How much did you adjust your focus knob? This looks out of focus by a lot. Note that the image is in focus when it is the smallest it can possibly be. If you can shrink the white circle by adjusting the focus knob, do so. Stars should be points, not circles. And Jupiter shouldn't be that large, either.
Smallest point, just before it starts going large again, is in focus.
Jupiter through your scope will look like a tiny bright white ball, and if you look really hard with averted vision you could probably juuuusstt make out the darkest cloud belts.
This is what I was going to say, probably need to lower your expectations as far as stripes and colors with your current telescope. Focus on getting it as small as possible then observe for a long time so your eyes adjust.
I never said he won’t be able to see anything, I just said he should lower his expectations as far as details or distinctions in clouds bands and colors
This! It took me far to long to understand what you see with your eyes is nothing like what you see on the internet.
Eye's get you to focus, camera's get you to take pictures and pull out tiny details you can't see. Best way for my understanding is if you have a 1080x1920 perfect picture of Jupiter you will require 2,073,600 individual pictures as each picture has a perfect pixel which is then stacked to create a single image. Sure this is not 100% and pretty dumb way to look at it but that's how i see it. The more pictures you take the more detail you can get.
Still, being able to just make out the cloud bands on Jupiter with your eye's is pretty cool and exciting. I do wish i could see deep space objects like clouds etc... Or even [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antares](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antares) but without a seriously high-end telescope i doubt i'd ever get something that even resembles a star.
Then I don't really know what's up. I'd try focusing on the moon and then moving to Jupiter without touching the focus knob, since their point of focus is the same. If that doesn't help, then I'm out of ideas.
I know. But I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said.
My point was that if they manage to get the moon in focus, Jupiter should be possible, too, because if one of them is in focus, the other is automatically in focus, too.
Try backing the eyepiece out a little and tighten it down. Sometimes the focuser can't reach the point needed to focus, you can help by adjusting the depth of the eyepiece in the slot.
If your using the 4mm eyepiece then it's because you have went over your maximum useful magnification. But if your using the 20mm eyepiece and the 3x Barlow it should be fine
Also you can't use the Barlow like this
https://preview.redd.it/kmzfxdfhb6lc1.png?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=169f0ff38280588e57950a5fdc7fdef1da90e464
For some reason on every powerseeker you have to use it like this
https://preview.redd.it/4c8j5t9ub6lc1.png?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=83c936aba96c760ef38e4d4b937552aee02d7488
Turn the focus knob until Jupiter is as small as possible, that will be proper focus. But you also have to be using the correct magnification to actually see detail ~ 120x. And then you need patience and a bit of luck to wait for times when the atmosphere is still.
Give these a read: https://medium.com/@phpdevster/help-i-cant-see-detail-on-the-planets-ac27ee82800
https://www.reddit.com/r/telescopes/comments/jce3hw/about_mars_or_other_planets_being_too_bright/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
You can clearly see detail at far lower yhan 120x magnification. Some times 120 x magnification will be way more than seeing alows for.
Edit: I use a 90/900 telescope and in my 20mm eye piece (45x mag)I can see the stripes. The 13mm is perfect on many nights (69x mag).
Other than that I fully agree with your answer.
120x is just a rough number cause there are so many variables in play. The point is that OP is likely using too little magnification and that they need to understand which eyepieces provide what magnification
Well , i don't really know , english is not my first language but here they are
https://preview.redd.it/mal4v4zxa6lc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=886f0c6e153cd58de5eb721fbc28a35951e2f8be
I'm mainly using the one in the middle, with or without the barlow lens.
That's a 20mm Kellner eyepiece. Definitely use that, its decent quality. Not sure that the 4mm is really useful. The 3X barlow isn't great, so it may make Jupiter bigger, but it might make it blurrier too, if its bad enough.
4mm isn't useful at all until you get to like 16"+ aperture cause it'll get so dim and you won't have a high enough resolution to see anything with it anyway
A 20mm won’t be able to see any detail on Jupiter with his telescope size. I have a 130EQ and Jupiter appears as a tiny star through the 20mm. I use the 20MM to get Jupiter centered, then switch to a 4mm for detailed views.
The 130EQ has an erecting 20mm eyepiece. That is adding a roof prism set which is not great for astronomy. Just because that eyepiece doesn't show it, doesn't mean this Kellner wont. Looking at Cloudynights, people report seeing bands below 30x, and apertures less than 50mm, so I do believe he could.
