Finding stars using Turn Left at Orion

[keora]

In late January I posted a question (Learning to Use a Telescope) on the Forum and received some useful advice.

Since then I’ve used Turn Left at Orion to find some of the easier clusters and galaxies in the book  – for example M41 below Sirius and M78 above Orion’s belt. I haven’t found any with the telescope. I live in a city, Leeds. Is it unrealistic to expect to see the dimmer galaxies from a Bortle 8 location?

I’ve glimpsed with binoculars a few other galaxies (I don’t think they are in the book)  – Andromeda to the right of Mirak, and the cluster NGC  and the Pinwheel Galaxy to the right of Triangulum. When I switch to a telescope and a 32mm eyepiece to get better view I can’t locate them. I started at Mirak for Andromeda,  and for the other two I used the two stars on the right side of Triangulum. I moved the scope to the right, but there’s hardly any stars to guide you on the way.  I can get an idea of angular distances from Sky Safari , yet I can’t judge how far I’ve moved the telescope towards the target.

Can anyone please give me ideas on how to locate dim stars?

From my limited experience, telescopes are fiddly to set up and use, especially switching to a more powerful eyepiece. Stars seen though the telescope (I realise it’s not a very good one) don’t look any better than when seen at a smaller magnification with binoculars. I bought a beginner’s scope with the idea of buying a better one later. I’m now wondering if I should stick to binoculars.

 

Equipment: 10 x 32 Canon Image Stabilised Binoculars; Celestron Explorascope 114AZ Newtonian Reflector Telescope (Jones - Bird design).  Aperture 114mm, Focal Length 1000mm, Focal Ratio f/9, Star Pointer red dot finderscope. Original eyepieces replaced with 32mm and 9 mm Skywatcher Plossls.

[Waddensky]

What kind of finder do you have on your telescope? The finder is the 'link' between what you see with the naked eye and the view through the eyepiece. But locating objects manually also requires some skill in star hopping: recognising patterns of stars to navigate from a bright star to your destination. It takes some time to get the hang of, and you need a good atlas or app. Don't worry - it gets better in time!

Still, if you are able to see the Pinwheel Galaxy (I assume you mean Messier 33) with your binoculars, both M41 and M78 should be very easily visible in your telescope. Also keep in mind that some extended objects - like Messier 31 and 33 - are often better observed with binoculars than a telescope, because they are so large.

Practice with some objects that are easy to locate and bright: Messier 35, Messier 44 and Messier 13 for example. If you've found them, proceed to more elusive targets. This chart is very helpful in selecting objects:

Edited March 20, 2021 by Waddensky

[Pixies]

Hi.

Bortle 8 will make it a bit trickier to find stuff and the faint targets, like a lot of galaxies and nebulae might not be visible. However, if you can see M31 with bins, it might be better than Bortle 8 suggests.

SkySafari calls M33 the "Pinwheel galaxy". M33 is normally known as the Triangulum Galaxy, and Pinwheel Galaxy is a term usually used for M101. I don't know why SkySafari does this, but it really threw before I found out. I've never seen either,  using bins or scope from my Bortle 6 garden, so well done. Most will suggest M33 is much easier to find with the wide-view in binoculars.

As for finders. The light pollution at your location will make a RDF only suitable for finding the brightest stars to start star-hopping from. And then trying to star-hop using a scope with a long focal-length is tricky. I remember trying to do that when I started and it's an exercise in frustration. It can be done, but once you lose your place and have to start again, it's maddening. I'd suggest getting a magnifying finder, like a 6x30 or even a 9x50, which will show you a very wide field of fainter stars you would normally not see through an RDF. These can all be found secondhand, to save the expense a little.

The real game-changer for me was using a combination of a RDF (Telrad in my case) and a RACI (right-angled - correct image) finder. The latter provides views like your binoculars (correct image) without having to get into awkward positions to view through it. You need the RDF to align the scope with your starting-point, though, as the right-angled finder makes it hard to do that.

This might seem like overkill for your 114 Newt. But they can be transferred to your next scope, if you decide to upgrade. 

 

Stick with it, though. It gets easier. The first time I went looking for M51, it took me about 30 minutes. Now, it's about 1!

 

Edited March 20, 2021 by Pixies

[keora]

Thanks to both of you for the advice.

The pinwheel galaxy I mentioned is, according to Sky Safari, also known as NGC 598, or the Triangulum Galaxy- I didn’t know that.

I’ve got a red dot finder and I quickly realised it’s limitations. I can’t see stars weaker than +2, so there’s big areas of the sky where I can’t locate stars using the RDF.

If I get a better scope I’ll try and avoid another RDF.

The list of DSOs by brightness is very helpful, I’ll use it.

