Andromeda is over rated!

[tich]

The last time I looked at M31 was at a dark site in Wales back in October through my 8" newt & I was making out some amazing detail of the dust lanes. The same goes for M51 at SGL7 as I was making out the arcs quite nicely. At home all I get is faint smuges no matter how clear the sky may look.

[J_M_Franklin]

As for the debate whether Homo floresiensis is Homo sapiens or a separate species is way beyond me. I will accept what ever the biologist say.

I was not referring to Homo Florensis when I spoke of Dwarf Humans, these are clearly Dwarf Homo Erectus and thus not Homo Sapiens, i was referring to the vertically challenged people of human society who used to be called dwarves but now are called something else to enable the sensibilities of the feeble minded to sleep at night.

Thanks for these interesting information. I didn't consider formation in my classification, because for me a satellite is a satellite. If LMC were free floating in intergalactic space like NGC3109, than I'd consider it a galaxy, but since it is in orbit of the much larger Milky Way, I will still think of it as part of Milky Way. I know this way of thinking gets complicated when you consider merger between galaxies like M81 and M82, but I am comfortable thinking M81 and M82 as a double system (for now). Both have super massive black holes while dwarf galaxies generally don't.

Personally I have some reservation to the current theory of globular cluster formation, this seems to be an area of active research. I will wait until the professionals agree with each other how glob formed. I wouldn't be surprise they will eventually come to a conclusion that some globular clusters are globular clusters while others are globular cluster like objects formed from the core of dwarf galaxy.

Keith, I understand what angle your coming from, and with the Globular cluster question I agree, i think we will discover some are formed directly from collapsed cold Hydrogen clouds caused by shock or gravitational waves, and some will be the defunct cores of failed galaxy formation or even stripped galaxies. The problem we have is that at the moment we do not know enough about the galactic halo environment to truly make any definitive conclusion as to the origins of the Globulars or for that matter, dwarf galaxies, I suspect that some will have formed free floating and been captured and some will also have formed from Halo material that was originally in orbit of or actually part of the milky Way (or other large galaxy).

This whole situation is actually complicated by the fact that M31, M33 and the Milky Way are all on a collision course to merge, M31 and we are already in that collision race, they have flown by each other already and are slowly moving in on each other and NASA researchers have managed to calculate this merger will occur in about 4 Billion years. you may find the following interesting, or not!!

This illustration shows a stage in the predicted merger between our Milky Way galaxy and the neighboring Andromeda galaxy, as it will unfold over the next several billion years. In this image, representing Earth's night sky in 3.75 billion years, Andromeda (left) fills the field of view and begins to distort the Milky Way with tidal pull. (Credit: NASA; ESA; Z. Levay and R. van der Marel, STScI; T. Hallas; and A. Mellinger)

This illustration shows the collision paths of our Milky Way galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy. The galaxies are moving toward each other under the inexorable pull of gravity between them. Also shown is a smaller galaxy, Triangulum, which may be part of the smashup. (Credit: NASA; ESA; A. Feild and R. van der Marel, STScI)

This series of photo illustrations shows the predicted merger between our Milky Way galaxy and the neighboring Andromeda galaxy.

• First Row, Left: Present day.
  
• First Row, Right: In 2 billion years the disk of the approaching Andromeda galaxy is noticeably larger.
  
• Second Row, Left: In 3.75 billion years Andromeda fills the field of view.
  
• Second Row, Right: In 3.85 billion years the sky is ablaze with new star formation.
  
• Third Row, Left: In 3.9 billion years, star formation continues.
  
• Third Row, Right: In 4 billion years Andromeda is tidally stretched and the Milky Way becomes warped.
  
• Fourth Row, Left: In 5.1 billion years the cores of the Milky Way and Andromeda appear as a pair of bright lobes.
  
• Fourth Row, Right: In 7 billion years the merged galaxies form a huge elliptical galaxy, its bright core dominating the nighttime sky.
  

(Credit: NASA; ESA; Z. Levay and R. van der Marel, STScI; T. Hallas, and A. Mellinger)

For some images and Videos on this i would refer you to this http://hubblesite.org/news/2012/20

[E621Keith]

These galaxy merger simulations are great. Before these I just assumed the Milky Way and Andromeda will end up like M81 and M82 during the collision phase and the Milky Way will eventually end up like M32 after the disk and gas are stripped by M31 during the merger.

[Singlin]

Andromeda is one of the largest and most visible objects in the night sky and therefore it is one of the first objects on the list of novice stargazers.

One aspect of stargazing that the novice can't fathom at the beginning is just how much light pollution can affect seeing conditions.

I had exactly the same experience with Andromeda this winter where when I started searching for it it was already low on my western horizon (I have some very large mountains west of me).

Looking at Andromeda low on the horizon with my Skywatcher 200p was a huge anticlimax for me too.

Andromeda in the last 2 months has been a completely different experience due to the fact it is on my zenith.

I can clearly see it with the naked eye and I can even see M33 with the naked eye.

It is so easy for the beginner to lose faith in the capability of their equipment due to bad seeing conditions.

It is definitely worth travelling one weekend to a good clear sight just to regain faith in the capabilities of ones equipment.

Trust me the Skywatcher 200p is a great telescope.

Happy stargazing

[Singlin]

I could not edit out "Trust me the Skywatcher 200P is a great telescope"

I thought that Bus-ter had this scope.

[ollypenrice]

Completely agree and was surprised to see in the current Astronomy Now an article aimed at beginners with advice on what scopes are available at under £500 and what to see with them include a glorious colour picture of M42 with the caption "Visible even to the naked eye, the Orion Nebula makes a stunning telescopic object and is a favourite of observers, be they beginners or veterans". Included in the body of the article is this comment "Some nebulae and galaxies may look fainter than their colour-supplement depictions may indicate." All this in a popular astro mag. that I thought ought to know better.

