How would such a telescope operate?
200062
I believe you are referring to ANTARES which is not so much a telescope in the usual sense as it does not look for light, but for neutrinos (memories of my dissertation arise).\n\nIt would probably startle you more to discover that the detectors are in fact point DOWNWARDS, towards the centre of the earth, rather than into the sky.  This is because neutrinos will pass through pretty much everything, so the earth's mass makes a great filter from every other space emissions.\n\nIn case you were wondering, the water is an integral part of the equipment, which is why it is under the Mediterranean.\n\nThere is another, similar experiment being set up at the South Pole called IceCUBE which uses a cubic-kilometre of ice.
9164
Any telescope with a very accurate tracking mount which affords the ability to handle field rotation effects will work. Fork mounted SCT's are popular but you will have to address field rotation or enjoy lots of pretty "streaks" as a result of long exposure times. Accurate GEM (GermanEquatorialMounts) address this by design.\n\nYou will need a matching T-ring adaptor or at least a "universal" type adaptor that will clamp onto your eyepiece so that the field lens of your camera will be aligned and spaced accordingly to the eye lens of the eyepiece.\n\nBe prepared to also invest in some software (Photoshop, Maxim DL, Meade Autostar Suite etc, etc. that corresponds to your setup and how much processing you want to do.\nIf you are influenced by the photos you might see in Sky and Telescope or Astronomy magazines I warn people that you can figure on spending around $2-3000.00 more than just what you spend on your telescope and visual use eyepieces to acheive those kinds of results.\n\nAlthough I own Dobsonian reflectors, refractors, and an SCT (Schmidt-Cassegrain Telescope). I consider the Meade/Orion/Celestron SCT's as the "most bang for buck/least compromise/ most aperture combination/ easily portable " design of the bunch.\n\nGood luck \n\nBTW: you didn't mention whether your Canon is a traditional film type or the digital model with or without the IR filter. The IR filter makes a difference with respect to the cameras usage for AstroPhotography.\nAlso... you could just skip the telescope and mount your camera on a good GEM mount "piggyback" style or piggyback the camera onto a GEM mounted telescope instead of imaging through the eyepiece on the telescope.
444714
Yes indeed. The best things to look at with any small telescope are the Moon and Saturn. Only about 30 power is needed to see the rings of Saturn, but it will look small. The moon will be spectacular at that same magnification. Of course, more magnification will make it look bigger, but be careful to no go too high because you will just get a big, dim, blurry image. I would say that 100 power is about the best for a good but small telescope.\n\nSee my web site for pictures of the Moon and Saturn with a 6 inch telescope.
604243
An erector prism. Usually it is not an eyepiece, but rather an addition extension that you put your eyepiece into.
12425
The James Webb Space Telescope is being built to replace Hubble. The Webb Telescope will be a large, infrared space telescope designed to provide even clearer pictures of our Universe than those received from Hubble. It's going to have a mirror that is about 2 1/2 times the diameter of the Hubble Mirror. ( The Hubble's mirror is 94[?] inches in diameter I believe, and the Webb Telescope mirror will be made up of 18 diagonal mirror pieces that will be about 250 inches in diameter.) It's also going to be about a million miles away from the bright Earth and have a Sunshade the size of a Tennis Court! The telescope's name sake, James Webb, was NASA's second Administrator years ago.\n   With telescopes, it's not really a question of "power." With my telescope the "power" depends on the eyepiece I use. It is actually more about how much light you can "gather." Think of it as being in a completely dark room with a magnifying glass and a flashlight. The powerful magnifying glass is really useless in the dark, but the flashlight could help you see anything and everything in the room, right? Well, space is about the darkest "room" you will ever find especially for looking deeper and deeper into the Cosmos. The bigger the mirror you have to detect the faintest stars and galaxies, the better.  These telescopes really aren't made to see really bright things- that's why you have never seen a Hubble photograph of the Moon. From Hubble's orbit just above the Earth, the Moon is just too bright.\n This may not be the most satisfying answer to your great question- I get that question all the time when I bring my telescope out- but I think you can see the advantage of having a flashlight in that dark room especially if you don't know where all the furniture is!!!
274834
From now until hell freezes over. No telescope yet invented has that kind of magnification. Besides, Alpha Centuri is a star and your friend couldn't get within miles of it without being vaporized.
279795
Try http://www.surplusshed.com/pages/item/t1423.html\n\nHowever, you are going to be *very* disappointed with the view quality.\n\nThere is no way to turn a camera lens into a "high quality" telescope. Telescope objectives and camera lenses are made for different purposes and to different standards. A camera lens can get by with poorer quality of image because the image is not going to be magnified 200x by an eyepiece. At the same time, a telescope doesn't need to project an image that is flat and large enough to cover the fil, size.\n\nIf you really want a telescope I have two different suggestions to try instead. Go to astromart.com and watch the used telescopes. But the best suggestion is to go to http://skyandtelescope.com/resources/organizations/ and find your local astronomy club. They will have public nights. Go to a public night. You will get to look through a lot of different telescopes. By the end of the night you will know what you want. And, you are likely to come across a very good deal from someone who wants to sell their telescope and upgrade.\n\nhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/\n\nChuck Taylor
654077
do you really think they dont have telescopes? if they have the tech to transverse solar systems then dont you think they can devise a device to look at us from afar? after seeing what a warring species we are it seems theyd rather study us from afar. we're dangerous.
12079
C is true. The others don't really make sense.\nThey are also inherently chromatic, more efficient. Even small ones are cheaper for the size than refracting. \nHubble Space Telescope is reflector also it will work with Ultra violet light, and more precisely focuses than glass can.
138343
we have a hubble telescope. its actually a giant satellite that orbits in space. takes pictures. and sends them to computers on earth! neato!\n\nbut an intersting thing is, the pictures we get of other galaxies are what they looked like millions of years ago! thats because it takes millions of years for light to travel from THAT galaxy to THIS galaxy. :)
597037
You can do it with a laser a small circular obstacle (1cm diametre) and some lens. You built a telescope like picture to have 2cm diameter beam  you put the obstacle in front and you regard at 20 cm from the target
238649
gravity shows them to move and rotate. the hubble space telescope has pics that show it in time lapse of course.
381257
The size of an object you can resolve with an optical system has a theoretical limit given by the wavelenght of the light you're using divided by the diameter of the optics multiplied by 1.22. If you plug the numbers in you find for a 1 foot diameter optical system at visible light (~400 nm) at an altitude of 100km, the smallest thing you could see is on the order of a foot, give or take (rough calculation). You could definitely not read a postage stamp or a wrist watch. Maybe a license plate with some bigger optics, but this is ignoring all sorts of atmospheric scintillation which screws things up.
322606
http://www.ehow.com/how_17057_make-simple-telescope.html
557699
Maybe a geosynchronously orbiting satellite. Those are satellites that rotate with the Earth so it appears that they don't move from our perspective.\n\nObviously, anything else (including stars) would move as the night progressed.\n\nHope that helps.
547678
I haven't seen the movie, but I've seen some stills from it.  The telescope design is called a Dobsonian named after John Dobson who popularized it.\n\nA local astronomy club may be able to point you to some Amateur Telescope Makers (ATM) if you want to build your own.  Dobsonians are also sold commercially at near the same cost as building your own, if you shop around.\n\nFor more information and additional links see:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobsonian
640552
You should watch the episode of mythbusters where they try to build a death ray with mirrors and need a focal point, they make a mirrior in a contact sorta shape and the light focases on it. if you could make a solar cell like that maybe it would work. The episode was on all weekend, it might be helpful for some other things too!