[Tiny Clanger]

I inherited a Celestron 114 eq, spherical mirror bird jones on a rickety eq tripod, a couple of decades old, but probably very similar to yours. I found it hugely frustrating to use, the red dot finder needed a bit of folded paper strategically placed under it in order to get it to line up with the 'scope, , and the whole thing juddered and wobbled. I dragged it outdoors last summer (lockdown boredom) and tried it again, and it was still annoying. Decent views of the Moon, but that was about it, and that was the point where I gave up on it and started looking for something better and found the heritage 150 tabletop dob.

One of the reasons I abandoned any thought of trying to upgrade the 114 was the less than ideal spherical mirror , the second was the difficulty in  collimating the thing due to the lens that makes it a jones-bird , some combination of those two factors was I suspect responsible for the slightly soft images I saw. A third drawback was that rather than a standard finder shoe, the RDF was held on by two bolts. I wasn't aware at the time that there are standard finder shoes with slots which  might perhaps have been used with those spaced holes. Oh, and the 'scope had a wingnut/bolt arrangement to hold it on the mount too, not a standard dovetail rail, so I couldn't simply update , say, the mount head alone to see if that improved things.

I'm a short way south of the city of Leicester, plenty of light pollution here, clear outside says bortle 6 , but I think that is a bit generous ... and I'm not a very good celestial navigator at  all. I found the RDF limbo dance hugely annoying and star hopping practically impossible , and added a 6x30 RACI as soon as I could track one down (Harrison Photos sometimes have them when other sellers don't ) . Using the 6x30 gives a fairly similar view to that of binoculars , and a 6 degree (ish) field of view, so you see far more stars to help  you 'hop' to a target. And if you can see an object in binoculars you should be able to see it in a telescope . Stars are never going to be anything but points of light, whatever telescope you use, but the more light gathering aperture your device has, the more of those points of light you can see, but unfortunately also the more light pollution it will collect in for you to see too ...

As well as the book, I use stellarium, which has a plugin called 'ocular view' . You can set up your 'scope focal length, the stat.s of your eyepieces,  and if the 'scope view is N/S  or E/W rotated , then select a target, choose ocular view, and it will show you the view with that particular eyepiece . I'd check if your app has something similar.

I've spent hours looking straight at various faint fuzzy objects, my aim confirmed by star patterns in ocular view, and seen .. nothing.  Disappointing , but one day, under darker skies, I will see them ...  meantime, I've found open clusters and globular clusters make do-able targets to try for while hampered by the light pollution. Planets and the Moon are obvious relatively easy targets too when they come around. Don't give up, do cheer yourself up with some easy wins , and seriously consider a Raci. 

Heather

Edited March 20, 2021 by Tiny Clanger
Said RDF when I meant RACI, fool !

[Spile]

One thing that may help is to print out one or more snapshots of the ocular view from Stellarium and use that as a "map" in order to find your target.

[PeterStudz]

We have a similar size telescope. It might be a bit better that yours was but not by much. I also live in Southampton which is Bortle 8. I’m very much a beginner too.

And apart for something extremely bright, like the moon, I’ve never been able to see anything in the RDF. All I do is move the telescope so that the target is at the top outer edge of the RDF, nudge the telescope up ever so slightly in the hope that the target will then be roughly in the finders view then get my daughter (if she’s there) to lock the mount in place. It’s hard for me to do it alone without the telescope moving. However, more often than not the target is somewhere there when I look in a low power eyepiece - at 20x. 
 

If what we are trying to locate is high in the sky then when using the RDF I’m often literally lying flat on the ground. It’s hardly comfortable but it works. Still, we have managed to find things that we cannot even see here with the naked eye. The M3 cluster was one recent example. I new it was roughly between two bright stars, which we could see, but there was a large area of nothing in between. This involved me dividing the distance between the two stars using my fingers and then having my daughter move the telescope so many fingers. We have a flimsy EQ1 and this moves in what seems a random fashion. Me looking down the finder her moving the telescope around until I told her to stop. Comical maybe but after around 20 mins of searching we found the thing. 

[ScouseSpaceCadet]

Expecting to see more than three or four galaxies under Bortle 8 skies with a 114mm reflector is flogging a dead horse.

You will be lucky to spot m31, m81, m82 and on an exceptional night maybe m66.

Stick to open clusters, globulars and double stars, Saturn, Jupiter, Venus and our moon. Those alone can keep you busy for years. Save the deep sky objects for camping trips.

Regarding the red dot finder, they're perfectly adequate when used in conjuction with a 9x50 right angled correct image finder scope.

[keora]

All the advice is very useful, I now know what I can realistically see with a simple telescope.

The Celestron 114 reflector looks quite sturdy and it's light. The drawback is that the eyepieces don't give a sharp view. I quickly realised this. There's also the limitations of the Bird-Jones design, which I wasn't aware of when I bought it. That doesn't matter, I've not spent much and it's introduced me to telescopes.