Sorry to go a bit off topic but I feel this contributes to the disappoinment felt by some new comers.

In my contribution to this piece I said of my own recommendation, the SW 10 inch Dob, 'This aperture reveals exhilarating structure in nebulae, shows the dust lanes in Andromeda or the Cassini Division in Saturn’s rings.' I think that's fair enough. It does, assuming you don't plonk it in the middle of the Bullring in Birmingham. But I take your point. It might have been a good idea for the piece as a whole to discuss the realisic expectations of the range of a given telescope. However, all the contributors were highly experienced amateur (and professional) astronomers with me most assuredly in last place so far as observing (and other) credentials go.

Managing our expectations is certainly something we all need to do and that's why I'm an imager in the main, maybe.

Olly

[scarp15]

Crucially of course, fully dark adapted eyes, will help to reveal a bit more out of the Andromeda galaxy, when close to the zenith, however, wherever and whatever you choose to observe with.

[laser_jock99]

Galaxies & nebulae are never really going to show any great detail visualy- they are so faint they belong in the realm of photography. The real visual challenge is firstly finding them and then confirming what I've seen. Star clusters, globular clusters and the planets make much a better visual treat IMHO. My first sight of M13 through a decent 8" reflector I will never forget- a real wow moment, even though I'd seen it before in small scopes. Same with Saturn & Jupiter, both never fail to please visually.

[acey]

Galaxies & nebulae are never really going to show any great detail visualy- they are so faint they belong in the realm of photography.

All depends how you define "great detail" - if you define it as being what you can see in a photograph then yes, you'll never see as much visually. But there's still lots of detail to be seen visually in galaxies and nebulae. Spiral structure was first discovered visually and by the end of the nineteenth century it had been seen in numerous galaxies - we can see that structure (and other details such as dust lanes) with amateur scopes, just as long as the sky is dark enough. A good start is the pair M81/82 - lots of detail to be seen there.

In the case of M31 it is however worth remembering that its spiral structure was first confirmed photographically: visual observers had seen what we now recognise as the dust lane but saw it as a rift (analogous to the Cygnus Rift that we see with the naked eye in the Milky Way). Galaxies first recognised (visually) as spirals were mostly face-on ones such as M51 and M99.

At a light-polluted site the only part of M31 that is likely to be visible is the central core, which is a small featureless blob. To see galaxies properly there is no alternative to a dark sky - no amount of aperture, filters or exotic eyepieces can change that.

[laser_jock99]

At a light-polluted site the only part of M31 that is likely to be visible is the central core, which is a small featureless blob. To see galaxies properly there is no alternative to a dark sky - no amount of aperture, filters or exotic eyepieces can change that.

I'm fortunate enough to spend some of the week under dark skies, although to the untrained eye (mine included!) even M31 does not impress hugely under a dark sky. I showed my children both M31 & M42 and they were indifferent. The Pleiades, Double Cluster & M13 got better reactions. Aperture helps for sure- I hoping to move my 8" Newtonian into the obsy soon, so it will be interesting to see if that is visually much better for galaxies than a 5" refractor under dark skies?

[Donkeiller]

It sure doesnt give much away, couple dust lanes and thats it!

M33 and M101 put on a nice show though!

Dust lanes??!!!!!

[bottletopburly]

Hey, it's not Andromeda's fault you have a diddy scope that cannot bring out the glory of our sister Galaxy...stop bitching and buy a large Dob..Muhahahahaha

Seriously, I know what you mean, in my 8" SCT I have the same problem, I used to have a 14" SCT and Andromeda was nice in that..I miss it. The telescope was damaged beyond repair when I stored it at friends as I had to go abroad for a few months..he had a house fire..

This is why I plan to get 18-20" Dob in the next few years so i can view the deep space objects I love..

yeah fire = totally unrepairable muhahahaha

[Ags]

A 20" dob will be about 40x brighter than a 80mm at the same magnification. However, a 20" f4 dob won't be able to frame the entire M31 either. Its tFOV will be limited to 1.3 degs with 2" eyepieces. Giant dob are not wide field instrument, you often see giant dobs using relatively large telescope as finder scope. Here is one extreme example http://www.obsessede...rg/msfinder.htm

A smaller dob will do well on widefield objects like M31. A 6" F5 Newt with a Nagler 31 and a ST80 with a Nagler 16 will both give you 3.3 deg field, but the Newt have a 6.3mm exit pupil and the ST80 a 3.2mm. The Newt's image will be 3.5 times brighter then the ST80, so aperture and size still matters

However, when it comes to galaxies, nothing can beat dark sky.

If you used 16x magnification in a 400mm dob, you would have an exit pupil of 25mm! That really is a bit too big. :-) So you have to use a higher magnification in the big dob to bring down the exit pupil to circa 5mm - in this case 80x magnification. But even with a Nagler 80x is only giving you 1 degree of sky so you cannot see a full view of the galaxy. The ST80 is clearly the better option for viewing M31 than the galumphing dob!

I am only trying to put the counterpoint to several posts in this thread that suggest a bigger scope will provide a brighter view. For M31 this is not true, for the reasoning given above. If you want to take a good look at a smaller target, like M51 or M82, then the larger scope can provide greater brightness because greater magnification is required. But for very large targets like M31, a rich field telescope is all you need - and dark skies.

I do agree with your point that the 6 inch newt will give better views of M31 than the ST80, because of its slightly greater aperture and moderate focal length.

[The_PSY3NTIST]

I am yet to see the true beauty of Andromeda. Evil light pollution......