I don't think my telescope can get me all the way to Jupiter, or at least clearly to the point where you can see its moons.  

Nonsense, sure it does! With the same ocular you used for the Moon, Jupiter disc and equatorial bands should be quite visible, small maybe but visible. Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto are visible in good weather conditions even with a 7x50 binocular (did it in Croatia) so yeah go for it.

I don't think my telescope can get me all the way to Jupiter, or at least clearly to the point where you can see its moons.  

Nonsense, sure it does! With the same ocular you used for the Moon, Jupiter disc and equatorial bands should be quite visible. Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto are visible in good weather conditions even with a 7x50 binocular (did it in Croatia) so yeah go for it.

thanks! I will (soon). once I know where it is and when the weather is 100% clear, then I'll see what I can get.

 same ocular you used for the Moon

I used a 20 mm with these moon shots but I can also use a 2X lens making it a total of a 40 mm lens. as well as a 3X15 zoom lens on my camera. the telescope itself is a 650 mm. this might be enough (if you think so). I'm existed to see what will happen, like I said in the first post, its my very first telescope so I've never seen Jupiter through it

yeah I guessed by the field of view of your photos your Celestron with that ocular give a 32x magnification. You should have a 10mm as well, If what I see in Celestron webpages is right? That makes a 65x magnification.
Usually Barlow (2x) lens multiply the magnification at the expense of the luminosity of the object, which is around 50% less.
No matter how faint or small the object can be, it's always nice to try and observe with your own telescope.

You should have a 10mm as well, If what I see in Celestron webpages is right?

yes, I bought the accessory kit too so I also have a 15mm and a 6mm as well as 3 filters. the 1st is a moon filter, 2nd a planet filter. IDK what the third filter is though...

No matter how faint or small the object can be, it's always nice to try and observe with your own telescope

  I'll keep that in mind I suppose you might have a telescope yourself?

I had a 114/1000 but the mirror is damaged. I used to watch the skies from home but where I live now it's impossible.
If the third filter is completely black by pointing it at a small light source, then it could be a solar filter, to be used for observation of sunspots.
 Beware, don't try it by pointing the telescope at the Sun unless you're certain, it's extremely dangerous for your eyes!! 

Lately I've encountered a less preferred method of imaging the Sun:



300mm, f/18, 1/4000s, ISO100.  No filter.  If you're wondering how that's possible, it's because of this:

Today's partial lunar eclipse from Ostrava, Czech Republic.

I had just noticed in Stellarium that there was a partial eclipse on the other side of the world.  Glad someone saw and photographed it!

Today's partial lunar eclipse from Ostrava, Czech Republic.

It's so sad that I've noticed it but I didn't care about it since I though it was just covered by clouds.
Media should definitely talk more about these things, I know it happens very often to see a lunar eclipse before a solar eclipse but I never heard of it and so I forgot 

Most media look for sensations and big headlines, so it might be better if they're silent about a partial lunar eclipse, so that they don't make a lot of people watch it and disappoint them.  Save the headlines for truly deep lunar eclipses.  Still, I'd love to see them print a small note about the small events.  For instance, they can do it in the weather forecast section.

Watsisname, i am going to the desert in few days and i saw a post on reddit of what you can see in naked eyes and with camera.
is that true? in this naked-eye pic? maybe this image is naked eye bortle class 1?

here is the link of the image:
http://ekanttakephotos.com/can-you-really-see-all-those-stars-with-the-naked-eye/

Spacer, I don't think that is an accurate image of how your naked eyes would see it, although I've "only" seen a bortle class 2 sky. The Milky Way is better seen and there are not quite as many stars visible, and those visible will be more brilliant. Also, there is less color saturation.

This is a better depiction of how it looks to the naked eye.

Spacer, I don't think that is an accurate image of how your naked eyes would see it, although I've "only" seen a bortle class 2 sky. The Milky Way is better seen and there are not quite as many stars visible, and those visible will be more brilliant. Also, there is less color saturation.

This is a better depiction of how it looks to the naked eye.

:shock: :shock: :shock:
I would LOVE to see the milky way strip as well as all those stars after taking a photo of it in the desserts, but unfortunately I don't have the money or experienced too travel to such places yet. 

Fireinthehole, fair enough. i knew our eyes won't see the color of the milky way like with a camera. but atleast i hope to see details of it and the core. so my family won't be disappointed too after the long drive