How long to spend on each DSO

[almcl]

Hi again

Forecast suggests that tonight it may worth packing scope, laptop, notebooks, drawing kit &c and heading off to the dark sky site, 40 minutes drive away.

With luck the Teapot will be visible above the horizon and I can spend the time looking at some of those wonderful DSOs in Sagittarius. 

I was blown away by this at the last dark of the moon and can't wait to get back, but should I just concentrate on one or two objects (see more by spending quality time on just one or two objects)  or should I continue trying to expand my Messier count by as many objects as possible while they are still available?

Oh, and I have to be up for work next morning as well so can't linger till the end of astro dark at around 03:30, more's the pity.

What's the community feeling?

[algol]

They recommend 15 or so minutes on each object to see more detail but it depends, if there is something you'd really like to observe spend the extra time on it, if not just do the tour.

[swamp thing]

Observing is a personal thing there are no hard and fast rules, spend as much or as little time on an object as you wish.

Personally I vary my time on objects considerably, some I spend hours on whilst others a few minutes and i move on. 

[jkwhinfrey]

I find it's mood dependent. Sometimes I work at observing, and at other times just chill out and wander. The kit I use matches what I'm doing.

If it's a planned session after a particular object, I'll take the time to make sure my kit's setup right - collimation etc - then I'll spend at least 15 minutes on it, often more, before starting to draw, which can take a while. I also take my time to fully dark adapt before hand.

If it's a wandering session, it'll be a wide field scope or binoculars and bounce from one thing to the next unless something grabs my attention. At times like these I don't worry much about dark adaption, just get stuck in ;-) I still make brief notes though, nice to look back on.

[cotterless45]

Looking forward to a long clear night. The old favourites are enjoyed and sketched if time allows. Those faint elusive galaxies are zoomed up and down the magnifications to see any further details.

It's not a race and a comfortable perch and clear skies will make for a rewarding time,

Nick.

[Astro Imp]

Very much personal preference.

For me it depends on the object, some I'll give a brief look others spend some time on, as Nick says above, changing EPs trying to get more out of the object.

The point of this hobby is to enjoy the night sky, do what you want when you want, providing you have clear skies.

Have a good evening,

[D4N]

I found a good zoom EP was a great benefit to me in this regard.

I used to waste a lot of time fumbling for the next EP, swapping, refocusing, finding I had gone to far and swapping again.

Very nice just to adjust the zoom instead, means more observing time

TSED70Q, iOptron Smart EQ pro, ASI-120MM, Finepix S5 pro.

[RichM63]

You'll see more details appear after 10 - 15 mins min'.

A bit like running into the Pub and quaffing a swift half and then running out again, you don't see the people or taste the beer. But stick around for a couple of pints and you'll start to see the characters and get a decent flavour.

[szymon]

I agree, the longer the look the more you see.  I'm also strongly considering a zoom eyepiece...

[Paul73]

Some objects are more interesting than others. I generally give it a moment or two and if nothing of particular interest is happening. I move one. If there is a hint of some detail. Then I put the time in.

Paul

[dick_dangerous]

Depends how I'm feeling - sometimes I ping round them, sometimes I linger. More time at the eyepiece means more detail, but it doesn't always work out like that - it took me about 10 minutes to locate M72 on Sunday and all I got was a dim blur. The Cat's Eye Nebula on the other hand, or the Ring, are objects that merit a bit more time looking. Certainly Sagittarius has some real highlights - The Lagoon, The Omega, The Trifid, M22, large numbers of open and other globular clusters - you won't get bored!

DD

[scarp15]

It is probably a good policy to revisit certain objects during the same session period. This will permit the object to relocate to perhaps a more favourable position (or reach its meridian), for the sky to become darker or compare periods of varied sky transparency. It will grant more time for your eyes to fully dark adapt, subsequently becoming more sensitized towards exploring subtleties in the features. As mentioned, when comfortably sat and with good posture, attention is then retained for extended periods on any object that you find interesting enough to scrutinize for longer.

[stevend]

Conditions play a big part in my observing. When viewing is very good I take my time to see what else can pop-out. I always revisit objects because I know how often things can change even from hour to hour. I am a quality over quantity kind of guy and take my time when I think I am seeing special either because it is, or because the sky is unusually clear. Recently I was looking at the dragonfly cluster when the good conditions meant that it almost appeared like there was a dragonfly brooch of diamonds up there - I made a point of enjoying the moment.

[almcl]

Thanks all for the thoughts and for the good wishes.

