Star Clusters - Am I missing something? Or just dont get it....

[TenBears]

Hiya folks.  It's a rainy night, and while reading my book, I have prompted myself to make a comment here, regarding - star clusters.  Hope you don't mind.

OK, so I'm a long time programmer by profession - and I totally get that some people just totally do NOT get programming - at all.

Regarding astronomy, role reversal.  I'm standing on the outside looking in - trying to understand (and get into) this hobby.

But there is one small area I am struggling with.  Star Clusters.  And apparently, I totally do NOT get them...

OK, so not in a total sense, but - well, let me just give you an example.

I have been sitting here reading my "Binocular Highlights" booklet, which I have been thoroughly enjoying going out and finding the things (with my 15x70s) it has been highlighting - mostly.

But, I am reading about two clusters in Lacerta - NGC 7243 and NGC 7209 (page 80 for those with this cool book).

He quotes

While neither cluster is a showpiece, they are typical of many binocular clusters that simply appear as little areas of localized brightening within the Milky Way. Of the two, NGC 7243 is the more striking object and shows about eight individual stars that form a rough rectangle aligned east to west.

....

What's interesting, is that the binocular view is about as good as it gets.

Now, the part that intrigues me the most is - "...striking object and shows about eight individual stars"

I look up into the sky and see millions and billions of stars...  What is "striking" about "eight"?

So I had to Google for an image of this - if there was anything.  Which doesn't turn up much.

It's totally raining so I can't observe tonight (hopefully will clear up for tomorrows new moon)!!  Or I'd be outside trying to see for myself.

...

Is there something I am missing here?  Does seeing 8 little stars in a clump warrant being mentioned in a book?

"Look! There's a cluster of 8 tiny stars there... only visible with binoculars!  Lets put it in a binocular book!"

I'm sorry, but I just don't get it... 

Nebulas and Galaxies fascinate me!  I guess there are just some aspects of every hobby that doesn't appeal to everyone?

I hope I am not alone here. 

Thanks for reading.

[ronin]

Tend to agree to an extent.

There is often the saying seen one cluster seen them all.

I assume you are refering to globular clusters?

Concerning the striking objects I suspect that in some there will be a prominent few that stand out or have a particular colour. I find myself looking round the sky and for whatever reason I will linger on the red stars. So a cluster that has a few prominent visible red stars I could find myself returning to, with more then a pair of eyes. Do also find that a scope on them captures more light and they lose the colour, tending towards more white.

There may be more interest/enkoyment if the observing incorporates spectroscophy. I presume/guess that it is possible to get deeper information about a cluster from the spectrum of the overall cluster like the make up and so age etc.

Reread the post and I see you mention a group of 8 stars, that tends to imply an open cluster (?).

These are new stars and can show what occurs in the early stage of a stars life, likely therefore of interest to someone resaerching this area. The interest may also carry over to star and planetary formation to some extent.

One thing I notice is that looking down a telescope is taken as Astronomy, at Universities looking down a telescope is rare and unnecessary. I know of no-one doing astronomy at a university that actually uses a scope. The point being that what interests an astronomer may likely have nothing to do with actually pointing a 10" scope at it and seeing what it looks like. If they need an image for a presentation they borrow one from the NASA selection.

For the observing side a cluster is a cluster, perhaps the interest is the potential information about that cluster.

Mention could be in a book on the basis of: If you can find them and see them then you are doing well , give yourself a pat on the back.  

People have written here about trying to see the white dwarf at the centre of the ring nebula, in a similar vein. Can you explain that? A white hot dot that is doing nothing has the potential to be classed as possible less interest then a small cluster.

[jgs001]

I don't think the book is referring to 7243 as a striking object, but rather a more striking object than 7209, comparatively speaking. Having not seen either, I can't really comment on the strikingness or not of either of them. Some clusters, like M44 and m45 truly are striking in binoculars.

