Return to the Stars

Too much, or two little?

2011-01-22T11:03:00.001-08:00

I've written about Stephen James O'Meara's other fine stargazing books, but have managed to overlook his 2007 publication on the Herschel 400. Interestingly, he is listed on the title as "Steve"; I don't know if this is an attempt to make him seem less formal, and therefore the book seem more accessible, or what.

Stephen has published three other sizable books covering largely the best-of-the-best: deep-sky objects that can be detected with small aperture, and therefore are showpieces in large aperture: he is kind of the "evil twin" of Alvin Huey, who dwells on the impossible, nor nearly impossible objects. Perhaps I have two role reversed...

In fact, the two have similarities: expert viewers who through both discipline and good eyesight can see much more than I. Both write extensively about how to see more. O'Meara is more of the poet, one who speaks to a broader audience.

The Herschel 400 is a list derived from objects logged by the Herschels, selected to be visible in smaller scopes, six-inches, and in moderately light polluted areas. There is, as a result, overlap with other lists: think of it as being like the Messier and Caldwell lists, but which goes a little deeper. It is a very fine list, indeed, a good one to pull out for those tired of the more common lists. I believe I've seen all 400, but it would be too much work to correlate against my own notes.

O'Meara takes a little different approach from his earlier books. He doesn't provide a hand drawing of each object, rather a nice quality DSS image, descriptions, his visual impressions using his 4" Genesis refractor, and his own star charts. He has organized the objects by a suggested viewing month and collected them into a plan to view across multiple nights. This organization the book both a valuable planning tool and reference. It would have been nice to have it cross-indexed with the most popular star charts, such as Sky & Telescopes Pocket Sky Atlas, at the very least. Furthermore, a big, heavy book like this really doesn't lend itself to field use. Wouldn't it be nice to have a loose-leaf version of this, so you could pull out the sections you were going to use?

I wonder if O'Meara has set unrealistic expectations over what a 4" refractor can see. He argues that since he is viewing in non-polluted areas, 4" is enough. It is for him, but he is the exception. I have owned two 4" refractors over the years and come to the conclusion that 4" is either too much, or too little. A 4" scope really isn't enough aperture to serve deep-sky objects well: 5" or 6" would be significantly better. Unfortunately, a 4" scope barely qualifies as "portable," although it is significantly more portable than the larger refractors. This is an important discussion, because it seems that middle-aged men are drawn to the idea of a 4" refractor and I fear that many end up essentially in closets because they are too much trouble for what you are going to see.

I've come to the conclusion that if you want "portable," 90 mm, or about 3½", is really portable. It gives you about 80% of the light gathering, the tube is about 80% of length, and the tube is going to weight about 60% of a 4" (your mileage will obviously vary...) In fact, I have abandoned my 102 mm Takahashi for a 90 mm StellarVue. Although I don't have the ability to do a side-by-side comparison, the smaller scope is much easier to quickly whip out for a brief session and I don't really notice a difference in what or how much I can see. Either way, such small apertures may allow you to detect a deep-sky object, but you aren't going to see much. If you really want to see something, get a bigger scope!

This is not to say that O'Meara doesn't teach us very important lessons: how to see as much as possible with a little discipline and – most importantly – how to pick out the best jewels from an overloaded treasure trove.

Southern Dreams

2011-01-09T07:28:00.000-08:00

I'm not quite ready to let go of writing about Willmann-Bell's excellent Night Sky Observer's Guides (NSOG). Because there is so much to look for in the skies, one must have some kind of strategy, or it turns into a mindless random walk. Of course, the logical starting point is charts, but they generally present too much or too little. Computer software offers some hope. However, there is nothing quite like the NSOG, especially if you want to go really deep-sky.

I glossed over the more recent Volume 3, which covers the skies from the southern hemisphere. I'd be willing to guess that over 95% of those who own the first two volumes don't own the third in the belief that it just isn't relevant to their needs. Instead, they should be afraid to buy it, because once you get a sense of what we in the north are missing, you are sure to have southern dreams.

As I was leafing through this volume I was trying to imagine what it must be like to view from, say, Australia. Wait a minute: I have software that will do that!

Simulated southern skies using TheSkyX

This is simply breathtaking: to look in the skies and not recognize anything! Actually, looking to the north will give constellations that I am familiar with, but upside down, which is equally disorienting for all but the most obvious ones, like Orion and Scorpius! This reminds me of an experience I had trying to identify birds in Belgium. I know the North American birds pretty well, and those I can't name I know how to look up quickly in a field guide. However, I couldn't find anything in my European field guide without the greatest trouble. It was just like I was starting birdwatching from scratch!

It is the same with the southern skies: it would be like starting to learn the constellations and stars all over. I find that simply intoxicating!

From a deep-sky perspective, NSOG3 is a must-have, I would say especially if one were travelling south for a visit and needed to optimize their time. Let's be realistic: a trip of only a week would allow you to only scratch the surface! And, I must register my protest: clearly the southern hemispheregot the better half of the deal! Fortunately, NSOG3 doesn't gloat, it just provides the details...

Studying the Magellanic Clouds by themselves would be a serious undertaking. NSOG3 splits the Large Magellanic Cloud into six regions, each with its own very detailed chart that exceeds the detail of Uranometria 2000.0, in fact has more detail than the Millennium Star Atlas.

So, who knows: you just might need that third volume some day. It's a pretty heavy book to pack for that long trip to the bottom of the world.

Prep Work

2010-12-31T10:17:00.000-08:00

I can't recall how many times I've gone out with adequate preparation, only to be overwhelmed by the vastness of the heavens. Figuratively tongue-tied, I hardly know where to start, look at a very few favorites, then retire early: once again, I had blown an opportunity because I wasn't ready!

Preparation is half the fun. Depending on the weather conditions, it may be the majority. (I'm looking at the nearly dark Moon icon on my desktop, but with bad viewing prognosis – again!) Of course, you have your charts and software to assist. There are fine books that tend to focus on the bright and easy (many of these, with a lot of overlap) or a few for the more difficult and obscure – I'm thinking particularly of Alvin Huey's Faint Fuzzies observation guides.

However, one trilogy of volumes really stands out: The Night Sky Observer's Guide, published by Willmann-Bell. Volume's 1 and 2, by George Robert Kepple and Glen W. Sanner, are already a dozen years old. Perhaps the photographs, which predate today's digital standards, are a little behind the times, but they aren't bad and are very useful. As for the rest of the material, what constitutes "up-to-date" for the timelessness of the heavens?

Organized by constellation and season, all of the bright showpieces are covered, along with many more challenging objects. Although NGC and IC objects make up the bulk of targets, there is a broad selection of the much more obscure, such as the planetaries from the Jonckheere and open clusters from the Dolidze-Dzimselejsvili catalogs. This might not be a collection for small aperture. I believe the Argo Navis is the only digital setting circle that includes these more obscure catalogs and objects.

Uranometria 2000.0 (UM2), also published by Willmann-Bell, is the ideal companion. Numerous detailed charts are also included; these are at a slightly wider scale than UM2 and interestingly these aren't simply a re-hash of UM2, but provide their own selection of details.

One could argue that the constellations are arbitrary, but I have found focusing by constellation gives me a starting point. For a given evening, my preference to have a "spread" of objects of varying challenge. The challenge is that there are so many objects in the medium to difficult range, many of which are devoid of interest or visibility, that you need some kind of filter.

A more recent Volume 3 of "southern" objects has been published. Most of these, with the exception of Grus, are too far south for my skies. It is great preparation for the day I visit Down Under: that is just a matter of time!

The butler did it...

2010-12-22T05:51:00.000-08:00

In case you have missed the news for Southern California, it's been raining here! Raining and raining and raining... The good news is that it is full Moon. The bad news is that we missed a fabulous lunar eclipse. The longer term threat is Winter dew.

Cold is bad enough. Cold with dew – which turns into ice – is just plain uncomfortable. Fortunately, so far the desert has had a measly fraction of the coast. We could get lucky, especially given the predication that a strong La Niña should give us cold, dry weather the rest of Winter.

In any case, nothing like rain to promote reading, and I picked up a real page-turner: Mike Brown's How I Killed Pluto and Why It Had It Coming. Brown is the record discoverer of icy Solar System bodies in the Kuiper Belt. I don't dare call them "planets" after reading this, and when you read it, you will understand why! It is a fascinating look into the life of a working astronomer – one with an obvious extra dose of both personality and intelligence. Brown bridged the era of photographic plates to digitized sky surveys, and he notes that he spent a lot of his time programming. A LOT of time. When it was done, it was (essentially) a matter of hours for the computer to do its search.

It is a tale of Science. Brown is a scientist, and a proud defender of it. Our prevailing culture has become anti-intellectual and anti-science; I was depressed to read recently that 40% of the American population believes in Creationism. Brown reminds us that Science lives and I think really shares in the wonder of it.

It is a tale of academic intrigue, also. Astronomers naively exploited the power of the Internet to get to remote data. One unscrupulous Spanish team discovered some of Brown's data and tried to steal credit for a discovery.

It is a charming tale of love. Clueless geek almost misses the cues, manages to nab the girl in spite of himself and finds himself a happy and devoted family man.

Brown is really something of a poet, certainly an very engaging writer. It is an easy read, full of vivid images and stories. Yet, you walk away with a much deeper understanding of why Pluto really did have it coming.

Funny how that upsets people, even now; I tried explaining it to my wife and she – like many – just can't get over losing Pluto.

There's an app for that...

2010-11-13T07:17:00.000-08:00

I won't try to hide my delight in Apple products. I have an all-Apple home (well, I run Windows XP in Parallels for those applications that insist...) that includes devices large and small. I have been enthusiastic over the iPod Touch from the beginning, but I find the iPad – which is fundamentally a large iPod Touch – has had a significant impact on my computing behavior. It has superb resolution, fast networking for a wireless device, and plenty of inexpensive applications – or "apps."

My latest acquisition was Gas Giants from Software Bisque. It is a simple concept: provide simulated views of Jupiter and Saturn, based on time and telescope. I would argue that for $2.99 you can't afford to not have it. True, you can get the same information from a PC planetarium program, such as TheSkyX, but Gas Giants provides nearly instant access on a very portable device, either iPod or iPad.

Ignoring for a minute both the educational and aesthetic appeal, this app has practical observing value. I can't think how many times I wished I had printed out the moon alignments or Red Spot position in advance. Indeed, Gas Giants does a wonderful job of showing moon shadows and their eclipsing. Needless to say, one wants to be wary of exposing eyes to the screen brightness; a little red plastic film, found in auto parts stores for fixing tail lights, over the screen will do the job.

For $2.99 it is an attractive and powerful piece of software. It occasionally abruptly crashes for no apparent reason, but this is not unusual for new iOS software and is only a minor inconvenience, as the application can be restarted almost immediately. I don't doubt that Software Bisque will fix it in coming releases. The quality of the simulated graphics is breathtaking.

