#76 Astronomy Reference Books and Maps: Some Brief Reviews, Part 3

The greatest series of observation reference books for amateur astronomers ever created was "Burnham's Celestial Handbook," published in 3 volumes back in the mid 1960s.  In the late 1970s Dover published an expanded and updated edition, in hardcover, and it is these volumes that I still use and treasure to this day.  The amount of work that Robert Burnham, Jr., did to create this reference masterpiece cannot even be imagined.  The sad and unusual circumstances of his latter years and virtually unmarked death can be found elsewhere, but Burnham was a shy recluse who undoubtedly had some psychological issues.  Nevertheless he wrote the most wonderful description of the constellations (all of them) ever penned.  If you are a serious observer and have not used or encountered these books, then I doubt that you are a serious observer.  To the astonishment of many, including this blogger, no one has ever undertaken a much needed update of these irreplaceable volumes.  Until now.  Sort of.

Just newly published (March 2015), along comes "Annals of the Deep Sky," by Jeff Kanipe and Dennis Webb.  The first two volumes of what will be a multi-volume set are just out, and are available from Willmann Bell, Inc., for $25 each.

Whereas Burnham's Volume 1 takes the reader all the way through Cetus, the two new volumes only go up to Caelum.  In order to get as far as Burham's Volume 1 we must still await the publication of Annals that will include Camelopardalis, Cancer, Canes Venatici, Canis Major, Canis Minor, Capricornus, Carina, Cassiopeia, Centaurus, Cepheus, and Cetus.  That will take at least two more volumes at the current rate, making a five to one ratio between Annals and Burnham's.  We are likely looking at a 15 volume set of books!!

That is the first sign of a big problem with the new series.  It will cost us all a small fortune, and take up far more bookshelf space than Burnham's requires.  Page numbers are roughly equivalent between the first 2 volumes of Annals and the first volume of Burnham's (about 650).  And though Burnham's 3 volumes look as if it will be much less than half the pages of Annals 15 volumes, it is still Burnham's that contains far more information for amateurs.  We now come to the second big problem with Annals.

Using the first constellation listed, Andromeda, let us compare how the two approaches are similar, and how they are different.  Let's begin with the biggest difference, the listing of double and variable stars.  Burnham's lists detailed information (epoch 1950) on over 150 double stars, along with about 50 variables.  There are detailed descriptions and explanations of 15 stars within the constellation.  12 NGC objects are listed, with detailed discussions, charts and photos of 4 of these (not including the satellite galaxies of M31).  57 pages are devoted to Andromeda, including a detailed examination of M31 and its family of galaxies.

Over now to Annals.  All objects listed are described in detail.  However, only 8 stars are listed for Andromeda, along with 5 NGC objects (plus all of the known M31 family), and one Abell grouping of galaxies.  For observers of the night sky, this is a pretty low number of objects.  Whereas Burnham's Handbook lists enough objects to observe for a month or more of clear nights within Andromeda, much of what is listed in Annals can be decently observed over one or two nights.  Considering how much money is being spent, and how much shelf space will eventually be taken up, this is rather shameful.  I admit to being extremely disappointed when I first flipped through the books.  Lovers of double stars and thorough NGC observers will have little use for these books once they are read.  Not to mention that articles and information go out of date so quickly today.

Having only read Volume One, and having glimpsed Volume 2, I really do not know or understand the full purpose of these books, nor to whom they are aimed.  Certainly they are not aimed at avid amateur observers.  Perhaps they are aimed at astro-photographers, as each little object essay seems to include some hints and suggestions for capturing images.  If this is the case, then why not double up and include more object lists for ambitious observers?  While information and maps on the NGC and objects from other catalogues can be found in the guide to Uranometria, double stars are ignored there.  In fact, if it wasn't for Burnham's, my love for double stars would never have been nourished.  If the authors of Annals were attempting an updated version of Burnham's (and to some extent, Olcott), why wasn't his generous double  and variable star catalogue updated and refreshed?  Perhaps more objects will be included in some future appendix volume of Annals, but I am not willing to wait and see. 

