Errr a Glob?

[Cloudwatcher]

Did a tour of the usual Globular Clusters last night and during a break I checked Starry Night to see if there were any ones I hadn't seen. NGC 5466 was listed as a globular but it didn't appear on screen as such. Anyway, set the trusty GoTo on it's way and took a gander. Couldn't see anything like a cluster in the eyepiece so I attached the 350D at prime focus of the FLT 110 and tried a 30 sec exposure.

Checked the result this evening and still couldn't see anything like a 'Glob' in the image field. :scratch: Did a search on the World Wide Whatsit and I still couldn't see a Glob. There was a patch of stars that look similar to some in my image but this is clearly not one of your common or garden Globs!

Anyway,in case your interested this is my image with the area corresponding to NGC5466.

Cheers

CW

click as usual

[thing]

Looks more like an open to me. But if it says it's a glob then a glob it must be.

[zhgutas]

still nice photo CW. Although I too have a little different perception of globs My starry night says it is a glob, but only too faint to be visible in a telescope, and may only be easily resolved to separate outer stars. And, supposedly, it actually looks like this: http://www.sdss.org/iotw/NGC5466.jpeg . So kinda' glob

Marius

[Astroman]

It looks to me like you missed it. The star patterns are not the same, and at mag 9.1, you should easily see it and photograph it.

Ngc 5466 is a loose globular, having been through the disk of the Milky Way several times. Its core has been disrupted by the passes and made it appear loose.

[Cloudwatcher]

It looks to me like you missed it................

That is quite possible. This frame was taken after I had kicked the tripod and subsequent images were somewhat displaced. What should be in the centre now appears at the edge of the frame. Although I must say that the star pattern is similar in basic outline to the 'main stars' in the sdss.org link kindly supplied by Marius. (If you close your good eye. )

Cheers

CW

[zhgutas]

(If you close your good eye. )

I have just tried to apply your image overlaid in the starry night, and i am nearly completely sure this is the very glob we are talking about some minor differences between some of the stars, but all in all - the exact same pattern. Just couldn't get around to copy it :?

Marius

EDIT: Well this is as far as I got, this is a bit time consuming I overlaid CW picture over the SNPP6 and purposely left a gap between SNPP and photo stars to see the resemblance. Hope that helps

(click to enlarge)

[Astroman]

I looked at the DSS Red plates. There's a string of bright stars to the southwest that is missing from your image and should be there. Also, there are several lovely triangle patterns that should be there, too, especially on the wide scale. I'd say, offhand, that you're at least 2 or 3 degrees away. Tray again, though! It's a lovely cluster, and you've inspired me to check it out in the 20" tonight.

[Cloudwatcher]

That's a nifty bit of work you have done there,Marius! Thanks very much.

There does seem to be quite a lot of similarity in the star positions all things considered. Think I'll call it a hit....... an Outer if not a Bull.

Thanks again

CW

[Cloudwatcher]

I looked at the DSS Red plates. There's a string of bright stars to the southwest that is missing from your image and should be there. Also, there are several lovely triangle patterns that should be there, too, especially on the wide scale. I'd say, offhand, that you're at least 2 or 3 degrees away. Tray again, though! It's a lovely cluster, and you've inspired me to check it out in the 20" tonight.

Hope you have more joy with your 20" than I had with my 4 incher!

Love to see the result.

Don't think I'll 'tray' again as you put it......... A very uninteresting view in the eyepiece.

Cheers

CW

[acey]

I've observed 5466 visually with an 8 inch dob - my notes say "v. faint, large, round, reminiscent of M74 - at x60 I eventually saw some sparklings of barely resolved stars among the haze." Must have been a bad night, given that it's listed as mag 9.1. Maybe I ought to give it another look.

Andrew

[Astroman]

Meant to say "Try again", but added a vowel somehow. [oops]

I managed to find Ngc 5466 in the 20" tonight, after nearly a solid week of relatively high winds. At 220x, it showed resolved stars, including the brighter string along the south edge. It was very much a loose glob, quite extended, but not very bright. (Much like myself. ) The "thing" about magnitudes of extended objects is, the magnitude is spread out across the entire object, resulting in low surface brightness sometimes. This object certainly qualifies as low surface brightness. I doubt I'd see it in the C8, and would consider it a tough target in the 10". It took close to 1/2 hour for me to find it.

Looks like the only problem with your image is the depth, and maybe off to one side just a bit.

[acey]

Good point about the low surface brightness, Astroman - the size is variously listed as 8' to 11' so that's a lot of area on which to spread the listed mag of 9.0 to 9.2. But it's worth a try in your 10-inch - I've managed it with 8, and the Luginbuhl and Skiff Observing Handbook says it's "visible in 6cm as a very faint patch" - so it should be a binocular object.

Andrew

[Astroman]

I'll probably look at this one again tonight. I've got a friend coming over with younger eyes, maybe he can see more than I can. Now that I know where to look, it'll be easier.

The only other thing I can add now is, it took too long for my browser to load the overlay images above, (or did you do that later?). That's pretty striking, and shows well the missing depth. Nice!