Jump to content

First trip with the 12"

furrysocks2

By furrysocks2
in Observing - Reports

Recommended Posts

furrysocks2

furrysocks2

Posted
Posted

I showed my father a few sights early evening - my usuals, M45, Double Cluster, M37, plus M31. We didn't spend long, but nice to be able to just lift the lid of the dob closet and immediately start looking around.

 

Dinner done and kids in bed, I cleared myself to go out. I'd picked my spot a few weeks ago, a secluded car park next to woodland I've been biking in before. There were no artificial lights in line of sight at all, though there was moderate glare from three or fours large towns, all at least 10 miles away though.

The 12" fits in the car with one half of the split rear bench folded down and the dob base neatly on the other back seat. I had a couple of EPs in my door pocket and a mate in the passenger seat. It was -3 when we left, both wearing goose.

We pulled into the car park and I put the scope to one side, shut the car doors and we stood for a moment. Not having any street lights or houses in view was nice and definitely a good move to get out of the back garden. I picked M45 Pleiades in the 35mm as the first stop, but I was seeing crescents on all the stars as I approached focus. The scope was cooled before loading it in the car but 20 minutes with the heaters on meant I'd fogged up - it didn't take more than a few minutes to clear and a defocussed Betelgeuse confirmed that colimation was at least no worse than it had been at the house. I don't have anything to colimate with at the moment, but it didn't look far off at all.

We took turns - I'd find something, share it, swap EP perhaps, I'd yack on about it and then move on to something else. Again the same things in the same order- M45, Double Cluster, M37, M31, and a quick look at M42 which was just rising above the trees.

I don't know if I was seeing nebulosity in M45, or just scattered light around the stars. It's not one I'm particularly familiar with yet, but I think I was seeing dis-symmetry in places and perhaps a darkish band cutting past a star. Perhaps.

We enjoyed the Double Cluster, both in the 35mm and then each in the 16mm in turn. It's fun to pick out delicate little groups of stars within. Same went for M37 - noticably darker background in the 16mm compared to the 35mm. I don't seem to mind the single-speed focuser with the 16mm but I think I'll have issues beyond that.

M31 extended much beyond what I've seen before and using averted vision, pretty much full height of the 35mm - just over 1.5 degrees. There seemed to be more above than below. Didn't stop long though - I was on my way back to M33 after first picking it up the night before last.

My mental map was "3/5 of the way between X and Y, and to the side a little"... X I knew as I use it to find M31, but Y I'd forgotten which it was. We checked on my mate's phone, and I'd been right the first time. I used my other eye to check his phone and the difference was massive - I could barely make out a starlit frozen puddle in my phone eye, fine enough in my scope eye. Didn't take too long to find after that and we stuck at it for a few minutes each - I went back to the eyepiece a couple more times to see if I could get more out of it. More than the other night, anyway. Core was distinct, but nothing about it really drew me in more than that. A hint of a variation in brightness at one point (call that structure??) but really nothing to speak of. There was no moon, but the light pollution from surrounding towns and cities suggests I perhaps need to travel further, or perhaps it's down to moisture/ice in the air as well as just cloud/no-cloud.

After that, we dived headfirst into M42. Great sweep towards whatsit star, a clump out in front and a dark band just behind. More than I've seen before. Will enjoy revisiting this. Popped over towards the Horsehead - not expecting anything so just for fun - I might be imagining this completely, and I have no reference for star-patterns or orientation or scale, etc, but I had an immediate sense on first looking through the EP after red-dotting that I "recognised the context". A somewhat diagonal border/band/beach, and therefore an expectation that the horsehead would be a prominance from that. Nothing, of course, but I wonder if that sense of familiarity was real. Faint, but broad, EP filling, like an averted-vision half-dipped chocolate biscuit.

Getting cold feet at this point, I decided it was time for M101. I had "equilateral triangle above the left two" as my mental note, so red-dotted and searched, returning to the red-dot twice. As soon as I saw it, it was obvious. I shared my impression of a flattened plough-type star pattern just below it in the EP with my mate, in case either of us needed to relocate. I felt like it formed again an equilateral triangle with two stars below. In the 35mm, it was much like I'd seen M33 the night before - not in terms of scale, but just a patch of light that moved across the EP as I moved the scope. I wanted to try the 16mm but as soon as I swapped it out, realised that the low altitude and the fact that I hadn't re-attached the alt-axis springs immediately tipped the scope up. Recentered on my light patch, I tried holding the bearing still, and swapping the EP, but couldn't re-locate. So did I get it? I had the same feeling of certainty looking through the EP for M101 that I had the other night with M33 - but not for any other reason than being in the right part of the sky and struggling to make out any detail in something otherwise obviously there.

Winding down, I popped the 35mm back in and we each had a random scan along the milky way, enjoying the rich star fields, finding the odd interesting-looking clump or line or shape of stars, most often the very faint, very close, very pin-pricky little clusters would be the ones that drew the eye. I had another look at M45 to get another sense of the nebulosity that I thought I might have been seeing, and compared with some other moderately bright stars - I still saw asymmetry but really don't know. Again M42, showing what I'd seen before. Back to try and find the others in Auriga, got one.

Then I went to Betelgeuse and defocussed, out, as far as I could. Nice seeing the lines of diffraction either side of the spider vanes, ring just inside the mirror edge, fun playing with fingers in front watching the heat rise of them. Secondary was pretty centered, mirror clips well visible - also remember a three lobed or three spiked appearance of stars when going in/out of focus - think the clips might be screwed down too tight, but I'll look at that when I get a collimator.

