#77 Galaxy Stats: Not Always Helpful

     This is the tale of a search for two galaxies.  The stats for one indicate that it should not be too difficult for a 12" scope to locate, while the second one indicates perhaps a deeper challenge.  This pair is located in Lacerta, now situated well for observing later in the evening (it's basically between Cygnus and Cassiopeia).

      To a fully seasoned observer, it came as no surprise that the easier one was the most difficult to locate, and the harder one was just sitting there, no effort required.  Conditions were perfect--very clear and mostly dry, and observing was done around midnight, when the objects were almost directly overhead.

     The easier one is supposed to be eg 7264.  It has a visual mag. of 13.8, and a surface brightness of 13.2.  Averaging 13.5 mag., then, this should pose no problem for a 12" mirror in good skies.  However, it was the shape that told me this one would be tricky.  Its dimensions are 2'.2 x 0'.3.  In other words, it's a "needle" galaxy.  Due to the slender shape, the galaxy becomes much more difficult to see well, if at all.  Add to the fact that two stars run alongside it and you have a potential no show.  Did I mention the dark dust lane?  Though invisible in the 12", it does affect the light coming our way.

     It took a while, but I finally found it.  I did not use a photo, just Uranometria, so at first I did not realize that the galaxy ran parallel to the two faint stars (just bright enough to make things tricky).

NGC 7264, upper center; 7263 right

 http://ccd-astronomy.de

     At first I suspected only the central area of the galaxy, a very faint smudge that might have been a tiny third star.  However, at 150x I suddenly had one of those averted vision flash epiphanies, and I saw the entire galaxy for just an instant.  A seasoned fellow astronomer also took some long, careful looks, declaring that for him the object was right at the limit of what he could discern.  Consider he was coming down in aperture, taking a short break from observing with his 22".  I am a bit more used to searching out these really faint objects, so I had a tiny bit less difficulty, but those averted vision glimpses were few and far between.  A far cry from what a 13.5 mag. galaxy should look like!

     The second galaxy was eg 7263.  With a visual magnitude of 14.6, and a surface brightness of 13.8, this one sounded like a challenge.  It is south preceding 7264, and the first galaxy points toward it (see image, above).  However, this fainter galaxy (averaging 14.2 mag.) was a veritable picnic by comparison!  Why?  The shape.  It's size is 0'.8 x 0'.7, which is virtually round.  These objects are usually much easier to view than elliptical ones.  This galaxy was picked off without difficulty at 100x!  14.2 mag.!  I told you I had a good sky.  It forms the apex of a triangle with two faint stars, one south and one preceding.  Best of all, at 150x and 187x it appears in the same field with 7264.  This is where the real comparison begins.  Going back and forth between a "brighter" galaxy, which is actually dimmer, and a "dimmer" galaxy which is actually much brighter, is a mind-expanding experience.

     While in the area, you may wish to visit a much brighter galaxy, which is very close by.  Eg 7265 is a showpiece by comparison to the other two, with a visual mag. of 12.2 and a surface brightness of 13.7.  At 2'.4 x 1'.9, the shape again makes it easy to see, though its ovalness is very apparent at higher powers.  There is even a very faint UGC galaxy near 7265, for those of you with even larger apertures.

NGC 7265 at bottom, with 7264 in upper center and 7263 in upper right.  The faint UGC galaxy is south following 7265, and involved with a 10.8 mag. star.

http://www.webbdeepsky.com

Enjoy your clear skies!

Mapman Mike

#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

#75 Astronomy Reference Books and Maps: Some Brief Reviews, Part 2

The Night Sky Observer's Guide:

Volume 1: Autumn and Winter

Volume 2: Spring and Summer

George Robert Kepple, Glen W. Sanner

    

     Ever since the publication of Burham's indispensable 3-volume Celestial Handbook (reviewed later in this series of reviews), I have been in search of an up-to-date replacement.  This is not it.  However, this is a pretty darn good observing guide to the night sky.  There is a third volume in this set for you lucky southern sky observers, but I do not own it.  Though these books have a token brief essay at the beginning of each constellation about the mythology, it in no way comes near the depth Burnham usually gives the topic.  

     Both the forward and the first chapter will reward readers who are relatively new to observing and astronomy, and those (like me) that need a constant brushing up on the usual subjects, such as stars, variables, galaxy classification, etc.  The problem is that it is difficult to read so much text, in four very word-filled columns, in such a large book.  I generally fall asleep, as it reads like a university text book.  Still, there is valuable information, but a few more illustrations in these sections would have been a bonus.  

     There follows a chapter on each of the constellations.  I will choose Hercules to give examples of how the books work, and how effective they are for observers.  Chapter 46 (vol. 2) is entitled "Hercules the Strongman."  46.1 (Overview) discusses the mythology, as well as some quick facts about the constellation, such as it being the fifth largest.  A small box gives proper pronunciation, its culmination dates, major showpieces, and some binocular objects.

