Not enough for andromeda?

[Barry-W-Fenner]

22 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

I can't see the Veil from my location - too much LP. 

A couple of years ago at a star party, I had a look through someone's 100mm scope, low power, with a filter. It was a mesmerising sight; so clear and full of detail. 

Dark skies are the way to go. Aperture can't make up for LP.

I fear I might be in the same boat regarding location and pollution. I will certainly try again now i have some knowledge on the target. I am encouraged by what I hear about true dark sky's though.  Once i have been to one I wont want to view from my location again!

 

Regards

 

Baz

[ollypenrice]

4 minutes ago, Barry-W-Fenner said:

I fear I might be in the same boat regarding location and pollution. I will certainly try again now i have some knowledge on the target. I am encouraged by what I hear about true dark sky's though.  Once i have been to one I wont want to view from my location again!

 

Regards

 

Baz

Be careful what you wish for; I ended up emigrating!

😁lly

[Barry-W-Fenner]

Looking at the above graphs again I genuinely think I have been on or around the Veil. My lack of experience, Pollution and not using the O-III filter might be the problem. I will be having another go with all the above guidance!

 

Regards

 

Baz

[Timebandit]

20 minutes ago, Barry-W-Fenner said:

Thanks for the informative assistance gents.  This will be of great help. My weapons of choice will be either the 18 or 25mm BST and O-III filter along with hopefully a clear sky with good seeing.

The things that are against me are the fact that Cygnus is low currently. I can make out the full "cross" but cant really see much else I cant even remember seeing 52 Cyg! I will have to have another more detailed look. As John has also pointed out it is also deceptively large, I may have been on it without even knowing, Hopefully the O-III confirm.

What do you all recommend as "low power" for this target? 

The more I hear about darker sky's with low light pollution the more I want to get out and find one. I genuinely thought my sky was ok as I could see all main constellations. How naive of me! 

Thank you

 

Baz

 

A lot of people are in the same boat. Because you can see the constellations then they feel the Sky's are "dark". When you get to a true dark site and you see so many stars that the constellations start to be difficult to make out. Then you start to realise what a true dark site is. And those faint fuzzies that are difficult to see or spot from home then just pop to the eyes. Get to a true dark site and it will be a totally Woow experience.

 

 

[Stu]

8 minutes ago, Barry-W-Fenner said:

I fear I might be in the same boat regarding location and pollution. I will certainly try again now i have some knowledge on the target. I am encouraged by what I hear about true dark sky's though.  Once i have been to one I wont want to view from my location again!

 

Regards

 

Baz

I suspect you won't have much luck until it is higher in the late summer, that's the best time. I can just about see it from home where my NELM is about mag 5, I reckon you probably need mag 5.5, preferably heading towards 6 to see it properly.

Low power and a decent sized economy pupil help. In my 100mm or even my 72mm I either use a 30mm 82 degree or 20mm 100 degree to give fields of view around 4 degrees or more and exit pupils of 4 or 5mm. This allows you to see the whole of the East and West Veil plus Pickering's Triangle.

In the 14" I use the same eye pieces which give higher power and smaller fields of view, but still maintains exit pupils of 4 or 5mm. At x52 with the 30mm, the fov is about 1.5 degrees, enough to fit either of the main sections in but not the whole object. You basically get much more detailed views of smaller parts of it.

Not sure if you saw this report of mine? Might be of interest.

 

[ollypenrice]

40 minutes ago, Timebandit said:

 

A lot of people are in the same boat. Because you can see the constellations then they feel the Sky's are "dark". When you get to a true dark site and you see so many stars that the constellations start to be difficult to make out. Then you start to realise what a true dark site is. And those faint fuzzies that are difficult to see or spot from home then just pop to the eyes. Get to a true dark site and it will be a totally Woow experience.

 

 

Some time ago I had a group of experienced imagers from a UK astronomical society here. At home they operated under light polluted skies. As they were setting up their equipment they had to ask me to confirm which star was Polaris because, with so many stars on view, they were no longer sure they'd got the right one. And it's perfectly true that your first visit to a very dark site can leave you disorientated.

Olly

[Barry-W-Fenner]

2 hours ago, Stu said:

I suspect you won't have much luck until it is higher in the late summer, that's the best time. I can just about see it from home where my NELM is about mag 5, I reckon you probably need mag 5.5, preferably heading towards 6 to see it properly.

Low power and a decent sized economy pupil help. In my 100mm or even my 72mm I either use a 30mm 82 degree or 20mm 100 degree to give fields of view around 4 degrees or more and exit pupils of 4 or 5mm. This allows you to see the whole of the East and West Veil plus Pickering's Triangle.

