Planetary views, collimation, sample (me again)

Hey folks,

Some of you might remember a few weeks ago I posted an example of how Jupiter looks visually in our scope. To refresh, our scope is a 6 inch F5 Discovery EQ reflector.
I tried the advice, I collimated it TO DEATH last night, I mean SPOT ON. I also let is cool for 2 hours first, it really did help, I was able to look at Jupiter at 272X it still didn't look like a mag photo, but much better. Now, my new questions are this, in the attatched image here you will see an example of how it looks now. This is after very careful collimation and cleaing of all optics and eyepeices, does THIS look like what I should see in the type of scope we have?
Also, the lower image is how I'd like to see it, if anyone has seen it this good or better, please just at least say what type of scope you saw it that good in. I would love to get another scope (who doesn't always want just ONE more ha) and not sure if a 10 inch dob, or ????? Do large dobs show good detail on planets? I'm sure EXPENSIVE ones with Zambuto (sp?) optics do, but how about Orion XT series? This way I could get more deep sky too!
Or how about Orions 5inch Mak? Celestron 4inch Achro?
Anyone looked at Jupiter in these?

Sorry for all the questions, I just don't want to make ANOTHER mistake like I did getting the ETX90.

Thanks to anyone who answers!
Ron

Attached Image:

Your top image looks a lot like what I usually see of Jupiter visually (sometimes I can see more than that) depending on the seeing conditions. I have never visually seen the quality you have in the second image.

Yu Gu has apparently taken images like your lower one with a 9.25" Celestron, I would suspect from a fairly high altitude.
at rfroyce.com there is among other things, a series of images of jupiter intended to show different mirror quality. You might find it very useful. He is very partial to 10" reflectors and to simplicity. An Orion xt 8, or a Discovery 8", at f/6 (or their 6" f/8) will simply blow away the ETX 90. You might look at the dobsonian section.

Right, the Hubble might. The lower photo is porbably a stacked set of 10 to 30 digital camera images, or a CCD camera image, touched up in Photoshop.

In my TV-85 I see Jupiter just a clear and sharp as that, but the image is quite small in the eyepiece. The more it's magnified that less clear it is.

A larger, sharper image in my 8" SCT than what you have in the top photo, but not much. You have some brightness in the photo I don't get in my SCT.

BUT - even though it's not Hubble - and I never ever expected it would be - neighbors, scouts, family are just amazed to see that image in the eyepiece. I am, too. Time after time. Jupiter, M13, orion nebula,Pleides, etc.

Attached is an image of Saturn I took with a digital camera in February. Five images stacked. It represents what I see in the EP - although not that large and a little bit out of focus and less sharp than I get with the scope.
And visually I can almost always see the Cassini division.

Attached Image:

Basically no scope at all in average seeing. I was at a star party a few nights ago and looked thro a LOT of scopes from my TV-85 to a 22in DOB. It all depends on seeing not the scope. On a particularly steady night I have seen close to what is in the second image but on a much smaller scale in my TV-85. Remember that to see a image as large as image #2 thro the eyepiece of your scope you would probably need a magnification of 1000x and in order to use that you would need to piggyback the Hubble.

I agree with Bill that to do some serous planetary work you really need at least an 8" scope. I have a 10" LX-200 for that job. But really my TV-85 is special or something because the views I get in it of planets really rival that of the 10". Oh and Ron attached are two sketches I made at the eyepiece of the TV-85, just to give you an idea of what the trained eye should be able to see on the average night.

Attached Image:

I've seen this level of detail through both a 12.5" Starmaster (Zambuto mirror) and a 20" Starmaster (Pegasus), on different nights, in different states. The view with the 20" was fleeting though, since I was viewing in the state of Colorado, the bastion of crappy seeing.

And, I've seen a view of Jupiter through my 14.5" Starmaster (Zambuto) that was sharper and more detailed than the lower image you showed. All of these were through the eyepiece, and not via imaging.

I expect that the Florida folks get this kind of result quite often with good optics in the 8"-20" range.

Doug

Here are some sample photos from the TV-102 (with smaller image scale at the eyepiece of course) I've found on the web.
http://planets.lamost.org/ETV102FirstLight.htm
http://www.skyoptics.net/past-astrophotos.htm (scroll down to TV-102)

I've seen more details and sharper view through the eyepiece with my 4" TV-102 than both pictures (with smaller image scale of course).
http://members.cox.net/ronby/Planet-Sketches/Jupiter-022203.jpg
http://members.cox.net/ronby/Planet-Sketches/Jupiter-052203.jpg
One incredible night last year, before I had dared to sketch, I counted 9 distinct bands on Jupiter (a sight not seen this year).

Lastly, Sol R. has only 6 inch apertures and the details he could see with it is astonishing!

Still IMO you can't really compare scope A at site X to scope B at site Y (or even scope A and A at site X and Y) because seeing is the great Astro-Roulette ;-).

Ron B[ee]

As good as the second pic, well no, but much closer to the second than the first. This was on a single night for a very few moments last winter. Seeing condition is everything. Location is SW Denver, scope C8.
Mark

Ron, I've seen views that approach the level of detail (not as much contrast) during very good seeing conditions with my 10" F6 Parks Newtonian. I've attached a modified version that is more representative of what I can see at the eyepiece on an average evening when jupiter is still high in the sky (it's too low now). Also, you don't need to use 272x to get a good level of detail on Jupiter. On an average night 200x will be more than enough with a 6" reflector. Saturn can usually take more magnification since it has higher contrast features.

Joplin

Attached Image:

I'm coming in late on this. I haven't read most of what's on this thread, but I'll chip in and answer Ron's original question with my .02:

I think almost any premium 5-inch apo should do it, but only very rarely, when the seeing is perfect.

I have come very close to matching the second picture with my TV-102. Main difference was smaller image scale and the GRS was out of sight. I counted 12 bands and zones that night, and repeated a similar observation the next night. Both observations were during pre-dawn hours more than a year ago, and never since. Remarkably, when I saw this good view, the atmosphere was so steady that I could just stare at it for minutes at a time, and it just sat there looking like that. Incidentally, I live on the end of a peninsula, and having water all around may help.

There were many other times during the winter-before-last when I saw views that were somewhat less than Ron's number 2, but still showed 6-8 bands and zones, vivid red barges, and other great color, easily.

Unfortunately, since last September, the best I have been able to do has been little better than Ron's top picture.

I have a theory that many of us underestimate the effects of bad seeing until we finally get lucky and hit a really great night.

Steve