Realistic limitation for my scope and skies? (4.5")

[Chihlidog]

Im just wondering if anyone has personal experience with similar sircumstances. I got my 4.5 reflector a while back and I like it, but my skies are really fighting me.

I'm in Pittsburgh, basically red zone. I read somewhere that the star that joins the handle of Ursa Major to the dipper is a good indicator of the LP level. I can see this star easily which would seem to indicate that my skies arent THAT bad. Bad but not as bad as they could be.

I can make out M81/82 with averted vision. When my eyes are adjusted I feel like I can almost see M82 directly - the bright center helps. I know that these guys are some of the easiest DSOs to see. M13 is fairly easy for me, as is M92. Obviously not in detail on the globs, but they're unquestionably there. M51 is completely impossible. I know I've had my scope on it but I've never seen it.

Ive scanned around for various other things and just seem to have hit a wall. M64 is impossible, I've scanned and scanned and scanned. Or, knowing I can see m81/82, SHOULD I be able to see M64?

I tried the Leo triplet the other night. No go on that one. Im pretty sure I had my scope on them, but I couldnt see anything.

So I guess that's what I'm after, really is a "if you can see THIS, then you SHOULD be able to see THAT". Magnitudes are deceiving, which is why I am asking for you guys with personal experience to share that with me.

Appreciate it!!

[Chihlidog]

For clarity, here's what I've seen:

M42 (eeeeeaaaasy, obviously)

M31

M13

M92

M81/82 (seem to be pushing the limits of visibility for me)

What I've looked for but NOT found:

M51

M101

M64

M65

M66

[John]

It's going to depend very much on the levels of light pollution you are having to put up with. I can see all the objects you list with my 4" refractor from my back yard when the sky is transparent (ie: no haze, high level ice particles etc). M101 is face on and quite challenging with my 4". It becomes impossible if there is any moonlight in the sky or if the transparency is not good. M51 looks like two hazy "eyes" looking back at me, one larger than the other.

I reckon my refractor has about the same light grasp as your scope.

On a decent night here I can see M31 with the naked eye and a fair amount of milky way going across the sky on summer nights.

[Chihlidog]

Thanks John.

That's sort of what I'm after is people from light polluted locations sharing their experiences. I've read washed out astronomy, and he uses a much larger scope than mine. Aside from that there isnt much info out there that I can find for urban DSO hunting. M31 is averted vision for me here in my 10x50s. Its too low in the sky now to try my new 4.5 on it. Im quite certain that it would look pretty good though, based on my experience with M81/82 (those arent even remotely visible in my binocs but I can get them consistently with my 4.5)

[Stargazer_00]

M81 and M82 are placed high at the moment so are easier than other targets. I would expect you to see these with a 4.5" even from a city centre so long as your observing site was suitably dark.

M13 on the other hand is quite low at the moment so that's a much better achievement in my opinion.

My advise is that looking for galaxies from a city is always going to be a real challenge, even with much bigger telescopes I'd reckon. Things like open clusters and some of the brighter globs are quite resistant to light pollution so you could probaby rack up quite a hefty number of these from your location.

Have you had the opportunity to travel out of town with your scope yet?

Maybe see what the night sky is like at Racoon Creek, Hillman, Cross Creek or some other state park about that far out of town. you will see a huge increase in performance I'd wager.

don't get eaten by a bear though

[tom33pr]

Why not jump in the car one evening and go to the country for a few hour session?

I am sure you would enjoy it, and I'm sure you don't even have to drive that far to see all the objects from your list and many more...

[Chihlidog]

M81 and M82 are placed high at the moment so are easier than other targets. I would expect you to see these with a 4.5" even from a city centre so long as your observing site was suitably dark.

M13 on the other hand is quite low at the moment so that's a much better achievement in my opinion.

My advise is that looking for galaxies from a city is always going to be a real challenge, even with much bigger telescopes I'd reckon. Things like open clusters and some of the brighter globs are quite resistant to light pollution so you could probaby rack up quite a hefty number of these from your location.

Have you had the opportunity to travel out of town with your scope yet?

Maybe see what the night sky is like at Racoon Creek, Hillman, Cross Creek or some other state park about that far out of town. you will see a huge increase in performance I'd wager.

don't get eaten by a bear though

See, this is where I get confused. M13 is actually MUCH easier for me to see than M81/82! I dont have the experience yet to know that its SHOULDNT be LOL I just say this based off of what I see. It's brighter and smaller so it makes sense that the light is more concentrated, but yes your point of it being low is well taken, it's definitely been low when I've nailed it, as has M92.