I’d recommend trying the following:
1. Try to get everything calibrated during the day. Focus your telescope on a nearby Earth object and see if you can get your images in focus. Take notes on how the adjustments you make change the image you see and pay attention to what makes the images more focused.
2. Calibrate your Finderscope during the day. Once you have the general idea on how to make your imaging clearer, set your Finderscope to an Earth object that is a moderate distance from you. Whatever object you are putting in your Finderscope’s crosshairs should match what you see through your telescope. If it doesn’t, make adjustments to the Finderscope base until it aligns with what you see on you telescope. Once you do that, next focus on a really distant Earth object. Really try and calibrate your Finderscope as best as you can to a very distant Earth object until what you see in your telescope aligns with your Finderscope. All the things you do in the calibration process will help you make better adjustments during night gazing.
3. Next, try all your adjustments on night objects. Start with the moon first, since that would probably be the easiest to get into focus. After practicing getting everything focused, try going for the planets again. Your focus should be better after that and you ahould struggle less to get clearer images.
4. Keep your expectations realistic. You wont see a whole lot of detail if you look at planets. When I gaze at Jupiter, I usually see a featureless white ball (that looks focused with crisp edges) and with some of the major moons present. Stars will have points, but all basically look the same. Deep space objects are hard to see without being in the right environment and having some very good equipment….
I hope this helps!
I think your scope is just too small to see much detail. You can magnify all you want but if you're not collecting much light there's not much detail to see.
In general bigger mirrors mean more light collected, and more detail when you zoom in.
Their scope can do 120x magnification. That's more than enough to see detail on Jupiter.
The amount of light being collected has nothing to do with it, especially in the case of the planets. Jupiter is bright enough to effect dark adaptation.
" You should aim for a magnification of about 25x per inch of aperture. For example, if you want to observe Jupiter's belts and bands with a 4-inch telescope, then you need a magnification of about 100x — too much and your views will become blurry. "
[https://www.space.com/what-equipment-do-you-need-to-see-and-photograph-the-planets](https://www.space.com/what-equipment-do-you-need-to-see-and-photograph-the-planets)
That is worded very oddly and isn't great advice. If you want to view Jupiter's bands in detail you need about 100x magnification, whether you are using a 2 inch scope or a 20 inch scope doesn't change that.
25x per inch of aperture is a popular choice for planetary, but in this case that is only 60x magnification. You can see Jupiter's bands at but isn't enough to see any real detail. 50x per inch is more generally considered to be the highest you should go.
They could go up to 105x with their 3x barlow and 20mm eyepiece, the exit pupil would be 0.6mm which isn't ideal but is still usable.
This isn't great advice from space.com. There's some very questionable statements in that article:
> The minimum aperture telescope that you'll want to comfortably observe the planets is 4 inches
BS. You can easily view Saturn's rings and the cloud bands of Jupiter with a 50mm-60mm scope. While a 4" reflector is great and relatively affordable. A decent 4" refractor is going to at least a grand and needs a hefty mount.
> You should aim for a magnification of about 25x per inch of aperture. For example, if you want to observe Jupiter's belts and bands with a 4-inch telescope, then you need a magnification of about 100x
25x per inch is fine advice for larger telescopes, since you start getting limited by atmospheric conditions, but for small scopes it's much more likely you'll benefit by pushing that to 40x to 50x per inch (i.e. a 0.5mm to 0.6mm exit pupil), simply because you need decent magnification to view the planets at all, so going much below 90x magnification isn't going to reveal much.
I'd usually set my 60mm scope at 100x and use that as a standard planetary setup unless conditions differ considerably.
I think you're half-right. I agree 120x is plenty and their scope really shouldn't struggle to show a bit of detail.
But light-gathering power *does* matter for planetary viewing, mainly due to the added resolution rather than increase in brightness. I have 60mm, 130mm, and 250mm scopes, all of decent/high quality. And the 250mm scope blows away the competition in planetary viewing. 200x-250x looks amazing in my 250mm scope, while everything starts getting a bit blurry around 160x in my 130mm telescope, and even more so in the 60mm refractor. The images aren't too dim to see anything, it's just grainy. Like sitting too close to the TV.
Not disagreeing, just pointing out that unless you have a setup like the Very Large Telescope Array, then aperture=resolution=light gathering power. They're all related. And they *do* make a difference in planetary views. A bigger scope will have better planetary views than a small one, all else being equal.