In the 14" I use the same eye pieces which give higher power and smaller fields of view, but still maintains exit pupils of 4 or 5mm. At x52 with the 30mm, the fov is about 1.5 degrees, enough to fit either of the main sections in but not the whole object. You basically get much more detailed views of smaller parts of it.

Not sure if you saw this report of mine? Might be of interest.

 

Thanks for the info Stu, It is greatly appreciated.  I will also have a read through the attached thread and hopefully pick up some more pointers!

 

Regards

 

Baz

[Ships and Stars]

On 05/02/2020 at 12:28, Barry-W-Fenner said:

My Nemesis, The Veil. I still cant find it. I will need to start a thread for advice from the pros... 

Baz

Hi Barry, an OIII filter is perfect for the Veil, that's the best target for an OIII filter in my relatively limited experience. I had a 200p and could just make it out from a 20.7 SQM site, from a 21.5 to 21.9 with the 20" needless to say it was stunning. As people have said above, dark skies. The first time you get a good crack at it, you won't forget it! It's otherworldly under good conditions. Don't forget both E &W parts, they are spread out a little bit. If you can see Pickering's Triangle in between, then you're winning.

[Benjam]

7 hours ago, Timebandit said:

 

A lot of people are in the same boat. Because you can see the constellations then they feel the Sky's are "dark". When you get to a true dark site and you see so many stars that the constellations start to be difficult to make out. Then you start to realise what a true dark site is. And those faint fuzzies that are difficult to see or spot from home then just pop to the eyes. Get to a true dark site and it will be a totally Woow experience.

 

 

I definitely had the wow experience in Fiji. Luckily, I downloaded a app beforehand. I found it very disorientating to begin with as I didn’t know where to look. With the app, I could at least find familia objects in the night sky. 

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Benjam

[Barry-W-Fenner]

4 hours ago, Benjam said:

I definitely had the wow experience in Fiji. Luckily, I downloaded a app beforehand. I found it very disorientating to begin with as I didn’t know where to look. With the app, I could at least find familia objects in the night sky. 

 

Was that pic taken just from your phone? That's unreal. I can't imagine how much more rewarding viewing that kind of sky must be.

baz

[Barry-W-Fenner]

4 hours ago, Ships and Stars said:

Hi Barry, an OIII filter is perfect for the Veil, that's the best target for an OIII filter in my relatively limited experience. I had a 200p and could just make it out from a 20.7 SQM site, from a 21.5 to 21.9 with the 20" needless to say it was stunning. As people have said above, dark skies. The first time you get a good crack at it, you won't forget it! It's otherworldly under good conditions. Don't forget both E &W parts, they are spread out a little bit. If you can see Pickering's Triangle in between, then you're winning.

Thanks Ships and stars. All the advice is appreciated. I will definitely be giving thia target another go when it's a little higher in the sky.

 

Regards

 

Baz

[Benjam]

19 hours ago, Barry-W-Fenner said:

Was that pic taken just from your phone? That's unreal. I can't imagine how much more rewarding viewing that kind of sky must be.

baz

Hi Baz

No, with a DSLR camera. The small sensors inside smartphones restrict what you can do, but it is certainly possible. If you can find yourself a dark site, you will be truly blown away. 

[JOC]

On 05/02/2020 at 12:32, John said:

Do you have a UHC or O-III filter ?

They (especailly the O-III) make all the difference in terms of visibility of the Veil.

I've got both those and a goto and I am similarly frustrated and although I haven't made huge efforts I have on occasion gone looking for it at the right time of year and given up.

[jetstream]

6 hours ago, JOC said:

I've got both those and a goto and I am similarly frustrated and although I haven't made huge efforts I have on occasion gone looking for it at the right time of year and given up.

Can you see 52 Cygni with the eyes JOC?

[JOC]

2 hours ago, jetstream said:

Can you see 52 Cygni with the eyes JOC?

I've absolutely no idea - err........I'd have to find Cygnus first!  I'll check on stellarium the next clear night when I'm out and see if I can find Cygnus.  That ought to be doable as I can see how it might look like a big swan.

[John]

52 Cygni is usually a naked eye star (mag 4.2) and is key to finding and observing the Veil Nebula. The Western Veil runs right alongside the star. The Eastern Veil is the slightly brighter segment though - both shown below:

[jetstream]

20 minutes ago, JOC said:

I've absolutely no idea - err........I'd have to find Cygnus first!  I'll check on stellarium the next clear night when I'm out and see if I can find Cygnus.  That ought to be doable as I can see how it might look like a big swan.

