Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

18" trawling for galaxies in Coma Berenices

Nyctimene

By Nyctimene
in Observing - Deep Sky

Recommended Posts

Nyctimene

Nyctimene

Posted
Posted

Was out this morning (01.00-03.15 CEST) with the 18" f/4.5 Obsession in Coma Berenices. NELM 5.6; SQM-L 21.19. Starting from the rather bright (9.8 mag) galaxy NGC 4494, I paid a short visit to the Queen of the edge-ons, 4565, again a really spectacular view and filling the 1° field of the 24 mmf/82° Maxvision to almost one third. The dust line was obvious and passing the bulge asymmetrically. 4559 was 3:1 elliptical, with a small triangle of 12 mag stars in its southern part. Passing 4448 and the faint 4375, I came to the nice chain of three 4278 (10.1 mag, round), 4283 (12.1) and 4286 (with 14.5 mag only to spot with averted vision). The 10.4 mag oblong 4274 was in the same field of view. The 40' ENE located galaxy 4314 (10.6) perplexed me. SkySafari 5 Pro showed this object as round, whereas I saw a distinct 3:1 NW-SE elongated galaxy of almost 4' diam., with a brighter central region and a 13 mag star 2' NW. First I thought of a misidentification, but the surrounding star patterns showed clearly that I was observing 4314. Later on, the NSOG (Night Sky Observer's Guide) gave the info, that the galaxy is a barred spiral (SB (rs) a), and it was actually the bar, that I had observed. The round outer shell ( that SkySafari shows) seems to be really faint and observable only with AV in large scopes under good conditions. I finished with 4414, which appeared very similar to 4314. Mostly I used the 24/82 Maxvision (85x mag) and for details the 12 mm set of the Baader Zoom Mk III,giving 170x mag. A nice haul, very pleased, and so to bed.

Thanks for reading

https://dso-browser.com/picture/view/19931/deep_sky/NGC/4314/galaxy/by-tedelaney2009?from=dso&dso_id=5355

Stephan

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hayduke27

Hayduke27

Posted
Posted

I just recently explored the galaxies of Coma Berencis for the first time.  I don't have nearly the aperture that you do, but under nice dark skies I could make out enough to really enjoy this part of the sky.  Thanks for the report, it makes me long for a peek through a larger telescope!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red Dwarfer

Red Dwarfer

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, Nyctimene said:

Was out this morning (01.00-03.15 CEST) with the 18" f/4.5 Obsession in Coma Berenices. NELM 5.6; SQM-L 21.19. Starting from the rather bright (9.8 mag) galaxy NGC 4494, I paid a short visit to the Queen of the edge-ons, 4565, again a really spectacular view and filling the 1° field of the 24 mmf/82° Maxvision to almost one third. The dust line was obvious and passing the bulge asymmetrically. 4559 was 3:1 elliptical, with a small triangle of 12 mag stars in its southern part. Passing 4448 and the faint 4375, I came to the nice chain of three 4278 (10.1 mag, round), 4283 (12.1) and 4286 (with 14.5 mag only to spot with averted vision). The 10.4 mag oblong 4274 was in the same field of view. The 40' ENE located galaxy 4314 (10.6) perplexed me. SkySafari 5 Pro showed this object as round, whereas I saw a distinct 3:1 NW-SE elongated galaxy of almost 4' diam., with a brighter central region and a 13 mag star 2' NW. First I thought of a misidentification, but the surrounding star patterns showed clearly that I was observing 4314. Later on, the NSOG (Night Sky Observer's Guide) gave the info, that the galaxy is a barred spiral (SB (rs) a), and it was actually the bar, that I had observed. The round outer shell ( that SkySafari shows) seems to be really faint and observable only with AV in large scopes under good conditions. I finished with 4414, which appeared very similar to 4314. Mostly I used the 24/82 Maxvision (85x mag) and for details the 12 mm set of the Baader Zoom Mk III,giving 170x mag. A nice haul, very pleased, and so to bed.

Thanks for reading

https://dso-browser.com/picture/view/19931/deep_sky/NGC/4314/galaxy/by-tedelaney2009?from=dso&dso_id=5355

Stephan

Very interesting report and link , Stephan - 

I'm in a bit of a dilemma about my next DOB - I have saved for a 12 inch and then found that the 14 inch SkyWatcher collapsable DOB ( the next non goto model up ) is just a couple of hundred more - is the extra weight and size ( maneuverability issues around the back garden ) going to be a problem ? 

This question is wide open to anyone else who reads it and has advice to offer .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red Dwarfer

Red Dwarfer

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Demonperformer said:

Decide on the 14" model and you will instantly be faced with the same problem in respect of a 16".

I know what you mean , but 14" has to be the maximum to get the base from the garage and through the garden gate ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Timebandit

Timebandit

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Demonperformer said:

Decide on the 14" model and you will instantly be faced with the same problem in respect of a 16".

 

1 hour ago, Red Dwarfer said:

I know what you mean , but 14" has to be the maximum to get the base from the garage and through the garden gate ?

