Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b83b14cd4142fe10848741bb2a14c66b.jpg

How have i missed this?....

estwing

By estwing
in Observing - Discussion

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply
John

John

Posted
Posted

There is a nice mag 12 galaxy right next to M13 as well which is often overlooked :smiley:

Mag 14 is right on the limit for my 12" dob from my back yard but it might be worth a go on a nice dark night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
niallk

niallk

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, estwing said:

Like many when it come along M57 is a wonderful target to observe....so how come I've missed the galaxy next to it!... mag 14 so its not impossible.

Has anyone bagged this?...IC 1296..http://www.deepskyforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2222&d=1471085229

Interesting!  Must look, but won't hold my breath (until I get my scope down to the dark skies of Kerry in late August :) )

I love the outer shell visible in that highly over exposed pic of the Ring.  It's like the O-III shells around the Cat's Eye ;)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
celestron8g8

celestron8g8

Posted
Posted

I once before had a chance for a quick look through a 19" truss that had to have a ladder to reach the EP .  It was on M13 but I never saw the galaxies nor did the scope owner mention it was there . Don't know what the FOV was but enough that that galaxie should have been there . Next time I get a chance I will mention that . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
celestron8g8

celestron8g8

Posted
Posted

I've only seen that galaxie close to M57 in images like the one Carole produced not long ago . But I've never seen it or evidence in my 8" SCT even on dark nights . Not even a blurr . Most times when I find M57 it's with adverted vision while scanning for it but then afterwards if I stare at it long enough then it pops . I think the most deepest mag for my 8" is around 14 . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, celestron8g8 said:

I once before had a chance for a quick look through a 19" truss that had to have a ladder to reach the EP .  It was on M13 but I never saw the galaxies nor did the scope owner mention it was there . Don't know what the FOV was but enough that that galaxie should have been there . Next time I get a chance I will mention that . 

 

The galaxy near Messier 13 is NGC 6207. It's around 1 degree NE of M13 and magnitude 12.1. I've seen it with instruments down to 130mm in aperture. With my 12" dob and the 21mm Ethos eyepiece I can get both M13 and the galaxy in the same field at 76x. Rather a nice sight :smiley:

IC objects are usually very challenging to my medium aperture scopes from my back yard but I'll give IC 1296 a go when I next get a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, celestron8g8 said:

Here is an online calculator I found . Where I live average 3.5 skies shows me at about 13.5 mag which is about right or little less . Dark sights up to 15.2 tho . 

 

http://www.cruxis.com/scope/limitingmagnitude.htm

I've just run that through my scope / observing site / age etc and it's come up with a limit of mag 14.8 for my 12" dobsonian from my back yard at 100x. My real life experience places the limit at around mag 14 so perhaps a little optimistic or I've not interpreted the inputs correctly ?

Either way, when things are fainter than mag 13 they are really pretty faint from my back yard even with my 12" scope on a good night !

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
celestron8g8

celestron8g8

Posted
Posted

I think your probably right on and for me with city LP even tho after midnight skies use to be 4.5 but now if 3.5 is good that's saying a lot . The dimmest I have seen with adverted vision is M66 (mag 8.9)  and M65 (mag 10.25) . Now if I were at Ft.Davis , Texas where the skies average about 7-9 I probably would not need adverted vision on either one . Actually M57 (mag 8.8) is easier for me to see than any of the triplet galaxies . NGC 3628 at 10.2 mag I can't even get a motion with adverted vision where I live with my 8"  :( .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YKSE

YKSE

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, estwing said:

Like many when it come along M57 is a wonderful target to observe....so how come I've missed the galaxy next to it!... mag 14 so its not impossible.

Has anyone bagged this?...IC 1296..http://www.deepskyforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2222&d=1471085229

Mag 14.3 and size 1.1'x0.8', it's at best threshold galaxy for C8 in dark site, I'll give it a go when the darkness returns.

6207 near M13 is an easily neglected galaxy because of M13, but it's fairly bright, doable with C8 in my light polluted backard (mag 4.7 sky).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
michael.h.f.wilkinson

michael.h.f.wilkinson

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, YKSE said:

Mag 14.3 and size 1.1'x0.8', it's at best threshold galaxy for C8 in dark site, I'll give it a go when the darkness returns.

6207 near M13 is an easily neglected galaxy because of M13, but it's fairly bright, doable with C8 in my light polluted backard (mag 4.7 sky).

NGC 6207 is easy, but a mag 14.3 galaxy of that size (one square arcminute, or thereabouts) is beyond a C8, I would say. Mag 14 stellar objects are doable, but for galaxies anything beyond 13 is very hard indeed. As this is a near face-on barred spiral, I doubt it is possible, even from a dark site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YKSE

YKSE

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, michael.h.f.wilkinson said:

NGC 6207 is easy, but a mag 14.3 galaxy of that size (one square arcminute, or thereabouts) is beyond a C8, I would say. Mag 14 stellar objects are doable, but for galaxies anything beyond 13 is very hard indeed. As this is a near face-on barred spiral, I doubt it is possible, even from a dark site.

Yes, that's why I said threshold object at best with C8.

Reading the link posted by Calvin in post 4, where Acey mentioned CN discussions, Pensack did managed IC1296's core with his C8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Moonshane

Moonshane

Posted
Posted

I suspect the core would be doable from very dark skies with a biggish scope with careful location and scrutiny. The outer fuzz would require very large aperture I think based on the images.

To me this sort of pursuit  is the cure for aperture fever. There are more NGC objects in the sky than I will ever see in my lifetime and most of these will be visible in my 16" scope and probably my 12" in the right circumstances. I have not even seen all the Messier objects yet!!

That said respect to the mini fuzzy chasers! :headbang:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YKSE

YKSE

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Moonshane said:

To me this sort of pursuit  is the cure for aperture fever. There are more NGC objects in the sky than I will ever see in my lifetime

Exactly!:smiley:

My search shown there're over 2000 galaxies brighter than mag 13 and high enough for my latitude for C8, with my going rate, it'll take me a deade to finish, so aperture fever doesn't really catch me:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Piero

Piero

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, YKSE said:

Exactly!:smiley:

My search shown there're over 2000 galaxies brighter than mag 13 and high enough for my latitude for C8, with my going rate, it'll take me a deade to finish, so aperture fever doesn't really catch me:D

I agree and disagree.

What you say makes sense, but a larger aperture will make those same targets easier to spot, to observe, and to appreciate.

This assuming a decent sky, a patient eye, and similar magnifications.

I think the real limits of large apertures are transportability, storage, cooling time, and possibly cost. Based on these one can 'cool down' aperture fever quickly! :)

I feel I can easily say that half messier targets are threshold targets in my 60mm. While it is exciting to catch light coming from 50m light years away with a 60mm, a larger aperture offers an unpaired view which can be studied under dark skies. My 60 doesn't allow that study for those targets even under the best sky conditions. I believe this reasonament can be extended to dimmer targets using larger apertures.

An 8" is a nice trade-off between capability and portability. I do feel excited too when observing galaxies. For this reason, if I will be able to observe regularly under dark skies, I will get something bigger than my 8".

Not necessarily to see more, but to observe them better.

Just a thought of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.