I like this world of inexpensive and very focused software that iOS is enabling. In contrast, I have been trying to figure out which level of The Sky I might want to buy; the price ranges from $99 to over $300 – too much money to take the plunge to see if I it does what I need it to do. $2.99 is another story. I would be very pleased to see a similar app for Lunar viewing.

Brotherhood of the Faint Fuzzies

2010-09-05T15:31:00.000-07:00

Little Blair Valley

We're not sure what scared people away last night: the fact that it was the Labor Day weekend, that we had a sudden heat wave and the desert temperatures were in the 100s, or that the Clear Sky Chart indicated "only" average seeing (we are very spoiled around here). There were only four of us, so I made a decision to not unpack my Obsession, and to enjoy Debbie's 20".

I'm slowly learning that LBV is always full of surprises, and often exceeds expectations, as it did last night. It was warm, but not hot. In fact, because the air temperature didn't fall quickly, there was not problem with the mirror cooling. Seeing was on the high end of "average" and with 5% humidity, the skies were dark and very transparent.

Perhaps because it was so balmy, none of us were driven to check off a large list of objects. We were all enjoying the evening. We were the Brotherhood of the Faint Fuzzies: three of us had Dark Skies Apparel hooded vests and two of us had copies of Alvin Huey's Hickson Group Observer's Guide. With sufficient aperture...

We took time to compare filters. Three variations of an OIII: an old Lumicon, my new Astronomik, and a "Narrow Band Filter" that is somewhere between an OIII and UHC. The surprising thing is that all three had their redeeming features; no one popped out as "the winner." However, the Astronomik does have the advantage of not turning stars red, as the Lumicon does. Rather, it brings out more of the OIII green.

I also purchased Astronomik's H-ß filter. The difference between it and Lumicon's H-ß is remarkable (Astronomik provides much nicer contrast and brighter stars), but it wasn't enough to reveal the nebulosity in the Cocoon Nebula. I have been trying for 20 years. While I can detect a slight haze, nothing pops out as a defined nebula. Probably time to move on to new challenges.

Hickson 10

Alvin Huey points out that the Hickson Groups really aren't a catalog, but a research list that was selected based on compactness and magnitude range. Of the tens of thousands of galaxies available to the amateur, these groups are only occasionally of real aesthetic interest, but they do represent a challenge. Again, Alvin observes that, 'They present a challenge for the intermediate and advanced observer...' Several of them, in particular "Stephan's Quintet" (HCG 90), "Seyfert's Sextet" (HCG 79), and "The Box" (HCG 61), are the right combination of challenge and interest. Many of them are just plain small, obscure, and nearly impossible to detect!

Hickson 10 in Andromeda was exactly the kind of challenge a member of the Brotherhood of the Faint Fuzzies enjoys. Two of the galaxies, A & B, are easily seen. C is fainter and much smaller, but easily identified, although it appears to be an elliptical because all you see is the core. D is what made it all worthwhile. Without knowing it was there, we would have passed it by: it is very small and very faint. Careful examination at first gave the hint that something was there, and then – as it popped in and out due to the seeing – it was definitely there, and finally we could see that it was elongated. This is where the hood on our Dark Skies Apparel vests really demonstrated their utility: by darkening the head at the eyepiece, one got a real sense of the group.

New Order

2010-08-22T09:22:00.000-07:00

A new religious order, perhaps?

Sometimes an idea is so obvious, we all miss it. Like the problem of blocking stray light when trying to register just a few more photons for that incredibly elusive object. We have all known that draping a cover over the head will help, but it is awkward – especially when you forget to bring an appropriate shroud.

Dark Skies Apparel has an elegant solution that solves that and another problem: "where are my eyepiece/filter/glasses." They have a custom-sewn observing vest with hood. The vest itself is generously fitted to wear over layers of clothing. It has plenty of pockets, including for your glasses, which are the first things I manage to displace. There are only two sizes, "Regular," which is quite large, and "XL." Don't think of these as clothing, per se, but rather as an observing tool you wear.

Before you choke at the $75 price tag, note that it is a joy to see such a nicely sewn article. You generally can't buy quality like this at anything less than exorbitant prices. Indeed, I don't know how they sell it so cheaply: it is hardly the cost of two Landsend shirts sewn in some third world country and which might last a couple of years. This observing vest should last a lifetime. )One thing I think I'll do before taking it out into the field is to spray it with Scotchguard to provide a little protection to the fabric.)

Okay, so you might look kind of silly in it. I don't know that I would have bought one without seeing it first, when its utility and quality are obvious. In any case, it should be dark enough when donned so that you don't have to fret your fashion credentials. Or – even better – wear it with pride as a sign of a new monkish order that views the heavens, rather than illuminating them on parchment.

Forbidden Lines

2010-08-15T17:06:00.000-07:00

I wore out the threads to my OIII filter looking at the Veil Nebula over the years. Last week I couldn't understand why it wouldn't screw in securely into my 21mm Ethos eyepiece, even though my old UHC filter would. Then it dawned on me: 20 years of screwing it and unscrewing it certainly took its toll.

I was proud of that Lumicon filter: it was labeled as "Premium," boasting 95% light transmission at the 510 nm OIII band. I also have an 1.25" filter of the same era that wasn't "Premium," and it is "only" 91% at that band. I was going to buy a new filter housing when it occurred to me to ask if OIII designs had changed over 20 years. Duh!

Indeed, there are now competitors. Lumicon, now owned by Parks Optical, still labels their filters by hand, and their "Premium" filters boast a slightly higher transmission. However, I opted to try a German OIII filter by Astronomik. Their filter has similar transmission, but in a narrower band, so the overall contrast will be higher.

OIII filters are magical and I'm counting on stronger magic the next dark period. One can argue the virtues of the UHC and Deep-Sky filters, but it was the OIII that was worn out. Ultimately, I would have to say that it was memories of the detail in the Veil Nebula that drew me back to an 18" scope. I just can't stay away from those forbidden lines.

Grand Tour

2010-08-09T14:21:00.000-07:00

NGC 7008 - "Fetus Nebula"

It seems it has been an unusually long viewing lull for Spring and Summer: weather has conspired against us, month after month! Even this first week in August our temperature has been two to three standard deviations below average. Of course, cooler in August in the Anza Borrego Desert is a good thing. When I arrived at Little Blair Valley Saturday, it was a balmy 95º with 5% relative humidity.

August is a great month. We are staring at the galactic center at the end of twilight. There is so much to look at, one hardly knows where to start. Indeed, I had gone through the usual ritual of pre-planning what to look at. I started with M22 – always a favorite – and started exploring less obvious objects. There's a much smaller globular cluster, NGC 6638, a little over a degree to the SW. Between the two is a near stellar planetary nebula, NGC 6644.

This is the point at which all of my careful planning generally goes down the drain. It is so much easier to look at the page in Uranometria 2000 for nearby objects of possible interest. It was just about this time my my pal Paul Alsing pointed out that the Argo Navis has a tour mode that will automatically take you on a tour, given a starting point. I vaguely knew this, but didn't really see the utility. However, I started over at M22 and instructed a tour of globular clusters of magnitude 13, or greater. This took me on a grand tour of interesting globulars, with my notes:

6642. Small and concentrated.
6638. Larger with a more concentrated center and a halo
M28. Big by comparison to the previous 2.
Palomar 8. Wow! Just a faint blob. Odd shape.
6717. Small, irregular shape. This is also known as Palomar 9.
6553. Even haze with a brighter star on one end.
6544. A little better formed. Appears to be next to an open cluster.
6624. Nice concentration with a circular halo.
M54. Brighter, more concentrated. Almost looks like a galaxy.
6540. Very interesting. Looks elongated. Faint. I wouldn't have picked this out as a GC. (Djorg 3)
M70. Looks like like there is a detached portion, which is probably a single bright star.
M69. Medium size globular.

My notes don't do this justice. A dozen different globulars beyond my regular, it about 30 minutes: some big and bright, some relatively obscure. My breath was taken away!

Cat's Eye and NGC 6552
From the Capella Observatory

In fact, I had to take a little breather to compose myself. With an 18" scope, there are always people interested in seeing the big showpieces, like the Veil Nebula. While in Cygnus, I couldn't pass up NGC 6888, the Crescent Nebula. While pointing north, how could we pass up the Cat's Eye Nebula, right by the North Ecliptic Pole; of interest is the faint galaxy in the immediate vicinity, NGC 6552.

I was ready for another tour: this time of planetary nebulae in Cygnus brighter than magnitude 13. This is a much shorter list, but the objects were both more challenging and interesting:

7026. "Cheeseburger Nebula." Next to a bright star. Some structure. Two lobes.
7048. Larger, faint PN. OIII brings out a lot of definition. Circular with a hint of ring.
7027. Characteristic OIII glow. Fat stellar. Possibly elongated.
7008. Complex. Large glow with two lobes, one of them brighter. I later learned that the others had also been looking at this and were calling it the "Fetus Nebula." I see I had checked it off in past years, but I don't remember it being such a fascinating object.

No doubt about it: the Argo Navis tour mode is a new favorite tool. It is amazing how the time flies when on tour.

Astro Bliss

2010-05-16T14:18:00.000-07:00

It had been a rather long stretch of mediocre-to-bad viewing conditions this season. Saturday was one of those nights that could have been easily missed: the days had been rife with variable thin clouds, the National Weather Services predicted "mostly clear" – which is usually a euphemism for "not too many clouds" – and changing West Coast conditions suggested windy conditions. What a mistake it would have been to stay home: the wind died down at sunset, the humidity was 5%, and coastal clouds dimmed the metropolitan lights. Until midnight, conditions were near-perfect. Indeed, at midnight seeing was superb and my Sky Quality Meter registered 21.66 mags/arc-sec2.

No matter how much I plan ahead, I find myself largely "winging it" in selecting what to look at. I started off the night with a comprehensive list of Messier objects. I could have picked through them in an orderly and efficient fashion, and my object count would have been high, but the moment pulled me elsewhere.

Saturn is always a crowd pleaser. This night I regretted not printing out a chart of satellite positions, because they seemed especially obvious.

I couldn't wait for the sliver of the Moon to set to take a look at M51. It really wasn't dark enough, but I came back to it later. The Owl Nebula was in fine form: both eyes could be seen. I really don't find that any filter really improved it. Indeed, I'm starting to take the position that filters should be a last ditch effort. I don't remember thinking this before, so perhaps this is because the Tele Vue Ethos eyepieces have such good contrast.

I couldn't wait to dip down into Centaurus, even though it hadn't culminated. NGC 5128 (Arp 153) was low, but large and bright and the dust lane was very apparent. Seeing to the south was so good that I couldn't resist pushing the scope several degrees lower to look at ω Centauri: this fills the field of my 13mm Ethos eyepiece. One can only imagine how spectacular this would be farther south. I only recently paid attention to the fact that globular clusters are incredibly old, even possibly older than the galaxy itself.

Since I had already strayed off the Messier path, I wanted to take a look at the Antennae, NGC 4038-9 (Arp 244). This is a good example of the benefit of studying the images beforehand. To the uninitiated, it will only look like a single object. Of course, I couldn't see the long tails, but otherwise they looked very much like some of the pre-Hubble pictures. Of course, the Hubble picture shows detail that has redefined our expectations.