[SteveNickolls]

Hi TenBears, the way I understand it is that astronomy is a wide subject-just look at the separate forums on SGL for example. Some are bitten by the imaging aspect of the hobby, others observe planets, some only use binoculars to view etc. etc. I can kind of relate to someone writing about observing eight stars-it can be a challenge to hunt them down for example, or those stars might be in an interesting pattern and perhaps hint at many more stars which are hardly visible-remember a lot of clusters  are shining from thousands of light years away so the thought of light taking years to get here for you to observe on that particular night is rather mind expanding. Sure there will be more spectacular objects to view and perhaps you can start there rather than an obscure cluster. Looking for objects can help build up your knowledge of the sky and your star hopping skills. I hope you go on to enjoy astronomy in whatever area most interests you.

Best regards,

Steve

[ian_j_kirk]

its each to their own as with most things. Im mostly into observing galaxies and nebulae, but i love looking at open clusters with different coloured stars set against a background of fainter ones. Globular clusters also hold a certain charm for me. When you first view them it impresses that what seems like a fuzzy ball in the finder scope turns out to be hundreds of close knit stars which you can start to pick out after a few minutes observing and a bit of averted vision.

Clear skies

ian

[jambouk]

There is something magical about stumbling on a globular cluster when slewing a telescope across the blackness of empty space. When i see them it baffles my mind to think each of the stars is a sun, and also makes me wonder what the very early astronomers though about them and the excited discussions they must have had with their colleagues about them. The images i've seen amateurs take of them must also be quite rewarding to capture and display (as all astro images are).

Open clusters, M45, M44 for example, also look magical in fast scopes and binoculars, and it's interesting to count how many stars you can see in comparison to the sky maps / atlases.

I don't look at clusters that often, as like the original poster i find planets, and the moon and other faint fuzzy objects more appealing. So if i had to put clusters in a ranked list of things i regularly look at, they wouldn't be near the top. But having them there means there is always something different to slew to and look at if you are bored with grey fuzzy things.

I suspect many people who just have binoculars or a smaller telescope rank these higher than i do, as their kit doesn't allow them to see the faint fuzzy objects as clearly.

But just as we all like different flavours, different colours, different types of music, some astronomers (visual and imagers) find clusters overwhelmingly fascinating.

James

[Stargazer_00]

Most of what you can see in binoculars will be open clusters, many of which are so large they are best viewed with binoculars over a telescope.  The pleadies for instance.  You will see Andromeda well and other galaxies but they will all be very small.  Planets will also be small and the moon will be larger but not show much detail at the levels of magnification achieved by bins.  So it's good to have expectations before observing.

I personally I enjoy open clusters alot.  Look at the double cluster and tell me open clusters can't be awesome to look at!    If you understand what you are looking at is a group of stars closely linked to one another by gravity, often forming from the same stellar nursery coutlness years ago and inexorably linked by gravity to each other as a system then you can appreciate their beauty more.   Often you'll find stars of many different sizes and ages in the same open cluster.

If collections of white, red and blue dots doesn't do it for you then any telescope purchase you make should lean towards lunar and planetary observation as these put up lots of good detail in star contrast to open clusters.

[todd8137]

I love clusters they are great I brought a scope just to look at them I image as well but In between that clusters really excite me ,Why because they hold so many stars the bigger ones do and they are of all colours just think one may have a little planet like earth and who knows what else they boggle the mind same as double stars why bother they just two stars but look a little closer and they shine like diamonds

Pat

[Moonshane]

All objects are not for everyone but they are all for me. Personally, as with many objects the challenge is often finding the object when fighting against poor transparency, seeing or light pollution. Many objects such as galaxies and nebulae are very faint or show little in the way of detail and as with clusters and other objects, understanding and appreciating what is going on is a key to enjyoing them more. A double star is on the face of it extremely boring. It is two stars close together (sometimes far apart); big deal, wow you might say. But understand that these are two suns, gravitationally bound by their orbits around each other, possibly robbing material from the other, at differing stages of their life and displaying often very attractive colours though the eyepiece.

Is a galaxy a bit of grey fluff, hardly visible in many scopes or a huge and extremely distant splash of stars, possibly with worlds like our own and animals looking out into space wondering if we are here?

Having an arsenal of different objects, allows you to make the most of observing sessions of all types where there transparency is good or bad or the seeing sharp or 'wobbly'. The first few minutes of a session will confirm to me that it looks like a faint and fuzzy night (very clear with unsteady air) or a planets and double stars night (not quite clear with stable atmosphere).

