caldwell , bad idea ?

[rory]

i was doing some research into the astronomical catalogues, and on one site come across this rant about the caldwell list.

i thought id link it, id be interested to read the views of the experienced astronomers on s.g.l

---------------------------

Why Patrick Moore's "Beyond Messier: The Caldwell Catalog" is a bad idea

Although it is very laudable of Moore to encourage amateurs to look past the Messiers into the greater - and occasionally more interesting - depths of the night sky, his method is quite inappropriate. If it was simply "Moore's Favourites" or "Moore's Top 100", then fine. What really bugged me was a combination of numerous sloppy errors in the data table and what I personally read as apparent presumptuousness, and apparent self-aggrandisement on Moore's part. I hope it was unintentional.

My disbelief and distaste grew as I continued to read Moore's article. "Caldwell 11, the Bubble Nebula..." Who is ever going to remember the Bubble Nebula as a new number? Who needs to? "The Hyades...appears here as C41." The Hyades sparkle just fine by themselves thank you very much.

Sure, it's a great idea to popularize some lesser-known objects, but did Roger Tory Peterson rename birds in his Field Guides? "The Bald Eagle here appears as Peterson 42..." What would people think of you if you tried that? Where's the promotion here, the objects or him? "Moore, like Messier, begins with`M.' Fortunately, my surname is actually hyphenated - Caldwell-Moore. So let us use C for my catalog."

Moore took most of the favorite non-Messier NGC objects, like the North American, the Eskimo, the Cocoon, the Rosette, the Veil, and rechristened them with C-numbers. Excuse me, did he say "lesser known" ? They've got names, man! Even Hubble's Variable Nebula has been renamed! 31 objects on that list have familiar names. 25 other objects have well-known NGC numbers, like 891, 2419, 4565 or IC entries like 342. You don't see Houston, MacRobert, Webb, or Smyth objects in magazines. William Herschel did not recatalog the Messier list when he published his catalog of deep-sky objects, including 1,000 new discoveries - he left the Messiers with their familiar names. While Moore may be a veteran amateur astronomer and a dynamic television personality, one must wonder how much deep-sky experience he really has. He lists IC 405, the Flaming Star Nebula, as "bright", and at 6th magnitude! Obviously it looks interesting in pictures but he either hasn't seen it or made a double typo with the magnitude and with the associated word.

I'm surprised that Moore (and the editors at Sky & Telescope) perpetuated an historical myth by stating "Yet there are many other objects of equal or greater interest...that Messier did not include, perhaps because there was little chance of confusing them with his beloved comets." The Messier catalogue is not a "could be confused with a comet" list, although non-comets were the driving force behind Messier's compilation. The proper (translated) title is "Catalogue of Nebulae and Star Clusters." Without exception, all open star clusters were resolved and correctly identified as such by Messier. Granted many objects listed by Moore are more interesting than Messier's, but they are definitely not as bright. He seems unaware of the poor optical quality and light grasp of Messier's telescopes: the Great Hercules globular cluster was described as a "nebula without a star." All the northern objects in the C-list (except for the Hyades) are too faint for Messier to have found with his little telescope.

Moore claims to present interesting objects for the observer that are neglected because they are not on the Messier list. Southern hemisphere observers must be shaking their heads in disbelief since magnificent objects like Eta Carinae and Omega Centauri on "his" list make any Messier object pale by comparison. All southern objects in Moore's list would have been easy targets for Messier - alas he did not observe the southern skies at the time. Southerners hardly need to be told by a northerner to seek out "neglected" objects, of which 13 of the 32 (below France's horizon) are visible to the naked eye! After that insult, imagine how they must feel to see both Magellanic Clouds missing from the Caldwell Catalog; the Large Cloud alone contains more interesting stuff in it than all of Cygnus but packed into an area the size of the Scutum starcloud!

The Caldwell Catalog also contains errors too numerous to mention here. A couple of examples will suffice: the very bright Eta Carinae Nebula is given a magnitude of 6.2, while the Tarantula Nebula is listed at first magnitude! The size column, labeled arcminutes (') at the top, actually contains a hodgepodge of object sizes in degrees, arcminutes, or arcseconds. Many of the planetary nebulae have (unexplained in the text) a secondary size on that list, the one measured on long exposure photographs, invisible even to large scope visual observers. I'm at a loss to understand how this shoddiness happens with the current quality and accessibility of measurements in machine readable databases.