     46.2 is entitled "Interesting Stars."  8 stars are presented, and discussed with brief facts and very short paragraphs.  They include single, variable and double stars.  The section also includes a full-page chart of Hercules with stars to 6.5 mag.  There are also two tables.  The first lists 8 selected variable stars, given info across a single line for each star.  The second table lists 44 doubles, again giving the facts across single lines (it might be of interest to note here that Burnham's lists five pages of doubles, about 150 stars).  I really like the paring down of selected variables and doubles--this provides a nice introduction to these fascinating areas of observing.

     46.3 is the largest section, entitled "Deep-Sky Objects."  As in the brief discussion of the eight selected stars (46.1), each NGC object discussed, along with many objects from other catalogues, is handled with a few lines of the facts, followed by brief descriptions.  For some objects there are close-up finder charts (more about these presently), and for many there are either photos or drawings from the eyepiece.  Section 46.3 is 8 1/2 pages long, and makes for wonderful armchair reading.  Due to our severe winters, this is likely the closest I will ever get to some of these objects. 

     Extras at the back of the books include a short bibliography, a thorough index, and two finder charts at the very end, and two at the very beginning, appropriate to each volume, though these charts are only in Vol 2.  Now a word about those tiny finder charts.  They are really, really small, making them almost useless in the field.  We've even tried blowing them up a lot on our copier, but they are still much too ineffective.  Instead of several of these tiny finder charts (11 of them for Hercules), perhaps blowing up the 4 quadrants of the main map and including more detail would have been more effective.

     Each time a star or deep sky object is featured and detailed, the authors give ratings to each object, from one star to five stars.  I'm not certain I like this, since ratings are subjective and depend on sky conditions, aperture, eyepieces, experience and many other factors.  However, they are useful.  If someone with a 6" scope wishes to track down a one-star Berkeley cluster, for instance, then at least they know what they are getting themselves into.  The wealth of photos and sketches are likewise useful, though I will only look at them AFTER I have observed them myself, and possibly sketched them.  Looking at photos of objects before viewing them more or less defeats the purpose of seeking these things out in the first place.  Astronomy should be all about discovery, so by all means look at these photos and drawings, but only AFTER you have done the actual observing yourself.  Each observation discussion also includes notes from using several apertures, something that is helpful.  However, I find that many of the things I have seen in the 12" are only discussed in the 16"-18" category, so don't take it to mean that a larger scope is needed to see certain objects.  Go ahead and try with your 6" or 8" and see where it takes you.

     In conclusion, these books do not entirely replace my love affair with Burham's Celestial Handbook.  However, they take some of the best things from it and improve upon them.  I like the variable and double star lists, and the many deep sky objects that are included.  The list of deep sky objects is not complete, however.  For my purposes, this book would not allow me to observe all of the NGC.  But mostly what it leaves out is of little interest to observers except the true fanatics like myself.  I like the books and recommend them, and they belong on any serious observer's, armchair or otherwise, bookshelf.

Mapman Mike

#74 Astronomy Reference Books and Maps: Some Brief Reviews, Part 1

Most of us have any number of astronomy reference books and maps in our personal library.  Some people mostly use the internet, while still others rely only on their "Go To" devices.  Any amateur astronomer worth his salt, however, can hop around the heavens with nothing but his main scope and trusty finder scope.  Until I purchased my Orion 12" in the autumn of 2012, I had only used maps to find my way around, not computers.  Now that I own a scope with a "Push To" computer, has it fundamentally changed my way of observing?

Thankfully, no.  I love maps, and following my way around the sky using them is one of the greatest pleasures of astronomy for me.  I will often get to my first object using the computer guidance system (I have to manually move the scope, lining up the arrows on the computer until both sets of numbers return to zero), then star hop for the rest of the time I am in that constellation.  If I don't use the computer for 30 minutes, it switches itself off.  And it has done so, many times.  So this page of short reviews will begin with the best map available to amateurs, namely...

Uranometria 2000 Deep Sky Atlas:  All Sky Edition, with Stars to Visual 9.75 Magnitude and 30,000+ Non-Stellar Objects.  Wil Tirion, Barry Rappaport, Will Remarklus 

Let me begin by saying how unwieldy the earlier versions of this atlas were to use in the field.  Thankfully, those days are long gone.  The newer all-in-one volume contains not only the entire sky in exquisite detail, but includes a series of close-up charts at the back that dive even deeper into especially hectic areas of several constellations.  The current edition I use came out in October 2012, exactly when I upgraded to a 12" scope.  The timing for me could not have been better.  Looking through this atlas is nearly as much fun as looking through a telescope.  Many of the 30,000 deep sky objects plotted will only be of interest to owners of much larger scopes than mine, and to photographers.  The number of galaxies is nearly 26,000, so good luck with that observing project.