Corvus is a small constellation with not a lot in it. It does, however, have an interesting planetary nebula, NGC 4361 that is easily overlooked A couple of degrees almost due east of the Antennae, this has the characteristic color of a planetary nebula and has a couple of extensions in each side.

It was shaping up to be more of an Arp Peculiar Galaxy night, rather than Messier. Of course, some of the best Messier Galaxies are in the Arp catalog. It was now a short hop to the Sombrero (M104), and its dust lane was sharp. I'm surprised that this isn't an Arp galaxy.

M51 (Arp 85) was now well positioned and it was dark with superb seeing. This is always worth spending extra time on, especially on a night like this, and the spiral arms showed a great deal of definition. This is the sort of object that lesser aperture fails.

M101 (Arp 26) is generally a challenge, even with aperture. It is very low surface brightness. This night was was dim – much dimmer than M51 – but the spiral arms were well defined with numerous knots, a number of which are separate NGC objects; had I been better prepared, I would have had a chart to sort these out.

M81, also knows as "Bode's Galaxy" is just a big bright fuzzball. We looked for its accompanying dwarf galaxy, Holmberg IX, but to no avail. Much more interesting is it's nearby companion, M82, the "Cigar Galaxy" (Arp 337). [I can never keep the two straight. Paul Alsing offered a nice trick, apparently from Tony Hallas. Think "10-cent cigar," then note that 8+2=10. I'll never confuse these again!] The view of this "exploding" galaxy showed a great deal of action, a truly peculiar galaxy.

M64, the "Blackeye Galaxy," didn't make it into the Arp catalog, but it's dark dust patch is relatively unique, and was crisply defined.

Finally, the "Leo Trio" of M65 , M66, and NGC 3628 are all part of Arp 317 ("Leo Triplet). M65 seems to also have its own Arp designation of Arp 16 ("Spiral with detached segments"). I can just get the three into a single field with my 21mm Ethos. Of the three, 3628 is the most interesting: elongated, slightly mottled, and with a prominent dust lane.

Sadly, by midnight I was simply too tired to think straight. I heard that shortly after the excellent seeing we had that night suddenly went to mush! I would love a week of such nights. Maybe then I would stop jumping from showpiece to showpiece and start looking for some seriously faint stuff!

Essential Messier Encyclopedia

2010-04-24T08:32:00.000-07:00

Although not a perfect list, Messier's captures most of the best-of-the-best. Other lists, such as the Caldwell Catalog, have tried to augment it, but Messier captured the most dazzling of the Northern Hemisphere.

Because most of the Messier objects dominate the biggest and brightest, books based on small apertures have been popular. Probably the first to reach general circulation was The Messier Album by John Mallas and Evered Kreimer (1977). This was a rather amateurish production that abounded with enthusiasm and poor quality images. It may even be responsible for starting the "4-inch cult." Of course, Stephen James O'Meara added a great deal of polish and insight in his 1999 The Messier Objects, relegating its predecessor to status of collector's item (perhaps I should sell mine...)

So masterful is O'Meara's opus that I doubted the need for yet another Messier book, and so bypassed Ronald Stoyan's 2008 Atlas of the Messier Objects. However, when the weather conspires against viewing–as it seems to have this year–I turn to books. Getting a copy of Stoyan's book turns out to be a highlight of the season. I would go so far as to say, it is one of the best single books I have because it has it all: really fabulous color images, detailed historical information, up-to-date astronomical information, and observational information for a wide range of apertures, from naked eye, through binoculars to 14-inch and 20-inch Dobsonians.

Many of the images are from German amateurs (the book itself was originally published in German), and they are a testament to the high quality amateurs are capable of: sharp, detailed, and with excellent color balance. This would be worth it as nothing more than a coffee table book, but it serves as a useful reference. Everywhere I turn, there are delights and excellent advice.

This book is also available electronically through ebooks.com. This requires that you install the Adobe Digital Edition reader, and since this is built on Flash technology, it won't work on your new iPad. Indeed, unless you have a big screen, the full impact of this beautiful book will be lost. However, this book is both a reference and an art book, so the serious stargazer may find both versions useful.

Earlier I complained that the word "atlas" was being misused in astronomy literature. While the primary definition for "atlas" (New Oxford American Dictionary) is 'a book of map or charts,' I should have looked further, and I would have seen 'a book of illustrations or diagrams on any subject.' However, in this case, the better word would have been encyclopedia, because that is what this excellent book really is. An essential encyclopedia.

Serious aperture

2010-04-11T10:51:00.000-07:00

The observant reader might have guessed that it would be only a matter of time before I had to get a bigger telescope. I even admitted that I was still obsessed last October. I ended up with an Obsession 18" Ultra Compact, which is at the very limit of what I can manage by myself. As advertised, it easily fits into the back of my car.

It is wonderful, but in spite of the price, it doesn't really arrive complete: there is lots of customization to be done. The rear mirror fan simply has two wired dangling: it is up to you to figure out how to connect them to the power supply. I connected it to an N-size coaxial connector, the same that is used on the Argo Navis for external power. Then, there is the issue of power; I discovered that the 1.2 Ah gel cells fit conveniently in the base, under the mirror, so it was just a matter of making an appropriate cable.

First light was almost a disaster. I had failed to fully assimilate the instructions for the Argo Navis digital setting circles, so it wasn't until second viewing before I figured out how to align that correctly. Perhaps most serious was that the spider on the upper tube assembly was not centered, so I had poorly collimated images; fortunately, I was able to correct that before the second viewing.

The mirror – the heaviest and most expensive piece of the entire scope – is now suspended with a cable, rather than a strap. Obsession's approach to this is ingenious and inexpensive, but requires occasional manual intervention. I discovered that Howie Glatter has an elegant custom machined replacement that is a huge improvement; I was able to get that before the mirror arrived.

The Ultra Compact leaves the mirror very exposed. There is a Kydex light baffle that attaches via velcro to two points; a rather flimsy approach, so I added two more attachment points to improve that. Finally, the upper light baffle supplied is too small, so that ambient light "leaks" in; I'm not sure why Obsession designed it that way, because it is a well known issue; perhaps because it made the scope look smaller and sleeker. Fortunately, I was able to obtain a sheet of Kydex and make one that will block a lot more of the light.

It was worth it to do the final touches myself. Obsession really grew out of a do-it-yourself world, anyway. Now I have it the way I want it.

So, I have an 18" scope again. I fooled myself into thinking that I had seen everything worth seeing with an 18". In fact, that was an expression of frustration over aging eyesight. My premium 4" refractor has pretty views, but there is nothing like serious aperture! My second "first light" was supremely satisfying, filled with views of galaxy clusters in Virgo. I'm just itching to get again.

You don't miss it until it is gone

2010-04-11T10:11:00.000-07:00

We in Southern California have been blessed by good weather, relatively stable atmospheric conditions, and open space to set up and view. One favored spot is Little Blair Valley in the Anza Borrego Desert. Informal star parties have congregated there for several decades.

Imagine our shock and horror to learn that this unique locale was being considered as a restricted archeological zone, limiting access and banning camping altogether! We can only hope that reason prevails, because there is no similar site that is safe, has protected and unrestricted views, and is accessible by car.

Just like dark skies in general, you don't miss it until it is gone.

How dark is dark?

2010-03-05T09:32:00.000-08:00

For years I have gone stargazing and made very off-the-cuff assessments over things like seeing and transparency. I have to admit that I've been too lazy to be a rigorous as I should be.

"Sure is dark tonight!" The engineer in me cringes when I say something like that. When someone says "it is cold," I want to know how cold: this is a question that is easily answered with a simple tool, the thermometer. Wouldn't it be nice to have something like a thermometer for measuring how dark it is – kind of like a light meter in reverse?

In fact, I bumped into a very nifty tool that does exactly that: the Sky Quality Meter from Unihedron. This measures how dark it is in magnitudes per square arc second. (mags/arcsec²). This is a quality, calibrated tool that is accurate enough to get comparison data from many sites. In fact, Unihedron has created such a worldwide darksky database.

There are several versions. The less expensive version measures a fairly large area of the sky, 42º. The more expensive version (by only $15), the Sky Quality Meter-L cuts that by half, making it a more accurate device, I think.

You might ask, "why not visually assess limiting magnitude?" I'll give a couple of answers to that. First of all, my aging eyes make that pretty limited and inaccurate. Secondly, a tool is both easier and more consistent. Finally, a tool like this is able to assess the darkness to a degree that not even the best human eyes could.

What happened to Terzan 7?

2010-02-27T06:32:00.000-08:00

Willmann-Bell has been around longer than I've been stargazing. Perhaps best known for Uranometria 2000.0, which I've become convinced is a must-have, they offer other publications of interest. I recently wrote of their excellent The Arp Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, both a history lesson and reference. I can't say it enough: we can't control the weather, so what better activity when it doesn't cooperate than to study?

Incidentally, I see no reason not to order their books directly from them. You can't order from Amazon or Barnes and Noble at discount. Willmann-Bell processes an order very quickly and their free shipping option, within the U.S., at least, is first class – not the slower and cheaper media shipping.

I had passed up Star Clusters, by Brent A.Archinal and Steven J. Hynes, telling myself that I really wasn't particularly interested in clusters: I'm more of a galaxy and nebula man. I forgot globular clusters, which are of interest, and which are covered in this book.

Indeed, this book is a comprehensive resource of both star and globular star clusters, both galactic, and extra-galactic. It covers both the astrophysics in detail. Perhaps its greatest service is in providing a carefully researched and corrected catalog of clusters. This may seem redundant, but there are a number of overlapping catalogs with sometimes incorrect data. This pulls them together.

As I said, I fail to get too excited over "regular" star clusters, which seem like little more than asterisms in most cases, and which can be so obscure as to defy interest. Globulars provide a more consistent challenge, and there are fewer of them. There are some intra-galactic globulars that present interesting challenges. There is a "short dozen" from the Terzan catalog that don't overlap with the NGC or IC catalogs. By "short dozen," I mean there are actually 11, because Terzan 5 and Terzan 11 are the same object. All eleven are in Sagittarius and Scorpius, and small and dim. They aren't plotted on the SkyAtlas 2000.0, but they are on Uranometria.

Interestingly, Terzan 7, which is probably the most visible, is missing from the Star Clusters discussion and index, although there is an image.

Star Clusters has an interesting discussion of the various catalogs. I was surprised to see that one important source was the Deep Sky Field Guide, First Edition. This was published after the first edition of Uranometria, listing information on all deep sky objects plotted. I remember when it came out: it was a unique resource. In fact, you want to be careful about getting used copies of Uranometria, avoiding the first edition. The (corrected) Field Guide is now Volume 3 of Uranometria, and I think it is an important and convenient enough reference to carry around in the field with me.

Why all the fuss over Terzan 7? Ultimately, it was sparked by Wildcard Innovations' picture of their Argo Navis Digital Telescope Computer, which uses it on their promotional picture display, probably to underscore the fact that it has a very large catalog of objects. More on Argo Navis later: I should have mine next week.