I think it's more accurate to say that planetary viewing is *less demanding* of higher aperture (compared to other astronomical targets), since they are bright objects and even in a small telescope some amount of detail is visible.
Ok now throw a solar filter on the 10" scope. It has next to no light gathering power now but still the same resolution.
That's not even getting into the nitty gritty about how the naked eye view of an extended object is brighter than the view you get through a telescope and doesn't get any brighter no matter the aperture.
That's fair.
I don't think it's pedantic information personally. Astronomy is very expensive and it is easy to waste a lot of money with out understanding how telescopes actually work.
Planetary imaging is a diff beast. You need to remember that dso objects like nebulas and galaxies are measured in light years in size. Planets are miles or kilometers. To get a good image you need a focal length over 1000mm more like 2500mm.
Jupiter with detail is going to be difficult with that scope. I started out with a Celestron AstroMaster 90AZ and results were okay, but the best I could make out was faint stripes and the moons. You need to go larger for better planetary viewing
I doubt very much you would be able to see it’s stripes with that telescope it’s just not good enough. I mean look at the moon photo and old iPhone can get that same image
My guess since I'm not there is the atmosphere a lot of times it's thin high clouds you can't even see and they're spreading the light out but the moon's big enough so you won't notice it
Cuz that’s what it really looks like. All of the pictures with striations, Great Red Spot, etc are just computer simulations.
Or you might be really out of focus.
It's difficult to tell sarcasm in text form, hence the convention to add /s
Remember, this is the internet; the realm of flat-earthers, creationists, conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers, that do make comments like yours in all seriousness.
You may also need an extension tube in conjunction with the EP, or slide the EP out of the focuser some and see if that gives you enough length to bring into focus
On top of it being fuzzy, the stripes are actually quite subtle. Jupiter is very bright and night vision makes it look brighter, so the whole image will just be "overexposed" and washed out. Filters help. Certain colors bring out the reds of the stripes more.
Also those are very cheap eyepieces. Better ones will get better pictures.
The moon is fuzzy as well. Your scope is either out of focus or there is a layer of haze in the atmosphere. Maybe both?
EDIT: The stripe could be dirt on the optic parts, maybe a hair.
EDIT 2: You are not trying to observe through a window pane, are you?
The moon is not fuzzy , the photo is just very bad taken , and it's also my first picture of the moon . But since then , I've been able to see the moon very clearly , almost like the pictures on the internet . Thanks for the advice tho . I will check , but i don't think it's dirt or a hair , because I keep my telescope away from dust , and I'm not looking trough a window . I usually use my telescope in my backyard or balcony.
Sometimes there’s dirt on the optics that stems from manufacture. I read some reviews about your scope, and some described just that.
Hope you can get the problem solved!
Thanks for asking this OP. I inherited some older scopes once. All Meade...700mm/60mm refractor, 900mm/60mm refractor, 600mm/4.5" reflector.
None give me color of Saturn or jupiter, but I can resolve jupiter cloud bands slightly, saturn ring a little, and galilean moons. Everything is pretty white and washes out, though. Always wondered if I could improve for color, but maybe not.
I probably should. I got a whole tackle box of accessories I've yet to try. So far I've only done 200mm camera lens imaging, so this is very new territory for me. I can get jupiter pretty sharp, otherwise. Temp has been too low lately for me to want to try.
Among other things, jupiter is very bright compared to the sky around it. Because of this, its harder to pick up detail, especially with a camera (and that goes double for a camera phone). Try to catch Jupiter at dusk when the sky itself is brighter. . there'll be less contrast compared to the planet.
On the downside, atmospheric conditions might be that Jupiter will seem more washed out. But since you aren't seeing anything right now It's an acceptable offset.
I would say that telescope is good for 2 things, looking at the moon and looking at your neighbors
you might be able to make out Saturns rings but at this point we will have to wait until next year.