 

I see you currently have a 200p , therefore a 14" or 16" is a very worthwhile upgrade. If the 14" is you maximum for the conditions you have then I do not think the extra 2" of the 16" are going to give you a massive advantage to your eyes. A 14" that is going to be used and can be used is far better than a 16" stuck in the garage ,as its to big or heavy to get out. The best scope to have is the one that will get used. And going from a 8" to a 14" is not only a considerable size and weight difference anyway. But the views from a 14" to an 8" will be a considerable and worthwhile aperture upgrade. By the way I have a 8" and 14" reflector, so have experience in the aperture range .

I hope this helps☺

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red Dwarfer

Red Dwarfer

Posted
Posted

Yes , it helps very much , thank you - 16 inch would probably be unmanageable size wise at this stage - plus I think there's a big jump in price between 14/16 ... bigger than 12/14 

Even if I could see the faintest wisp of galaxy detail ( the bigger and brighter ones ) dust lanes and spiral arms it would be well worth the upgrade - as a big fan of globulars , those too should be much better ...

I will always hold on to the 8" with the new Dob ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Nyctimene

Nyctimene

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 9.4.2018 at 15:16, Red Dwarfer said:

I'm in a bit of a dilemma about my next DOB - I have saved for a 12 inch and then found that the 14 inch SkyWatcher collapsable DOB ( the next non goto model up ) is just a couple of hundred more - is the extra weight and size ( maneuverability issues around the back garden ) going to be a problem ?

I think so. Teleskop Express gives for  the 12" values of 27 kgs tube weight and 34 kgs for the rockerbox. Compare this to the 14": 23,5 kgs tube weight and a (monstrous) weight of 50 kgs for the rockerbox. You'll need some kind of trolley or attached wheelbarrow handles to move the 14". I'd stay with your 8" and save up some more money for a more lightweight Dob; the 12" OOUK has a tube weight of 17 kgs and the rockerbox is just at 13 kgs. You could go even lighter; the 12" f/5 Hofheim Instruments traveldob (German maker) is a featherweight of only 12 kgs in total. The Sumerian Alkaid 12" f/5 is somewhat "heavier" at 16.5 kgs - way better manageable, and fun to set up and use.

Edit: just to show you, what is possible - a 14" f/4.7 dob with incredible 15 kgs total weight (-ok; horrendous price of 7900€; but state-of-the-art) built by a well known German ATM, Daniel Restemeyer. Website in German only, but have a look at the pictures:

http://nauris.de/index.php/de/mechanik/mirrage#Kenndaten

 

Hth

Stephan

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mapstar

mapstar

Posted
Posted
On 20/04/2018 at 16:27, Nyctimene said:

I think so. Teleskop Express gives for  the 12" values of 27 kgs tube weight and 34 kgs for the rockerbox. Compare this to the 14": 23,5 kgs tube weight and a (monstrous) weight of 50 kgs for the rockerbox. You'll need some kind of trolley or attached wheelbarrow handles to move the 14". I'd stay with your 8" and save up some more money for a more lightweight Dob; the 12" OOUK has a tube weight of 17 kgs and the rockerbox is just at 13 kgs. You could go even lighter; the 12" f/5 Hofheim Instruments traveldob (German maker) is a featherweight of only 12 kgs in total. The Sumerian Alkaid 12" f/5 is somewhat "heavier" at 16.5 kgs - way better manageable, and fun to set up and use.

Edit: just to show you, what is possible - a 14" f/4.7 dob with incredible 15 kgs total weight (-ok; horrendous price of 7900€; but state-of-the-art) built by a well known German ATM, Daniel Restemeyer. Website in German only, but have a look at the pictures:

http://nauris.de/index.php/de/mechanik/mirrage#Kenndaten

 

Hth

Stephan

They're nice and the carbon fibre components are very well made. Wonder how much the primaries weigh as they have to be a good chunk of the weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kirkster501

kirkster501

Posted
Posted

Back to the question of size, even the 12" (never mind the 14" or let alone the 16") is *MUCH* bigger and heavier that the 8".  MUCH bigger and heavier and I say that as a pretty strong guy who does a lot of weight training.   If you can avoid tripping over them, or make them removable when the scope is in situ, then the wheelbarrow handles idea is a very good one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nyctimene

Nyctimene

Posted
  • Author
Posted
9 hours ago, kirkster501 said:

If you can avoid tripping over them, or make them removable when the scope is in situ, then the wheelbarrow handles idea is a very good one. 

My 18" Obsession came with attachable wheelbarrow handles, which make it really easy to move this big scope. Over the years, I've acquired the habit to approach the scope always from the UTA/focuser side; so I can leave the wheelbarrow handles always attached, which saves about two minutes each time, when setting up or taking down the scope. I always remove the handles, when I'm observing in company. Up to now, I've never tripped over the handles.

9 hours ago, kirkster501 said:

Back to the question of size, even the 12" (never mind the 14" or let alone the 16") is *MUCH* bigger and heavier that the 8"

IIRC, many years ago, in the era of big, equatorially mounted scopes (professional ones, as the 3.5 m Calar Alto scope), someone evaluated, that the scope's size increased squared with it's aperture, whereas the weight (and the cost!) went up with the cube of the aperture. Dont't know, how this applies to modern amateur scopes (dobs), but it's an interesting correlation.

Stephan

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.