Focus on Arp

2010-02-20T09:46:00.000-08:00

There are tens of thousands of galaxies available to the visual observer. Even with lots of aperture, most of them are fuzzy blobs, at best. To retain interest, some kind of hook is necessary. The most common hook is simply to be part of a catalog. Many of us are naturally drawn to completing collections, so if presented with a list of anything to view, we get satisfaction in trying to complete that list.

The astronomical catalogs are simply too big to serve this purpose: NGC and IC are the most obvious, and there even more detailed catalogs like the UGC and MCG. There are several manageable lists with the best and brightest galaxies in them: Messier, Caldwell, and the Hershel 400, in particular. Three more "specialty" lists push the envelope for the visual observer: the Hickson Compact Group, the Abell Catalog of Rich Clusters of Galaxies, and Arp's Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies.

Of all these various catalogs, the latter is the most interesting and represents the greatest opportunity for successful viewing. First of all, it includes almost every visible and interesting galaxy presented in the above lists. With 338 entries, is is manageable in size. And, because it organizes galaxies based on visual characteristics, it is provides motivation to pay attention to the details.

I've already written about Alvin Huey's Observing the Arp Peculiar Galaxies. This is strictly an observer's guide and an important reference for each galaxy; it really is a book for those with big aperture scopes who are actually going to try and track them down. A second book fills the gaps and is an ideal companion: The Arp Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies – A Chronicle and Observer's Guide, by Jeff Kanipe and Dennis Webb. This book is more general in purpose and really belongs in everyone's library. It is published by Willman-Bell, who is quick to ship their books. Indeed, their free shipping is plenty fast, unless you need it overnight.

Before I continue, a complaint to the Astronomy World: just how did we end up with "atlases" in place of "catalogs"? An atlas is 'a book of maps or charts.' Perhaps this started with the Hubble Atlas of Galaxies, and the misuse stuck. They are catalogs with associated images, not atlases...

Kanipe's and Webb's book really covers a lot of ground. It opens with a reprint of Arp's orginal 1966 work, including the original negative photographs used; as the original is long out of print, this is a useful reference. The next 50 pages, titled The Peculiar Universe of Halton Arp, is a comprehensive (and very interesting) history of galaxy research that evolved in the mid-20th century, leading to a discussion of Halton Arp's work and his eventual "atlas." This is fascinating stuff, and the authors paint vivid pictures of the important characters and scientific politics of the time. There is a lot of discussion about quasars, over which Arp has held a strong dissenting and very controversial position. This first 100 pages is of general interest to anyone interested in astronomy, or science in general, although the insight into academic politics is rather depressing.

The remainder of the book is titled Observing Arp's Peculiar Galaxies. This is very different from Alvin Huey's work, and highly complementary. It breaks the 338 galaxies into 26 charts – one for each letter of the alphabet – with detailed images and observations from a group of experienced viewers on telescopes ranging from 14 to 25 inches of aperture. The overview charts use the same format as Uranometria 2000, and are much more appealing than the charts created by Megastar. Below each photograph (in negative) is another chart that provides more information, such as position and magnitudes.

It should come as no surprise that I was unable to hold off for long in getting another big scope. I have an Obsession 18" UC on order and soon heading this way. What can I say? 4" simply isn't enough to keep my interest, especially with catalogs like these.

Extreme Stargazing III

2010-02-18T20:47:00.000-08:00

There is stargazing and there is STARGAZING. Alvin Huey raises the art to virtuoso level, looking deeper than most, taking advantage of every trick of the trade. On one extreme you have Stephen O'Meara showing what one can do with a measly 4" refractor. Alvin is on the opposite end of the observing spectrum, using 22" and 30" light buckets: going for the faintest and most obscure objects imaginable. Indeed, he chases after things that 20 years ago we would have said would be impossible for any amateur to detect.

His web site, faintfuzzies.com, is a shrine to extreme stargazing, and an inspiration. He has three observing guides for sale, and I recommend all three to the serious observer. Two of them I initially ordered, The Abell Planetary Observer's Guide and Observing the Arp Peculiar Galaxies. I passed the third volume by, Hickson Group Observer's Guide, with the lame excuse that I already had Hickson's original reference. The truth is, you need as much help as you can get to see at least some of these very compact groups. Many he is able to see with as "little" as 22", but he occasionally falls back on his 30". (30" is a lot of aperture, is a lot to move around and care for, and requires a pretty high ladder to get to the eyepiece. to put things into perspective, it has almost 3x the light gathering of an 18" scope, or 56x a 4"!)

I think I have viewed less than half a dozen of the 100 in this collection. Most of us are thrilled to see one of the brightest of these, Stephan's Quintet (Hickson 92) – considered to be a challenge itself. Chasing after these is challenging and intrinsically fulfilling: it gives observing a purpose and leaves one with a sense of special accomplishment.

All of Alvin Huey's publications are carefully thought out and executed, serving as models for the serious observer. They represent extreme challenges – not even he meets every single challenge, but he comes close.

My only warning is that if you get any of these, you will find yourself craving more aperture. And, I don't mean just a little bit more!

Mystery of the Missing Nebula

2010-02-16T07:23:00.000-08:00

The weekend stargazing was wet work: unusual for the Anza Borrego Desert. However, a couple of wet storms had enough moisture to make it across the mountains and there were small pools of water in some places. Although the night promised to be dark and not too cold, but there were soon reports of relative humidity in the 90s and there were signs of dew on some surfaces.

We are so spoiled. Many deal with this – and much worse! – all the time. Indeed, we were lucky to have reasonable stargazing at all, as much of the nation seemed to be snow-bound.

We had a nice collection of scopes: a 15", 18", and 20". Paul Alsing, as usual, pointed out a couple of special delights in Canis Major. First of all, there is the open cluster NGC 2362 that is dominated by a single star, the 4.35 magnitude Tau CMa, surrounded by circles of stars. A distinctive cluster. To the north is the double star h3945, which is often referred to as the "Winter Alberio." Up in the northernmost end of the constellation is NGC 2359, often referred to as "Thor's Helmet." This is a nebula showpiece that benefits greatly from both aperture and an OIII filter. I had viewed this long ago, as it was checked off on my first edition of SkyAtlas 2000.0, but it didn't make it into my collection of regulars. I'll fix that.

However, after the fact, this list me to an interesting mystery. The Pocket Sky Atlas shows a nebulous patch just to the east, IC 468. To my surprise, this is not on Uranometria 2000. The Night Sky Observer's Guide indicates it on Finder Chart 8-6, but is otherwise silent. In fact, I noted that it was plotted on my first edition SkyAtlas, but has disappeared on the second edition.

This leads me to conclude that IC 468 is an artifact of earlier databases that have since been more closely checked and it has been eliminated from them. I'm disappointed that the relatively new Pocket Sky Atlas let that error creep in, particularly since its goal is to display the more important objects.

When we woke up in the morning the temperature was in the high 20's and the dew had frozen on anything left out. I would have complained, but I knew the temperatures would be rising into the 80's: balmy weather for any time of the year, let alone February.

Field Atlas

2010-02-13T09:38:00.000-08:00

I remember when the first edition of Uranometria 2000.0 came out: such detail had not been available before. It was a revelation. Later the Millennium Star Atlas became available, providing even more detail and I think in a more readable format. However, MSA is large, very heavy, and the three volumes awkward to navigate. It really is not a field atlas, and in any case, is no longer available.

So, I have reverted to the second edition of Uranometria 2000.0, and am better for it. I like the fact that the two volumes are organized by latitude. Each volume is lighter and easier to handle. Many references include the appropriate chart number for ease of reference. Last, and not least, is the third volume: the Field Guide, which provides essential information for each object of each page. This is not necessary at home, where my computer can dig up more and faster, but it is worth lugging out into the field, just in case. The combined three volumes still takes up less room and weighs a lot less than MSA.

Perhaps it is a fetish, but all star atlases send a tingle up my spine when I open them.

Hidden Treasures

2010-02-11T08:09:00.000-08:00

I'm a big fan of Stephen O'Meara and his books. He is knowledgeable, one of the most patient observers I know of, and a poet. He has written a series of books around established observing lists – the Messier, Caldwell, and the Hershell 400 – along with the compendium of Walter Scott Houston's columns. Hidden Treasures is an original work: 109 objects not covered elsewhere, that are of special interest, and that are in some way "hidden": bright, but overlooked because they are in the glare of a bright star, they are overshadowed by more popular objects, they are so small that they look inconsequential on star charts, or they are in overlooked areas of the sky.

His list of objects is superb. I think I have hunted most of them down at some time, and this is a reminder to not forget them. Each has a very thorough write up, much more so than his earlier books. The result is almost 600 pages long, making for a book that I find a bit unwieldy. I would have been happy to have it split into two volumes. Likewise, the organization of the 109 is just a bit haphazard, so I think splitting it into two volumes, one for Autumn/Winter, the second for Spring/Summer would have been nice.

As always, his observation notes are a reminder that we would all benefit from a bit more patience and concentration. He favors small aperture, and I almost have question whether anyone can see the detail he pulls out. He has used a 4" Tele Vue Genesis refractor for years. In fact, he recounts sending it back to the factory because the sulfuric acid fumes where he observes (Hawaii's volcanos) had taken their toll. I'm not sure I would want to see his chest x-ray...

I find well written observation books to be both valuable references and inspirations. This one is a model for others. The charts are not field observation quality, but that makes sense: the boo references pages for both Uranometria and SkyAtlas 2000.0, and one (or both) of these are required companions. It would have been nice to also include the page number for the Pocket Atlas, which is always handy.

This book somehow snuck past me: it was published in 2007. I would get it before his Messier and Caldwell books, but I think you can find space on your bookshelves for all three.

Eye on Ethos

2010-02-06T15:51:00.000-08:00

I take some comfort in knowing I'm not the only person with an eyepiece fetish. Tele Vue isn't the only player, but they sure dominate the market. As I have written before, they have something for everyone, but it is like they have their crosshairs focused on me

It used to be that the Nagler design was their premium line, but that position has been superseded with the new Ethos line. Naglers were especially noteworthy for their wide apparent field of view(AFOV) and highly corrected optics. Tele Vue dramatically demonstrates the difference in pointing out that the difference between a 50º AFOV with the popular Plössl and 82º AFOV with the Nagler is the difference between a penny and a quarter. They used the term "spacewalk" in describing the large field of view with the Nagler. Over the years they have redesigned many of these eyepieces, using newer designs and more exotic glass. The 9mm "Type 1" was much bigger and heavier than the current "Type 6." I have owned both and the current 9mm remains one of my favorite eyepieces, although that is about to change.

Of course, there is always a price to be paid with these complex eyepieces, not only consumer cost, but in extra glass. Each lens surface robs a little of the light and contrast. Alvin Huey uses the simplest eyepieces to maximize both in hunting down the faintest of the faint. (I am somewhat consoled to see that Alvin owns even more eyepieces than I...)