I have also recently started to sketch objects in a somewhat basic way. his makes you look at objects for more time and really see what's there.

[swamp thing]

I'm another galaxy and diffuse nebula fan, but I do like clusters, both open and globular.

When observing open clusters I like to really get at them. Not just looking at the overall shape of the cluster but looking inside it for asterisms, lines of stars, dark lanes or patches, coloured stars, double stars, and even associated nebula. A quick glance at an open cluster is never enough IMO.

A lot of bright open clusters also come out to play even when the moon is bright. "Cluster busting" around full moon can be challenging and fun.

Globular cluster come alive with aperture. The bigger the scope the better the view. I think everyone should try and observe a big bright glob like M13 through a 12" scope or larger at least once. The description faint fuzzy couldn't be more wrong.

[ollypenrice]

Like most objects we observe, clusters benefit from being read about. Globulars need no help from me. Shapley's use of them to identify the galactic centre. The spat between astrophyscists (Hooray!) and cosmologists (Booo!!) over the age of the universe. The sheer thought of them, the oldest things you've ever seen...

Open clusters, well, not bum kickers, necessarily, but groups of stars born together and generally moving apart, sometimes - like the Pleiades - cruising through some debris and lighting it up... And who knows, you might, like amateur imager Fabian Neyer, ferret out the residue of their natal clouds.

Anyway why has Dob Mobber Shane got a better avatar of the Witch Head nebula than I have? I'm an imager! Toys out of pram!

Olly

[cotterless45]

Totally agree with Swamp Thing.

Through a 6" achro clusters show sharply defined pin points of light in chains, groups and scatterings. The wider open clusters are best viewed against a dark background.

There are some superb tight clusters with dense star clouds, what better than M11, The Wild Duck Cluster and NGC7789. Look at the Pleiades, The Beehive and M35, M36,M37 and M38. There is no finer sight cluster wise than the Double Cluster. Cassiopeia is packed full of clusters.

There are also some fun asterisms such as NGC 2169... the 37 cluster in Orion, NGC 6910.....The Rocking Horse in Cygnus and the nearby Coathanger asterism, a joy in x7 binoculars.

These are in addition to the wonderful ancient globulars than surround our galaxy in a halo.

the Lacerta clusters are wonderful under dark skies as they are full of background Milky Way stars. Often these new open clusters are accompanied by nebulosity such as NGC 281, adding to the delight of these targets.

Anyone in doubt of using time on clusters should spend a few hours chasing faint fuzzy galaxies from the edge of town !

Nick.

[Moonshane]

Like most objects we observe, clusters benefit from being read about. Globulars need no help from me. Shapley's use of them to identify the galactic centre. The spat between astrophyscists (Hooray!) and cosmologists (Booo!!) over the age of the universe. The sheer thought of them, the oldest things you've ever seen...

Open clusters, well, not bum kickers, necessarily, but groups of stars born together and generally moving apart, sometimes - like the Pleiades - cruising through some debris and lighting it up... And who knows, you might, like amateur imager Fabian Neyer, ferret out the residue of their natal clouds.

Anyway why has Dob Mobber Shane got a better avatar of the Witch Head nebula than I have? I'm an imager! Toys out of pram!

Olly

LOL. just googling skills I assure you

[Paul M]

I've likely viewed a lot more open clusters than I've ever positively identified.

I used to like just scanning around the milky way with my 60mm refractor and happen across a random grouping of stars that stand out from the background. Always a nice surprise and I'd rarely bother to identify it, if indeed it was even catalogued! The brain likes to try and find patterns in such groupings and It's surprising how different they can look when viewed at different angles or magnifications. Hours of fun

Perseus double cluster is at the other end of the spectrum and surely has a WOW! factor every time I look at it.

What's not to like?

[AlexB67]

The smaller open clusters need a big aperture scope and I hasten to add good skies to bring them alive sometimes. Often it is said you can see open cluster under lesser skies, compared to say a galaxy or something of low surface brightness but many open cluster come into their own under better skies too IMO. 

