10" dobsonian viewing list help

[Davesellars]

Remember that the magnitude given of the galaxy is pretty meaningless without taking in to account its size and therefore the actual surface brightness - this is the number you should be referencing.

[cotterless45]

I never lingered much on galaxies until I took the Dob to Skye. NGC 891 showed a clear dust lane and side on halo and M33 resolved into a spiral with knots. Otherwise , if there's any light pollution, its round fuzz or bright streak , except for the brightest ones.

Nick.

[John]

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet but it's worth bearing in mind that atmospheric extenction and light pollution sources around the horizons (Bristol, Weston-super-Mare and Newport in my case ! ) play a significiant role in reducing the discernable brightness of objects when they are lower in the sky.

Despite being affected but these issues, being selective about the areas of the sky to study and playing a waiting game for them to get reasonably high in the sky has contributed quite a bit to "how deep" I've been able to go from my back yard.

With careful dark adaptation I reckoned magnitude 13 galaxies were "doable" from here when I had a 10" scope and point sources half a magnitude or so fainter.

I managed to spot a mag 12.7 supernova with my ED120 refractor a couple of years back from my patio.

I've not managed to see either the Flame or the Horsehead with my 12" dob, even using the Lumincon H-Beta filter and I think thats because Orion is just too close to some LP during it's path across the sky from here. Thats despite M42 looking pretty magnificent on a dark night. The "Horsey" needs the sky to be really, really, really dark and very transparent to boot.

Once you get "your eye in" during a fainter DSO session, its surprising what can be teased out. Well worth going to some lengths to preserve your night vision during such sessions I reckon.

Markarian's Chain in the bowl of Virgo would be well worth exploring with your 10" when that constellation is well placed during the Winter months.

[bomberbaz]

17 hours ago, cotterless45 said:

1As ace said above. Don't waste your time. Luckshall isn't the darkest sky, tame your list down to what's achievable.

Ah I was there under the impression that Lucksall was a very dark sky! Out of 10, what does it rate as then please.

I will probably give the flame a bash late on just to see, afterall, how long does it take? Hardly the hardest thing to find.

But thanks for the advice nick n acey, I will tailor my viewing lists appropriately. Actually think I might get on with that later this afternoon. I will have a gander at your list again nick and the other various links people have put up. For anyone else wikipedia is great for getting views of prospective targets although the pictures they use are invariably better than what the mark one eyeball will see. But good none the less if you are not sure what a give dso is going to turn up and dont want to waste time on hunting down fairly bland clusters or similar. 

[Mark at Beaufort]

Steve I live only a few miles from Lucksall and I have similar skies. If you look at my signature must of the DSOs were seen using a 10" Skywatcher Dob. I have only had the 12" since February this year. With regard to Lucksall when the SGL Management first decided to book this camp site (SGL4) I was asked to check out the darkness of the site before it was booked. I took some 15x70 binos and had a good view of M33 and M1.

I have viewed the Horse Head from Lucksall although I admit it was with a 16" Dob.

 

[bomberbaz]

wow I am goosed. Been pouring over some of the lists of here and checking out other peoples ideas and using stellarium to plan for Lucksall. Taken me 4 hours but I have got myself some draft lists together for the big event. I have them in word and xcel formats so I can edit them prior to going which no doubt I will.

Hope I don't put the mockers on it now. 

[bish]

On ‎25‎/‎09‎/‎2016 at 12:29, bomberbaz said:

 

I will probably give the flame a bash late on just to see, afterall, how long does it take? Hardly the hardest thing to find.

 

The flame is a good target in a 10" with UHC, provided there isn't too much moisture in the air.    I've not tried it from Lucksall though, only from darker sites.  I had a good view from a garden in Wiltshire, which is dark - but not as dark as somewhere like Kielder.  You are right, it's in an easy area to find so you would soon find out if it's possible. I would be interested to hear how you get on.

[jetstream]

Steve, if your Lucksall sky crowds 20.8+ the Flame will be visible given reasonably transparent skies. I really hope you (and others) get this one on your gathering. It is a very nice object to view.

[jetstream]

On 2016-09-24 at 03:12, acey said:

With the Flame you've got the glare of Alnitak to contend with: if you succeed you'll see a diffuse nebulosity no different from dozens of other large emission nebulae.

I agree with the first part of this statement. The Flame nebula does show a unique segmented structure with a "bridge" at the one end of it, it is, however, different from many nebulae. One aspect of this difference is the ability to see it very well with no filter.

[bomberbaz]

10 hours ago, jetstream said:

I agree with the first part of this statement. The Flame nebula does show a unique segmented structure with a "bridge" at the one end of it, it is, however, different from many nebulae. One aspect of this difference is the ability to see it very well with no filter.

Heard this before too, I carry a UHC-S and also a UHC. The former has a higher band pass than the latter and so should be a good starting point as somewhere inbetween the two.

[bomberbaz]

This filter comparison chart is worth a read if you haven't seen it before. Done by one of the chaps from cloudy nights forums.

http://www.cloudynights.com/page/articles/cat/user-reviews/accessories/astronomical-filters/filter-performance-comparisons-r1471#top

[bomberbaz]

This filter comparison chart is worth a read if you haven't seen it before. Done by one of the chaps from cloudy nights forums.

http://www.cloudynights.com/page/articles/cat/user-reviews/accessories/astronomical-filters/filter-performance-comparisons-r1471#top

[jetstream]

3 hours ago, bomberbaz said:

Heard this before too, I carry a UHC-S and also a UHC. The former has a higher band pass than the latter and so should be a good starting point as somewhere inbetween the two.

Great choice Steve! You are well prepared for this object and have a VG chance to see it if the weather co operates. Your very low scatter eyepieces will help with the bright Alnitak as well. Its so easy to bounce back and forth to the Flame ...sometimes many tries can help increase the odds too- as does the "stare" (no eye movement).