As I was reintroducing myself to stargazing, I considered the new Ethos, with its 100º AFOV, as more of a gimmick than a new necessity. Indeed, the eye can't take in the entire field: you have to move around to see it all. On top of that "annoyance" is the astronomical price on these eyepieces: each costs more than many would be willing to pay for just the telescope. I had written them off until I tried a 13mm in Little Blair Valley and had to admit that it was pretty wonderful. I noticed a number of rave reviews from very credible sources that wrote in terms of their optical excellence, not their almost freakish AFOV. These truly are the new high bar for eyepieces, and they are now be copied by others, although I can't tell if these "Ethos knock-offs" are preserving the optical excellence, but simply are ultra wide fields.

One thing you will notice is that these are physically large eyepieces, although surprisingly light in weight. The 8mm Ethos is well over twice the size of the 9mm Nagler. They are all very long and relatively slim. Yes, I now own an 8mm Ethos, and I expect that it will supplant the favored position of the 9mm. If you know me, you saw this coming...

What About the Weather?

2010-01-17T14:11:00.000-08:00

Weather is the bane of all stargazers. We have only so much time, so futile expeditions are to be avoided. There is no perfect solution, but most serious viewers are aware of the Clear Sky Chart, product of two Canadians, Allan Rahil, and Attilla Danko. Okay, Attilla is a transplanted Canadian, but we are all indebted to him.

There are many meteorologic resources available, but this seems to combine the best of them into one package. It is by no means perfect, as I learned last night. The U.S. West Coast is about to be hit by a large series of storms, but the Clear Sky Chart suggested a window last night. I went out to Little Blair Valley, if only to try out my new warm gear, and found it pretty empty. Not everyone believed the forecast, obviously. Indeed, I did get about 90 minutes of clear viewing, and the opportunity to test out my new threads and cot/tent, but the evening was plagued with intermittent clouds. Still, this is the best bet, and worth checking; they now have a iPod/iPhone app, making it even easier to consult.

The Secret is to Stay Warm

2010-01-17T13:58:00.000-08:00

My November stargazing experience was cut short by cold. Not only did I not have down outerwear, sleeping outdoors on an exposed cot held no charm for me. I swore I would solve these problems, and solve them I did.

I looked for small tents that would fit a cot, and got nowhere until I checked Cabela's. They have a tent/cot that looked like just the ticket, so I ordered it, receiving it in late November. I was initially horrified when I realized that it weighed over 50 pounds, and that folded up it was was over 3' x 3'! I didn't think it would ever fit in my car, so it sat unboxed for almost two months. Finally, curiosity got the better of me, so I unpacked it: it looks just like its picture, is easily set up, and very comfortable. I found it slipped in behind the driver's seat. Big and bulky: yes. But, it does the job very nicely.

Ten years ago Cabela's also offered a down bib for keeping legs and mid-torso warm: it was wonderful, and not very expensive. Unfortunately, I kept it in the garage, where the rats got to it. While they still make insulated bibs, none of them are with down. Nothing works like down when it is cold and you aren't moving around a lot. Fortunately for me, my wife was more successful in web searching, and found All Things Arctic, who offers a pricey, but simply wonderful down bib. I think you could save $100 and go for the down pants, but bib is pretty nice.

The real secret to Winter viewing is to not get chilled. Of course, you also need clear skies, but that is just a detail...

Tombeau to MSA

2009-11-29T09:08:00.000-08:00

OMG! I just discovered that the Millennium Star Atlas is no longer published. It is sure to become a collector's edition, which makes me question the sanity of bringing it into the field. Indeed, I have already seen it posted for over double the original price.

I read one particularly whiney diatribe, accusing the MSA of being grossly overpriced – that the publishers were gouging the public and deserved to burn in hell. That particular loser obviously knows nothing of the costs and economics of publishing quality paper books. If only he saw what quality sheet music cost – I'd like to think that would shut him up, but the Internet has become the kitty litter box for the extreme and extremely uninformed opinions.

The MSA is a thing of beauty. Sharp printing on heavy paper. It has just enough (okay, a LOT of enough, but just enough) and it has the advantage over digital atlases in it serves as the careful editor of which details are really relevant. I have found every digital atlas to display too much or too little.

So, I should enshrine these three volumes in my library and replace them with Uranometria 2000.0, which is definitely easier to lug around. I won't, for two reasons. First of all, they will sit on the shelf for the rest of time, with only occasional usage. Secondly, it is almost double the scale of Uranometria. Two degrees, which is my widest field with the Takahashi, is 2.5" across, and is not unlike the view I get. The three volumes may be heavy, but they are the perfect reference in the field.

I can only hope that we don't stop publishing beautiful, if pricey editions. Although day-to-day I'm a digital guy, I do like to break out paper editions, if only for their aesthetics.

Extreme Stargazing II

2009-11-27T13:40:00.000-08:00

Having already declared Alvin Huey a stargazing hero, I feel compelled to heap more praises on him. He currently sells three self-published books on FaintFuzzies.com and today I want to write a bit about the largest of these: Observing the Arp Peculiar Galaxies. This hefty spiral-bound opus follows his format of providing two pages per object – in this case, each of the 338 galxies in Dr. Halton Arp's catalog of peculiar galaxies. Each is distinctive in some way. Some are quite obscure, some not. M51, for example, is Arp 85, and M82 is Arp 337.

Indeed, many of Arp's candidates have NGC designations, which is generally an indication that it can be detected with a moderate sized scope. However, the challenge isn't to detect the object, but rather to discern some of the peculiarities that caught Arp's attention.

For this book Huey used three scopes, a 16", 22", and 30". Of course, a 30" scope is a BIG scope; the largest I've looked through has been 25". It's funny to think of a 16" scope as being small... He favors his 22" custom scope: a good balance between size and manageability. It has only about 1.5x the light gathering of an 18", so I think everything but the faintest details should be within the range of both. Of course, Huey is an extreme stargazer, which means he likes to put as little glass between the object and his eyes. This means he will eschew the lost light of a field flattener and favors Takahashi LE and TMP Supermonocentric eyepieces to get maximum contrast. In other words, he doesn't worry about edge distortion, but rather uses the "sweet spot" to glean the greatest detail.

Huey doesn't throw frivolous words in his descriptions; I mean this as a complement: each word counts. Of course, his drawings are the best indication of what one might hope to see. I say "hope," because he is a very experienced observer who uses extreme optics.

He is much more chatty in extensive preface. That content is very similar to his Abell Planetary book and constitutes something of a crash course in serious stargazing. If you have large aperture, I don't see how you wouldn't want Huey's books. If you are considering large aperture, Huey's books are informative and inspirational.

As I wrote previously, I find the Megastar charts to be less than optimal. They include numerous galaxies in the field that don't show up on the POSS photographs and which only serve to distract. It is very interesting to compare the POSS photographs with Huey's own drawings. Regardless of my nit picking, this is a carefully thought out and executed volume that is well worth the price.

AutoKemer

2009-11-26T13:01:00.000-08:00

I have not been kind to those who don't learn to star hop. It is just plain snobbery: I'm guilty as charged! That has changed, now I am one of them...

I have gone to OPT a number of times seeking a mount for my Takahashi was was easier to set up than my Losmandy GM-8. I should add that I miss having digital setting circles; adding them to my GM-8 was pretty pricey. The good people at OPT kept directing me to side-mounted alt-az mounts and I'm afraid I just didn't get it: they looked flimsy to carry my rather hefty refractor.

The combined pleasure and danger of magazines like Sky & Telescope is that they have reviews of equipment, serving what I am sure is their primary purpose: to convince people to buy. I read a positive review of Ioptron's MiniTower Pro. Nothing dainty or lightweight about this alt-az mount and it has intriguing claims for portability, speed of setup, and accuracy of tracking.

Unfortunately, my original GM-8 dovetail plate is the wrong dimensions, forcing me to buy a new dovetail plate to attach the Takahashi clam to. I was fortunate to get one that was returned to the store for only forty bucks. Forget all of the big fancy stuff, you can make a fortune selling small anodized bars with precision holes drilled in them...

This is quite a change from what I'm used to. Set up is extremely fast. The important thing is to have it level and pointed straight up when the power goes on. An internal GPS gathers location information and starts tracking almost immediately. I told it to go the Moon and it did ... almost. A quick adjustment to center on the Moon and to synchronize the alignment, I then asked it to find M31, which was almost directly overhead. It did so, even though I could see only the galaxy core in the Moon-brightened sky.

Slewing is noisy but quite quick. It eats up a lot of battery, so my little 1.2 aH gel cell won't cut it.

I must admit that I'm feeling some pangs of shame over owning a GOTO scope. On the other hand, if I use it more, who cares?

Extreme Stargazing I

2009-11-26T12:08:00.000-08:00

extreme |ikˈstrēm|
adjective reaching a high or the highest degree; very great : extreme cold.
• not usual; exceptional
• very severe or serious

Alvin Huey is my new hero: this guy understands deep sky. Deep, deep, deep sky. I wrote about him recently: he has a web site, FaintFuzzies.com, offers some free resources and sells three self-published observing guides for the hardest of the hard core.

These books are mostly reference guides, to be used in planning a serious night of exploration and to be carried in the field. They provide detailed maps, images from the POSS, and his own sparse notes.

I have always had a fixation on planetary nebulae. The brightest of them are on nearly everyone's favorites list: the Ring and the Dumbbell. Then, one discovers that sme of these are quite bright and have distinctive color, like the Ghost of Jupiter and Cat's Eye. Thanks to OIII filters, one gravitates to the Helix and the Rosette. And, don't forget the Owl...

As you exhaust the list of "big name" planetaries, examine the lesser known NGC and IC objects, you start to notice that there are a number obscure objects with an obscure designation, such as "PK 131+2.1". The Perek & Kohoutek catalog contains 1036 planetary nebulae whose designation provides an approximate location. Some of these can be seen with amateur instruments, hence their appearance in the Sky Atlas 2000.0.

George Abell produced his own catalog of planetary nebulae, documenting 86 of these in a paper published in 1966. Only two of these have an NGC designation (6742 and 7076), two have IC designations ( 972 and and 1454). The rest, except for one – Abell 85 – have PK designations.

Alvin Huey's subtitle says it all: A list of very challenging planetary nebulae for large telescopes. Alvin has seen all but six using 22" and 30" telescopes, but he points out that up to half of these can be observed with a 10" scope.

The majority of the book is devoted to providing a two-page entry for each object that provides a general map, detailed map, POSS image and his own drawing. However, the first thirty pages provides an excellent introduction to the essentials of extreme stargazing, including discussions of telescopes, eyepieces, filters, and general observation techniques.

Alvin likes to use narrow-field eyepieces, such as the Takahashi LEs and TMB Supermonocentrics, because they provide the greatest contrast. His notes indicated that the 3-element TMB Supermonocentrics transmit almost 99% of the light, in comparison to 93-95% for my Naglers. I can't get myself too worked about about this: I'll take the comfort of decent eye relief to such an incremental increase in light transmission. However, I don't doubt that in extreme stargazing, you have to go with every advantage you can find.

