Does the BBC Sky at Night Mag talk absolute nonsense?

[Cjg]

Hi,

I've started by reading the now ex BBC Sky at Night Mag, but having read their article on finding YU55 and then seen "differing advice" from a respected astronomer (@VirtualAstro) who said that even with clear skies very little chance of picking it out.

The reviews also seem a little biased in favour of the company that seems to advertise on the inside cover.

Am a being cynical? Is there a better mag to be reading?

[rory]

what does sky at night say on the matter yu55 ?

from the 3 or 4 editions ive read, ive found no bias at all. but cant comment on the article you refer to.

[steppenwolf]

The reviews also seem a little biased in favour of the company that seems to advertise on the inside cover.

When I write a review for the magazine, I always contact each company and ask for a bribe - obviously the highest bidder wins. No, you are not being at all cynical just as I am not being at all serious.

[Veracocha]

Astronomers live in hope and if the magazine says there's a chance then we hang onto it. If the writers took the "don't bother" mentality, we'd rareley go out on the few good nigts we have. I thought it was a pretty decent article tbh.

[LukeSkywatcher]

Astronomers live in hope and if the magazine says there's a chance then we hang onto it. If the writers took the "don't bother" mentality, we'd rareley go out on the few good nigts we have. I thought it was a pretty decent article tbh.

Exactly. There is a very good chance that some people somewhere actually will image/observe this asteroid. Best of luck to them. I cant even begin to imagine just how fine tuned a persons skills and equipment must be to observe,image asteroids (any asteroid).

It is an art unto itself.

Astro mags have to print the relevant info for all to see even if it is only a very small number of people who actually get to observe/image it.

I honestly dont think that people who spend their lives (hobby or otherwise) hunting,observing,imaging asteroids will actually take the info in an astro mag as their point of reference. They are well ahead of the game and use more sophisticated means of getting the correct info. Anyone who does manage to observe,image it has been planning to do so for a long time. They are not people like me who just wander out into the back garden in the hope of seeing it.

Now if you will excuse me i think i will go and renew my prescription for S@N online.

I aint seen an edition of it in about 2 yrs. I miss it being stuffed through my letterbox once a month by the postman and my dog ripping it to pieces trying to get to the postman's fingers.

[Dave Dubya]

I was told one could see it in a scope with aperture 6 inches and above. And the ephemeris for YU55 have been published - so locating it in the sky shouldn't be too hard, especially with Go-to.

As for Sky at Magazine being biased, I very much doubt it.

[LukeSkywatcher]

I also read that scopes of 6" or above are more then capable of observing it. However it all depends where you are and local weather conditions.................obviously.

It is VERY low down..............so people on the south coast of UK have a greater chance. But really only if you know what you are doing and looking for.

Personally i am not skilled enough to see a passing asteroid. Also its not something i have an interest in as an observational astronomer.

[swamp thing]

Hi,

I've started by reading the now ex BBC Sky at Night Mag, but having read their article on finding YU55 and then seen "differing advice" from a respected astronomer (@VirtualAstro) who said that even with clear skies very little chance of picking it out.

The reviews also seem a little biased in favour of the company that seems to advertise on the inside cover.

Am a being cynical? Is there a better mag to be reading?

There is only really one way to know whether or not you'll be able to see it, and that is: to try.

Don't just give up because someone else says so. Mankind would not have achieved much if we all gave up because someone else said it can't be done.

Give it a bash, you might be surprised.

Regards Steve

[cantab]

Hi,

The reviews also seem a little biased in favour of the company that seems to advertise on the inside cover.

It's the Beeb, hidden bias in any of their publications would spoil their reputation and I don't think it's all that likely.

However, I suspect that most magazine reviews will give the positive view in general. When marks out of ten are given, for example, the average tends to be about 7, not 5.

[great_bear]

Sometimes the reviews made me wonder if the particular reviewer knew what he was talking about. What bothered me more was the low level of comprehension it's pitched at. Even if I was a kid I'd find it too patronising. Some people think that's a bit harsh, but the final issues before I cancelled my subscription, I didn't even read (looked at the pictures though )

[Stephen]

Hi,

I've started by reading the now ex BBC Sky at Night Mag, but having read their article on finding YU55 and then seen "differing advice" from a respected astronomer (@VirtualAstro) who said that even with clear skies very little chance of picking it out.

The reviews also seem a little biased in favour of the company that seems to advertise on the inside cover.

Am a being cynical? Is there a better mag to be reading?

The article was about imaging it right? Not viewing it?

Think you may find the author of the article in S@N is actually rather respected for imaging stuff up there - if he says it's do-able, I'd believe it

Sadly clouded out though so we will never know!

[LukeSkywatcher]

I just signed up online for 12 issues of S@N. Being in Ireland i dont get the offer of free books etc...........but i get a 15% discount on the cost of 12 issues apparently.

I really dont care what is what............happy to pay the price.

[Quatermass]

I really love sky at night mag sometimes the articles are a bit so so but gen its a great read. As for seeing the astro no chance here in pea soup land bah

Sent from my GT-S5670 using Tapatalk

[Chris H]

The last issue was my first for a while, it was pants, won't be buying it again.

[nicnac]

I always find something of interest in the mag, in turn there will be something thats not my cuppa tea…… but it will be somebody elses. It is a good information source for those interested in astronomy, it is tailored for those of like mind not the one. I will continue to buy the publication, there is always something in there

[great_bear]

it is tailored for those of like mind not the one.

The complaint is the quality of writing - not that it's not one's cup of tea

[Rob L]

When I write a review for the magazine, I always contact each company and ask for a bribe - obviously the highest bidder wins. No, you are not being at all cynical just as I am not being at all serious.

Wish I hadn't been drinking my coffee when I read this

[M4lcs67]

I am relatively new to astronomy and have been getting the S@N mag for a while now. In fact I have just started to subscribe (25% off and a free book). I do find it a good read and find the sky maps and whats happening this month sections good. While I am not in a position to comment on more technical or detailled things I do find it a good mag overall. Also the disc that comes with it is very informative.

[great_bear]

Also the disc that comes with it is very informative.

Actually I did enjoy that little animated planisphere "tour" on each monthly disc narrated by Patrick and Chris - although I struggled to decipher what PM was saying sometimes...

Do they still do that? It's rather nice...

[afm038]

As with all magazines some articles are of interest to some readers whilst others are not, I find the mag on whole quite reasonable.

A minor issue - they would appear to have the 2005 YU55 track timings wrong in the Nov issue p50 as it doesn't agree with similar tracks produced in sky and telescope or by my planetarium software (Guide 8 and the SkyX) perhaps when they produced the article they used old orbital elements that have now changed ?

Andy

[nicnac]

I was not really answering specifics gb, merely airing my thoughts on a decent publication

[Macavity]

I don't think we're talking "major learning tool". <G> I read the picture captions... sometimes more! Much of the scientific media is repetition, once you've grasped the basics? Sometimes we're deriving a modicum of reassurance that someone else might give "two hoots" about this stuff at all... Still, Brian Cox etc., notwithstanding, not THAT many folks do...

[king-jaffethehutt]

I must admit to preferring Astronomy Now