Due to both cloudiness and general responsibilities, I havent ventured out of my yard with the new scope unfortunately. I'd like to one of these days soon, and there are places not THAT far from me where the skies are MUCH better. My father in law lives about an hour away and one evening from his yard I saw M31 naked eye (with averted vision of course). I know it doesnt sound like much but for me that's a HUGE difference.

[E621Keith]

Instead of M13, try looking for M3, which is much higher up.

but Chihlidog is right, while M81/82 is near the zenith, M13 and M92 is still easier to see if you observe after mid night.

[umadog]

You know what you should do? When it's warmer next month, pack the scope in the car and go Cherry Springs, PA, dark sky site (Google it). It's about 4 hours from you. Very dark and there will be lots other people there with all manner of instruments. Go make some new friends and see what your scope can really do.

[Stargazer_00]

I'll perhaps restate what I said about M81 and M82 & M13.

M81 & M82 are in prime position right now. If you're ever going to be able to see them then it's now. I find that they can pop out when at zenith even under light pollution although I suspect my town's LP is nothing compared to a city like Pittsburg!

M13 on the other hand will be more visible once located because it is much closer and an incredibly dense collection of stars. I find globs very resistant to LP, at least their cores. Obviously under darker skies they reveal alot more detail. What I meant to say is that I would find locating the guide stars harder under light pollution being lower down. As this constellation rotates up further off of the horizon this will become much easier to find and far better to look at than M81 and M82 or any galaxy really.

There are many globs coming up at the moment. M13, M92, M53, M5, M3, M10, M12, M14

There is a NGC5053 listed on Sky and Telescopes Pocket Sky Atlas which is supposedly next to M53 but I am damned if I can ever find this one... it goes to highlight that not all globs are easy to spot

[acey]

What you are seeing is limited by the extent of light pollution. You should be able to manage a number of star clusters, but are unlikely to see more galaxies than you already have, except by going to a darker site. At a dark site (i.e. Milky Way easily visible) you would be able to see all the Messier objects with your scope. A larger scope at your present site would probably do no better on galaxies than your present one.

[Stargazer_00]

certainly you'll be hitting diminishing returns quite quickly. A larger aperture will show more detail, but the increase would be less significant than at a less light polluted site.

[swamp thing]

Getting your scope out of the city will make a HUGE difference. Nothing makes as much difference to deep sky bserving as a darker sky. A 4.5" scope under a dark sky is a real weapon buddy

[Chihlidog]

What you are seeing is limited by the extent of light pollution. You should be able to manage a number of star clusters, but are unlikely to see more galaxies than you already have, except by going to a darker site. At a dark site (i.e. Milky Way easily visible) you would be able to see all the Messier objects with your scope. A larger scope at your present site would probably do no better on galaxies than your present one.

This is pretty much the answer I didnt WANT to hear but was looking for - I was really wanting to know, say, if I can see M81/82 then "x" should be visible as well. Clearly hearing that I've indeed just hit the limits of my backyard sucks but at least I know Im not crazy or Im not missing anything. Ive been observing for years but have always been limited to solar system objects. I knew getting the 4.5 that I wasnt going to be able to see everything from my yard due to light pollution, but really hoped the larger aperture would open up more. FOr the most part I love living in the city, but man this really sucks. I hunted for M31 for yeeeeaaaars LOL I remember when finding it I couldnt believe how amazingly faint it was after reading so much about how bright it is.

Getting to a dark sky site late at night is very difficult for me, what with work, kids, etc. I know of Cherry Springs, Ive read about it and it sounds amazing! Maybe next week, if the weather cooperates, I'll arrange to go in late for work one day and really try to get to a dark site. There are so many of the Messiers I've wanted to see for so long I wanna start knocking them off the list. Open Clusters are OK, but my real targets are the galaxies and to a somewhat lesser extent the globs. I want M64 in a bad way, I know I probably wont be able to see that dust lane very well but it just looks amazing in photos.

I appreciate all the feedback everyone, now at least I know that I've just hit the LP barrier and that Im not just doing something wrong.

[umadog]

You may have hit the limit with galaxies but nebulae are brighter and play well with filters. Plenty more to see with them. Eventually you can get a larger scope and go for the smaller planetaries. Don't be discouraged!

[Chihlidog]

You may have hit the limit with galaxies but nebulae are brighter and play well with filters. Plenty more to see with them. Eventually you can get a larger scope and go for the smaller planetaries. Don't be discouraged!

Filters are on my list, just dont really have the budget for them at the moment. Im not really discouraged either. Just want to get everything out of this scope I can.

I did want to mention I nailed M3 the other night and it indeed WAS more impressive for me than M13. I need new eyepieces though, my 17mm is fantastic but my 10 is blurry and I cant figure out why.

