Hacker News Reader

Comment by dylan604 | Hacker News Reader

It makes sense seeing that NASA/JPL only have so many instruments pointing at Jupiter at any time. That number is dwarfed by the number of amateurs looking at it on any night. It also helps that it's one of the easiest things to view.

View on HN

What does one need to look at Jupiter, visible light or not? And how much would it cost to have a setup that I can feed some sky coordinates and enjoy the feed/s on a screen.

Any useful software that also happens to be free and/or open source? I just realized I don't know anything about this fascinating stuff

To capture material similar to TFA, a 5" diameter (127 mm) telescope would do (here perhaps a larger one was used, but in bad seeing conditions [1]), e.g. a cheap $100-$200 Newtonian. Add a reasonable mount (~$400) and a camera (one can start with a converted webcam, or get a dedicated model - typically sporting higher FPS, better sensors, also mono, etc.; those start at $150-$200). A lot of popular software for mount control, video acquisition, image processing is free (and often open-source). The best source of knowledge are astronomy forums, e.g. [2], [3], [4], and country-specific ones.

To see what's possible with amateur-grade equipment, go to AstroBin.com; e.g., Jupiter with 14" telescope:

https://www.astrobin.com/bzxs52/?q=jupiter%20c14

(Shameless plug: I have some Jupiter shots and time lapses in my gallery [5] as well. Sadly, no impacts caught - yet!)

Lastly, for lunar/solar/planetary imaging light pollution is not an issue - they're bright enough.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_seeing

[2] cloudynights.com

[3] stargazerslounge.com

[4] solarchatforum.com

[5] https://www.astrobin.com/users/GreatAttractor/

Loved your shots!

There's lots of really good options available now at some very affordable prices. There's quite a few reflectors in the 6"-8" size that are very small and easy to set up. Because the planets are so much brighter, especially the moon, than deep sky objects, all of the tracking and image stacking software is not necessary to start. There are scopes now that come with a mobile app and a built in camera.

Because I don't have hands on experience with anything other than my gear, I can't really recommend specific models. Celestron would be a good safe starting point. The magazine/sites from places like Sky&Telescope or BBC Sky at Night, will publish reviews of new gear ranging from "baby's first scope" to as much money as you have.

https://skyandtelescope.org/

https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/

Probably the best starting scope is a plain Newtonian such as from Skywatcher. They're the cheapest way to get a good large aperture and therefore good resolving power, and you can do a lot with one. If you go enthusiast then it's worth looking at what the advantages of other telescope types are, but I'd advise playing with a Newtonian for a year or two before even thinking about that.

Celestron sell some incredible scopes at incredible prices. But I would be very wary of their lower-end stuff. There's a reason why "Don't buy a powerseeker" is a phrase repeated over and over again to people starting out in this hobby.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com