Last night turned out quite well.  Found the Swan/Omega/M17 by accident while just sweeping into position and it really does look like a swan (to me at any rate)!  M22 seemed to rival M13 (may in part be due to my complete inability to recognise the Hercules keystone, even on a night with good seeing, no moon and it being almost overhead.)

Managed to find M9 (what a tiny little globular!) but the plan to star hop from there to M19 failed.  May have been just a bit too hazy that low down.  So had another look at the Lagoon and the Triffid - just wonderful. 

I take on board the point about 'just enjoy it'  but at the same time it is nice to know what one is looking at. 

And as a final piece of icing on the cake, was finally able to locate M110. 

[Charic]

42? Its the answer to everything, according to Adams? 

[CSM]

42? Its the answer to everything, according to Adams? 

Would that be M42?

[acey]

William Herschel discovered 2500 DSOs by aiming his undriven telescope south, moving it up and down, and observing whatever passed through his field of view. On one night he discovered more than 70 galaxies in this way. He would only have looked at each object for a short time, in some cases maybe only seconds. He described each object using a shorthand code he invented, and dictated the observations to his sister so that he didn't need to take his eye away from the eyepiece. Those descriptions eventually went into the NGC, and many of them are more detailed and useful than the essays written by some amateurs after half an hour of observing. So I'd say the important thing is not the time you spend looking, but the intelligence you bring to your observations. Though unlike Herschel, we aren't observing for a scientific purpose, we're doing it for fun, so anything goes.

Also unlike Herschel, we usually look for objects that we know in advance are there. In that case I'll often take a long time to try and see a difficult object - maybe half an hour or even longer. The more time I spend hunting, the more reluctant I am to give up the search. An hour to find an object feels like a triumph, an hour spent not finding one feels like time that could have been better spent looking at other things instead.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I like to switch between "hunting mode" in which I bag many objects in a short time, often noting which objects look worth a revisit, with browsing mode, in which I take my time studying objects (often old friends). I do make plans for observations, especially for hunts, but I might abandon these on the spur of the moment. After all, it is a hobby, just do as you please. It does help to take your time looking at objects longer, as you start picking up fainter detail. This in turn improves your hunting skills, I find. At the same time, hunting provides you with new targets to study at a later date.

[rwilkey]

To me it's not about 'ticking off' objects in a catalogue, I like to stop and enjoy the objects, especially when I see them for the first time.  If they are not very interesting, I just move on.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

One point to note is that as the list of objects you have seen increases, the number of fairly nondescript fuzzy blobs also increases. I rarely spend much time on those. There is also the matter of pairs or groups of objects. I might have spent only 2 minutes per object in some parts of Virgo, but I spent 16 minutes admiring the group of 8 objects in the single FOV

[almcl]

Many very useful and thought provoking points, thanks to all.

As an experiment, last night I tried just looking at M13 hoping that it would resolve into stars. Not sure that I saw a great deal more after 15 minutes but had swapped eyepieces. And while there were certainly strings of stars visible, even with the 5mm ep, the central area remained a fuzzy blob. Still it was very relaxing, once I had identified Hercules from my light polluted back garden!

[todd8137]

Rather than a particular dso /planet /moon , I pick a constellation and I spend around 4 hour looking aro,und it checking out dso's a lot is,down to the scope I may use the dob or the sct or the baby 80mm frac I find 25 minutes brings out about as much detail,as my eyes will see if drawing well that can take a good hour

Pat

[acey]

Points to bear in mind with regard to viewing time:

1. After exposure to bright light, the eye can take up to 30 minutes to reach full dark adaptation. So in order to see the faintest objects/details one might need to wait that long at the eyepiece. Even after exposure to a dim red light at a dark site, it can take some time to re-adapt fully. The sky seen through a telescope is darker than the actual sky, so even at a dark site with no light except the sky itself, it still takes time to adapt to the background level seen in the eyepiece. At high magnification this background is in effect totally black, and a glance at the sky can feel positively dazzling.

2. The atmosphere is variable, and just as there are moments of best seeing, so there are also moments of best transparency, even on a night that seems perfectly clear. Sometimes you need to wait a while to catch these best moments, when a very faint target suddenly pops into view.

3. Long viewing time degrades visual performance and attention. The classic experiment (during WW2) involved RAF personnel assigned to watch a specially prepared clock and note whenever it missed a tick. The experimenter found, not surprisingly, that the longer they did this task, the more errors they made. It was found that a dose of amphetamine sulphate ("speed") could improve the servicemen's performance, though this is probably inadvisable for amateur astronomy

So if we assume adequate dark adaptation, then viewing is a matter of balancing detail-spotting with visual fatigue. The balance depends on the observing situation and the personal factors of the observer.