The thing that truly amazes me about this incredible resource is its accuracy.  When you see an object plotted on the chart, there will be something there to see.  It omits NGC errors, and even corrects and includes some that are called non-existent.  Be certain that something does exist if it is plotted on the atlas.  I have only found one serious error in almost three years of using the atlas.  On Chart 145 (and close-up chart A17), NGC gn 6526 is placed a degree north of M8, the Lagoon Nebula.  A large border is drawn for this object, but nothing exists there.  6526 is actually a small part of M8 (NGC 6523).  I'm certain that other errors exist; there is so much information in these pages it would be a miracle if there weren't.  But the overall accuracy of this thing is scary!

There are several useful appendices in the back, including lists of the main Bayer stars in each constellation and on which page they may be found.  If I am quickly trying to locate Delta Auriga, I am led to Chart 27.  Nice touch.  Next comes a list of stars by their names, and the chart they are on.  Megrez is on Chart 24, I am told.  A Messier Objects list and where they are located is always useful, and is included along with the proper chart number.  Fourth is a list of objects by their common names, and where they can be found in the atlas.  The Gum Nebula, for instance, is on Chart 187.  Lastly comes an exhaustive list of IC and NGC objects plotted, and where to find them.  They are charted down to Mag. 15, so not every single NGC object is listed, but the list is virtually complete for deep sky observers.

Inside the front cover are a series of six index charts.  An earlier version of mine had a second, larger and more detailed set of index charts.  This volume does not include that intermediate set of charts, and I really miss those.  I hope they are re-instated for subsequent reprints.  They are useful, much more so than the less detailed set.  Following the index charts is a list of all the constellations, and which chart is nearest the center of the constellation.  This is quite handy in the field.

Three plastic sheet layovers are also included, so one can locate and/or plot stars on the charts down to one minute intervals of right ascension and ten minutes of declination.  These take up two of the overlays.  A third sheet gives measured circles of a viewing field, including ones of 3 degrees, 2, 1 3/4, 1 1/2, 1, 45', 30' (about the size of a full moon) and 15'. This is a brilliant touch, helping the observer see ahead of time which portion of a chart will be viewable in certain eyepiece fields.  For example, if I am using my 25 mm eyepiece (60x), I can use the overlay and see the star field (or galaxy field) exactly as it is appearing in my field of view.  If I move the field over one eyepiece field (30'), then I can see on the charts what lies next door, or north or south.

Although not even three years old, my atlas has received such heavy use that it is nearly time to order another one.  The price is certainly right, and within the United States the shipping is free.  Go to William Bell and order yours if you haven't already.  You will thank me. 
Favourite Chart:  91--all those galaxies!
Favourite Close-up Chart:  A17.

URANOMETRIA 2000  Deep Sky Field Guide 

From the introduction:  "The purpose of the DSFG is to provide basic catalog data for each of the more than 30,000 nonstellar objects plotted on the 220 Uranometria 2000.0 Deep Sky Atlas Charts."

That, my friends, is saying a mouthful!  I can remember many years ago when I first learned of the NGC catalogue, and searched frantically for a copy in my city library, to no avail.  Information like that was simply not available to the average amateur astronomer.  With our 4" and 6" telescopes in those days, it was no wonder.  Today, not only do I finally have in my own personal library an atlas showing 99 % of the NGC and IC objects, but I have a reference book that gives me brief information on each and every one of them.  And much, much more.  If I was forced to whittle my astronomy library down to only two books, this would be one of them (the atlas would be the other).

With 30,000 objects to describe, this volume does not waste words.  There are no poetic descriptions here, just the facts.  If, for instance, I am observing in Hercules, and I am on Chart 67 of the Uranomteria atlas and I wish to observe eg 6628 on an upcoming night, I open the volume, ordered by Chart number like the star atlas, to the information for Chart 67.  This particular page has headings for Galaxies, Open Clusters, Globular Clusters, and Planetary Nebula.  Under galaxies I find the NGC grouping (there are four galaxy catalogues represented on this chart) and locate 6628.  I am given (in the following order) the RA, Dec., Name, Mag (V), Dimensions, Mag (SB), Type Class, Position Angle, and Notes.  All of this information fits on one compact line.

There are no photos or sketches of objects, and no flowery descriptions.  Just the facts.  This book is not as much fun to peruse as the atlas, but it sure contains a wealth of information.  The appendices are the same as at the back of the atlas, with one notable improvement:  whereas the atlas I have listed only the IC and NGC members included in the undertaking, this volume also includes all of the members from all of those other catalogues, such as King, Berkeley, etc. etc.  This is very very handy, and I can quickly ascertain on which chart to find a very obscure cluster or galaxy or planetary nebulae.  With the RA and Dec. listed, I can find it on the atlas in no time at all.

