Tuesday 18 June 2013

Monthly Summary #3: May/June 2013

     With one of the worst clear-sky time periods during new moon I have ever experienced, there almost was no report this time.  Then, finally, along came one clear night near new moon, and I found I would be able to write up a very brief report, at least.  Then came two more clear nights as the moon was waxing.  Now, finding those faint NGC objects from my area is never a walk in the park.  But when the moon is up high in the west, it makes the job even more difficult.  On that third clear night, to add insult to injury, the humidity was 85%.  It was like trying to look through an aquarium to see the deep sky!  Of course once the moon reaches first quarter, effectively ending my deep sky search for two weeks, along came some of the best night skies I have ever seen.  Four of them.  Sigh.

     Anyway, despite most of the gods on Olympus conspiring against astronomers in my area, I was able to add 14 new NGC/IC objects to my life list.  All, without exception, were faint to very faint galaxies.  Only one recorded object was a non-galaxy, the lone globular cluster in Bootes which I had observed years ago with the 8".  Some of these objects were not only very difficult to see, but also difficult to locate at all.  None of them projected enough photons into my eye to really impress me, so after tiring later on in the nights, I turned my eyepiece on some of the more splendid glories of the heavens.

     Here is a list of new objects added to my list.  12 are NGC and 2 are IC.  All but one are located in the vicinity of Arcturus, which became my home base for the three deep sky observing nights.

eg 5490-C:  Seen last month but not fully recognized as the partner to 5490.
eg 5492:  At mag. 12.8, one of the brighter objects this term.  A dim slash (1'.6 x 0'.4).
eg 5498:  Mag. 13.7.  Oval and very very faint, only seen with a.v.
eg 5508:  Mag.13.65. Within a very faint star cluster.
eg 5509:  Mag 13.95.  Paired with 5513 at 150x.
eg 5513:  Mag. 13.25.  Paired with 5509.  Not difficult.
eg 5518:  Mag. 13.65.  Occasional stellar core seen.
eg 5628:  Mag. 13.6.  Seen with a bright moon just west.
eg 5702:  Mag. 13.25.  Just a tiny bit north of 5710 and 11.
eg 5710:  Mag. 13.2.  Paired with much fainter 5711.
eg 5711:  Mag. 13.75. Both objects seen under a 5-day old moon.
eg 6646:  Mag. 13.  In Lyra.  2 IC galaxies nearby not seen yet.

IC-0982:  Mag. 13.25.  Paired with 983 near a bright star, north of 5490 and 90-C.
IC-0983:  Mag. 12.4.  Brighter pair member, easily seen.  Largest of the month.

gc 5466:  This large, very faint globular is a real tease.  Seen years ago with the 8" under ideal skies, a few stars could be resolved.  With the 12" I could not even see it at all from my backyard.  From my dark sky sight south of here, the cluster at first resembles a very large, very faint galaxy.  Then a few stars begin to resolve at low power.  Too much magnification spoils the view, as stars seem to be about mag. 13 and fainter.  I achieved resolution to the core at 150x, though certainly not a rich amount of stars.  And they are very, very faint.  Don't try this object in less than ideal conditions.  And just for fun, have a look at M 3 afterwards.
Mapman Mike

Monday 17 June 2013

Astrophotography (Some Unsolicted Thoughts)

     Let me begin by saying how much I love looking at the incredible photos taken by Hubble and company.  Going back to my beginning days as a teen searching our city library for any books on astronomy, there were a few with some splendid (black and white) photos.  These came from earth-based observatories such as the 100" Hale, 200" Mt. Palomar, and 40" Yerkes telescopes (the latter being the undisputed king of refractors).  There were photos of the Andromeda Galaxy, the Pleiades, the Orion Nebula and perhaps a globular such as Messier 13 in Hercules.  The Horsehead Nebula also featured prominently.  Photos of Mars showed fuzzy detail, though nothing like we see today.  Very few objects were available as photos, and libraries were the only place to find them.

     Compare that to today, when I can easily find a photo of any NGC object from the comfort of my chair in front of my computer (or on my phone from just about anywhere).  In colour.  In ultraviolet.  In x-ray.  In infrared.  In just about any colour of the spectrum one chooses.  These mind-bending photos come not just from a few major observatories today.  They come from space (the best ones) and from humble amateurs, sacrificing hours and hours to capture light from--Andromeda, the Pleiades, the Orion Nebula, M 13 in Hercules, the Horsehead Nebula.....  We are now faced with so many images of certain "main" objects that we are heirs to an exceedingly embarrassing amount of richness.

     It wouldn't be so bad for amateurs with small telescopes trying to introduce newbies to the hobby in the "olden days."  Few people had actually seen good photos of deep sky objects.  "It doesn't look like the pictures you've seen" is becoming my mantra these days, as everyone and their grandmother has come across a deep sky false colour photo buffet somewhere on the web.  This often leads to a discussion of how the eye collects light, though it cannot store it like a camera, and how long an exposure some of those incredible photos require. 

     Which brings me to my (easily answered) dilemma:  would you, dear reader, prefer to look at a photo of the Pleiades, or view it in, say, an RFT like the Edmund Astroscan?  I have viewed that object dozens of times, and it still leaves me breathless.  I have studied Messier 13 with a 4.5", and 8", and now a 12".  I far prefer the eyepiece view to any of the best photos I have ever seen.  Same with Albireo.  Same with the Orion Nebula.  Same with the faintest 14th magnitude galaxy I have ever seen with the 12".  In fact, it's the same with the Grand Canyon.  See the original in person, and don't just rely on the breathtaking photos.  Convincing new observers of this is difficult, however.  Sure, the lunar surface and Saturn will still drop their jaws.  But Andromeda, as impressive and life-affirming as it is to me, is less impressive to newbies (how come I can't see all those stars that are supposed to be in there?).  So what of fainter galaxies?  Globular clusters impress, too, for a short while.

     With the local climate I have to deal with, I couldn't do useful astro-photography anyway.  Terrific clear nights during new moon are far too rare to spend keeping a camera on track for hours and hours.  And besides, whatever deep sky object I would choose to photograph (it would have to be a bright one) has already been done to death.  I am all for short exposures, and hope to be able to attach my camera soon to the eyepiece for better shots of the lunar surface, Jupiter, Saturn etc.  But this need only take up a small portion of any observing night, when I prefer to be at the eyepiece, hunting down deep sky objects with a passion that I also try to bring to my music performances (I am a pianist).

     So I have a love/hate relationship with modern astro-photography.  Indispensable as it is to science and discovery, I can actually now get bored looking at certain (enhanced) images in magazines.  It has become similar with landscape photography.  Photoshop edits and enhancements have taken the natural world and turned it into something it isn't.  I may not see the Ring Nebula in 4 or 5 different colours in my telescope, or the Grand Canyon in 85 shades of deep red if I actually visit.  And that central star of the Ring is damned elusive in a 12" mirror, though pretty easy for a camera.  But I prefer the view I get of Messier 57 in my eyepiece on a clear night to any photo image I have seen (except maybe Hubble...).  And I would love to see your sketches from the eyepiece anytime!  And maybe just a quick peek at your recent astro-photos.  Clear skies.
Mapman Mike