A few days ago I was chasing down a number of the smaller ones, sometimes the may not appear like much, some may only have a few stars but of differing colour nearby (NGC 1647 rings a bell), giving it that special appeal, sometimes there may be some close doubles in there too or something more to resolve under higher power.  I start low power, work up in power and see what I can tease out, I can easily spend 30 mins or more on one of those before I even realise 30 mins has gone by. The more I get into this hobby the slower my coverage of newer targets, If I bag 4 or so new ones that is a good catch, because I want to spend more time on them before saying, there is nothing to see here and move along. Sometimes if they are tricky to bag, once there I want to make the most of it instead of falling into the pan and scan mode, that I reserve for the last remaining moments of the night to see if the lottery has anything to offer   

[todd8137]

ps I always sketch what I view give this a try spending around 20/25 mins drawing ,why,I think a casual view lets you see the cluster but try to draw it and you will soon see what's really there this may sound silly whilst waiting for the scope to cool down get old of a cheap pair of sunglasses dark ones wear them in the house for half hour before you go out,for me it lessens the time to get dark adapeted ,use averted vision as well

Pat

Sorry about the quality iPad cam is pants but here's m29 and my un finished Sagitta

[Astro Imp]

 The more I get into this hobby the slower my coverage of newer targets, If I bag 4 or so new ones that is a good catch, because I want to spend more time on them before saying, there is nothing to see here and move along. Sometimes if they are tricky to bag, once there I want to make the most of it instead of falling into the pan and scan mode, that I reserve for the last remaining moments of the night to see if the lottery has anything to offer   

Absolutely agree, when I first started I used to find something, take a quick look and move on. Now I like to have a good look, I don't sketch but with open clusters sit there joining up the dots, looking for patterns and of course enjoying the view.

[brantuk]

Never mind clusters - some folks like doubles - that's just two stars ?!?!. They spend all night looking for them and comparing them.

It sounds mad I know - about as mad as staying up all night in a field in the middle of nowhere in the dark in the freezing cold looking at the sky with a huge telescope you nearly killed yourself getting into the car and driving to your fave dark site. I mean - if you ask someone what their fave thing is - who in their right mind would say "a dark site" lol.

Let's all face it - astronomy as a whole is nuts - but me? I love it all lol.

[Mr Flibble]

Another thumbs up on the open clusters from me. I must say that Rocking Horse cluster (NGC 6910) in Cygnus is superb. Crank up the magnification and go for a ride

[todd8137]

Never mind clusters - some folks like doubles - that's just two stars ?!?!. They spend all night looking for them and comparing them.

It sounds mad I know - about as mad as staying up all night in a field in the middle of nowhere in the dark in the freezing cold looking at the sky with a huge telescope you nearly killed yourself getting into the car and driving to your fave dark site. I mean - if you ask someone what their fave thing is - who in their right mind would say "a dark site" lol.

Let's all face it - astronomy as a whole is nuts - but me? I love it all lol.

I could not agree more the dark site we have at ripely is brill and it's super dark and we have a great lodge we can use every visit makes a big difference have in a great dark site

Pat

[Crebles]

you know that sense of achievement you get when you invent a bit of code, try it out, get it wrong, refine code, try it out [repeat], and get it finally to work?

Same thing.

[Joves]

You don't find this at all striking?

[Superdavo]

Although it may only be 8 stars, I like how close they are, with the haze adding to the effect. Also, I'm learning programming too! I'm currently learning Java, and have a small blog in my signature.

David

[MrFinster]

I love clusters, I find the larger globular clusters to be beautiful things, my current favourite being M13 the Hercules cluster.

Lots of astronomers find them very samey but there are some incredible things hidden in them, particularly those that have undergone core collapse, which according to studies include an X ray binary (M15), a black hole pair (M22),  millisecond period pulsars (M15).

There is some excellent research available on the web about clusters and well worth reading, it makes a seemingly bland underwhelming object on first appearances into something a little more exciting.

Well thats my feelings on the matter. 

[Paul M]

While flying to Tenerife the other week I ran out of reading matter after a delay and strong head wind.

I started playing with SkySafari on my tablet and began reading some of the info files on some DSO's. I read some stuff on M13 which whet my appetite. I looked up most of the Messier globulars and found some fascinating facts. Not just theoretical but observational. A real good read.

The science has leaped forward since I last read up on globulars. More food for thought and loads more targets for my next observing session!

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk