How much do you know about an object before observing it?

[JoshH]

Greetings!

Lately I have been rethinking my observing routines and wondered what others do in terms of preparing for a session.

I usually do not have any preconceived notions going into a session and use data as a test of my skills, i.e. spectral class and PA for double stars, surface features in planetary nebulae/galaxies, resolution of globular clusters, etc.

However, I think I might be depriving myself of context and enjoyment at the eyepiece as a result of my self-imposed ignorance.

How much foreknowledge do you have when observing a new object (either in terms of astrophysical properties or visible features)? Which method do you find more enjoyable?

Best regards,

Josh 

[RikM]

I usually read the NGC descriptions for new deep sky object, so I have an idea what I'm looking for. Either that or the brief observing notes in the SAC booklet I am using as an observing guide. Basic visual info only. I try to avoid learning too much background info about the objects. Observing is stress relief for me, not study.

[Paul73]

I get far more out of a session if I observe with a purpose. I generally work from a list and like to have a bit of a read around the subjects so that I know what I am looking at. These sessions either have a theme or are based around a constellation. However, I do like to leave a bit of time for a random mooch around the chosen constellation. Any finds can then be researched afterwards.

The "observing reports" section of this forum is full of target lists / suggestions.

I guess that different people like different levels of detail. Personally, I steer clear of the really technical stuff!

Paul

[John]

I really don't prepare much at all. I tend to take an "off the cuff" approach to observing and make it up as I go along. Sometimes I'll go out to track down a particular target such as a supernova, comet etc but often I'll just browse around and see how the mood takes me. Obviously you have to be steered by conditions - if there is a bright Moon in the sky it's not much good trying to spot very faint DSO's !

I do sometimes read up on a target after I've observed it to get some more background info as that can make an otherwise rather obscure and somewhat unspectacular object more interesting.

As Rik does, I do the hobby to relax so I don't work too hard at it !

[JoshH]

Thank you for the replies Rik, Paul, and John!

I am new to the forum here, but have found it a very informative and friendly place. Thank you to all that make it so!

I think I must strike a balance between research and the lack of spontaneity that comes with a too rigid program. 

[John]

Just enjoy it, whichever way you want to 

[Sandraj]

I like to have a little read on what I have seen or am going to try and see, its interesting for me to know some background, especially as I am new to the hobby, but sometimes I just go out and have a play as well. 

For me, this is a kinda double hobby, fun and educational, I get overwhelmed sometimes thinking, I am looking at stuff that was discovered by dedicated people hundreds of years ago with no fancy maps, goto's, internet, computers and communication took an age. Amazing if you stop and think about all the great Astronomers 

[ollypenrice]

Why not do both? Take a look unprimed to see what you can make of a target then, after reading up, revisit another night?

Olly

[cotterless45]

I think that it adds enjoyment and some depth to just observing. If you do outreach events, the questions some folk ask can be quite challenging !

The great thing about this pastime is that it can encompass science, maths, history, literature and art.

Personally , I'd get every school an obsy and make astronomy compulsory. Some food for young minds !

Nick.

[chiltonstar]

For doubles, I look first to see what I can see, then look up the coordinates (PA and Sep) afterwards to make sure that what I saw was really the secondary, then go back to enjoy. Looking up the information first can be risky (you see what you think should be there).

Chris

[ronin]

What it is in general, therefore what I should have appearing in the eyepiece.

Which constellation it is in and where in that constellation.

So in effect what it is and where it is.

Although I have goto's they are for that purpose to goto the supposid location quickly and allow me additional time to observe, I do not blindly trust them and suspect that no goto owner actually does. Just read the posts that say the goto started to move to the wrong place and it is apparent that that people know fairly accurately where objects are well before the scope moves.

[todd8137]

I usually look in one part of the sky for the evening north or south ect I usually have a idea what's in that part of the sky ,and can tailor my night to that I usually have the sct in the obsy set up and the 16" dob round the back .

Note book ,sketch pad to hand I try to,estimate splits on doubles draw the odd one ,I think every one does there own thing and if when you pack up for the night you have achieved some thing then that is all that counts

Pat

[glynnlondon]

I like to look in Turn Left At Orion as it gives me an idea of what to look for and what it will look like through the eyepiece (the sketches are excellent)

[mjpfc]

I sometimes have an idea about something I am going to look at, having had my attention brought to it

by authors in magazines such as Sue French etc.

Most of the time though, I know that whatever the object looks like from a Dark Sky somehwere with a

10", 15" or other scope (bigger or indeed smaller)  the Impressions Gained from my 8" scope from my

IOW Back Garden are going to be, to a certain extent, pretty much unique.

I find it good to act as if I know little about the object, then I am not seeing things just because I have read that

they are there but actively explore the object with an unbiased eye.

Then: I have a read-up to see if there is any resemblance, and if I am missing something seen by Others due

to a different scope / sky condition. I usually have Uranometria book 3, and Burnhams with me so I check immediately

after Obseving, and if I think I have missed something I should be seeing then I go back to it and have another peek.

It works for me, and I also get to play with big fat books as well as a big fat Telescope.

Nice

Mick

[Digger1895]

I like to plan. Check which constellations up, what's in each at which time I'll be observing, read up a bit on them and see what they look like etc sometimes a theme like I was reading up on here about doubles so thought I'd check some out a bit closer.

This can take a bit of time, then you go outside and it's clouded over!

If I haven't got time to plan, it's an off the cuff obsy session or just can't be bothered I'll use Sky Safari's "tonight's best" search option. This usually throws up a couple of things I haven't thought/heard of before, so I'll also read up on their description and take a look at the picture.

Of course, thanks to the weather, there's plenty of time to read up on what's up there.

[timwetherell]

I am looking at stuff that was discovered by dedicated people hundreds of years ago with no fancy maps, goto's, internet, computers and communication took an age. Amazing if you stop and think about all the great Astronomers 

Yes it is! I find it fascinating looking at things through the kind of instruments that those people had. Like seeing Uranus in an 7" scope with a homemade glass ball eyepiece of the type Herschel would have had when he discovered it. It's amazing that he and Caroline discovered so much with so little.

Actually my wife and I had a very interesting visit to their old house in Bath last time we were in the UK. The pantry floor stones are all cracked apparently from when a big crucible of molten speculum burst and everyone had to leap out the windows. Crazy stuff!