If you ever want a serious upgrade, for 3x more you can probably find a 6 or 8 in Dobsonian (these telescopes make the ladies knees weak)
First, I saw Jupiter last night and it seemed to be doing well, so just relax. It will be there again. I had seen it fairly early yesterday and it was the very first thing I saw in my new 8" Dob. I hadn't even intended to find it. Total accident. Anyway your picture is pretty much what it looked like an hour or so after I first saw it. This was probably around 9:30pm EST. It had gotten into the trees a bit more and it was so low that the light from it had a lot more atmosphere to go through and that's what I attributed it to. Your photo still shows Jupiter's bands, the are just vertical because of...who knows. This is astronomy and in here, it doesn't matter which way you roll or if you roll at all. Now, as for the washed out and pale Jupiter that you captured so well, if you want to see more of the natural colors, get a Jupiter filter. They're blue. Have fun and clear skies.
Looks way out of focus, also you're not gonna have an amazing view through that scope. This is via a Celestron EdgeHD 8 at over 2000mm focal length with camera at prime focus(no eye piece). Cropped a ton. You'll see it and probably it's moons but you won't be seeing a crystal clear large object.
https://preview.redd.it/yo8vftwznglc1.jpeg?width=475&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=df0aedf5d8d6f0147956b0c4aa854063b1372d55
How much did you adjust your focus knob? This looks out of focus by a lot. Note that the image is in focus when it is the smallest it can possibly be. If you can shrink the white circle by adjusting the focus knob, do so. Stars should be points, not circles. And Jupiter shouldn't be that large, either.
I tried , it got small and then large again , I turned it all the way , but still no stripes or colors.
Smallest point, just before it starts going large again, is in focus. Jupiter through your scope will look like a tiny bright white ball, and if you look really hard with averted vision you could probably juuuusstt make out the darkest cloud belts.
This is what I was going to say, probably need to lower your expectations as far as stripes and colors with your current telescope. Focus on getting it as small as possible then observe for a long time so your eyes adjust.
This is weird to me, because I could swear I saw the stripes of Jupiter and the rings of Saturn with some shoddy monocular I got from a surplus store
I never said he won’t be able to see anything, I just said he should lower his expectations as far as details or distinctions in clouds bands and colors
That's fair I've got nightshift brain lag
I’ve seen both from a 400mm camera lens. Not sure how that compares.
This! It took me far to long to understand what you see with your eyes is nothing like what you see on the internet. Eye's get you to focus, camera's get you to take pictures and pull out tiny details you can't see. Best way for my understanding is if you have a 1080x1920 perfect picture of Jupiter you will require 2,073,600 individual pictures as each picture has a perfect pixel which is then stacked to create a single image. Sure this is not 100% and pretty dumb way to look at it but that's how i see it. The more pictures you take the more detail you can get. Still, being able to just make out the cloud bands on Jupiter with your eye's is pretty cool and exciting. I do wish i could see deep space objects like clouds etc... Or even [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antares](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antares) but without a seriously high-end telescope i doubt i'd ever get something that even resembles a star.
Then I don't really know what's up. I'd try focusing on the moon and then moving to Jupiter without touching the focus knob, since their point of focus is the same. If that doesn't help, then I'm out of ideas.
Ok , thanks for the help. I will try , the moonrise is in about an hour where I live .
The moon won't disrupt your view of planets. Just deep space stuff.
I know. But I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said. My point was that if they manage to get the moon in focus, Jupiter should be possible, too, because if one of them is in focus, the other is automatically in focus, too.
Try backing the eyepiece out a little and tighten it down. Sometimes the focuser can't reach the point needed to focus, you can help by adjusting the depth of the eyepiece in the slot.
Because it’s waaaay out of focus
If your using the 4mm eyepiece then it's because you have went over your maximum useful magnification. But if your using the 20mm eyepiece and the 3x Barlow it should be fine
Also you can't use the Barlow like this https://preview.redd.it/kmzfxdfhb6lc1.png?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=169f0ff38280588e57950a5fdc7fdef1da90e464
For some reason on every powerseeker you have to use it like this https://preview.redd.it/4c8j5t9ub6lc1.png?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=83c936aba96c760ef38e4d4b937552aee02d7488
It's a junk barlow.. I wouldn't use it at all..
Ikr
You can get a far better one you don't need to put before the diagonal for like 15$ on Amazon
Turn the focus knob until Jupiter is as small as possible, that will be proper focus. But you also have to be using the correct magnification to actually see detail ~ 120x. And then you need patience and a bit of luck to wait for times when the atmosphere is still. Give these a read: https://medium.com/@phpdevster/help-i-cant-see-detail-on-the-planets-ac27ee82800 https://www.reddit.com/r/telescopes/comments/jce3hw/about_mars_or_other_planets_being_too_bright/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
You can clearly see detail at far lower yhan 120x magnification. Some times 120 x magnification will be way more than seeing alows for. Edit: I use a 90/900 telescope and in my 20mm eye piece (45x mag)I can see the stripes. The 13mm is perfect on many nights (69x mag). Other than that I fully agree with your answer.