These two books are the only ones amateur astronomers of deep sky objects really need.  However, if I could add a third volume that included information on the double and multiple stars, along with the variable stars plotted on the atlas, then all would be well.  Perhaps William Bell publishing will undertake such a project someday.  In the meantime, these volumes are indispensible to my observing program.
Mapman Mike

#73 Cepheus Wonders Part 2: IC and Objects from other Catalogues

In the first entry of summarizing Cepheus I dealt with all 33 NGC objects.  This entry will deal with six IC objects, along with 21 from other catalogues.

IC Objects in Cepheus

I. 455:  1'.1 x 0'.7:  Vis. 13.3; SB 12.9:  Not far south following eg 2300, this oval galaxy was picked up at 125x and 150x.  It was seen best at 187x, but faint, and viewed decently only with averted vision.  It was very faint at 200x.
I. 469:  2'.2 x 0'.8:  Vis. 12.6; SB 13.1:  Picked off at 100x, it was very elongated.  Good views were enjoyed at 125x, 150x, and 187x.  The galaxy was large and ghostly in appearance, with a wider center and much narrower ends.  A remarkable object, and worth a visit.

http://cseligman.com/text/atlas/ic4a.htm

oc I. 1396:  90'; Vis 3.5; Br. * 3.8; 50 *s:  At 43x this is a fantastic cluster, and one of the largest, too!  Despite its enormous dimension, most stars are in the central area, surrounding Struve 2816.  Thus, at 60x the richest section is seen, along with the main triple star.
gn I. 1396:  170' x 140'; Emission:  Nebulosity was noted around the triple star, and around U, the showpiece variable star in Cepheus.  With a Skyglow filter it was also noted in a wide area, even and especially behond the cluster.  Worth many visits.  Photos tend to over-emphasize the cluster, which is not what is seen in the eyepiece.  The cluster is the main attraction for visual observers.
pn I 1454:  38"; Vis. mag. 14; Cent * mag. 18.8:  One of very few objects observed in Cepheus with my new, improved eye.  Large and pelasingly ghostly at 120x with the Skyglow filter, then seen without it.  The 8' aperture stop also showed it, even ghostlier!  A very faint star is on the north following edge.  This is a remarkable object, and viewable up to 200x.  150x with the filter shows it best.

http://cseligman.com/text/atlas/ic4a.htm

gn I 1470:  1'.2 x 0'.8; Emission:  Easily spotted at 60x, and bright using up to 375x.  It is seen well with the Skyglow filter, but it was also very good without it.  It was round, resembling a pn, and was involved with a noticeable star.
eg I 1502:  1'.2 x 0'.4:  Vis. 13.5; SB 12.6:  The galaxy appears to be involved with 2 faint stars.  Thus, it is tricky to discern, even at 200x.  Take this one as a challenge object.

Objects From Other Catalogues

oc Bergeron 1:  1'; 10 *s:  A tiny, hazy spot was noted at 60x, with 100x giving some resolution.  200x shows 6 stars in this tiny, compact cluster, one of the smallest I've ever seen.

oc Be 59:  10'; Br. * mag. 11; 40 *s:  Located at 60x, I first saw four bright stars with haze behind them.  100x resolves a tiny swarm of faint stars.  I observed up to 250x, where about 25 stars, somewhat scattered, were located.  Not a bad group in a 12" scope.
oc Be 92:  2'; Br. * mag. 15; 15 *s:  Located at 100x as a tiny, faint cloud.  Situated between two bright stars.  Only a few very faint stars are resolved at 250x.
oc Be 93:  4'.3; Br. * mag. 16; 120 *s:  Noted at 150x, some haze was seen behind dim foreground stars.  A few stars resolved at 200x.
oc Be 94:  3'; Vis. 8.7; Br. * mag. 13; 12 *s:  At 60x I saw 3 bright stars plus a small cloud of haze.  200x resolves 10 stars, mostly centered around 2 of the bright stars.
oc Be 95:  3'; 15 *s; Br. * mag. 15:  A small, hazy area was noticed at 60x.  100x resolves 3 or 4 stars with averted vision.  At 125x a short, faint line of stars was noted.  At 187x and 200x stars were continuing to resolve, but they were very faint.
oc Be 97:  2'; Br. * mag. 11; 12 *s:  Nothing seen at first, due to a fogged over secondary mirror.  After blow drying, 8 stars were counted at 187x and 200x, scattered around a 9.7 mag. double star.
oc Be 99:  5'; Br. * mag. 14; 60 *s:  Located at 100x, I saw a faint haze with a few resolved stars.  Up to 200x resolves about a dozen stars, some in a faint circlet.  It is adjacent to a bright field, with a brighter, opposing circlet. 
oc Be 100:  2'.7; Br. * mag. 16; 100 *s:  A haze was noted at 100x.  At 187x the cluster appears linear.  200x shows it well, with 3 stars resolved.  250x resolves 8 or 9 very faint stars.
oc Be 101:  6'; Br. * mag. 17; 50 *s:  I searched here using up to 250x.  Some haze was noted at 150x, with a 14 mag. star resolved between two brighter ones.  250x resolves two more.