Maps are generated using Megastar. This used to be a favorite with me. Ultimately, this book serves two purposes: to be an inspiration and to give a rough idea of I might be able to see, given some decent aperture. Having looked at the entry on Abell 39 and looked at a few images, I'm eager to take a shot at it. Unfortunately, Hercules is setting, so I'll have to add it to next Summer's list!

Easy Reading

2009-11-22T15:45:00.000-08:00

I subscribed to both Astronomy and Sky & Telescope for many years, but dropped both subscriptions, first Astronomy, then S&T. There was too much overlap, but I thought S&T was more serious for the observer. Even S&T became wearisome, as it seemed to struggle for unique new content, while being overloaded with commercial advertisements.

However, these magazines serve as an important connection to products and technologies. I figured I needed to subscribe to one, so I did so with S&T. I immediately noted that it is a slimmer publication than I remember: half the content at twice the price, or so it seems.

Both augment their paper publication with online services. In fact, I may have chosen the wrong publication, as it would appear that Astronomy has much more "premium" online content. At current prices, there is no way I'm going to subscribe to both!

S&T has much less material related to building amateur instruments than it used to. It seems that the quality and sophistication of gear has increased rather dramatically over the last five years and there is little motivation for "home brew." On the commercial side, it seems that the real push is towards digital imaging: lots of advertisements for high-end refractors, exotic reflectors optimized for imaging, not visual, and expensive mounts. No doubt about it: imaging is a complex and expensive hobby.

The fate of paper media is at risk across the publishing industry. I think the future is in paid content on the Internet and would just as soon cut out the paper myself. From this perspective, I may have bet on the wrong horse: S&T has missing content, bad links, and an interactive sky chart that is pretty brain dead. There's not much "premium content" that I can find. In any case, my subscription was primarily intended for getting back into the swing of things, and I never intended to renew after the first year.

It is fun to look at all the advertisements. Given infinite discretionary income, it would be easy to drop a lot change!

Faint Fuzzies

2009-11-22T12:20:00.000-08:00

Stargazing this last weekend was a reconnection, both with old friends and with old interests. I always was a fan of the faint fuzzies: obscure objects that were hard to find, then hard to see. The definition of "obscure" has changed over the last five years. No doubt about it, there are more fanatics peering farther into the skies, and writing about it.

One great reference I picked up from my old pal Paul (a veritable walking encyclopedia) was Alvin Huey's website FaintFuzzies.com and some specialized observation guides he has produced: The Hickson Group Observer's Guide (2nd Edition), Abell Planetary Nebulae Observer's Guide (2nd Edition), and Observing the Arp Peculiar Galaxies. These all qualify as faint fuzzies. I immediately ordered the latter two; the only reason I didn't order Alvin's Hickson guide is that I have Hickson's original book and was feeling guilty about ordering so many books I wanted, but didn't really need. We'll see. It certainly provides motivation to be nice to my friends with big aperture.

HCG 92, best known as Stephan's Quintet, is probably the most often observed member of the Hickson group. It was one that we could always count on, but it was guaranteed to not impress the more casual observer. Many of the other members are fainter and quite small; you really want a 25" scope, or bigger.

Star Party!

2009-11-15T21:12:00.000-08:00

New Moon! Clear skies! I packed up my car and headed out to Little Blair Valley, the place to go this time of year. The desert is no longer hot. In fact, it is darn near perfect during the day.

I was told that the regular attendance was down, now that there was no longer an "OPTAS" – the Oceanside Photo and Telescope Astronomical Society. I guess OPT is too busy with their web business to worry about promoting new stargazers. This may seem incredibly self-serving, but I say great: I prefer an environment of fewer, more dedicated viewers. Even then, the activity can be distracting.

The strip of road everyone sets up is basically segregated into two "camps": the imagers and the stargazers. The imagers are quickly identified by their very expensive equatorial mounts and exotic refractors, mostly Takahashi tubes, mounted in pairs, one for guiding, the other for imaging; I bet the average layout for most is well over $30 grand. This is a pretty serious bunch, many of whom were going to stay two nights to maximize use of the dark, clear skies.

I was down with the rowdy bunch, mostly dominated by Obsession telescopes. We had a little of everything: 15", 18", 20", and 25". Dave Kriege would be so proud. This was a noisier group, having a lot of fun. I never unpacked my Takahashi FS102, not out of embarrassment, but rather because there was no need. I spent my time with a 20". Note to self: I really don't need to buy my own big Dob: I can always mooch off of someone else. Mooch I did!

While not as cold as usual for this time of year, there was a steady breeze that just wouldn't go away and the temperature was headed for the 30s. On top of that, there was a large camp across the valley that insisted on illuminating the entire landscape with their Coleman lanterns. I no longer have all of the cold weather stuff I used to have. My down jacket was lost to rats in the garage and my Cabella down bib disappeared; this is a real pity, because they don't sell the down bibs anymore. The combination of all-down made for very comfortable viewing on the coldest nights. Another note to self: must invest in more down! I was doomed in my plans to spend the night: sleeping outdoors unprotected was a recipe for disaster. Another note to self: must look into getting a tent...

Stargazing involves bringing a lot of stuff: tables, tarps, telescope parts, books and food, chairs and cameras, sleeping bags and tents. The list goes on and on and missing a critical piece can spell disaster for the evening. The most serious leave everything packed up in a van or trailer, so they can leave on a moment's notice. It was bothering me that I had to pack so much stuff. If anything, I pack light.

I had an opportunity to try a 13mm Ethos eyepiece. This is one expensive piece of glass. It is surprisingly light. The 100º field of view is more than the eye can take in, so you have to move your eye around to take everything in. I was amazed at how sharp stars were at the edges, but was not persuaded that this was something I need.

The showpiece for the evening was NGC 253 in Sculptor. Actually, it was pretty grey and murky to the south, so I found that the addition of a light pollution filter helped quite a bit. Although this nearly edge-on spiral appears symmetrical in photographs, one edge is much dimmer than the other. With the 20" a lot of detail was apparent, but I couldn't discern the spiral nature.

Second place was M33, which did reveal its spiral structure. With a 20" NGC 604 was so bright it was hard to believe it was extra-galactic. I better understood why it has its own NGC number.

I left far too soon, but I knew I wouldn't survive the night poorly prepared. I'll do better next time.

Still Obsessed

2009-10-14T13:37:00.000-07:00

I guess the real beginning of the end to my serious viewing was when I gave up my 18" Obsession. There were a variety of contributing factors to my decline in the hobby, but ultimately I think it was that it was just too much work, requiring a larger vehicle than I could otherwise justify, so I let it go. Tragic, really: the new owner apparently left it in a damp and cold shed, resulting in its demise. It was a lovely telescope with an excellent Galaxy mirror. It may have had a lot of viewing hours on it, but it was in mostly "new" condition.

I'm delighted to see that Obsession Telescopes has survived the many years, even thriving. Although they have retained their original design, I couldn't help but notice that they have a new Ultra Compact design that gets the scopes down to really manageable sizes.

When I first got my 18", I intended to manually lift the mirror box in and out of my SUV. That was 80 pounds and I almost wrecked my back trying that stunt: I made that mistake only once. This forced me to create a ramp and to use the wheelbarrow handles, which I had to take with me, tying them to the top of my vehicle. It was a major pain, particularly when I packed up in the wee hours.

However, the "virtual mirror box" for the new 15" UC weighs only 45 pounds. In fact, the whole thing can fit into a 24" x 24" x 21" case. Although not 18", 15" is still a pretty big scope, with a lot of light gathering. Let's face it: I'm still obsessed.

Practicing Patience

2009-09-19T09:39:00.000-07:00

It has been long enough for me to forget the most basic thing: stargazing requires patience. I thought that a smaller scope would speed things up. It does, but not as much as I would like. It is amazing how many things I still have to pack, then set up, then break down, and finally put back in the garage. I had it down to a science with my 18" Obsession, but I was often going several times a month. Everything had its place in the garage, minimizing the danger of forgotten essentials.

I can really appreciate the fantasy of the home observatory: simply walk out, uncover the scope and go to work! If only it were so easy. Packing and setup should be treated as a ritual. One mistake I made yesterday, the first time I have really been out stargazing in years, was not giving myself enough time. I arrived on Mount Laguna after sunset, so that by the time I was set up, I could actually start viewing some objects. I didn't have enough time to savor the ritual.

Conditions were ideal. The air was stable enough to view at 234x. Stars were sharp, details on Jupiter were exceptional. It was neither hot, nor cold, and there were no annoying insects. Had I been younger, it could have been an all-nighter. As it was, making it to 22:30 was a major triumph.

I came loaded with five lists. Another important lesson I forgot was that it takes time to star hop to more obscure objects: patience, again! Just a couple of objects consumed most of my time, but I have no regrets, because I took time to visit old friends that were nearby. I spent time on the Lagoon and Trifid nebulas, testing to see which filter enhanced the most detail. For the most part, I'm finding that filters have a more obvious impact only if you have sufficient aperture. My four inches just isn't enough to bring out the eye-popping detail I got with eighteen. Overall, the OIII remains the essential filter, but with perhaps one exception it only improved contrast, not detail. The exception was the Veil Nebula, which I never tire of. Although the west portion (NGC 6960) is easier to find, because it coincides with 52 Cygni, it is the east portion (NGC 6992) that offers the greatest hints of detail. It was worth it to pop in my heavy 2" 22mm Nagler, just to get the widest possible field, although I found my 19mm Panoptic provides pleasingly wide views.

Indeed, perhaps because of my aging eyes, or perhaps because they were not as dark adapted as they could be, I found it difficult to take advantage of the full 82º field that Naglers provide. I always liked the Panoptic design.

As I said, I went after the items on my "Interesting" list, starting with the Box Nebula (NGC 6309). This was perhaps a bad starting point, as it forced me into "extreme star hopping mode." With only 4", it is detectable. I did find that it was worthwhile to bring my Millennium Star Atlas with me, both to get me there and to confirm that the fuzzy spot was, indeed, the planetary nebula. Lugging around the MSA is probably more eco-friendly than printing dozens of charts for an evening, only to use a few of them.

Much more gratifying was the Turtle Nebula ( NGC 6210), in Hercules. This is quite bright with just a hint of non-symmetrical shape (see the Hubble image, above). I found that the combination of the Pocket Sky Atlas and the Millennium Star Atlas to be perfect; I didn't pull out my Sky Atlas 2000.0 once. Since I was in the neighborhood, I thought it prudent to visit M13. I had forgotten what a magnificent globular cluster this was. I even once suggested that M22 was as good: it's not. This is one of the great objects for small aperture.

I was about to go after the next object on my list, the Little Ghost Nebula in Ophiucus, but time had flown by and it was now too low to be worth the effort. Instead, I returned to my favorite, the Ring Nebula, counted my blessings and decided to call it a night. It was a good night, the first in years.