[Stargazer_00]

I find M13 about 5 times more impressive than M3. I must be missing something. You aren't the first person to say that M3 looks better. People often say they think M5 is better than M13 too.

I really believe no glob (that i've seen, certainly in the messier catalogue) in this hemisphere beats M13. I hear there are some amazing ones in the south. Glad you nailed M3 as well though. Try M5 next and see what you think

[Chihlidog]

I find M13 about 5 times more impressive than M3. I must be missing something. You aren't the first person to say that M3 looks better. People often say they think M5 is better than M13 too.

I really believe no glob (that i've seen, certainly in the messier catalogue) in this hemisphere beats M13. I hear there are some amazing ones in the south. Glad you nailed M3 as well though. Try M5 next and see what you think

Understand that my seeing conditions are terrible. M13 is a blob. Just a fuzzy circle. It really doesnt look much different than M92 to me, except its ever so slightly larger and ever so slightly brighter. That's how bad my skies are. M3 actually looked ...distinct somehow. Probably because it was much higher up. I too have read some people say that M3 is more impressive but Im not sure what the conditions were. M3 for me was more clearly a globular cluster, though I certainly couldnt resolve individual stars in any of them. M13 and M92 look like circular blobs to me currently. M3 looked slightly more resolved and distinct and less circular. That's really the best I can explain it unless I try a sketch which I suck at lol. If M13 wasnt so obviously circular to me I could easily mistake it for a galaxy or nebula. M3, from what I saw the other night, was much more obviously a glob.

I'll take a shot at M5 next Im able and report back.

[NotSoSuperNova]

I've heard that finding stuff once can make a huge difference. Knowing where something is makes finding it again much easier. There are lots of things that you won't see but after being shown them and understanding what they're meant too look like and why you couldn't see them in the first place. Suddenly you should find yourself being able to locate them again on your own. That's why 'turn left at Orion' is such a valuable resource, it's gives you a rough idea of what you're actually looking for. It's a shame there's no short cut for this, but it really does pay off with some invested time.

[Chihlidog]

I've heard that finding stuff once can make a huge difference. Knowing where something is makes finding it again much easier. There are lots of things that you won't see but after being shown them and understanding what they're meant too look like and why you couldn't see them in the first place. Suddenly you should find yourself being able to locate them again on your own. That's why 'turn left at Orion' is such a valuable resource, it's gives you a rough idea of what you're actually looking for. It's a shame there's no short cut for this, but it really does pay off with some invested time.

I checked that book out, though I dont own it (library is a short walk from my office). Thing is I feel like I have a good idea what to look for now. M81/M82 is easy for me every time now, even though they are almost painfully faint. I KNOW Ive had my scope on M51 but simply couldnt see it. I dont have a lot of experience but I do feel like I have a good idea what to expect as far as galaxies, and Ive learned some tricks to bring them out like averted vision and ever so slightly shaking the scope. Im 99 percent sure I had the leo triplet in the FOV the other night as well, and nada, but when I find something I do catch it. Take M81 for me....anything even the SLIGHTEST bit more faint, and yes, it would be invisible.

[Stargazer_00]

upgrading the scope even to a modest 6" would give you so much more it really would and they are really quite affordable. You obviously have alot of enthusiasm and you are doing really well with the intstrument you have but are really pushing it to it's limits. It'd be nice to hear your thoughts of a 6" scope, I think you'd find a lot more in your sky than you think. That would provide 76% more light grasp for what in the US equates to a $150 -$200 upgrade I'd expect.

If you could punt to a 200p equivalent in the states you'd get a 300% increase in light grasp. The entire sky would open up to you without having to travel beyond your yard.

[Chihlidog]

upgrading the scope even to a modest 6" would give you so much more it really would and they are really quite affordable. You obviously have alot of enthusiasm and you are doing really well with the intstrument you have but are really pushing it to it's limits. It'd be nice to hear your thoughts of a 6" scope, I think you'd find a lot more in your sky than you think. That would provide 76% more light grasp for what in the US equates to a $150 -$200 upgrade I'd expect.

If you could punt to a 200p equivalent in the states you'd get a 300% increase in light grasp. The entire sky would open up to you without having to travel beyond your yard.

Right now my budget is basically zero. I got the 4.5 for $65 used. Next year I plan to upgrade, if I can find a used 8" dob for a good price Id like to go for that. This 4.5 is an upgrade to my 70mm I had before it. Always wanted great equipment but never could find the spare cash. For now though the 4.5" is all that's possible.

[Stargazer_00]

Well I think you're doing well with it. You certainly are getting some results and will appreciate your upgrade all the more when it does come