Issues: Scope too small, expectations too high or sky too bright?

[pipnina]

In the two months I've spent with my telescope, I have been rather disappointed at everything bar observing the moon and jupiter. (those, especially the moon, looked pretty impressive!)

I have no idea if my expectations are still too optimistic, if my sky is just too bright or if my scope is just too small.

Here's the problem:

I have never been able to see more than the top part of M42 (the really bright bit that forms an arch). And I have only ever seen this faintly. I tried observing M1 (higher in the sky) and saw an empty space where my chart stated it should be.Same story with M51 (although, I heard that one is fairly difficult anyway in small scopes)

When I got my scope, I thought M42 would be popping out at me (mostly due to its size and it's reputation for being a naked-eye object) but als this was not the case.

I also thought the Messier catalogue would make easy targets (after all, he mistook them for comets initially with (presumably) much more limited scope capabilities, did he not? and catalogued them as he discovered they were in fact not the comets he was searching for) But even these are lost to me, amidst the grey of the sky.

Thing is, I've looked up observations for M41 and M1, And M41 in a 10" scope (approx 4x the light gathering of mine?) still does not show some of the regions you see in even the poorer images and M1 is just a smudge. Could this mean my expectations are still too high? Should I be expecting to see not a lot of anything but a shaped grey fuzzy for even the supposedly bright Messier objects?

    ~a slightly depressed and distressed pip

[ghostdance]

Stay strong. It's a combination of expectation, seeing and just plain old patience. You're not going to see detail like in AP and certainly not colours in any eye-popping way. I love looking at astrophotography but it does not reflect what I see in the eyepiece - and frankly I prefer my view even in my weedy little scope. Why? Simple - it's me and my eyes seeing out into the universe, in 'real' time (whatever that is! ) so, if this makes sense, if I bump the scope, heck, at least it's ME bumping the scope!

Thing I've learned as I observe over time is you need patience (even APers spend hours if not days producing those lovely images) - patience with the weather, patience with the seeing, patience with the kwipment, and by no means least, patience to *see*...see?

M42 is *beautiful* - and complex: she ain't going to give up all her mysteries in one go, just because little old me lugged a telescope out into the yard one night!

Try this: next clear night, pick a nice easy M - say, M44 or M45. Then spend minutes looking at their shapes and patterns, letting your eye just play (a good description) over them. See how it all connects. Betcha smile, at least once. Same with M42, Jupiter, M13 et al. Then, when you do see a faint grey fuzz, spend time with that also... It may never resolve into great detail, or any detail, but I'll lay odds you'll be pleased to be observing something a 'million light years from home...' *

*(copyright Mick & Keith, the aptly named Twinkle Twins)

[pipnina]

Stay strong. It's a combination of expectation, seeing and just plain old patience. You're not going to see detail like in AP and certainly not colours in any eye-popping way. I love looking at astrophotography but it does not reflect what I see in the eyepiece - and frankly I prefer my view even in my weedy little scope. Why? Simple - it's me and my eyes seeing out into the universe, in 'real' time (whatever that is! ) so, if this makes sense, if I bump the scope, heck, at least it's ME bumping the scope!

Thing I've learned as I observe over time is you need patience (even APers spend hours if not days producing those lovely images) - patience with the weather, patience with the seeing, patience with the kwipment, and by no means least, patience to *see*...see?

M42 is *beautiful* - and complex: she ain't going to give up all her mysteries in one go, just because little old me lugged a telescope out into the yard one night!

Try this: next clear night, pick a nice easy M - say, M44 or M45. Then spend minutes looking at their shapes and patterns, letting your eye just play (a good description) over them. See how it all connects. Betcha smile, at least once. Same with M42, Jupiter, M13 et al. Then, when you do see a faint grey fuzz, spend time with that also... It may never resolve into great detail, or any detail, but I'll lay odds you'll be pleased to be observing something a 'million light years from home...' *

*(copyright Mick & Keith, the aptly named Twinkle Twins)

I'll have a go at that. Next time I go to observe The Great Nebula and the Pleiades I'll spend a little more than my usual minute or so on them. While it would be boring for my dad if he came along (unless I brave plymouth's servere LP and stay home, but unless I drive for an hour it doesn't get dark at all)

I wonder if globular clusters are easier to observe... I saw one in one of my attempted DSLR photos near jupiter a few weeks ago.

