Death of the star chart?

[dmk]

Good idea to have paper backups,gadgets usually fail when you need them most.

[lunator]

I guess I am a bit old fashioned as I use a Dob and a GPD2 with drives. I do het a buzz out of tracking down objects but when I get the obs up and running I will use goto.

Cheers

Ian

[Scott]

At sgl 10 I spent a bit (too much ) time with the dob mob. I was quite content letting the pros find the target and just marvel at what was in the ep. Even better than goto is having your own dob mobber do the hard work for you 

[Stu]

Not wishing to labour the point, but I was looking through my Interstellarium Deep Sky Atlas this evening, checking over some observations I had done, when I looked at M8 and M17. It occurred to me that the detail visible in SkySafari is so dramatically better than the atlas, that it really did/does enhance my observing.

Being able to pick out all the different features and relate them to an image that looks very similar really helps, and also makes you look for features you might otherwise have overlooked.

Another example was NGC604 in the Triangulum Galaxy. Looking at the Atlas, I would probably not have been able to identify it, but with SkySafari with correct fov identified and view reversed, the faint patch of light I was seeing with averted vision was clearly NGC604.

[Paz]

Since I got the S&T Pocket Sky Atlas I don't use any PC program or any phone apps either given the choice and I find things manually and prefer it this way. This is not to say programs/app/goto are bad - on the contrary I think they are great but I spend enough time on computers and for astronomy getting as far away from them as possible is part of what makes it interesting and different. I've now also got the David Chandler Planisphere and Uranometria All Sky Edition and with those 3 books I'm all set up.

When I look at objects or read about them I always look them up in my maps and this is really helping to kit together in my head how things fit together up there and my ability to find things and understand what I'm looking at has taken a big step up.

[Paz]

Not wishing to labour the point, but I was looking through my Interstellarium a Deep Sky Atlas this evening, checking over some observations I had done, when I looked at M8 and M17. It occurred to me that the detail visible in SkySafari is so dramatically better than the atlas, that it really did/does enhance my observing.

Being able to pick out all the different features and relate them to an image that looks very similar really helps, and also makes you look for features you might otherwise have overlooked.

Another example was NGC604 in the Triangulum Galaxy. Looking at the Atlas, I would probably not have been able to identify it, but with SkySafari with correct fov identified and view reversed, the faint patch of light I was seeing with averted vision was clearly NGC604.

Having just said I don't like programs I admit am very impressed with those Sky Safari pictures!

[ChrisLX200]

Don't forget that with paper versions you may need to perform mental gymnastics to translate what's on the chart to the image you see through the eyepiece (mirrored, or up-side down with the writing the wrong way up!). All done at the press of a button with planetarium software - plus you can get your FOV shown clearly on screen.

ChrisH

[John]

It's interesting looking back at the original posters question which was "....if many newcomers are purchasing 'Goto' systems, would the ability to even read  a star chart be necessary?...."

Many of the approaches posted here seem to indicate that reading a star chart, whether electronically or paper presented, is still a thriving part of the hobby. Of the 55 replies, very few seem to be relying on GOTO entirely, even if they have that facility available, as far as I can see.

[chiltonstar]

I'm a recent convert to SkySafari and would agree it is very good (and of course it is a star chart and clearly not dead! )

With my tablet covered with two layers of red film (last year's Waitrose Xmas pud wrapper) to keep the night vision in some sort of order, the ability to manipulate and scale the image to what I see helps me id objects I'm looking for, and of course SkySafari includes much fainter stars than my paper charts.... 

Chris

[acey]

To see DSOs there is only one thing that is absolutely essential:

A sufficiently dark sky.

Everything else is optional.

[Stu]

John, thank you for the timely reminder of what the OP's question was!!

Guilty as charged for treating it as a 'technology' vs 'paper charts' discussion. You are totally correct to say that star hopping is star hopping, whether you use an app or a paper chart. The skills are the same.

I suspect that to most visual astronomers, Goto is a useful aid, but if anything it just helps their knowledge of the sky. A planetarium driven Goto system is more likely to teach you the sky than just punching numbers into a hand controller I would think.

[Macavity]

I could never really find a map that I liked in *every* way, so made

my own based on the work of Cornmell, Espenack / Wikipedia etc.

Note high-tech cork board and map pin for recording progress! 

(Black for objects already video imaged, red for pending ones)

During sessions, I rely on GoTo (+ Books, PDF maps for details).

It's still quite an eclectic mixture and doubtless highly personal!

I do find that constantly moving around within CdC has had a sort

of subliminal effect on improving my star recognition. I DO plan to

use the images in future visual observation. The challenge is, as

ever, getting enough clear nights, and planning the best setup. 

[cjdawson]

I think Star charts are very much here to stay.  In my case, I use a planitarium with my goto scope. This gets me close, then I zoom in to the chart in the software and star hop if the object isn't in the eyepiece.   Goto's won't kill off the skill of star hopping.   It's a case that all the technology is simply a set of tools that, when used correctly, aid the night time session.

I'm sure that if pressed, I could switch to a paper based system and using the setting circles that are on my scope, but I won't enjoy the time anywhere near as much.

[Stub Mandrel]

I was a bit more adventurous than usual last night, so I was really pleased when several objects I couldn't see through the finder 'magically' appeared on camera.

[MattJenko]

One not mentioned bonus of using a technological approach is the extra information available about the target you are observing. While star hopping with charts or pages from Turn Left at Orion, I like to have information readily available about the target I am looking at right there and then, as it just adds to the wonder of the object for me in a tangible Feynman type way and I can put the information into context much more readily as I am physically looking at it. That for me is a serious WOW and a wonderful way to learn.

