Night at the Toothill Observatory

[russ]

Last Thursday myself and Rob got the chance to use the Toothill Observatory which belongs to the Solent Astronomical Society. Their observatory houses an 18month old Meade LX200 GPS 14". They've owned it from new after they were lucky enough to secure National Lottery funding. Amazingly I've never used it in all that time despite being a member. But myself and Rob have made a conscious effort to get trained and become key holders at the observatory. So we'll get to use it whenever we like. Although our enthusiasm maybe slightly damped now.

So how did the views through the 14" compare? Well we looked at a fair few deepsky objects, mainly galaxies but also a few globs, a supernova remnant and a planetary nebula. Some were much better than a smaller scope, most not really any improvement and one worse.

Here's what we viewed and how I rated the view:

M51 - was really looking forward to this one. One of my fav objects and had high hopes. I suppose I was slightly disappointed but on reflection it was quite satisfying. We could see a hint of spiral structure around the main part of the galaxy but no sign of the arm that joins the galaxy together. I thought we may get a hint of that in a 14"? The Baader Neodymium helped tease out some of that detail.

M65/M66/NGC3628 - Another target I was looking forward too. M65/M66 showed nothing extra compared to a much smaller scope, just brighter. But I could see NGC3628......JUST!

M95/M96 - this was a real surprise. This pair used to be a staple diet of mine with my Tasco 114 from parents home. Leo was in my top 3 constellations.....galaxy hunters dream. Just shows what a dark sky can do. In the Meade 14" with light polluted skies I really, really struggled to see this pair. Couldn't believe it.

M63 - no extra detail, just a tad brighter.

M108 - as above

M109 - as above

M101 - as above

M97 - I thought I could see a hint of the eyes in the 'Owl' but the others said no. So just brighter than a smaller scope.

M1 - wrong scope for the wrong target. Even with a 30mm Moonfish we could barely see the crab...at all. Much better in the smaller scope. A 14" f4 dob would have been good for this.

NGC2392 - The Eskimo appeared as a bright out of focus star.

M13 - jaw dropping beautiful in the 14". WOW, OMG, Crikey!!!!!! Now that was awesome, just blew me away.

M3 - as above. WOW shame we didn't move onto M92

M53 - a bit disappointing after the above two.

M104 - The Sombrero at first was very disappointing. Just appearing as an elongated fuzzy patch. But then on closer inspection I noticed it was cut off at the bottom, perfectly flat.....result!

We had a look at Saturn too. It was okay, nice and bright. Plenty of banding and Cassini. Wouldn't have said it was a huge improvement over a smaller scope though. In fact in some ways it was inferior. Lacking sharpness and overly bright. A filter would have helped a lot I think.

On the whole it was a somewhat of a let down. Actually from my point of view it was like the last time i looked through a 'big' scope from a light polluted area.....a tad disappointing. But not too much, I was expecting it this time.

But it had a more profound affect on poor old Rob, more of a life changing effect. I'm sure he'll give his view of the evening but I know he was bitterly disappointed the faint fuzzies were still only faint fuzzies like they are in his 4" Vixen. And that the view of Saturn just didn't snap in like it does in his Vixen. I know he has completely shelved any thoughts of a 12" lightbucket based on the views in the 14".

What worries me most is the trip to Wales for SGL3. I lost all motivation after Kelling Heath. Kelling just made me realise what a lost cause my home location is. I'm sure SGL3 will have the effect.

Russ

[GazOC]

Did you try any LP filters Russ? With that aperture it might be worth a pop?

[Andrew]

In some respects Rus I'd echo some of what you say when comparing my 12" and 4.5" newtonians at a light polluted site.

Galaxies are brighter and easier to find (especially dim ones). Additional detail is there, but it doesn't always leap out at you.

However, for clusters (open and globular) the difference in aperture has a huge effect on the ability to resolve stars.

Andrew

[russ]

Did you try any LP filters Russ? With that aperture it might be worth a pop?

Gaz, we tried using a Baader UHC-S, OIII, Lumicon LPR and the Baader Neodymium. We weren't happy with the views using the UHC-S, OIII and Lumicon but the Neodymium helped and stayed in for the duration of the night.

Just so there's no confusion, this is not a review of the Meade. Nothing really wrong (aside from the mirror flop, huge dollops of image shift, usual unresponsive #497 hand controller :?) with the scope. In fact boy would it be good from a decent site.

However, for clusters (open and globular) the difference in aperture has a huge effect on the ability to resolve stars.

Globs or tight open clusters seem to be its real forte. I reckon M57 and perhaps M27 will also be knockout views, even in these skies.

Russ

[Kaptain Klevtsov]

And there was me just about to buy one as well. ( Financial controller she say no! :nono: ) Very interesting post Russ, it seems that LP is the number one factor in what you can see. I suppose it's to do with the background light levels or some such. Nowt that a 'scope can do about that, is there?

Captain Chaos

[GordonCopestake]

I would agree with that: LP is the limiting factor on DSO's not aperture. Aperture just gives you the ability to see the DSO, LP cuts that back. 99% of the time I observe from my NELM4 garden and whilst DSO's were better in my 12" dob, I can't see that much difference in my 6" SCT. I personally dont think the extra weight is worth the difference in views unless you have an obs

[russ]

Thats it Gordon. It's just a post to highlight the problems with light pollution. And how it robs a big aperture scope of its advantage over a smaller scope. There's is a difference but it's not pronounced, certainly not to the degree you would expect. It wasn't just myself and Rob who thought so. The curators of the observatory have very little enthusiasm for the 14". They were more interested in their own 4-6" scopes.

Russ

[Helen]

Hi Russ,

You say your home location is a lost cause...but your images are amazing!

Helen

[russ]

Hi Helen, actually that was a little misleading. My home location is noticeably better than the observatory site. The observatory is uncomfortably close to Southampton, Fawley and the M27. All horizons suffer with LP but the whole southern horizon, from east to west is horrendous. Where as at home I have pretty good north, east, southeast views with very little LP. I can see constellations right down into the horizon. Trouble is the south, southwest and west look directly into Southampton. It's a diseaster on that side. I always make sure I image things to the east (except for that M37 image).

Russ