom too - the camera records video at 1080p, so you could digitally zoom that a bit and get 720p-equivalent quality still.

3 minutes ago, WolfLoverPro said:

You know the telescope things I have now can I somehow get them make them into one of them phone things? You know say my 50x and turn it into a uhh phone telescope things u can buy but when I tried placing g it I too my phones lens it was just cloudy can’t see nothing wtf?

You need a proper mount that will focus the image coming through the telescope into something that your camera lens can properly see and focus on.

 

Also, the amount of light coming through a telescope is comparatively not very much. The sensor size of a smartphone camera is tiny - usually 1/3" (0.3 inches) wide.

 

For comparison, an entry level dSLR has an APS-C sensor - which is approximately 0.9" wide - or 3 times as large.

 

A "full frame" dSLR (equivalent to 35mm film) is 1.4" wide - which is 4.6 times larger than the smartphone sensor.

 

The larger sensor means that more light hits each pixel, meaning it's brighter and clearer.

[WolfLoverPro]

7 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

The 900p has an 83x Zoom Lens. It's also possible that they are using some digital zoom too - the camera records video at 1080p, so you could digitally zoom that a bit and get 720p-equivalent quality still.

You need a proper mount that will focus the image coming through the telescope into something that your camera lens can properly see and focus on.

 

Also, the amount of light coming through a telescope is comparatively not very much. The sensor size of a smartphone camera is tiny - usually 1/3" (0.3 inches) wide.

 

For comparison, an entry level dSLR has an APS-C sensor - which is approximately 0.9" wide - or 3 times as large.

 

A "full frame" dSLR (equivalent to 35mm film) is 1.4" wide - which is 4.6 times larger than the smartphone sensor.

 

The larger sensor means that more light hits each pixel, meaning it's brighter and clearer.

Hmmm ?

 

so basicaly ..... over here that camera costs uh 

 

£420 

 

and can uhh kinda see the moon I guess 

 

look this I hate about telescope yes? Is I can’t use 1 eye and like concentrate it just hate using 1 eye and so using this camera it’s cool as you know...... i can use 2 eyes LOL 

 

but like anywah it cots 420 is there a scope that I can use my 2 eyes ? weather it be a screen or binoculars lol forte the same price or? 

 

And so so that phone thing how come they make them telescope phone things I mean if there was a 100x phone lens thing fuk I would buy that for 1000 just fact it’s on my phone lol

[geo3]

28 minutes ago, WolfLoverPro said:

You know the telescope things I have now can I somehow get them make them into one of them phone things? You know say my 50x and turn it into a uhh phone telescope things u can buy but when I tried placing g it I too my phones lens it was just cloudy can’t see nothing wtf?

https://www.telescope.com/Orion/Orion-SteadyPix-Quick-Smartphone-Telescope-Photo-Adapter/rc/2160/p/118183.uts?keyword=smartphone

[bowrilla]

Seriously, read an article on how to choose a telescope. It will explain terminology. Zoom doesn't mean much. You could have 1000x mangification (it's the relation between focal length of the telescope and the eyepiece) but if you aperture is not large enough you will only see some dim blur. The bigger the aperture the higher you can go with your magnification. In order to see any features of the inner planets don't even bother with anything smaller than 6", better go for 8". As a rule of thumb: under ideal conditions you'll end up with up to 50x magnification for every inch of aperture – conditions won't be ideal as long as you're not on a mountain far away from society at like -20°C. You will end up with half of that magnification as a working limit especially when being on a budget. That means 6" * 25 = 150x as a limit and with an 8" telescope it's 8" * 25 = 200x. Now look at the focal length of telescopes you're interested in. The two I've linked before have 750mm and 1000mm. That means the focal length of your eyepiece in order to acchieve maximum magnification are 750mm / 150 = 5mm and 1000mm  / 200 = 5mm as well. So you need an eyepiece with a focal length of 5mm for either of those – they aren't that cheap either. You can use a Barlowlense to get along with one of the standard eyepieces. Those lenses effectively work as a multiplyer for the focal length of the telescope – while making it dimmer as well, introducing some optical errors and stuff like that. Keep in mind: the longer the focal length the smaller the field of view. If you want to make pictures with a camera you need an adapterring for your cameramount.

Bought new you'll end up with spending ~500€/£. Still you won't get details anywhere near those gorgeous NASA shots. 

This is a nice video comparing expectations and reality through a 100mm/4" telescope: 

And this link shows some shots (of differenty quality during varrying athmospherical conditions) with a 254mm/10" telescope:

 

If you want more than that you'll have to aim for really big and really expensive telescopes (talking about medium to high 4 figures or even low 5 figures). This is an expensive hobby.

[wasab]

i blieve you can rent a nasa grade telescope for a fee 

http://www.spaceobs.com/en/Services/Telescope-Rental

some of these telescope are satellites orbiting above the atmosphere which means very clear view