Andrew* Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Start: 9pmEnd: 10.30pmScope: 16" LBConditions: Nice and dark (LM ~5), no seeing issues.Lately my observing sessions have been unprepared and slightly desperate, resulting in cycling over old targets just to get some views in after an observing drought. Today I was unprepared, and slightly desperate too, so what was the difference? I don't know, but I had a clear head and had a very successful evening finding new targets with aid from "Illustrated Guide to Astronomical Wonders", and also looking at some familiar targets in a a new light. Being the first time I've really used IGAW properly, I found it a joy to use, sending me without fuss or frustration to my target, except one which I missed.Starting around 9pm, I turned to M42 as I had yet to be gobsmacked by the view in the 16". Well, it happened tonight. The trapezium area glowed very brightly with streamers going across it. Outside this was fainter swirling nebulosity, and the main arc wrapped it all up very neatly. North I found NGC 1977, the Running Man, and south of M42 was apparent a faint glow of NGC 1980 against a backdrop of bright stars. I knocked up the power to 215x to try and split the trapezium. I didn't succeed with this but the fish-mouth silhouetting the raging inferno beyond caught my eye. What a fantastic sight.When I opened my case to write M42 into my journal, I found to my dismay that my red light was missing. Shielding my eyes as best I could, to save my night vision, I went back indoors to find it. I didn't, but made one up quickly with some red sweet wrapper over a white light torch. It was rather frustrating to find it as soon as I came in at the end of the night. But I was out again before long, looking into a promising sky waiting for secret treasures to be revealed.Perseus was bang overhead - a constellation I have rarely explored in detail, and now an ideal opportunity to do so. I picked NGC 1023 from IGAW. This is a fairly faint, small galaxy, 20.6 mly distant, with a bright nucleus, which knocks up its overall magnitude to a respectable 10.4. I found it without trouble, but it wasn't breathtaking. The oval core was bright and small, and averted vision showed a very elongated halo. But I liked how this galaxy lies in the middle of an arc of stars - the setting adds something to its beauty.Next was M34 - a mere stone's throw from 1023 in angular distance, but of course 20mly closer in reality! At first glance the cluster seemed fairly small, round and bright, but with more bright stars (co-incidental: not part of the cluster) extending out suggesting an oval-shaped cluster twice the size of the "core". Then I realised that the backdrop of fainter stars actually extends all the way out, filling out the cluster and revealing its true circular shape. I imagine with less aperture a viewer would regard this cluster as oval rather than round, as the fainter stars would not contribute to the shape.I next located NGC 1342 - another open cluster, perhaps the size of core I saw in M34. It was made up of an irregular shape of bright stars, which to me resembled a dot-to-dot puzzle just waiting to be joined up to make a picture. The rest of the cluster is made up of much fainter members, like a kind of background mist.Next was a nebula I've not heard of before - NGC 1491. An SGL search only brought up 3 images, two of which were taken by Rog quite some time ago that the pictures don't show up any more. Clearly not a very common object. I found it okay - a very small and extremely faint elongated mist in the 28mm UWAN (65x). IGAW recommended a UHC filter, so with UltraBlock in place, using the 20mm T2 Nagler, I got a much more defined view. Still, it was small, faint and irregular. This would be a great object to sketch, because I'm quite convinced that a longer, more careful observation would have revealed more in this target.By now Auriga was right overhead, so I turned to that constellation in IGAW. Auriga is mainly an OC constellation, although one of the OCs (NGC 1931) is apparently nebulous. I did try, unsuccessfully to locate this.Instead I made an in-depth comparison between M36, 7, and 8. M37 was first. I found it made up of relatively faint stars, but very rich, like a huge loose globular cluster. Continuing this idea, it was densest in the centre fading into the background star field. I noticed an interesting shape near the centre - moderately bright stars made an almost unnaturally perfect outline of a humanoid. This is one of my favourite OCs.M36 was next. Strong contrast to M37 - smaller, poorer, but with bright stars dominating.M38 is like a cross between M36 and 7. The size of M36, with some brighter members too, but with the fullness and evenness of M37 thrown in.I finished with a decidedly underwhelming view of M42. Odd, I thought - I'm sure it was better earlier. When packing up though, I noticed that the secondary was entirely misted up - that would explain it!It was a very feel-good night. Just got on with it and enjoyed it, after many weeks of frustrating cloud-cover and other obstacles between me and my observing.Goodnight!Andrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thing Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Good report Andrew, that cannon must be amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZOG Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 looking into a promising sky waiting for secret treasures to be revealed.Thats almost poetic !!!Lovely report Andrew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Great report Andrew.M36,37 and 38 are spectacular with 16" of aperture, there are just so many stars to look at.Don't think I've seen NGC 1491 so will have to look this one up next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helen Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Great report Andrew!! I got "Illustrated Guide to Astronomical Wonders" for Christmas and I'm hoping it will open up new things for me too....if the weather ever improves! I wish I had your aperture though Helen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Hi Andrew, great report. I was wondering when you mentioned about not being to split the trapezium do you really mean you couldn't see the four main stars separately? or was that the E and F stars?Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barkis Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 A very thorough report Andrew, and your realisation that preparedness is a great advantage when contemplating a viewing session. You covered a fair number of varying targets, and the Guide has obviously been a great help. Like Sam, I too was wondering about your scopes inability to separate the Trapezium. It should have been easy, and then some with the 16". I am assuming you were not referring to the four main stars. Anyway, it was a great account of your nights work, so thanks mate. Ron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunator Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 AndrewVery nice report Sounds a very enjoyable evenig viewing CheersIan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew* Posted January 25, 2009 Author Share Posted January 25, 2009 Thanks all I got "Illustrated Guide to Astronomical Wonders" for Christmas and I'm hoping it will open up new things for me too....if the weather ever improves!It's a great help out in the field - I think you will finfd it very useful. Good buy from whoever got it for you... Hi Andrew, great report. I was wondering when you mentioned about not being to split the trapezium do you really mean you couldn't see the four main stars separately? or was that the E and F stars?Sorry, I meant to clarify that. Of course the four main stars were cleanly split, but E and F have never revealed themselves to me. Stars are still not points at anything above 150x so it's no wonder I can't split E and F. :? It doesn't bother me too much because the scope excels at lower power at which I do most of my observing, but it does sadly put tight doubles off the target list.CheersAndrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Thanks for clarifying Andrew. My Lightbridge sees the E and F stars without too much difficulty. I remember a while ago you mentioned something about collimation so I'm guessing that isn't a problem anymore? If so it might be worth checking how clean the mirrors are - both the secondary and the primary.Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.