Power

2009-09-06T17:34:00.000-07:00

One of the challenges of having electronics in the field is that you need to provide power. I never paid much attention to this, partly because I usually plugged into my car, which typically provides over 40 amp hours – seemingly a lot – and partly because I was naive and ignorant. I never calculated what the actual draw was. Fortunately, I never managed to drain my battery. Possibly, dumb luck!

I'm a little embarrassed over my naiveté over such electrical matters, but find it an interesting challenge to delve in a bit more. The challenge: how best to power my GM-8 for a reasonable night of viewing. Let's define 'reasonable' as being four hours.

According to the specifications, the GM-8 draws 500 mA, or half an amp. I suspect that this is a high-end or worst-case value: that is, if you use the controller to slew it around. I'll bet it probably draws much less if it is just sitting and tracking. At least, I hope so, and you'll see why in a minute. Regardless, at half an amp, a big car battery with only 40 amp hours (40 Ah) charge would still keep it going for 80 hours: not much to worry about there!

However, I wanted a more portable solution. Just before I fell into decline, I bought a little gel cell battery. It weighs 1 lb. 7 oz. and provides 1.2 Ah. I soldered a connecting cable to it and used a car battery charger to charge it: not a very convenient solution for charging, and possibly not appropriate for such a small battery. Amazingly, the battery seems to have survived five years of non-use; I think the gel cells are pretty durable. I used epoxy to fix the cable to the battery case to provide strain relief. This gel cell seems like an elegant solution, except for recharging, and I found a nice fix for that..

At full power, this battery would theoretically power my GM-8 only slightly more than two hours. In fact, you need to account for cold, which generally shortens battery life. I tested it out, and it looks like I might get about three hours in warm weather. I guess one reasonable solution would be to get two of these small batteries.

Meanwhile, there was still the challenge of recharging these little gel cells. I found a nice, if rather pricey solution: Deltran's Battery Tender Junior. This is a compact but very intelligent charger: it provides charge status, is self-protecting, and won't over-charge the battery. It is very nice, but at $40 it had better charge a lot batteries.

New things: Eyepieces

2009-09-04T13:11:00.000-07:00

Stargazing has numerous aspects that make it such an attractive hobby, not the least of which is this innate need we seem to have to buy toys. It starts early, and gets more expensive as we get older. Most of us have limits, however, so that there are only so many telescopes we can buy. However, there are a lot of add-ons that are expensive enough to be special, cheap enough to occasionally indulge in. I've always been a sucker for eyepieces.

In the beginning I was excited to invest in "premium plossls." These are inexpensive enough so that almost anyone can afford complete "sets" of them. Of course, after about 25 mm, one is really tempted by the "wide fields." Way back when, that usually meant some kind of Erfle design, which gave a wider field with less distortion on the edges. The buzz at the time was about the Televue Naglers, which have a very wide field (82º) with remarkable sharpness. Over time, I have owned almost every Nagler, from the 4.8mm to the 31mm. I for the life of me, I can't remember what happened to my 4.8mm, but I remember it has have awfully short eye relief. The 31mm, which is one big and heavy chunk of glass, was sold with my Obsession.

As the years passed by, Televue introduced some intermediate designs: the Radian and the Panoptic. It may seem like a gimmick to have so many designs, but each has certain features and a price-point. The Radians have a 60º field, like the old Erfles, but with better edge sharpness and a lot of eye relief; they cover the shorter focal lengths. The Panoptics have a little more field, 68º, and are aimed more at the longer focal lengths. Both designs are essentially substitutes for the Nagler, which covers all the focal lengths with a wide field of view.

Why do I keep harping on field of view, rather than power? Because, that is the variable you want to consider: figure out what power need, then how much field you can afford. Ultimately, the ideal is to have as wide a field of view for a given power. In reality, this is more important with the longer focal lengths. Probably you need only one really wide field eyepiece, your lowest power one, to aid in star hopping. The problem is that you get spoiled. I think the Nagler 82º field is close to perfection: Televue coined the phrase "spacewalk view," and it is appropriate.

When I selected the 19mm Panoptic, I was looking for as wide a field in a 1.25" eyepiece. I could have gone with the 16mm Nagler and gotten a 1.6º field at 51x and at a cost of $297. With the 19mm, I get almost the identical field, but at a slightly lower power, 43x and for a cost of $220. In the end, the slightly lower power and nearly $80 won over. Actually, there is one other variable to consider, and which also influenced my choice: eye relief. The 19mm Panoptic has a 13mm eye relief, versus 10mm with the 16mm Nagler. This is a matter of comfort: 10mm forces you to keep your eye very close to the lens. 13mm is just about right.

Comfort is actually very important, and that brings me to one of the really new things since I dropped out: Televue's Ethos eyepieces. These have an amazing 100º field, and a breath-taking cost. I found that that is actually more field than my eye can take in, so that I'm forced to move my eye around to take everything in. The 17mm Ethos costs $675, making it the most expensive eyepiece I've seen.

Selecting an eyepiece is remarkably complex, because there are so many variables:

Focal length
Field of view
Weight
Eye relief
Size

Televue's broad product line allows you to juggle all of these and "stay in the family." There are, of course, other manufactures and there are those who will promote the vendor/design they like with religious zeal. That's part of the hobby, too.

Old Friends

2009-09-03T07:10:00.000-07:00

I think all stargazers must have their list of favorites: old friends that they return to time and time. I'm not talking about the esoteric specialties that require remarkable resources to view – that's a different list – but rather those bedrock objects that we form a relationship with when we first start, before we buy that expensive scope. These are still the first things we look at with that new, expensive scope. We look at them so much that we just know where they are.

One thing that perplexes me just a bit is that so many beginners are starting off with really premium optics and with goto systems that steer them to where they want to go. Are they learning to read star charts? Are they developing that sense of location in the heavens? I hope so.

I must admit that I impressed myself when I would navigate to these without even a chart – often to the amazement of friends who had never been stargazing before. It is a gratifying exercise to recall what these are; the list may actually change a bit each time, depending on our mood and memories. Here's what comes off the top of my head for this time of year.

The Ring Nebula. I think this probably will pop up at the top each time: what a gratifying object: bright, fairly large, and easy to find.
The Dumbbell Nebula. It seems like it should be a close second, a very nice contrast to the Ring, but I guess because it doesn't have the sharp definition of the Ring (YAFO, or "Yet Another Fuzzy Object"). Looking at it the other night I didn't find a real need for a filter, even from my house.
M22. I know M13 is usually considered the finest globular cluster, I find that M22 is stiff competition this time of year, and easy to find! Okay: they are both great, neither is hard to find, and they provide a nice contrast.
The Lagoon and Trifid Nebulas. Great with any aperture. Of course, the Trifid becomes more interesting with more aperture. Both provide a justification for that nebula filter you wanted to buy, or even better, a set them: LPR, UHC, and OIII. These are bright enough to experiment, even with a small scope.
The Omega Nebula. I don't think I discovered this my first year, and what a mistake that was: this is probably more interesting than the Lagoon and Trifid and the OIII filter really makes it pop out.
The Veil Nebula. A non-Messier object? Of course, this objectwas stunning with large aperture and an OIII filter, but the fact that I can see it with my 4", even at home, is a source of delight.

What, no galactic clusters? I guess they are kind of implied. M24 is that perfect cluster for binoculars or widest field eyepiece. Indeed, you just have to visually look in the direction Sagittarius and Scorpius and M7 will grab your attention. The "problem" with galactic clusters is that there are better things to look for this time of year.

Of course, M31 is rising to the east: right next to the Ring as a best-of-the-best! Galaxy time is coming, but with the exception of a handful of the bigger, brighter galaxies, 4" isn't enough to get a lot of satisfaction. Those galactic clusters and double stars start looking very attractive.

Good Readings

2009-08-31T20:46:00.000-07:00

It seems that the 1990s was the golden age for star gazing literature. I have a veritable library in the garage – books I used to spend a great deal of time. Lists, atlases, picture books... I am owner of the 2-volume Carnegie Atlas of Galaxies: each 13.5" x 17.75" volume weighs 13 lbs. I got it for $100 at the time! Of course, such big picture books are now door stops: you can get the same content digitally.

As I wrote about earlier, I have far too many atlases – if it is possible to have too many. Beginner books abound, and there still seems to be a market for yet another beginner's book. What about intermediate and advanced observer's books? There are three that I have, and now have dusted off, that I think no serious observer should be without: they are as good now as they were a decade ago. All three are very appropriate to those with a quality 4" refractor, or larger. All three are associated with Stephen James O'Meara, who is a cross between a poet and an observer's observer.

The first, Deep-sky Wonders, is an edited compendium of articles by Walter Scott Houston (fondly called "Scotty" by everyone) published between 1946 and 1994 in Sky & Telescope. Organized by month. Scotty's combination chatty and often poetic style is an inspiration to get out and try to share that enthusiasm. Along the way, he teaches a great deal without lecturing. At the end of each chapter is a summary of objects, including references to the major star atlases. Although most of these objects are suitable for small apertures, not all. He doesn't hesitate to talk about the Cocoon Nebula. He doesn't suggest that you can actually see the Cocoon (I have tried many times with my 18", but with dubious results), but rather writes about the dark nebulosity running from near M39 to it. O'Meara preserves the friendly dialog of the original articles, in which Scotty poses challenges for the reader. I see that this book is now available in paperback: it is not to be missed.

In many ways Stephen James O'Meara should be considered the successor to Scotty. He shares a similar love and knowledge for the sky and is a natural teacher. Even more than Scotty, O'Meara teaches us how to look. There is no doubt that he has exceptional eyesight, beyond what most of us had at our best, but more importantly, he substitutes patience and discipline for aperture. This is important, because many of us are seduced into buying those gorgeous 4" refractors with their premium views – they have it all, except for light gathering! Don't get me wrong: I have owned two, the first a 500 mm Televue Genesis, and now the 820 mm Takahashi FS-102. If you follow O'Meara's advice, you will be amazed at what you can see, but it takes work.

There is, of course, no single list of objects more important than Messier's. Although flawed, nearly every object in it is best-in-class. O'Meara addresses them sequentially, providing both historical context and viewing advice. Rather than promoting the Messier marathon approach, in which one tries to locate as many as possible in a viewing session, he spends hours savoring each. There have been at least several books about observing the Messier objects; this is the one to own.

O'Meara went on to write a similar book centered around another list: the so-called "Caldwell Objects." Patrick Moore was kind of an English version of Walter Scott Houston. However, I'm afraid I never bought it: I have always viewed Moore as something of a self-promoting blowhard. He created his own list of 109 objects to augment the Messier list. I don't see him as having a legitimate claim of ownership, and personally I find his naming the list after himself to be pretentious. Having gotten that complaint off of my chest, this list does capture many of the bright(er) objects that Messier either missed, or that were simply too far south for him to see.

All three books are inspirations to become a better stargazer and form the basis for planning viewing around the best of the best. What better cure to the malaise one experiences when waiting for the next dark, clear night.

The Astronomy Market

2009-08-30T10:07:00.000-07:00

Although I have been something of a stargazing apostate for the last six years, I have continued to occasionally visit Oceanside Photo & Telescope. I doubt there are many businesses with so much inventory on the floor. Longtime salesman Mike told me they just had a record month: so much for the Recession!

I found this quite surprising, but OPT is the beneficiary of the Internet and mail order, and more important, volume of interest in the hobby. I have spent so much time in esoteric areas of music that I forgot just what kind of volume of interest there was. I just joined the Losmandy user group: they have over 3,000 members and generate 200-300 messages per month.

This is definitely a hobby for well-educated middle-aged men with discretionary income. Sure, there are a few women, some younger people, and there are plenty with modest optics, but what seems to be driving this rogue economy is people, well, just like me. (Of course, I don't know how much longer I'll have "discretionary income" in this economy...)

Although imaging was starting to take hold when I dropped out, Mike told me that it dominates their customer base now. I find this extraordinary: digital imaging is generally expensive, time-consuming, and very complex. The end result will generally be a very nice image, but one that has already been captured elsewhere. My concern is that we may have a generation of enthusiasts who don't actually look in the sky, who don't know where the objects are because they are automatically directed there by their goto systems.

I was seduced by the same siren when I started 20 years ago, although we had to use film at the time. I actually jumped in within the first year, but then backed off when I realized I wasn't having a lot of fun. However, I mustn't kid myself: if I had unlimited funds and time, I'd probably jump in in a heartbeat. It is a different hobby.

I scanned a couple of my old images in from the prints – a horrible way to do it! Perhaps I should have someone scan the negatives in. Or not: at best, they are simply proof that I tried it. What I do find interesting is that both of these are very similar to the way I remember seeing them through my 18" Obsession.

Star Hopping

2009-08-25T09:48:00.000-07:00

I previously wrote about the Sky Atlas 2000.0 and Sky & Telescope's Pocket Sky Atlas. Although extremely handy, I questioned whether the latter had enough detail for star hopping. This was based on a test: M71 in the tiny constellation Sagitta. This is described in the very useful Sky Atlas 2000.0 Companion as:

Large and very rich. Visually an oval, with the brighter side forming a curving V.

As it turns out, I think I navigated directly to it, mostly through luck. I saw it as more of an open cluster, so I wasn't sure if I had it right. The Pocket Sky Atlas didn't have enough to confirm that. In fact, without pulling out any other references, I wondered if I was looking at Harvard 20, instead. (If I had pulled out my Companion, I would have seen H20 described as: 15 stars; detached, no concentration of stars; moderate range in brightness: definitely not what I saw. ) I have made enough mis-identifications over the years to want to be sure, particularly with objects like this, which I don't spend a lot of time looking at.

Would Sky Atlas 2000.0 have been better? The images above are the same relative size, offering a comparison in scale and detail. I can see that the magnitude 6.2 star west of M71 (9 Sagittae) is part of a distinctive chain that would have made it easy to verify. However, using Sky Atlas 2000.0 requires setting up a small table to lay it out; in fact, since I was viewing at home, the humidity was high enough to create condensation on the chart. Somewhere, I do have a set of laminated white stars on black version of Sky Atlas 2000.0, but I found it difficult to read and generally unappealing.

Of course, for the ultimate reference, there is no substitute for the Millennium Star Atlas. It's problem is that the three volumes weigh a total of 20 lbs. Software, such as the TheSkyX, provides actually more stars. The beauty of the MSA is that it filters out the excess "noise." It really is a lovely work. (Click on the image below to get an equivalent scale to the other two charts.)

Conclusions? I would have to say that the Pocket Sky Atlas sure is convenient, and it will likely get you in the neighborhood quickly. If it is one of those showpiece objects, you should pick it up in the field, and that's all you will need.

Meanwhile, I forgot what an essential resource the Sky Atlas 2000.0 Companion was. Even if you aren't using Sky Atlas 2000.0, it provides a ready and useful summary of 2,700 deep sky objects: more than I'll see with my little 4" refractor.

Tricking Out the Old Scope

2009-08-24T11:58:00.000-07:00

To call my Takahashi "old" is a misnomer. I got it just before the "beginning of the end," so it didn't get used as much as my previous scopes. To make matters worse, setting up the Losmandy GM-8 mount only made things worse. I fully appreciate why small scope users go for the simple alt-az mounts, but it is really nice to have a drive for tracking at high power.

The Losmandy components aren't cheap! However, I wanted to address a couple of issues. First of all, the equatorial head comes with three bolts that require allen wrenches; these are always a pain, particularly in the dark. To my great surprise, Oceanside Photo and Telescope actually had these in stock. Very classy, but not cheap...

The other replacement items I wanted were improved clutch assemblies for both axis: these each replacement has three little handles that make it easier to grab and control. My only complaint is that I know have the original clutches, which are quality custom machining, that are going to sit around in a parts bag for the rest of eternity. I wish I could mail them back for re-use, rather than wasting the materials. I'm not sure why this was an optional feature; having sunk a small fortune into the GM-8, this is exactly the kind of thing you don't want to skimp in. Indeed, I broke out the scope last evening and found these really provided far better control of the clutches.

Of course, walking into OPT is always perilous to my pocketbook: they have a unbelievable display of equipment, ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous: some really, really high-end gear, down to what I consider to be essentially throw-away optics. Over the years I have bought a lot of eyepieces there. Today was no exception, but was cause for note because it was the first eyepiece I have purchased in at least six years.

There is something gratifying about buying a quality eyepiece: this is a tool that you use. All tools are inherently gratifying, but there is something so elegant about quality eyepieces... My motivation was to move to all 1.25" eyepieces. Switching between 1.25" and 2" eyepieces leaves the scope unbalanced, an annoyance. In addition, 2" eyepieces are so big and heavy.

With a focal length of only 820 mm, my Takahashi really favors shorter focal length eyepieces. I used to use primarily big eyepieces with my Obsession, which was over double that focal length, because I wanted as much field of view as possible. The 19mm Panoptic seemed just right for the Takahashi: 43x and 1.6º field of view. The amazing thing is how small and light it is. I'll hang on to my 22mm Nagler for those occasions where I really need a wide field of view.

You can't buy all this stuff, then just forget about it, so I pulled out the scope a second night in a row; a real record for this Millennium! I found the 19mm Panoptic to be an ideal complement to my 9mm and 5mm Naglers. It gave great views of my old favorites this time of year, the Ring and Dumbell Nebulas. Going back to my notes of 20 years ago, I couldn't get enough of these two objects. I still can't.

Atlas Fetish

2009-08-23T17:01:00.000-07:00

Some of my best stargazing has been done without going outdoors. I'm a sucker for maps of all kinds, but star charts are a special pleasure. I would stare at Wil Tirion's Sky Atlas 2000.0 for hours, and carefully checked off each object, when viewed. I was thrilled when greater detail was uncovered in Uranometria 2000.0 and positively ecstatic with the infinite detail of the Millennium Star Atlas – the only challenge with it was its size and weight.

Indeed, the best star atlas is the one you actually use, and size does matter. Although Sky Atlas 2000.0 overall balances size and utility, it is still a bit big for quick reference. I have tried other replacements, but found them to be too much, too little, or simply lacking the appealing aesthetics. Until Sky & Telescope's Pocket Sky Atlas came out in 2006. When it came out I had stopped star gazing, and prospects for re-engaging seemed dim. But, I told myself that if I started up again, this would be just right. Plus, I just couldn't pass up such appealing aesthetics.

It has all of the visual appeal of Wil Tirion's masterpiece, but in a much, much smaller package. Stars are down to magnitude 7.6, so this is plenty detailed for smaller scopes. Although organized roughly by eight gores, or slices of the sky, there is a great deal of overlap between charts and each is customized to present as much of a recognizable constellation as possible. This was quite clever and eliminates the need for large, fold-out pages. It is amazing how much detail is available on each 6"x9" page.

Does this replace the venerable Sky Atlas 2000.0? Perhaps, as a quick reference, and it could in the field, if necessary, at least for the brighter deep sky objects. Each folded out page of Sky Atlas 2000.0 covers so much area and detail that I may find I will want to keep it open on my observing table. However, the Pocket Sky Atlas is more easily held in the hand, and that makes it especially convenient not only for star hopping, but for reference with when my glasses are off – because I am nearsighted, I can take my glasses off to view through the eyepiece and hold this closely to be read. Those who are farsighted may find the print on this too small for such use.

The plotted deep sky objects far exceeds what one will be able to see with a small scope. Unfortunately, there aren't enough reference stars for star-hopping the more faint and obscure objects. The detail above is a good example: you will need more than 4" of aperture to see everything listed there. Finding NGC 6644 without more details would probably be just short of impossible. (By the way, this is one of the most glorious portions of the night sky. I never tired of looking at M22, the Lagoon, Trifid, and Omega nebulae. Just this small area it worth of a hour of viewing under dark skies.)

The Pocket Sky Atlas is a perfect starting point for planning an evening, quick reference, and working atlas. As the Introduction states, 'Think of this as your working sky atlas, the one you carry out to your backyard telescope or pack in luggage for a trip far from home.'

Return to the Stars

2009-08-23T09:19:00.000-07:00

I was in a reflective mood several weeks ago, and one thought that struck me was a realization that some of my happiest moments were associated with stargazing. Why did I stop?

I started in the Summer of 1989. I made an impulse purchase of a 90mm Meade piece of crap. I have no regrets: I was hooked, and by Fall I had an 8" Celestron and by Christmas I had a Televue Genesis, their first generation of 4" high quality refractors. I graduated to an 18" Obsession, which really accompanied me through my "golden years" of stargazing.

20 years ago! My daughter was six, I was building my career, and I was, well, young. There was a period when I would go to the mountains almost weekly, any time when the Moon wasn't full, I'd find an hour or two of dark. It was worth the drive and loss of sleep.

In my late 40s I began to notice my eyesight wasn't what it used to be. I had an 18" Obsession that I eventually sold to some fool in Ohio who left it in a shed and it was destroyed by dampness. Letting go of that telescope was kind of the beginning of the end. I replaced it with a Takashashi FS102, which I still have. I enjoy the quality optics, but in the end there really is not substitute for aperture. I was already not getting out quite so often – instead of monthly, every several months – when disaster hit: a cancer diagnosis four years ago. Ongoing side effects of my surgery robbed me of my stamina at night, and stargazing became little more than a hazy, if fond, memory. My telescope has sat in the garage; I think I set it up once since my surgery to look at Jupiter.

That's changing. Two things have triggered this: promise of a new hormone therapy that will restore much, if not all, of my nighttime vitality and query by an associate I knew 20 years ago who was getting into stargazing. I busted out the scope last night, had to scratch my head a few times to remember what plugged into where, but was able to hand guide directly to my old friend, the Ring Nebula.

I've really been out of it for the last five years. However, it looks like there have been only incremental changes to marketplace. Televue still reigns in the eyepiece arena, and it looks like their small refractors have increased on quality and popularity. Losmandy is still making quality mounts. It looks like the Takahashi FS-102, which I now have, has been superseded by the FSQ-106, which to me is more of an imaging scope. That's okay: mine is in pristine condition.

What can I say? I'm returning to the stars!