oc Clvd B152:  25'; 15 *s:  This is a large, very loose scattering of faint stars.  There are two groups, one on either side of the central mag. 9 star and its 8.5 mag. companion, south.  The surrounding bright field, south, is more interesting than the cluster.  The bright double that precedes the cluster is stunning.

oc Cr 427:  4'; Mag. 13.8; 6 *s:  gn 7023 surrounds a 7.5 mag. star.  The cluster is one of the worst open clusters ever recorded here.  A few very faint stars were glimpsed just preceding the nebula.  Yawn.

oc Cz 42:  2'; 15 *s:  With a detailed location sketch I was able to locate this very faint object.  Seen at 100x, a few faint stars were glimpsed around a brighter one.  At 250x about 10 stars were resolved with averted vision, all very faint (15 mag.?).

oc King 10:  4'; Br. * mag. 11; 40 *s:  Located at 60x, near a mini Orion!  It is an oval group, showing 2 or 3 stars.  100x gives good views, while at 125x and 150x it became a nice linear group, well resolved.  At250x 25 stars were counted.  The cluster is rich and moderately dense.
oc King 11:  6'; Br. * mag. 17; 50 *s:  Some very faint haze was discovered, and 3 or 4 15-16 mag. stars were resolved, apparently not cluster members.
oc King 18:  5'; Br. * mag. 12; 20 *s:  Located at 60x, the little cluster shows intersecting lines of bright stars, with unresolved haze.  125x resolves many faint stars.  187x and 200x resolves 30 stars.  An interesting group.
oc King 19:  5'; Vis. mag. 9.2; Br. * mag. 12; 52 *s:  Located and easily noted at 60x and 100x, six bright stars are seen, with a large cloud of fainter ones resolving in the background.  Nicely resolved at 150x and 187x, 25 stars were counted.

oc Mrk 50:  2'; Mag. 8.5; Br. * mag. 9.8; 39 *s:  In the same low power field with oc 7510, and quite close to M52!  The main part of this small group is boomerang-shaped, with 12 stars in two converging lines.  The point of convergence is very dark.

oc PMH 791:  9'.3; Br. * 7.8; 21 *s:  The preceding edge is a double star, yellow and pale lilac in colour (CTF 2896: 7.8-8.6/22").  Two other stars are plotted on Uranometria, a 9 and 9.5.  About 20 stars are here, resolved at 60x and 100x.  A close faint triple star is in the north section.  The cluster is lovely at 125x.  An extended east/west base line of stars supports the main group, which has an arrowhead shape.

oc PWN 78.3:  3'; 180 *s:  This is a very faint cluster, with 10 stars resolving at 200x.     

eg UGC 2519:  1'.4 x 0'.8:  Vis. and SB mag. 13.6:  Not on my original "to do" list, I easily located the galaxy for fun while in the area.  It was oval, seen best with averted vision, was pretty faint but not that small.  Worth a stop if observing nearby eg 1184. 

Happy observing!
Mapman Mike
 

#72 Cepheus: It's Wonders Never Cease (Part 1: NGC Objects)

I began my intense study of this fabulous constellation with my 12" scope in late August of 2014, nearly completing it before the eternal clouds of November and December descended upon us.  I was able to complete it using part of one additional night in July of 2015.  Cepheus is one of those constellations that is filled with wonderful deep sky treasures, but contains no Messier objects.  I had been through the constellation years ago with my Edmund 8".  Using Uranometria 2000 this time around enabled me to add several NGC objects not listed on my earlier maps, as well as a lot of objects from other catalogues.

Cepheus has 33 NGC objects, and 10 of them were new to me.  I also observed 6 objects from the IC list, and 24 from other catalogues.  Of course I also re-observed all objects seen with the 8".  It's fun comparing notes from earlier days when I used the smaller scope.  This entry will focus on the NGC list, as observed through the 12" scope.

NGC OBJECTS

pn 40:  74"; Vis. mag. 12.3; Cent. * 11.5:  The nebula is pretty large and very bright at 60x.  With the Skyglow filter the actual nebulosity is easier to see.  Without it, the bright central star takes away some of it.  Up to 300x was used, with and without the filter.  Even at this range it is still a very bright object and has become very large.  At 300x without the filter a very, very faint star was noted between the nebula and the more commonly observed faint star to the south.

oc 188:  15'; Mag. 8.1; Br. * mag. 10; 550 *s:  This is one of the gems of the constellation, at least in a 12" scope.  Perhaps the estimated star count from Uranometria is a bit on the high side, however.  Located at 60x, I first saw a large, faint hazy patch in behind several bright stars.  Up to 200x resolves well over 100 stars, with some haze still in behind.  It is fun to gaze here using averted vision, watching stars pop into view.  Also viewed in Deb's 6", some resolution was apparent at 125x.  Don't miss.

http://www.ngcicproject.org/dss/dss_ngc.asp

eg 1184:  2'.8 x 0'.6:  Vis. 12.6; SB 12.9:  Quite a wonderful galaxy in a 12" scope!  Located at 60x, this edge-on beauty was quite large and moderately bright at 100x.  150x shows a stellar core.  It is still pretty bright at 200x and 250x.  It is visible at 8" of aperture.  Recommended.

http://www.ngcicproject.org/dss/dss_ngc.asp

eg 1544:  1'.3 x 0'.9:  Vis. 13.3; SB 13.3:  Located at 100x, good views were also had at 125x and 150x.  It was noticeably oval.  A threshold star is involved, along with another one just north.

eg 2276:  2'.3 x 1'.9:  Vis. 11.4; SB 12.9:  Both galaxies were spotted at 60x, already looking large

eg 2300:  2'8 x 2':  Vis. 11; SB 12.7:  and splendid!  2300 is way brighter than 2276, much more than the numbers would indicate.  I enjoyed my best view of both together at 187x, with 2276 appearing very large, and 2300 slightly smaller and more concentrated.  The pair make for a great comparison, with 2276 held back somewhat by its proximity to a bright star.

NGC 2276, 2300

http://cseligman.com/text/atlas/ngc00.htm

oc 6939:  10'; Vis. 7.8; Br. * 11.9;  300 *s:  Rediscovered during the summer of 2013 during studies of Cygnus, this has become a favourite object of mine in the 12".  I wrote my first newsletter article for our local astronomy club about this cluster, and a nearby showpiece galaxy.  Again, the official star count seems a bit on the high side, but this is a stunning cluster!  Though nicely resolved at 60x, each increase (up to 250x) takes the viewer into the very dense core, which itself is like a globular cluster, albeit a well-resolved one.  Though excellent viewing is had at all magnifications, it is truly heavenly at 125x!  Several of the stars do resolve in Deb's 6" scope, too.

A beautiful shot of oc 6939 and eg 6939.

http://darkhorseobservatory.org/index.php

eg 6949:  1'.4 x 1'.2:  V. 13.6; SB 14:  Spotted at 150x, it was very faint, quite large, and round.  187x and 200x also gave decent views with averted vision.

eg 6951:  3'.9 x 3'.2:  Vis. 10.7; SB 13.2:  Seen from northern Ontario back in the day with my 8".  This time I saw it at 60x, and it was already big and bright, right near a faint star.  Good views were had at 100x and 150x.  At 187x and 200x, the galaxy was oval, with a stellar core.  It was still bright.  Recommended.

eg 6951

http://cseligman.com/text/atlas/ngc00.htm

gn 7023:  10' x 18'; Reflection:  Not a lot to see here, though oc Cr. 427 is involved (see entry on objects from other catalogues).  The nebula surrounds a 7.5 mag. star, seeming stronger south preceding it.  Filters do not help. 

oc 7055:  10 *s; cluster?:  Located at 60x, it was very faint, showing some resolution and some background haze.  It is a small object (3' to 4'?).  I resolved 10 faint stars at 187x and 200x.  Seems like a cluster to me, but a very minor one.

pn 7076:  56"; V. 13.5; Cent. * mag. 18:  Noted at 43x with an O3 filter, it resembled a faint, round galaxy.  Though eventually seen at all magnifications, for the longest time I could not find it with other eyepieces.  It was finally pinpointed, large and very faint, best seen with averted vision.  A fun challenge!
oc 7129:  8'; Vis. 11.5:  Though a relatively poor cluster, it is a conspicuous one, as is the nebula. 
gn 7129:  7' x 7': Reflection:  While the object is attractive at all powers, the nebula comes out really well at 187x.  Worth a visit.  oc 7142 is in the same low power field.

oc/gn 7129, bottom right; oc 7142 top left

pn 7139:  77"; Vis. 13.3; Cent. * mag. 18.7:  First spotted at 60x and then 120x, using the Sky Glow filter.  It was large, round, very faint and ghostly.  Without the filter it was seen well at 100x, 150x, 187x and 200x.  A very faint star (mag. 14?) is immediately south following.  A busy but faint star field is also further south following.  I actually managed to see this with the 8" years ago!

http://www.ngcicproject.org/dss/dss_ngc.asp

oc 7142:  12'; Vis. 9.3; Br. * mag. 11; 186 *s:  At 60x a rich sprinkling of faint stars lies behind 3 bright foreground stars, part of something I have dubbed "Mapman's Cascade" (with apologies to Kemble).  This is a chain of about 15 stars, mostly following the cluster, though a pair precedes it.  oc/gn 7129 is in the same low power field, and an unnamed "cluster X" also, just south preceding 7142.  The main cluster appears large and very rich.  At 100x many stars resolve.  200x resolves over 100 faint stars, with the main group preceding 2 of the 3 brighter stars, the south one of these being a double star.  Another star group lies between the 2 stars.  We also viewed 7142 in the 6", with good resolution at 125x.  Using the 2" eyepiece with the 12" (43x) shows a large, round haze with resolution just beginning to occur.  This is a very fine object!