[stepping beyond]

Pipnina, Galaxies are just a faint fuzzy smudge with the eyepiece . When you use a telescope and a tracking eq mount and camera modded for astronomy and processing software . The image comes to life with colors but, this is no easy task. There's a lot of trial and error and having the right equipment that goes into astrophotography and a learning curve. I started imaging the lunar surface 2yrs. and got pretty good in the last 6 months, Planets are on my mind now and I'm confident about getting my 1st really nice planet. I'm working with disabilities that slow my progression plus trying to get the adequate equipment to capture what I want to on a limited budget. Well I've been collecting 1 piece at a time for 3yrs. and I'm going to get mine hopefully this year.

[Qualia]

Pipnina,

The beautiful colours you see of nebulae or galaxies in astrophotos are only visible in astrophotos. When observing galaxies or nebulae at the eyepiece, you will generally see differing shades of grey, black and white. Your eye is simply incapable of detecting colour in very dim light. The dimmest light your eye can see is green, so it is possible that some very bright nebulae, such as the Orion Nebula, show a greenish tint but other than that only very bright objects, like the stars, Mars, Saturn and Jupiter, are bright enough to exhibit colour.

A good guide to what to expect and to ground expectations visually speaking is to view sketches produced by experienced observers and the best way of getting to see what they are sketching is to get the scope out under some dark skies so as to maximise your chances and to use a low powered eyepiece, at least initially, to locate your targets.

Other than that, there's a number of threads on SGL which might help you gain some idea of what to expect. You might find this useful to get the ball rolling and if you fancied a look at galaxies, check out the end of this post.

At the end of the day, if you still feel under whelmed with stargazing or astronomy do not blame yourself. Like all things in life, it cannot be everyone's cup of tea Why each of us do it and take pleasure from it can only make sense to ourselves.

For myself, at peace below a silent night studded with hundreds of stars and so much more to discover is the most eloquent poem I have ever read

[ghostdance]

Pip, I live in London...pretty lp'd out most of the time, I don't see that many stars naked-eye, and many Messiers are simply too damn faint for me to be even sure they're there (inc some apparently 'easy' ones in TLAO). So....persevere! But your post contains your solution or at least a chunk of it: a minute is *not* enough time!

Edit\ x1000 what Qualia said above!

'My name is Steve. I am....a...stargazer'

[graemlourens]

Hey Pip.

Sorry to hear your rought start to astronomy.

I in many ways had a similar experience, and very fast moved to astrophotography (where you'll initially months worth of salaries.... :/ )

But one thing i still enjoy more than anything: Taking my Binoculars and hunting 'manually'. With time you'll get to know the sky and you can orientate yourself - that can be rewarding!

So maybe you've got some old bins lying around? You might try that.

Additionally - take your time and drive to a more darkish place. I use http://www.lightpollutionmap.info/#zoom=4&lat=5759860&lon=1619364&layers=B0TFFFTT to check

Standing in the totally empty, dark and noise-free area looking at the sky can be relaxing & rewarding.

P.s. Don't think you now have to go and spend tons of money!

Regards, Graem

[Dr_Ju_ju]

Hi Pipnina,

Another place to give you an idea of what you can expect to see with the equipment you have is to use http://www.12dstring.me.uk/fov.htm. You just enter your scope\eyepiece\barlow etc. and will give you an idea of what you'll see under ideal seeing conditions etc.... 

[Pig]

Pipnina,

I also think that some objects are hyped up by the media with their wonderful images of distant galaxies etc.... this can dupe people into think that's what you will see through a telescope, when in reality all you see is something that looks like a smudged fingerprint on the bathroom mirror. However, once your expectations are calibrated with reality and as you get to find your way about the night sky there are some wonderful targets to see.

Albireo is the most wonderful double star and you really can see one blue and one orange star

[ronin]

Something is not 100% right, M42 should come out in your scope, it is a 130mm after all, which is just over 5".

Keep the magnification to about 25x or 30x so that the field is around 1.5 degrees. The original reads that you may have too much magnification. If you are trying say 80-100x then it could be that not all M42 can fit in. Even 60x is likely to be a bit too much magnification.

Light pollution will have a fair part to play - did you ever depart the confines of Plymouth for Dartmoor.

The difference will be huge.

M1 will be difficult, it really is faint and small, small being the main aspect, you can easily pass over it expecting something else. Throw in that "magnitudes" are a little misleading. I "think" I saw it once, through a 6" goto and I think I could see a small something or other in view, the next person said I was imagining things they couldn't see anything. If Messier saw it then it was by chance, it doesn't sit there saying look at me.