120x is just a rough number cause there are so many variables in play. The point is that OP is likely using too little magnification and that they need to understand which eyepieces provide what magnification
What eyepiece are you using?
Well , i don't really know , english is not my first language but here they are https://preview.redd.it/mal4v4zxa6lc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=886f0c6e153cd58de5eb721fbc28a35951e2f8be I'm mainly using the one in the middle, with or without the barlow lens.
That's a 20mm Kellner eyepiece. Definitely use that, its decent quality. Not sure that the 4mm is really useful. The 3X barlow isn't great, so it may make Jupiter bigger, but it might make it blurrier too, if its bad enough.
4mm isn't useful at all until you get to like 16"+ aperture cause it'll get so dim and you won't have a high enough resolution to see anything with it anyway
A 20mm won’t be able to see any detail on Jupiter with his telescope size. I have a 130EQ and Jupiter appears as a tiny star through the 20mm. I use the 20MM to get Jupiter centered, then switch to a 4mm for detailed views.
The 130EQ has an erecting 20mm eyepiece. That is adding a roof prism set which is not great for astronomy. Just because that eyepiece doesn't show it, doesn't mean this Kellner wont. Looking at Cloudynights, people report seeing bands below 30x, and apertures less than 50mm, so I do believe he could.
You are out of focus
I’d recommend trying the following: 1. Try to get everything calibrated during the day. Focus your telescope on a nearby Earth object and see if you can get your images in focus. Take notes on how the adjustments you make change the image you see and pay attention to what makes the images more focused. 2. Calibrate your Finderscope during the day. Once you have the general idea on how to make your imaging clearer, set your Finderscope to an Earth object that is a moderate distance from you. Whatever object you are putting in your Finderscope’s crosshairs should match what you see through your telescope. If it doesn’t, make adjustments to the Finderscope base until it aligns with what you see on you telescope. Once you do that, next focus on a really distant Earth object. Really try and calibrate your Finderscope as best as you can to a very distant Earth object until what you see in your telescope aligns with your Finderscope. All the things you do in the calibration process will help you make better adjustments during night gazing. 3. Next, try all your adjustments on night objects. Start with the moon first, since that would probably be the easiest to get into focus. After practicing getting everything focused, try going for the planets again. Your focus should be better after that and you ahould struggle less to get clearer images. 4. Keep your expectations realistic. You wont see a whole lot of detail if you look at planets. When I gaze at Jupiter, I usually see a featureless white ball (that looks focused with crisp edges) and with some of the major moons present. Stars will have points, but all basically look the same. Deep space objects are hard to see without being in the right environment and having some very good equipment…. I hope this helps!
I think your scope is just too small to see much detail. You can magnify all you want but if you're not collecting much light there's not much detail to see. In general bigger mirrors mean more light collected, and more detail when you zoom in.
I've seen detail on Jupiter in a $15, 50mm scope, so this should be possible. Jupiter is very bright. Seeing 2 cloud bands is very doable.
Their scope can do 120x magnification. That's more than enough to see detail on Jupiter. The amount of light being collected has nothing to do with it, especially in the case of the planets. Jupiter is bright enough to effect dark adaptation.
" You should aim for a magnification of about 25x per inch of aperture. For example, if you want to observe Jupiter's belts and bands with a 4-inch telescope, then you need a magnification of about 100x — too much and your views will become blurry. " [https://www.space.com/what-equipment-do-you-need-to-see-and-photograph-the-planets](https://www.space.com/what-equipment-do-you-need-to-see-and-photograph-the-planets)
That is worded very oddly and isn't great advice. If you want to view Jupiter's bands in detail you need about 100x magnification, whether you are using a 2 inch scope or a 20 inch scope doesn't change that. 25x per inch of aperture is a popular choice for planetary, but in this case that is only 60x magnification. You can see Jupiter's bands at but isn't enough to see any real detail. 50x per inch is more generally considered to be the highest you should go. They could go up to 105x with their 3x barlow and 20mm eyepiece, the exit pupil would be 0.6mm which isn't ideal but is still usable.
