S@N

[ollypenrice]

If Celestial G is a made up asterism then not surprised he has never heard of it.

Actually thought an asterism was a sub part of a constellation like the Plough is part of Ursa Major.

Making up a "new" constellation is just joint the dots really and there are a lot of dots.

How about the Full Stop Constellation? Just pick a brightish star.

Didn't see the program will look for a reshow of it.

Difficult to show what you see, they can only show an image and that tends to come out of a camera in fairness to them. Perhaps a few more clarifications that images displayed and what is observed will differ possibly quite dramatically. Equally there have been posts asking why what is seen doesn't match an image and that image is in the X-ray spectrum then process with a false colour regime.

Your real point taken but out of interest there are inter-constellation asterisms commonly mentioned. The Great Square of Pegasus, for instance, includes Alpheratz which belongs to Andromeda.

Olly

[RichieP]

Your real point taken but out of interest there are inter-constellation asterisms commonly mentioned. The Great Square of Pegasus, for instance, includes Alpheratz which belongs to Andromeda.

Olly

Does the "Summer Triangle" count as an asterism? Altair, Deneb and Vega. I believe it was Sir Patrick who came up with that term.

Rich

[RichieP]

Does the "Summer Triangle" count as an asterism? Altair, Deneb and Vega. I believe it was Sir Patrick who came up with that term.

Rich

My mistake, apparently he popularised the term but didn't actually invent it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_Triangle

[steppenwolf]

Well 'ya lives and ya learns' - I always thought that Patrick had come up with this name. A useful clarification!

[dtr42]

Well 'ya lives and ya learns' - I always thought that Patrick had come up with this name. A useful clarification!

he just made it popular

[peeceeTal2M]

Watched Sky@night earlier on BBC4 and was disappointed when they were showing the visit to the star party. They were talking to the guys looking through their scopes and showing images of what they were observing and made no attempt to point out that these images were nothing like what was being observed but were AP images. The only time this was mentioned was when they showed the Hubble image of M1.

I fealt that this could easily have given newcomers the completely wrong impression and could have been easily avoided.

It's a pity they couldn't show 2 images for each object, what they really look like through an eyepiece and the other, what the camera sees with the colour and detail. I agree with the others, Patrick seemed very quiet and not his normal self

[Demo johnny]

If Celestial G is a made up asterism then not surprised he has never heard of it.

Actually thought an asterism was a sub part of a constellation like the Plough is part of Ursa Major.

Making up a "new" constellation is just joint the dots really and there are a lot of dots.

How about the Full Stop Constellation? Just pick a brightish star.

Didn't see the program will look for a reshow of it.

Difficult to show what you see, they can only show an image and that tends to come out of a camera in fairness to them. Perhaps a few more clarifications that images displayed and what is observed will differ possibly quite dramatically. Equally there have been posts asking why what is seen doesn't match an image and that image is in the X-ray spectrum then process with a false colour regime.

I thought all constellations were asterisms

I thought uncle pat was asleep at one point.

I have to agree that for a newcomer what would be helpful in that show is what actually is seen through an eyepiece. I am sure the likes of Lawrence could do a quick tour and put up realistic "as the eye would see" images of from say a 6" and 8" scope. Not very exciting perhaps but I think would be useful information maybe something for the magazine or website to do.

Also what they should have emphasised as part of the marathon was to switch of your goto and following star maps they have uploaded. Whats the point of just punching in some digits and then say bagged it. Goto makes our lives easier for quick sessions but surely going back to basics for a challenge would be better. Anyway manual guiding for me as I work through the list.

What got me was that these guys had not seen some of the items. It just goes to show in their professional roles their not really looking at this sort of thing.

Was it just me or did Abel look like he had just been swapped with the boy off inbetweeners

[Demo johnny]

I thought all constellations were asterisms

meant to add but I always been wrong with that.

[dwc]

I think the popular magazines could also do more to show people what they will see when observing as opposed to imagine, and especially in their observing guides!

This is something that Turn Left at Orion does really well. I also picked up a s/b book called Visual Astronomy of the Deep Sky, which also gives sketches of objects alongside photos.

[MarkMayf]

If magazines put realistic eyepiece views in they wouldn't sell very many copies!

As you touch on above, that's where books like TLAO and places like this forum come into their own.

[breezy]

Only caught a glimpse of last few mins of latest show , enjoyed the content but felt sorry for sir p as the other 4 bods kept waffling for a few mins and he just uttered a closing sentence ..

[dwc]

If magazines put realistic eyepiece views in they wouldn't sell very many copies!

Yes, agreed. No reason why they couldn't do both. In the early days I probably missed several objects through not knowing what to look for.