Packed up, found all my EP caps, scope belted in, and headed home.

 

What fun! Even with a solid-tube 12", it didn't feel like a major undertaking to throw it in the car and drive somewhere. I could do it single-handed again, nice to share it with someone this time, though.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply
mapstar

mapstar

Posted
Posted

Get out into the wilderness, it does wonders for the skies! We keep bashing on about it but once you realise the difference it makes you'll do it all the more.

Nice report and thanks for posting as they always are a pleasure to read

Link to comment
Share on other sites
furrysocks2

furrysocks2

Posted
  • Author
Posted
7 minutes ago, mapstar said:

Get out into the wilderness, it does wonders for the skies! We keep bashing on about it but once you realise the difference it makes you'll do it all the more.

Nice report and thanks for posting as they always are a pleasure to read

Thanks. Aye - I picked the closest isolated spot I could this time - door to door was under two hours, including observing time.

Next time, I'll go further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stu

Stu

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, furrysocks2 said:

Thanks. Aye - I picked the closest isolated spot I could this time - door to door was under two hours, including observing time.

Next time, I'll go further.

Barely time to get dark adapted! Makes a big difference!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scarp15

scarp15

Posted
Posted

Great, getting to places with dark skies can become habit forming and you do start to become a little more adventurous, perhaps venturing a little further to more remote places. Unless planning on stopping over night you need something in reserve to get back home safely again though. I usually enjoy the journeys home, let some music wash over you and the serenity of the deep night, can be quite relaxing after a hopefully stimulating session, but not too relaxing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Timebandit

Timebandit

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, furrysocks2 said:

Is deep sky visual all down to the thrill of the chase, then?

 

Deep sky visual for me is getting that galaxy or Glob in the eyepiece that gives you that wooow moment, just a feast to the eye's 

Also the thrill of knowing what you are seeing is millions of years old and millions of light years away from us, but for a few hundred pounds then it brings it into views of the average Joe. I also consider the vastness of the Universe out there and truly wonder if there is other life forms out there. Personally i think there must be , humans can not be the only life in the universe. If we are on earth then there is a good chance there is additional  life in the universe 

All mind boggling?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
furrysocks2

furrysocks2

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Quote

If there is something as grand as an art to galaxy observing, it may consist in nothing more than being sensitive to each moment, wholly receptive and regarding that moment as utterly new and unique.

From https://stargazerslounge.com/topic/241076-galaxy-season-a-brief-introduction-to-the-milky-way-observing-galaxies/

 

I like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
estwing

estwing

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, furrysocks2 said:

Is deep sky visual all down to the thrill of the chase, then?

Mostly..give an enormous sense of achievement especially when you're hunting PGC's and ARP's along with plotting a NGC frenzy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scarp15

scarp15

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, furrysocks2 said:

Is deep sky visual all down to the thrill of the chase, then?

learning to read, comprehend and scrutinise small portions and aspects of a dark sky. Plotting and attempting to see, including with averted vision, pointer, finder stars leading to a particular deep sky object. This may decisively lead to discovering and gaining a sense of satisfaction and understanding, if a particular object is located within the field of an eyepiece. A good deal of my own time at a dark sky location is used naked eye gazing, there is so much going on, mentally plotting where an object might be located when suddenly a meteor might streak past your line of vision. Not therefore so much the thrill of the chase, more so the excitement through gaining a sense of discovery and understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
furrysocks2

furrysocks2

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks for the comments.

I must admit, I've often read the "don't expect to see what you see in photos" line but I hadn't quite appreciated the difficulty of experiencing, say, M33, even in a 12". I accept that sky conditions and location play an overwhelming part.

I've got two potential parking spots picked out, perhaps best kept until after the worst of winter has passed. At 1h30 to 2h drive, it would be a pretty lonely affair on my tod, though.

I also need to get the idea out of my head that 12" is not enough, but that may be unrealistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ags

Ags

Posted
Posted

It is worth remembering that for extended objects, aperture cannot increase the surface brightness of the object, as the surface brightness is determined by the exit pupil. Larger aperture simply allows more magnification for a given exit pupil size. So for faint fuzziest more aperture can have quite a subtle effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
furrysocks2

furrysocks2

Posted
  • Author
Posted
21 minutes ago, Ags said:

It is worth remembering that for extended objects, aperture cannot increase the surface brightness of the object, as the surface brightness is determined by the exit pupil. Larger aperture simply allows more magnification for a given exit pupil size. So for faint fuzziest more aperture can have quite a subtle effect.

Thanks, Ags - I need to try and understand this.

 

I found a topic on CN talking almost exclusively in terms of exit pupil:

https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/529169-ideal-exit-pupil-size

 

I'm a bit confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Littleguy80

Littleguy80

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, furrysocks2 said:

I also need to get the idea out of my head that 12" is not enough, but that may be unrealistic.

My scope is 5” and I also went through a stage of feeling like it was too small to see what I wanted to see. I then decided that I was going to try and see as much as possible with my scope before going for anything bigger. More than anything, dark skies and good conditions will get you results. 

I once started a thread asking what people’s ideal scope would be. @estwing responded “any scope under dark skies”. That really stuck with me.  

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.