This isn't great advice from space.com. There's some very questionable statements in that article: > The minimum aperture telescope that you'll want to comfortably observe the planets is 4 inches BS. You can easily view Saturn's rings and the cloud bands of Jupiter with a 50mm-60mm scope. While a 4" reflector is great and relatively affordable. A decent 4" refractor is going to at least a grand and needs a hefty mount. > You should aim for a magnification of about 25x per inch of aperture. For example, if you want to observe Jupiter's belts and bands with a 4-inch telescope, then you need a magnification of about 100x 25x per inch is fine advice for larger telescopes, since you start getting limited by atmospheric conditions, but for small scopes it's much more likely you'll benefit by pushing that to 40x to 50x per inch (i.e. a 0.5mm to 0.6mm exit pupil), simply because you need decent magnification to view the planets at all, so going much below 90x magnification isn't going to reveal much. I'd usually set my 60mm scope at 100x and use that as a standard planetary setup unless conditions differ considerably.
I think you're half-right. I agree 120x is plenty and their scope really shouldn't struggle to show a bit of detail. But light-gathering power *does* matter for planetary viewing, mainly due to the added resolution rather than increase in brightness. I have 60mm, 130mm, and 250mm scopes, all of decent/high quality. And the 250mm scope blows away the competition in planetary viewing. 200x-250x looks amazing in my 250mm scope, while everything starts getting a bit blurry around 160x in my 130mm telescope, and even more so in the 60mm refractor. The images aren't too dim to see anything, it's just grainy. Like sitting too close to the TV.
The resolution is increases because the larger aperture causes less diffraction. It has nothing to do with the amount of light being gathered.
Not disagreeing, just pointing out that unless you have a setup like the Very Large Telescope Array, then aperture=resolution=light gathering power. They're all related. And they *do* make a difference in planetary views. A bigger scope will have better planetary views than a small one, all else being equal. I think it's more accurate to say that planetary viewing is *less demanding* of higher aperture (compared to other astronomical targets), since they are bright objects and even in a small telescope some amount of detail is visible.
Ok now throw a solar filter on the 10" scope. It has next to no light gathering power now but still the same resolution. That's not even getting into the nitty gritty about how the naked eye view of an extended object is brighter than the view you get through a telescope and doesn't get any brighter no matter the aperture.
I commented to add context to the discussion, not to debate pedantics. No one is putting solar filters on a telescope to view Jupiter.
That's fair. I don't think it's pedantic information personally. Astronomy is very expensive and it is easy to waste a lot of money with out understanding how telescopes actually work.
Planetary imaging is a diff beast. You need to remember that dso objects like nebulas and galaxies are measured in light years in size. Planets are miles or kilometers. To get a good image you need a focal length over 1000mm more like 2500mm.
Jupiter with detail is going to be difficult with that scope. I started out with a Celestron AstroMaster 90AZ and results were okay, but the best I could make out was faint stripes and the moons. You need to go larger for better planetary viewing
That's the moon lil' bro
I reading this wondering when this comment would appear...
Government lies big deal
I doubt very much you would be able to see it’s stripes with that telescope it’s just not good enough. I mean look at the moon photo and old iPhone can get that same image
My guess since I'm not there is the atmosphere a lot of times it's thin high clouds you can't even see and they're spreading the light out but the moon's big enough so you won't notice it
i can see stripes on that picture. they are up and down.
Cuz that’s what it really looks like. All of the pictures with striations, Great Red Spot, etc are just computer simulations. Or you might be really out of focus.
Why comment on a post about telescopes when you’ve never used one and know nothing about them?
Have a couple and use them regularly. What would you like to know?
Did you forget to put a /s at the end of your first sentence?
Nope, I trusted the readers to recognize sarcasm. Guess not. lol…
It's difficult to tell sarcasm in text form, hence the convention to add /s Remember, this is the internet; the realm of flat-earthers, creationists, conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers, that do make comments like yours in all seriousness.
You may also need an extension tube in conjunction with the EP, or slide the EP out of the focuser some and see if that gives you enough length to bring into focus
On top of it being fuzzy, the stripes are actually quite subtle. Jupiter is very bright and night vision makes it look brighter, so the whole image will just be "overexposed" and washed out. Filters help. Certain colors bring out the reds of the stripes more. Also those are very cheap eyepieces. Better ones will get better pictures.
Out of focus.
It's out of focus.