Expectations come into it, settle on the idea that everything is a faint grey. All those images are made up to a huge degree. People will spend 4 hours getting data then 24 hours processing and adding colour and impact. It is to an extent a problem in astronomy.

Another expectation or non-realistaion is that your view through the scope is very narrow, the scope may not be actually pointed exactly at the object you want or think it is. M1 will very likely fall into this.

Do not go reaching for the highest magnification eyepiece. Really for DSO hunting you want low and medium magnifications.

What eyepieces do you have?

You could have a look at this: http://dvaa.org/AData/ADDoubles.html

Not DSO's but simply coloured double stars, they are more apparent and offer chance on just getting used to aiming the scope - 2 brightish coloured stars are a little more apparent when located.

Another idea is to got look at The Astro League and get a copy of their binocular observing program, then try that. The idea being that the scope should show them better but the scope has a narrower field so it will take a bit more effort to get them in view.

https://www.astroleague.org/al/obsclubs/AlphabeticObservingClubs.html

There is one there titled The Messier Binocular Observing program.

Next question: If I asked where is Casseiopia, Auriga, Leo, The Plough, Orion, Gemini, Perseus - could you point out where they are or should be?

Simply to find say the double cluster you need to know how to find it.

There is a Plymouth Astro Society, have you been along, would you consider going along?

Will say that clubs either suit a person or do not.

[ollypenrice]

I know where you're coming from. Even with a big scope and a near-perfect site many DSOs are a challenge.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of the visual guys, that's why I drifted into imaging... (Runs for cover!)

Bringing an intellectual understanding to what you're looking at is very important, too, I think.

Olly

[Pig]

This is one of the reasons I prefer the objects within our solar system and they can be marvelled at without the need of a camera.

• The Moon is simply fantastic to view and never appears to be the same each time I look at it
• The sun is just the dynamic god and life bringer that everyone should aspire to view
• Jupiter and its moons are nothing short of fantastic
• Saturn.... well its just a wonder to look at
• Venus, Uranus, Mars and Neptune. It's great to have hunted them down but there isn't a great deal to see
• Star clusters are great to view, there are quite a few in fact. Especially pleasing to view through a refractor due to the wide field views they deliver
• Then you have the challenge of splitting double stars, some are the most beautiful colour

[Tommohawk]

Hi Pip.

Whilst I dont want to lure you away to the dark arts of imaging, I notice from your signature you have a DSLR with a "very bad lens". Depending on which DSLR it is, you might be able to connect it (simply and cheaply) to your SW scope and have a DSLR with a very good lens. Potentially this could be connected to a tablet or laptop and then you could use Deep sky stacker live to get live detailed DSO images. Just a thought.

[Piero]

Is your telescope collimated properly? If you enjoy the views of Jupiter, I would think it is, but I wonder whether you enjoy Jupiter just because it is fairly large at the eyepiece. 

Assuming your telescope is collimated, here is my comment: 

Beside planets, with a Newton 130 I would look at open clusters (and some globular) rather than galaxies.. 

Not saying faint DSOs are impossible. I saw some planetary nebulae, globular cluster and even some galaxy with a telescope that is even less than half of yours. However, you need to know what to expect. Open clusters are more accessible objects from my point of view and there are many (and they are also very beautiful!).

Anyway, beside expectations:

1 minute per object is really too short.. 

This is what I do when I look at (most of) DSOs:

- cover my right eye to relax my observing eye (I observe with my left eye)

- dark adaptation at the eyepiece for not less than 10-15min (crucial if the sky is a bit light polluted, but generally useful). This means that I keep my eye at the eyepiece for 10-15min

- averted observation (observe the area where I know - using a star atlas - where the object is, from an angle of 10-20 degree)

- giggle my mount head a tiny bit. This trick helped me to recognise a few faint objects (e.g. rosette nebula, M51, M65, M66). Although I did not see a structure with a well defined border, these objects were definitely there as each patch moved accordingly with the nearby stars. 

- observation long as much as I like (but generally not less than 10min (plus the 10-15min mentioned above). 

Surely, if you can do all the steps above under a dark sky, you see even more, obviously 

Anyway, the point is that observing at the eyepiece requires (a lot of) patience, and while learning this you get more and more pleasure. 

Instead of minimising your observation thinking that 'that object appeared just a grey smudge', I suggest you to think about WHAT your are actually seeing with your telescope: you are seeing objects so distant and so old that the idea should make you feel dizzy! And think about the opportunity you have to see these objects and that most of the people out there completely ignore. 