http://www.ngcicproject.org/dss/dss_ngc.asp
 

oc 7160:  5'; Vis 6.1; Br. * mag. 7; 61 *s:  Noted at 60x, it was an elongated group of 6 bright stars, with a few fainter ones sprinkled in.  There was better resolution of faint stars at 100x.  About 25 stars were counted at 125x and 150x.  The official star count is way too high.

oc 7226:  2'; vis. 9.6; Br. * 10.8; 83 *s:  This very faint, tiny cluster is near 2 bright stars.  100x resolves a few faint ones.  Up to 200x was used to resolve perhaps 20 stars.  A rich star group, faint, follows the NGC cluster.
oc 7234:  3'.5; 8 *s: cluster?:  Several websites say that this cluster is a duplicate of more interesting nearby oc 7235.  Others say it is non-existent, and still others claim it to be an asterism (a chance grouping of stars at different distances, thus not a true cluster).  At 100x, exactly where Uranometria says, is a very faint and tiny smudge showing 2 or 3 stars.  At 200x 8-10 stars show up using averted vision, not all showing at once.  Much smaller than 3'.5; perhaps 2'?
oc 7235:  6'; Vis. 7.7; Br. * 8.8; 98 *s:  At 60x this is a minor though somewhat attractive cluster, containing several bright stars and many fainter ones.  100x resolves the group well, even when stopping the aperture down to 8".  200x shows about 35 stars.  A recommended stopover.
oc 7261:  6'; Vis. 8.4; Br. * 9.6; 62 *s:  At 100x a bright yellow star (a double) is involved (mag. 9.6), with most of the cluster just north of it, and much fainter.  At 150x the cluster is medium rich, and at 200x it is well resolved and pretty bright.  There are about 25 stars, 6 of them being quite bright.
oc 7281:  12'; 20 *s:  At 100x a line of 3 bright stars mark the cluster's north preceding end.  A bright gold star (mag. 8.5) is preceding the cluster's center.  At 125x I counted about 30 stars, including an attachment immediately following the main group.  The cluster is large and pretty scattered, with many brighter stars.
oc 7352:  5'; cluster?:  Viewed at length at 60x, 100x, and 125x.  Two groups of stars were near 2 bright stars (mag. 8.5 and 9.5).  The main cluster is preceding, where about 25 stars were counted at 125x.  A smaller group of 10 stars lay on the north side.  The two bright stars were white and orange, with a fainter one between them and closer to the 9.5.
pn 7354:  36"; Vis. 12.2; Cent. * 16.2:  This was a decent object, a nice break from so many clusters!  It is large, bright and distinct at 60x and 100x.  A faint star is nearly attached, preceding.  At 200x and 250x the nebula is still bright, large and round, but appears to be flaring with averted vision and seeming to glow from within.  The faint star near it is now a double star.  Quite a lovely object.
oc 7380:  20'; Vis. 7.2;  Br. * mag 10; 125 *s:  Located at 60x, a lovely double star is attached, preceding, yellow and lavender.  A fainter pair (DH) lies amidst 20 stars.  DH is split at 100x, where the group is rich and mostly resolved.  125x shows the cluster as large in size, scattered but rich, with many faint stars near the very center.  The cluster is now triangular in shape, with the bright double preceding at the apex.  200x continues to resolve tiny, faints stars, all adding up to about 100.  Recommended!  The surrounding emission nebula is virtually invisible and does not affect viewing the cluster.
oc 7419:  6'; Vis. mag. 13; Br. * mag. 10; 40 *s:  At 60x an elliptical cloud was noted, with a somewhat bright star resolved at each end.  It was located near a bright yellow star.  100x, 125x and 150x resolves the cloud with averted vision.  187x and 200x resolves all the members more easily.  At 250x one of the brighter end stars is doubled.  25-30 cluster stars were counted.
oc 7423:  5'; Br. * mag. 15; 40 *s:  Located at 60x as a hazy patch behind 2 bright stars (mag. 9.5 and 9.7).  The main cluster is preceding this pair.  Resolution remains poor at 150x.  At 250x and 300x a cloud of tiny, faint stars is resolved.  It is a dense cluster. 
oc 7429:  15'; Br. * mag. 11;  15 *s:  18 stars were counted here at 60x, with a lovely double star following the group.  V456 is yellow and lilac at 100x.  The cluster is pretty big and loose.  It is not rich, even at 187x.  A very very faint double star is in the south, close to a bright star. 

