28th October Observing Session

[DeepSkyBagger]

It was obvious right from the start that this was not going to be one of the great nights. Thin, high cloud, almost invisible, covered much of the sky. It was quite cold, 3C, and there was already a fairly heavy dew.

I tried my luck first with NGC 772, a 10th mag spiral galaxy in Aries. It has a fairly low surface brightness of magnitude 14, but this should have been an easy target. The view was disappointingly poor, though I wasn't surprised. The galaxy appeared faint, though visible to direct vision. Clearly elongated, it had a bright, almost stellar centre. It did seem very dim. This object deserves a better night.

Not totally giving up, and hoping for improvement, I then turned towards NGC 784, an 11.5 mag elongated spiral in Triangulum. Again, this should have been an easy target, but was very difficult, only fleetingly visible. Highly elongated with no central brightening discernible.

OK, not a night for the galaxies then. I noticed that stars were still visible below 14th magnitude, so I decided to switch to open clusters for the rest of the session. I've got a bit of a bee in my bonnet about the 'missing' Herschel clusters, objects which have been omitted from later catalogues because they are not prominent on photographs. I have found that many of these objects look like normal clusters (usually quite poor) when observed visually, so I go hunting them.

NGC 1750 (43 H.VIII) Taurus

About two dozen stars of magnitude 9 to 12. A couple of nice curving chains with a nice double to the south (magnitude about 9.5). This certainly looks like a cluster despite its absence from more recent listings. It is loose but fairly well defined.

NGC 1758 (21 H.VII) Taurus

Loose scattering of stars within a triangle of 7th magnitude stars. There is a concentration of 12th mag stars to the north. It is not generally concentrated, but it has the consistent look of a genuine, if poor, cluster.

NGC 1896 (4 H.VIII) Taurus

mall, non-concentrated grouping of stars of about 11th mag. Possibly a chance alignment, but it has the consistent look of a small, poor cluster. 15 – 20 stars.

NGC 1996 (42 H.VIII) Taurus

Far from obvious. Some comparison with surrounding areas reveals a higher concentration of stars of mag 12 and below across a diameter of about 20’. Fainter background stars sparkle occasionally. There is more here than immediately meets the eye, I think.

NGC 2026 (28 H.VIII) Taurus

Five brightish stars in an elongated lozenge shape surround a few fainter stars. Possibly chance alignment, but it looks more like a poor cluster. Maybe 10’ across.

NGC 1662 (1 H.VII) Orion

This one's still recognised as a cluster, though how it's different from the previous ones, I don't know. Maybe 16 fairly bright stars in a very elongated rectangle. Poor, loose and well detached. The brightest star is in the centre, in a squashed rhomboid of four stars.

NGC 1663 (7 H.VIII) Orion

Nothing seen at the given position.

NGC 1778 (61 H.VIII) Auriga

Not missing. Obvious at x83. A sub-rectangular cluster maybe 8’ along its long sides. The brightest star is at the southern end, magnitude about 9.5. There is a nice equal-brightness double at the north end. The magnitudes are about 10 – 10.5 and the separation maybe 15”.

NGC 2192 (57 H.VII) Auriga

Not missing. A small patch of very faint stars close to the limit of detection. Maybe 6 or 7’ across. In the background is the very faint sparkle of fainter, mostly unseen stars. The brightest stars are around 14th mag.

NGC 2240 (49 H.VIII) Auriga

Not missing. A small patch of very faint stars close to the limit of detection. Maybe 6 or 7’ across. In the background is the very faint sparkle of fainter, mostly unseen stars. The brightest stars are around 14th mag.

NGC 2063 (2 H.VIII) Orion

A few faint stars. Does not look like a cluster.

NGC 2112 (24 H.VII) Orion

Not missing. A very small cluster of very faint stars of magnitude 12 and below. Triangular in shape.

NGC 2252 (50 H.VIII) Monoceros

Not missing. A fairly large but frankly uninteresting Y-shaped cluster of stars of magnitude 10 and fainter.

Not a great night's observing, but I did get to check out some more missing Herschel clusters. If it had been a better night, I wouldn't have!

[Paul73]

Thanks for the write up. It makes a nice change to read about a real session which isn't full of "sweeping spirals" etc. That said, I'm not sure that I will be hunting down too many of these targets.

Paul

[scarp15]

Interesting set of targets, as we proceed closer to the full moon cycle, if there are any clear night opportunities to be had (I am monitoring Monday night for around my region) then open clusters (although perhaps a bit brighter than some of those on your list) will be on the business end.

[DeepSkyBagger]

I'm the first to admit that my list contains a lot of very boring objects. Those clusters that don't stand out in photographs aren't necessarily non-existent, but they are usually dull. However, they do form part of my Observing Plan, and as such each is a valid deep-sky bag! They're not the sort of object that I will return to time and again, and I can't in all honesty recommend that anyone goes and looks for them!

Sometimes, observing sessions are a bit like that. 

[cotterless45]

Well done ! I started looking at the missing Herschels. Thought most of them were missing as they were poor ! I had a look at

NGC 6728

NGC 6828

NGC 7234

NGC 6874

NGC 6895

NGC 6989

I'm starting again with Herschel using http://m.schooldepot.co.uk/book/9781107632004/

Sometimes it's good to chuck everything out and start again !