[Lonestar70]

This is one of the reasons I prefer the objects within our solar system and they can be marvelled at without the need of a camera.

• The Moon is simply fantastic to view and never appears to be the same each time I look at it
• The sun is just the dynamic god and life bringer that everyone should aspire to view
• Jupiter and its moons are nothing short of fantastic
• Saturn.... well its just a wonder to look at
• Venus, Uranus, Mars and Neptune. It's great to have hunted them down but there isn't a great deal to see
• Star clusters are great to view, there are quite a few in fact. Especially pleasing to view through a refractor due to the wide field views they deliver
• Then you have the challenge of splitting double stars, some are the most beautiful colour

 I agree, however, Don't ever try to view the sun through binoculars or a telescope without the proper sun filter/s in place over the front end, and also over the finderscope.

It would only take a few milliseconds for the sun to destroy your eyes permanently without the proper filters.

Best regards.

Sandy.

[Piero]

forgot to mention:

you can also view a few double stars, and some of them are a treasure to discover see. Orion is still sufficiently above the horizon for a view. Look at the belt, Meissa and Rigel as starting point. There are many other though.. 

Some time ago, I came across with this website: http://www.themcdonalds.net/richard/index.php?title=Astronomy_Writings . I found it very interesting and suggest you to go through it. 

You might find useful the page: http://www.themcdonalds.net/richard/index.php?title=How_To_Select_Beginner_Astronomy_Targets

P.S.

you called your scope a "Scope too small"... mine is nicknamed "Bird Scope" or just "Finder", and despite this, although it isn't a scope for everyone, I think it is very powerful! 

[acey]

Most people observe at places where the sky is too bright. This can lead to disappointment. If you can get to a place where the Milky Way is easily seen with the naked eye (which is how it was for Messier) then you will see all the Messier objects with a small telescope. Some (e.g. M42, M31, M13) will look particularly spectacular; others (such as M1) will not be spectacular, but will be easily seen. Many (e.g. M81/82, M51) will show interesting detail with an 8-inch.

At a light-polluted site all of the above no longer applies. Have low expectations and feel grateful for whatever you manage to see.

[Wobbly Bob]

just a thought Pipina, find a very bright star or planet, Jipiter comes to mind and try and get good focus. Use a 25 mm  or there about eyepiece to give yourself  a chance.

[pipnina]

Thanks guys! You've bombarded me with advice and I intend to follow it!

I hadn't put much thought into clusters before but I'll look for more of them now considering they make easier targets.

I'll definately make sure to spend more time looking at objects, cover my non-observing eye and wiggle the mount a bit.

I will make a collimating cap from a milk bottle, I don't have ANY collimating equipment so far and a cap seems easy enough to make.

[Dr_Ju_ju]

not a milk bottle cap but a 35mm film canister (old school)...

[pipnina]

not a milk bottle cap but a 35mm film canister (old school)...

Not sure if I got one of them any more... I remember taking old ones to school years and years ago because they had my lunch money though

<joke>I could make a hole in one of my old 16MB XD cards?</joke>

[pipnina]

I don't use the dust cap for my focuser (I keep the 25mm EP in there, I think it has the same effect). Could I make a cap from that?

Also, I just remembered there's been some dust on my secondary mirror almost since I got the telescope, what should i clean that off with? (do i need to clean it off?)

[Liquid360]

Your frustrations were mine. I bought a new 10in LX90 with high expectations, but no matter how long I looked skyward I just never saw anything that floored me. I understand and can appreciate the awesomeness of what I was seeing, but the beauty was lacking. Had we not been in the computer/Information Age, I certainly would've given up.... but it is and we are and with computers we can do amazing things and see stunning beautiful objects/events. Is it more amazing to see with the naked eye, through a scope in "real time" or in an image you're responsible for? I see no difference whatsoever. It's all magical in the extreme. I knew AP was were I wanted to be. I want to witness and capture whatever I can vs simply struggling at the eyepiece, grasping to see cloudy specks of light.

To each there own. It's all good... All of it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dr_Ju_ju]

Leave the dust for the mo., to shift it, you need air blowers, the recommendation in not to touch the mirrors....

you could use the dust cap if you can drill a hole centrally, but for £6, get one of these http://www.firstlightoptics.com/other-collimation-tools/rigel-aline-collimation-cap.html ....

[Dom1961]

Are you using the 130PL?