/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11105854
>Is magnification the most important thing too look for?
No. High magnification is useless in small telescopes since everything will be blurry due to the angular resolution being reached.
Imagine you have two stars in the night sky that is separated by a tiny degree and you have two telescopes which have the same magnification but different mirror sizes (lenses if we're talking about refractor telescopes). In the small telescope the two stars will look like one single dot while in the larger one you will see two sharper dots with a gap between. In the small telescope the angular resolution has been reached while in the bigger one it has not so what you want to look for is aperture size but the downsize to that is you will lose portability so you'll have to find a balance point.
I would recommend that you read up on different telescope types, how they work and operate, things like that.

>>9312537
Have you seen the resolved image of Antares?

It's crazy. Flat earthers actually believe that they will be able to resolve an image of a distant star with a camera like the P900 that only as an aperture size of 67mm. The Hubble telescope has an aperture of 3 meters which is 448 times greater and it can only produce a pixly image of a star. You need an INSANELY big telescope if you want to have enough angular resolution to resolve a good image of a star.