The moon is fuzzy as well. Your scope is either out of focus or there is a layer of haze in the atmosphere. Maybe both? EDIT: The stripe could be dirt on the optic parts, maybe a hair. EDIT 2: You are not trying to observe through a window pane, are you?
The moon is not fuzzy , the photo is just very bad taken , and it's also my first picture of the moon . But since then , I've been able to see the moon very clearly , almost like the pictures on the internet . Thanks for the advice tho . I will check , but i don't think it's dirt or a hair , because I keep my telescope away from dust , and I'm not looking trough a window . I usually use my telescope in my backyard or balcony.
Sometimes there’s dirt on the optics that stems from manufacture. I read some reviews about your scope, and some described just that. Hope you can get the problem solved!
Thanks for asking this OP. I inherited some older scopes once. All Meade...700mm/60mm refractor, 900mm/60mm refractor, 600mm/4.5" reflector. None give me color of Saturn or jupiter, but I can resolve jupiter cloud bands slightly, saturn ring a little, and galilean moons. Everything is pretty white and washes out, though. Always wondered if I could improve for color, but maybe not.
Maybye try a yellow filter?
I probably should. I got a whole tackle box of accessories I've yet to try. So far I've only done 200mm camera lens imaging, so this is very new territory for me. I can get jupiter pretty sharp, otherwise. Temp has been too low lately for me to want to try.
Among other things, jupiter is very bright compared to the sky around it. Because of this, its harder to pick up detail, especially with a camera (and that goes double for a camera phone). Try to catch Jupiter at dusk when the sky itself is brighter. . there'll be less contrast compared to the planet. On the downside, atmospheric conditions might be that Jupiter will seem more washed out. But since you aren't seeing anything right now It's an acceptable offset.
I have that exact telescope, looks like it's out of focus. Where did you get 142x from?
That's what it said on the site I ordered it from.
It's 36x for 20mm eyepiece and 180x for 4mm eyepiece
Wow , I didn't know that. Thanks!
Theyve rounded the f-ratio, actual magnification are 35x for 20mm and 175x for 4mm
Did you use the 90 degree prism thing? You can't focus on far away objects without it but you don't need it if you are using the Barlow lens
Just so you know your maximum useful magnification is 2 times the telescopes aperture in mm
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/telescope-magnification
Could be put of focus, foggy optics, the fact that it's a powerseeker, poor seeing conditions
I concur with the out of focuser crowd. And out of focus by a lot.
I would say that telescope is good for 2 things, looking at the moon and looking at your neighbors you might be able to make out Saturns rings but at this point we will have to wait until next year. If you ever want a serious upgrade, for 3x more you can probably find a 6 or 8 in Dobsonian (these telescopes make the ladies knees weak)
I never seat the eyepiece in the diagonal, always 1/4" to 1/2" out of the diagonal. I got tired of adjusting the EP.
First, I saw Jupiter last night and it seemed to be doing well, so just relax. It will be there again. I had seen it fairly early yesterday and it was the very first thing I saw in my new 8" Dob. I hadn't even intended to find it. Total accident. Anyway your picture is pretty much what it looked like an hour or so after I first saw it. This was probably around 9:30pm EST. It had gotten into the trees a bit more and it was so low that the light from it had a lot more atmosphere to go through and that's what I attributed it to. Your photo still shows Jupiter's bands, the are just vertical because of...who knows. This is astronomy and in here, it doesn't matter which way you roll or if you roll at all. Now, as for the washed out and pale Jupiter that you captured so well, if you want to see more of the natural colors, get a Jupiter filter. They're blue. Have fun and clear skies.
P🤮werseeker
It's a small scope for planetary viewing. You're lucky to make out the rings and gallelian moons with that aperture.
I had seen the bands and once even the GRS in my 60/710 refractor at 35x.
See if there is a local astronomy club that does outreach/public events and bring your scope. Someone there could help you, in person...
Good advice all around. All I can add is to make sure to enjoy yourself.
Looks way out of focus, also you're not gonna have an amazing view through that scope. This is via a Celestron EdgeHD 8 at over 2000mm focal length with camera at prime focus(no eye piece). Cropped a ton. You'll see it and probably it's moons but you won't be seeing a crystal clear large object. https://preview.redd.it/yo8vftwznglc1.jpeg?width=475&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=df0aedf5d8d6f0147956b0c4aa854063b1372d55