Look for a huge cross! A great start in Cygnus is Albireo, a beautiful gift of the sky. There is so much in and around this constellation it is staggering. If you can see 52 Cygni naked eye the Veil will show with an OIII and proper eye illumination, 4mm-5mm exit pupil. Your 200mm dob is perfect with the 31mm Baader/ OIII.

 

Edited February 14, 2020 by jetstream
learning to spell (Albireo lol!)

[JOC]

1 hour ago, jetstream said:

Look for a huge cross! A great start in Cygnus is Albireo, a beautiful gift of the sky. There is so much in and around this constellation it is staggering. If you can see 52 Cygni naked eye the Veil will show with an OIII and proper eye illumination, 4mm-5mm exit pupil. Your 200mm dob is perfect with the 31mm Baader/ OIII.

With such help I might just be encouraged to have a bash at this.  I do recall once viewing Alberio and clearly viewed the two differently coloured stars.  I had no idea that it was part of cygnus.

NB.  The advice on EP choice is hugely helpful to beginners like myself - with many deep sky objects it is difficult to know just how big or otherwise they actually are.

Edited February 14, 2020 by JOC

[jetstream]

57 minutes ago, JOC said:

With such help I might just be encouraged to have a bash at this.

Yes, for sure try it once its up high again and right now Gemini offers some VG objects- the Eskimo nebula, which takes very high mag and also the Monkey Head nebula-perfect with the OIII/31mm again.

Swinging over to UMa and the super pair of M108, found with your 31mm and enhanced with your excellent 14mm Morpheus and the Owl nebula, again the 31mm/OIII works.

There is just so much to see- everywhere.

When I got serious about astronomy (finally the resources) I studied the constellations for a long time which is extremely rewarding in itself. I still sit in my lawnchair to take it all in at the end of the obs sessions.

To the OP @Kronos831 sorry to go off topic, however in my mind tossing ideas around is a vg thing and feel free to in my threads. Your 130mm will show M31 superbly- from dark skies. We use the ES 24mm 68 for this and shows all 3 galaxies and the dust lanes in M31. In order to see M31 very well the object needs to be easy naked eye, if its weak or not showing the core + a bit will be the most you can get IMHO.

[Kronos831]

On 14/02/2020 at 21:21, jetstream said:

 

On 14/02/2020 at 21:21, jetstream said:

To the OP @Kronos831 sorry to go off topic, however in my mind tossing ideas around is a vg thing and feel free to in my threads.

No Problem jetstream! I completely agree and i love to see how such threads can develop into something completely new!

-Kronos

[John]

The Eskimo Nebula in Gemini is a good example of an object which is worth observing both with and without a UHC or O-III filter.

Without the filter, at 100x or more the central star of the planetary nebula is visible gleaming out from the centre of a small hazy disk. Add the filter and you often loose sight of the central star with small to medium aperture scopes but in return the layered structure of the nebulous disk becomes better defined and the nebulosity stands out better from the background sky.

I'm still not quite sure that it ever looks much like an eskimo or a clowns face (its other name) but it is a fascinating object and, like so many of these things, repays careful examination at varying magnifications and with and without filters. 

 

 

[jetstream]

3 hours ago, John said:

I'm still not quite sure that it ever looks much like an eskimo or a clowns face (its other name) bu

The other night using the 24" at 287x there is a bright not quite complete inner ring (annular ring?) that is surrounded by the fine radial filaments. If am Eskimo hood is looked up on the computer there is a nice resemblance with the inner hood the ring and the fur the radial filaments.

This one is sensitive to seeing as poor seeing will limit the mag where features are seen or not and a filter brightens the object but kills the fine features (to my eyes).

Just found this from NASA:

"This stellar relic, first spied by William Herschel in 1787, is nicknamed the Eskimo Nebula (NGC 2392) because, when viewed through ground-based telescopes, it resembles a face surrounded by a fur parka. In this Hubble telescope image, the 'parka' is really a disk of material embellished with a ring of comet-shaped objects, with their tails streaming away from the central, dying star. Although the Eskimo's 'face' resembles a ball of twine, it is, in reality, a bubble of material being blown into space by the central star's intense 'wind' of high-speed material. This object is an example of a planetary nebula, so named because many of them have a round appearance resembling that of a planet when viewed through a small telescope. A planetary nebula forms when dying sun-like stars eject their outer gaseous layers, which then become bright nebulae with amazing and confounding shapes. The Eskimo Nebula is about 5,000 light-years from Earth in the constellation Gemini and began forming about 10,000 years ago."

Image Credit: NASA