oc 7510:  7'; Vis. 7.9; Br. * mag. 10; 75 *s:  Noted at 60x, it was very conspicuous.  Two lines of bright stars, one side longer by a star, point to a 9.7 mag. star.  There are 8 bright stars altogether.  At 100x many fainter stars were noted surrounding the 9.7 mag. one.  There is good resolution of these fainter ones with averted vision.  The cluster appears rectangular, very tight, and quite lovely at 125x and 150x.  At 187x and 200x 35 stars were counted, with 25 of them found south of the 9.7 mag. star and 10 of them north of it.

oc 7510 is a very pretty sight in a 12" scope.
 http://www.ngcicproject.org/dss/dss_ngc.asp

gn 7538:  9' x 6'; Emission:  The nebula is large and bright, immersed in two mag. 11 stars which are 36" apart.  The nebula appears involved more with one of the stars than the other.  Good views were had with the Sky Glow filter.  The nebula shows well at all powers up to 200x.  Recommended.

gn 7538

oc 7708:  30':  Br. * 7.3; 25 *s:  Best viewed at 43x and 60x, this is a big, widely scattered cluster of 50+ stars, with many of them bright.  6 are plotted on Uranometria, including 4 preceding the center and 2 following, though all within the boundary.  The most interesting section is around and south of the brightest star (mag. 7).  This area contains a zigzag of stars.
oc 7762:  15'; Mag. 10; Br. * mag. 11; 40 *s:  Located at 60x, this is a large, dense group, with good resolution despite a 5 mag. star very close to it, along with an 8.5 mag. star adjacent.  At 100x the 5 mag. star can be placed out of the field.  There are still patches of haze in the central area.  At 125x and 150x the cluster is bright and still resolving.  Strings of close stars run through it.  At 187x and 200x there is still a stubborn knot, sometimes briefly resolving with averted vision.  Finally, at 375x, it resolves into stars of 15 and 16 mag., 4 or 5 of them.  A challenge to resolve fully in a 12", there are interesting strings of stars throughout.  The cluster is now quite scattered, with some central density.

oc 7762

gn 7822:  65' x 20':  Emission:  Located north following oc 7762, the nebula is subtle, wispy and patchy.  It could be seen at 60x, 100x and 120x, with and without a Skyglow filter.  Stronger clumps were seen better with the filter.  There is an orange star near the center.

Mapman Mike

 

 

#71 2015 Observing: Terrible but Improving

It has been a devastating first half of 2015 for amateur astronomers, though July did give 3 very fine nights.  With January and February ranking as among the coldest and snowiest ever in this part of Canada, we had to wait until March to begin serious observing.  March proved much colder than average, but it was clear and hardly any new snow fell, so progress was made.  Then came April.  And May.  And June.  They were dismal months for observing.  July wasn't as bad, though below average for clear nights.  As usual, most of the clear nights came well after new moon.

I accomplished very little in Leo this Spring, and the same with Bootes.  Minimal progress was made with the many galaxies in these constellations.  My summer work this year is in Hercules and Sagittarius, and it has been inching along.  Due to the late moonset observations this past month I was able to complete work in Cepheus, and continue along in Pegasus, now my main autumn constellation.  A summary of Cepheus will appear in these pages very soon.

I find myself becoming more and more frustrated with the "science" of meteorology, at least as it applies to predicting clear skies at night.  The county in which I live is a virtual peninsula, nestled between Lakes Erie, St. Clair, and Huron.  Large bodies of cold water and warm air affect the atmosphere above me greatly, as  it does later in the season when it becomes warm water and cooler air.  However, one would think that the people who predict weather would know this, too.  Out of every ten nights that "clear" or "mainly clear" skies are predicted, we are lucky to grab two or three that actually work for astronomers.  Other times it becomes completely overcast, or remains so, or there are so many clouds with such a very small amount of good sky that it is not worth bothering.  I also find that the more weather websites I use to help me predict sky conditions, the more varied the forecasts become.  On any given "clear" night, I am liable to get predictions of:  Clear; Mainly Clear; Partly Cloudy; Fair; Overcast.  All for the same night, and all checked about an hour before heading out to the observatory.  Is it any wonder I am frustrated?

In happier news, loyal readers may remember that early last November I had eye surgery to remove a cataract in my left eye.  Though our health care system pays for the basics, I paid extra to get an upgrade on the new lens.  The enhanced lens is generally better for night vision than the "free" one, and will focus light to a point.  I must say that finding faint galaxies with the 12" is so much easier now.  I have a cataract developing in my right eye, and when I compare the two eyes now I frequently cannot see a faint galaxy with the right, only with the left.  There is a minimum one magnitude difference in brightness between the two eyes.  It took me a while to learn how to focus stars for my new left eye lens, but now it is becoming second nature.  In good skies I find myself picking off 14th magnitude galaxies if not with ease, then without the considerable difficulty I use to have.  This has saved me much time and frustration in the field.

With ten days to go before deep sky observations can resume, I will try to post my summary of work now recently completed in Cepheus, over the next several nights.  Stay tuned.
Mapman Mike