Here are the serious problems I see with Annals, in a nutshell.  Too many volumes.  Constellations are not thoroughly examined in the least.  Target readers are not defined.  I am very uncertain whether I will purchase further volumes.  Oddly enough, I foresee these books getting rave reviews in astronomy magazines, and people flocking to buy them.  I hope they are happier with them than I am.  Perhaps most have more money than me, more shelf space, and don't like looking at a whole bunch of deep sky objects over a lifetime anyway.  Or perhaps they are armchair astronomers, and will enjoy the volumes for their wonderful descriptive essays.  To nitpick for a moment, there seem to be a good number of typos, and even some missing words.

So as not to give a completely one-sided version, I admit there is much to like about these books.  Almost all of the objects Burnham's discusses in detail are followed up here, and we get updates on many deep sky mysteries thirty to forty years later.  Since Burnham first wrote his set of books we now know about black holes, among other wonders, and we have reaped the benefits of the Hubble Space Telescope, and other amazing off-world views from many other orbiting instruments.  And earth-based telescopes so far overshadow their previous cousins from the 60s and 70s that it isn't even funny.  Some "amateurs" now take photos that are better than the professional ones from Burnham's day.

And Annals makes full use of all the discoveries and research that has occurred and is still occurring with deep space objects.  Photos, charts, diagrams and information are state of the art.  Here is what I did with Andromeda.  I would read what Burnham had to say about a star or object, then switch to Annals and read the modern updated version.  Fun stuff!!  Whereas Burnham discussed M31 in 57 pages, 40 pages are used in Annals.  Both sets of books could be required reading, preferably Annals after Burnham, in tandem.  I also like all of the historical asides, which include "Newcomb's Musing on the Andromeda Nebula," "Williamina Fleming," "John Luis Emil Dreyer," "James Dunlop: Forgotten Pioneer of the Southern Astronomy," as well as many historical photos of some great old refractors.  There is a concluding essay on Planetary Nebula, and of course the obligatory initial chapters, essentially an Astronomy 101 lesson.

A big difference between the two undertakings is how objects are grouped for discussion.  Burnham's listed main stars first, then double stars, variables, then deep sky objects in NGC order.  Following came discussions of selected objects (indicated with * in the lists).  Stars were grouped Alpha, Beta, etc., then by number for doubles and letter/number for variables.  Objects themselves were discussed in NGC order.  The system is simple and elegant, and it is relatively easy to find the detailed discussion of an object.  Annals uses a different approach, and deals with stars and objects by distance.  While I see the reasoning behind this, I would much rather see Burnham's method used, which makes finding the discussion of a sought object easy and logical to find.  Much better would have been the Annals' objects listed by distance in a chart, for those curious.  I always appreciate different ways of looking at things, but basing the entire volume on such a system seems a bit daft.

In conclusion, we do not yet have a fully suitable modernization of Burnham's Celestial Handbook.  Annals makes a very good start at it, but someone still has to come up with a thorough double star and variable star updated list, epoch 2000.  The WDS is useful, but very unwieldy and time consuming.  The NGC and other objects have already been beautifully handled by Uranometria (see separate blog on this, below).  But double star observers are still left waiting and wanting.

P.S.  Thursday, Sept. 24th/15
I am writing this after reading volume 2 cover to cover.  The 2nd volume seems much better than the first one, going into fine detail in Aquila, Auriga and Bootes, among others.  Even Burnham hadn't really hit his stride in his Volume 1.  There is some wonderful follow-up to Burham's examination of certain stars and objects, and in depth looks at objects Burnham didn't touch or have much info on.  And whereas Burnham barely deals with Caelum, these folks spend a long and interesting chapter on this almost unknown constellation.  Well done, Vol 2! 

So I am awaiting Vol. 3, and will likely buy into the series.  

Mapman Mike