Is there really much of a difference between an 8 inch and 10 inch telescope?
¤Chins Up¤ asked:
I am thinking about upgrading to a new telescope from my 102mm maksutov cassegrain. I was originally looking into the Orion SkyQuest XT10 Computerized IntelliScope but then I saw somewhere that it doesn’t really make much of a difference. Should I look into the Orion SkyQuest XT8 Computerized IntelliScope instead? I believe that I may be coming down with aperture fever *cough* *sniffle*.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, April 16th, 2009 at 12:00 am and is filed under Astronomy & Space.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I am thinking about upgrading to a new telescope from my 102mm maksutov cassegrain. I was originally looking into the Orion SkyQuest XT10 Computerized IntelliScope but then I saw somewhere that it doesn’t really make much of a difference. Should I look into the Orion SkyQuest XT8 Computerized IntelliScope instead? I believe that I may be coming down with aperture fever *cough* *sniffle*.
April 18th, 2009 at 1:53 am
youll get a better image with a 10 inch, but theres not too big of a difference
i prefer the hubble
April 20th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Yes - its a big difference. It’s all about aperture area (light gathering ability). I found the biggest leap was 6″ to 8″ and the differences get smaller as size increases but 8″ to 10″ is still a big leap, particularly if you want to view diffuse objects.
I jumped 8″ to 10″ then to 14″ for my asteroid work.
April 21st, 2009 at 9:35 am
No there is not a huge difference. You should save some more if you want to upgrade and make it worth while.
April 21st, 2009 at 6:14 pm
the best answer may be to have a look and see for yourself.
the 10 inch will certainly do better on faint fuzzies. however, it is a larger piece of equipment, and hauling it around will be a different experience.
all other things being equal, i’d go for the 10 inch. but i am also physically capable of doing so, and have a vehicle to transport it in. my biggest scope is an 18 inch. i carry it around in my van. it’s really cool.
April 25th, 2009 at 2:22 am
Well to be quite honest with you, the difference is not in the
diameter of the mirror, but in the square inches of surface area
that the mirror has for light gathering…
An 8 Inch Mirror has a radius of 4 inches. The area of a circle
with a radius of 4 inches is Pi x R Squared = 3.14 x 4 x 4 =
roughly 50 square inches.
A 10 Inch Mirror has a radius of 5 inches. The area of a circle
with a radius of 5 inches is Pi x R Squared = 3.14 x 5 x 5 =
78.5 square inches.
If you will look at those numbers carefully you will see that the 10
Inch mirror has half again as much light gathering capability
(square inches of mirror surface) as the 8 Inch Mirror. That is very
significant when it comes to loking at things that are many light years
away from you, the observer.
Also, you will not have a serious case of aperature fever until you begin dreaming of 22, 24, and 28 Inch mirror models…Then it gets really crazy. do the math and see what giant increases in area of the mirror come along with mirrors that size… for example: a 22 Inch mirror has 37,994 square inches of mirror surface… That is about 700 times the light gathering capability of your 8 incher…
Cheers,
Zah
April 26th, 2009 at 8:40 am
The light gathering power of a telescope depends on the square of the diameter. Thus the two you mention are in the ratio of 64:100 in light gathering.
If you can afford it, and have a decent location from which to observe, I would go with the 10 inch.