The goal of getting observers to look past the Messiers is a good one, but my reception, and perception, of Moore's approach left me reminiscing of a Douglas Adams line from Zaphod Beeblebrox in "A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe" : "He's so unhip it's a wonder his buns don't fall off." Thankfully C-numbers will be difficult to memorize - let us bury them deep where the stars do not shine, and promote the already excellent deep-sky references noted at the top of this article.

The Caldwell Catalogue

[Dunkster]

Sour grapes, perhaps?

I for one am glad it exists, as this is intended for amateur astronomers and as such I'm not sure how I'd enter some of those into my goto... (if it wasn't for the big 'C' button)

[bish]

I think somebody needs to chill out. It's just a list for people to have fun with.

[JamesF]

Sounds like someone just wants to take a pop at PM to me. Fair enough, typos and factual errors should have been picked up during editing, but the rest is rather petty.

James

[reddoss]

My understanding from what I remember of watching interviews on TV is that Sir Patrick only wrote it as a bit of fun whilst waiting for a break in the clouds during a lunar observing session. He then published it, also as a bit of fun and then it got taken up by amateurs, something he never thought would happen.

[rory]

My understanding from what I remember of watching interviews on TV is that Sir Patrick only wrote it as a bit of fun whilst waiting for a break in the clouds during a lunar observing session. He then published it, also as a bit of fun and then it got taken up by amateurs, something he never thought would happen.

interesting. so this could explain the errors involved then ?

[Double Kick Drum]

Good grief!

It's just a list.

"The Hyades...appears here as C41." The Hyades sparkle just fine by themselves thank you very much.

So do the Pleiades but no-one says you cannot call them M45 any more. The remainder of Messiers also have NGC numbers.

Stars have names, Greek alphabet designations and Flamsteed numbers amongst others and no-one gets in a flap.

Some objects have more than one name; the Beehive cluster = Praesepe, the Eskimo nebula = the Clown Face nebula.

+1 for Caldwell to stay!

[Macavity]

I bought the O'Meara version of the Moore version of the...

Personally, it's a bit disappointing that I'll have no access to the Southerly ones. But I sense the now 4(!) volume set by O'M will keep me going until (the unlikely event) I get to to be SPM's age... And even without the Hershel 400 etc. etc.

http://youtu.be/A45xqLHccRo (I have a little list - Mikado)

[steppenwolf]

Anyone who has had any contact with Patrick will know full well that he is not one for 'presumptuousness, and apparent self-aggrandisement' - quite the opposite in my experience. This rant is just sour grapes and at the end of the day, it is just a list of popular objects and lists are good things to have available. The NGC catalogue is too big and the Messier catalogue (produced for the opposite reason to that one would have expected!) is done to death so I for one welcome lists like this - there are some great objects on it too!

[Mark at Beaufort]

Sir Patrick only wrote it as a bit of fun whilst waiting for a break in the clouds during a lunar observing session. He then published it, also as a bit of fun and then it got taken up by amateurs, something he never thought would happen.

I recently asked Patrick this question for his new book with Dr Chris North. What is stated above is basically what he said - he also mentioned that someone was not very happy but the fact that so many amateurs enjoy the list speaks for itself.

I have enjoyed viewing some of the 69 objects visible from the UK although some are rather difficult.

Mark

[Glen]

As Sir P has excelled in this subject that has thankfully been televised through the years along with all the ups and downs, the idiom of grin and bear it pops into mind - make do even, but most of all.. have fun.

It's no wonder people asked the man "What do you look at?" or "What would be on your favourite list?"

The guy should be Thankful Sir Patrick gave in to those requests, and see it as it is.

[rory]

fair to say then , this guys comments are not echo'ed elsewhere ? i posted it because i was ataken back by his slating of the list,and thought " cant be a popular opinion" thankfully i seems im right and alister ling is abit of a numpty !

[Glen]

You spelt 'all-incompassing' wrong. Although I admit, I'll be biased on this whole subject.

[coulthamst]

I believe that the writer of the original knocking piece is an american gentleman. Unfortunately, like a small proportion of his compatriots, he appears to have problems with anyone who is not american being credited with anything - hence the proliferation of films rewriting the history of the Second World War!

[bish]

alister ling is abit of a numpty !

That sums it up perfectly:D

[Stephen]

I think I can sum up the mentality of the poster of that rant in one word ...

"Overtired"

[Dunkster]

I think I can sum up the mentality of the poster of that rant in one word ...

"Overtired"

Maybe he'd been kept up bagging the 55

[umadog]

Yep: sour grapes. The Caldwell is just a list of objects that Moore liked and are not present in the Messier catalogue. The rest is what the author of that little piece chooses to read into it. Yes, there are errors in the original list but errors can be corrected. The spirit of the catalogue is what matters.

EDIT:

I believe that, to some degree, the Caldwell was pushed by S&T as a marketing stunt and that doesn't seem to have been taken on board in the piece above.

[onesmallstep]

I believe that the writer of the original knocking piece is an american gentleman. Unfortunately, like a small proportion of his compatriots, he appears to have problems with anyone who is not american being credited with anything - hence the proliferation of films rewriting the history of the Second World War!

You mean that the crew of the USS Nimitz didn't go back in time and witness the attack on Pearl Harbour!!! I thought it was a documentary.

The Final Countdown (1980) - IMDb

[Dave]

To my mind, any observing list that gets some of these wonderful objects observed more often has got to be a good thing.

Dave

[Sam]

I think the list is fantastic, nothing wrong with one of the world's great astronomers letting other amateur astronomers have a list to work through. Often it is hard to work out where to start in astronomy and lists like this or the Messier one are a really great way to get to know the sky. If you're really ambitious you could work through the NGC!

I think the author of that little rant may have taken things out of context.

[4lefts]

the guy's popular; a large number of use owe our enjoyment of this hobby, at least in part, to him - i know i do. it's quite right he should have a list of his favourite objects published, and it's an extremely useful "next step" for people who've "done" the messiers, or want something to go along side it. after all, there are plenty of awesome objects on there.

[acey]

The Caldwell list caused some controversy when first published in S&T in 1995, especially in America - I believe the article in the OP (by Alister Ling) was written around then, and reflects the main points of contention that were raised at the time.

Some people took umbrage at the introduction of C-numbers (when we already have Herschel and NGC numbers), and were irritated when those numbers were adopted by GoTo scopes. I share Ling's dislike of C-numbers: if you like them then fine.

The original list had various errors which were subsequently corrected, though there remain some curious anomalies: some objects that are extrememly difficult, or just not very interesting, and were possibly included by mistake. If you like looking at them (or just trying to see them) then fine.

I've viewed all the Caldwell's down to my horizon and quite a few below it (during foreign trips). It's an interesting list and I'm glad I tried it. As a post-Messier list for northern-hemisphere beginners I would personally advocate Alan Dyer's "best NGC objects" instead, which I found easier and more enjoyable (the same northern showpieces appear in both lists). If you prefer the Caldwell list then fine.

The only historically "true" lists are Messier, the three Herschel lists (two of 1000 and one of 500 objects), the NGC, and a few other historic catalogues. Everything else (Caldwell, Dyer, Herschel 400, O'Meara "hidden treasures" etc etc ) is somebody's modern-day "best of" pick, analogous to those programmes on TV that purport to give the "100 best comedy films" etc. Nice to have, but not worth getting worked up over. If you like them then fine. If you don't, that's fine too.

The response of some in this thread is curious, treating it as some kind of personalised battle between Britain and U.S., accusing Ling of sour grapes etc. Come on, get real - we're talking about a list of stuff to look at in the sky. Ling makes some fair points, but as Patrick Moore himself has apparently said, it was just a bit of fun. So we shouldn't take it all so seriously.

[Mr Spock]

To me anything which encourages observing is a good thing

[foundaplanet]

self-aggrandisement

Hardly words you could use to describe Sir Patrick Moore. When I met him a fair few years ago he turned up in an old battered yellow ford cortina.

One of the most thoughtful and encouraging people you could wish to meet. Funny to.