Nick.

[DeepSkyBagger]

Hi Nick,

How absolutely wonderful to find someone else as unhinged as me!

I've seen most of those, with the exception of 6895 and 7234, but they're on my list of 'Boring Objects for Crappy Nights.'

May your aperture grow ever more inches!

Patrick

[DeepSkyBagger]

Nick - Just checked out the book you linked to, O'Meara's take on the Herschel 400. Personally I'm not bothered about some Random's list of what s/he thinks are the 'best' Herschels. I'm just going for the lot! 

[mdstuart]

Great report. That NGC 772 is tough with its low sbr. If you can see mag 14 stars then there are over 800 galaxies out there you will be able to spot!

[DeepSkyBagger]

Yes. The NGC has over 1300 galaxies at or above 13th mag. and visible from my location. However, seeing a 14th mag star and seeing a 14th mag galaxy are two entirely different propositions!

[acey]

Nice to see those Hershel numbers. The status of "non-existent" objects depends to an extent on which source you use: the RNGC incorrectly listed quite a number of objects as non-existent. The most up to date and authoritative editions of the Herschel catalogues and historic NGC are the databases by Wolfgang Steinicke

http://www.klima-luft.de/steinicke/index_e.htm

http://www.klima-luft.de/steinicke/ngcic/Expl_Hist_WH.htm

http://www.klima-luft.de/steinicke/ngcic/Expl_Hist_NGCIC.htm

For galaxies brighter than mag 13 a good place to start is the Shapley-Ames catalogue, first published in 1932, and revised in 1981. Most of the galaxies in it were discovered by Herschel. Second-hand library copies can be obtained quite cheaply, or it can be printed off the web. About 1200 of the entries are visible from my latitude: I'm about half way through.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1932AnHar..88...41S

http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Shapley_Ames/frames.html

[Paul73]

Nick - Just checked out the book you linked to, O'Meara's take on the Herschel 400. Personally I'm not bothered about some Random's list of what s/he thinks are the 'best' Herschels. I'm just going for the lot! 

These lists are great for those of us who are either newbies, or are on the more attentionally challenged end of the spectrum. We would soon loose the will to live if faced with a 1300 target list that comes with the caveat "most of these you won't be able to see or are really boring"....

However, as someone rooted firmly in both of the afore mentioned categories, I salute the obsessives who can work through the whole unedited catalogue(s). Especially if they post the highlights on SGL. :)

Keep at it!

Paul

Ps. Mr O'Meara's book is now on my Christmas list.

[cotterless45]

Mine as well ! Hardly random selection though,

http://www.telosnet.com/dmdodge/astronomy/H400_intro.html

[acey]

The idea of a reduced Herschel list goes back a long way. The first idea was to cut out all Herschel's Class 2 (faint) and Class 3 (very faint) objects, which leaves about 600 objects. The Herschel Club instead selected 400 objects which are mostly a subset of the reduced list, though there are some Class 2 objects in there (and maybe even a couple of Class 3 - I can't remember). If you don't like the idea of somebody's personal selection, and want something closer to Herschel's original work, try that list of 600 or so. A guide to it has been written by James Mullaney (The Herschel Objects And how To Observe Them). It gives the whole list, with details about some, and a bit of history. If you don't want to buy a book then download the Herschel catalogue in the Excel spreadsheet (from the link in my earlier post) and filter out everything with II or III in its Herschel number. If 600-odd feels like too big a list then start with the Herschel 400: those objects are highlighted in red in the S&T Pocket Atlas, which is handy.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Herschel-Objects-Observe-Them/dp/0387681248

[DeepSkyBagger]

I've nothing at all against the Herschel 400 list (or the Herschel 400 II list either!). I didn't say it was a 'random list', I said it was a 'Random's list', ie, a list devised by a random person whom I have never met. Just my attempt to use youthful street-speak.

I prefer to make my own observing lists up, and I favour objects which will be placed above my 'light pollution horizon', rather than my physical horizon.

For the record, I have to date observed 401 Herschel objects, 177 of which are listed in the first H400, and 100 of which are in the second H400, leaving 124 that are in neither. 

Once you've observed the Messier objects, I agree that the H400 list provides an excellent next step in an observing programme, but observers in the UK should be aware that several of the objects are now very difficult to see from Britain. Yes, Herschel observed them all from Slough, but through pre-industrial revolution skies that we no longer have. The H400, like so much in life, favours the North American observer. There are plenty objects not selected for the 400, in the 2nd & 3rd classes (faint and very faint objects) that are actually easier to see than brighter objects at a lower declination.

Clear, dark skies to all.

'Fear not the faintness, just look a little harder'.

[DeepSkyBagger]

PS I agree completely with Paul73 - 

We would soon loose the will to live if faced with a 1300 target list that comes with the caveat "most of these you won't be able to see or are really boring"....

...so for those of you less unhinged than I am, I will keep on observing the difficult and boring objects and keep yyou up to date on my tedious quest!