[Matt Scunthorpe]

I use both, sometimes its just easier to use the goto if you cant be bothered with a frustrated night of trying to find things, especially for me if I've seen them before, but cant find them manually again.

Then on the other hand, setting up the goto is a lot of faff, when you can plonk the dob down and your good to go, and I do like the thrill of finding an object myself, even when it takes a few nights to find one object!

Matt.

[Astroscot2]

I still have my 3 volumes of Burnhams which are well thumbed ;-) the co ordinates are epoch 1950 but the object info has not changed,  back in the day I would be armed with my Tirion Bright star alas, notepad and pen and would make lists of ther obects I observed, go indoors and read up on them in Burnhams.

I only upgrated to my first goto mount last year,  Then observing I would actually enjoy visually sweeping the area around an obkect until I was sure I could locate it, moving the scope would often help lift a faint object from the backbround, findign the obect was half the enjoyment, I think I would still prefer to observe this way rather than use goto or an electronic star atlas which woudl only hamper my night vision.

I can understand the usefullness of goto and electronic star maps when taking astrophotos, visually not so much. 

Mark

[Victoria1410]

Most people in this thread seem to use S&T for their paper sky charts... in your opinions is this better than Turn Left at Orion?

[Victoria1410]

Or an old fashioned planisphere?

[Astro Imp]

Most people in this thread seem to use S&T for their paper sky charts... in your opinions is this better than Turn Left at Orion?

They have different objectives.

Turn Left@Orion covers a selection of objects with instructions on how to find them whereas a star Atlas is a whole sky map.

A bit like the difference between a sat nav and a map.

[Victoria1410]

They have different objectives.

Turn Left@Orion covers a selection of objects with instructions on how to find them whereas a star Atlas is a whole sky map.

A bit like the difference between a sat nav and a map.

Tank you Astro Imp! 

I hadn't realised. 

If you have ever used both which would you suggest for a first time astronomer?  I think I'm getting the hang of popular things to view from reading this forum but would a sat nav or map be best IYO?

ps. Is a planishpere the same as a star atlas?

[Stub Mandrel]

> ps. Is a planishpere the same as a star atlas?

No, it only shows a hundred or so stars, its function is to show you what is visible at a particular time and what direction to look in. You need the atlas for the details. Great for learning your way around the constellations though.

edit- Just realised I can continue the analogy -  a planisphere is like  a globe, it tells you which country you are in and which map to look at.

[Victoria1410]

> You need the atlas for the details. Great for learning your way around the constellations though.

edit- Just realised I can continue the analogy -  a planisphere is like  a globe, it tells you which country you are in and which map to look at.

Thank you.  One planisphere ordered    still debating over sat nav vs map in addition.

[Tinker1947]

I use GoTo with the imagine Newt, and Star hop with the Dob, maps i use indoors, mobile phone or tablet outside the tablet being in a red plastic A2 folder, as for detail,  SkySafari 4 Pro on both the Mobile and Tablet the magnitude is variable DSO down to -18 this extends to -23 when zoomed in, there are more galaxies then on my Deep Sky Atlas, also it was half price @ £15 unlike the Deep Sky Atlas @ close to £60 (desk edition) i haven't tried but SkySafari 4 Pro will link to a scope and control its movement, i have seen it work on a Nexus System i and the owner installed on a Large Dob and its really good, so maps for in doors along with Stellarium, Mobile and Tablet  for out side, very happy with both....

[Zakalwe]

Whilst playing around with my new toy,It occured to me that if many newcomers are purchasing 'Goto' systems, would the ability to even read  a star chart be necessary?

I'm no expert when it comes to reading sky maps, but I managed to find my way (most of the time ) with my old refractor and a planisphere.

Foolhardy is the sailor who goes to sea, armed with only electronic navigational aids. 

Clear skies and good health to all. 

This old chestnut again

Times change and technology marches on. Most new cars are fitted with satnav now- do we really need to fill have the boot with maps (and I used to do that when I started out as a sales rep in Manchester and Lancashire). Of course, I could still use paper maps, but really what would be the point? Its a waste of time, energy and just not productive. Of course, there'll be people that counter that argument with tales of foolhardy walkers getting lost on the peaks after venturing forth with only a mobile phone sat nav. It's not an argument that stands inspection though- standing in my back garden isn't the same as braving the Southern Ocean.

Isn't half the fun in finding the object in the first place?

Well, only if you enjoy that sort of thing.

An alternative view would be to consider the task of attending university. The aim is to get a recognised qualification. At the end it, all people are interested in is what qualification you attained, not how you got to the university or the transportation that you used. For me, getting on target is nothing more than a preliminary to doing what I personally set out to do, which is to capture some photons. Taking 10 minutes to hop between stars is of no interest to me....I want to get on target and stay on target as quickly as possible. Learning constellations and all that palaver is of no interest, anymore that learning the names of every road and intersection on the way to University is. The joy is in finding out about the target and seeing what can be captured.

To be honest, these debates always seem to end up as a bit of an echo chamber. My view is that this hobby can offer something for everyone and making out that one way of achieving something is somehow superior to another way is more damaging to a newb than all the GOTO systems in the world. I know that when I re-started my "career" in astronomy I felt that books like "Turn Left at Orion" were essential and unless you could star-hop you were somehow less worthy. TLAO was one of the biggest wastes of time and money for me....it's still lurking unread on a bookshelf somewhere in my house (anyone want a free TLAO, barely used? :grin: ).