I'll look into buying a 6x30 RACI or perhaps a 9x50. Can you easily attach one to a telescope that's already got an RDF? Would the weight alter the balance of the scope, and would I need a stronger tripod?

I liked the link to the Stellarium site. I started off with a Planisphere, now I mainly use Sky Safari. Celestron's Starry Night came free with the telescope. I used it for a few minutes, thought it was a bit slow to respond, I've not used it since.  It's on a big laptop, I can't easily take it outside to look at the stars.

Turn Left at Orion has lots of information, although it is rather bulky for using outside.  As a beginner, I thought most of the sights would be fairly easy to spot - in fact it takes a lot of experience and good viewing conditions.

I understand the advice on open clusters etc, I'll find out more about them. 

Edited March 21, 2021 by keora

[Tiny Clanger]

23 hours ago, PeterStudz said:

We have a similar size telescope. It might be a bit better that yours was but not by much. I also live in Southampton which is Bortle 8. I’m very much a beginner too.

And apart for something extremely bright, like the moon, I’ve never been able to see anything in the RDF. All I do is move the telescope so that the target is at the top outer edge of the RDF, nudge the telescope up ever so slightly in the hope that the target will then be roughly in the finders view then get my daughter (if she’s there) to lock the mount in place. It’s hard for me to do it alone without the telescope moving. However, more often than not the target is somewhere there when I look in a low power eyepiece - at 20x. 
 

If what we are trying to locate is high in the sky then when using the RDF I’m often literally lying flat on the ground. It’s hardly comfortable but it works. Still, we have managed to find things that we cannot even see here with the naked eye. The M3 cluster was one recent example. I new it was roughly between two bright stars, which we could see, but there was a large area of nothing in between. This involved me dividing the distance between the two stars using my fingers and then having my daughter move the telescope so many fingers. We have a flimsy EQ1 and this moves in what seems a random fashion. Me looking down the finder her moving the telescope around until I told her to stop. Comical maybe but after around 20 mins of searching we found the thing. 

Kudos to you for patience and persistence !

Standard RDFs just appear to project a red dot on the sky,  like a poundshop version of a pilot's heads - up display. They don't magnify , or do anything more useful than offer the ability to adjust that dot to line up with the view of the 'scope. They do have their uses though,especially ones like the Rigel quickfinder and the telrad which show you not a single aiming dot but target circles of known degree sizes to make it possible to do that degree moving stuff you used your family and many fingers for !

Optical finders come in many flavours and the usual sort of price range from around £40 to ....strewth, how much ?! Straight through ones ( straight tubes) have all the same astro-yoga , chiropractor business generating problems as am RDF, you still have to lay your head affectionately on the 'scope tube at whatever angle to try and line your eye up with the thing.

Hence the near universal popularity of right angled finders, which have a little prism in the back, like a tiny refractor telescope (which is exactly what they are) . So you look in from the side , so much easier :not only that, but all the ones I've seen can be rotated in the collar part of the mount they come with, so you can adjust the angle of the part you look through to be convenient for your particular telescope. Some right angle finders show the view reversed, the popular  RACI type does not, RACI stands for right angled correct image , i.e. it has a prism inside which corrects the image, and what you see through a RACI is a view the right way up, and the right way round , just like the view through binoculars.

I know the whole 'just spend more money on this accessory' thing is not always a welcome suggestion for folk who have other calls on their income, but honestly if I was going to only ever buy one extra item to make an existing telescope more useable , it would be a 6x30 RACI. Bigger ones are better ( the 6x30 is like binocular stat.s, 6 = front lens diameter in mm, 30 = magnification ) but bigger ones cost more , £60 ish plus for a 9x50

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/finders/astro-essentials-9x50-right-angled-erecting-finderscope.html

6x30 RACIs are around £40

https://www.harrisontelescopes.co.uk/acatalog/skywatcher-6x30-right-angled-erect-image-finder--bracket.html#SID=1693

https://www.bristolcameras.co.uk/p-sky-watcher-6x30-right-angle-erect-image-finderscope.htm

Mind you, the things are as rare as rocking horse manure at  the moment, out of stock everywhere, so there's no need to make a hasty choice !

Heather

 

Edited March 21, 2021 by Tiny Clanger
did I reaaly type 'uses tough' instead of 'uses though '?

[Spile]

13 minutes ago, Tiny Clanger said:

if I was going to only ever buy one extra item to make an existing telescope more useable , it would be a 6x30 RACI.

Interesting - A RACI over a Telrad?

Don't get me wrong, I am glad I changed the straight through finder for a RACI but it wasn't as much as a Eureka moment as the Telrad or even the low power WA EP for me.

[Tiny Clanger]

2 hours ago, keora said:

All the advice is very useful, I now know what I can realistically see with a simple telescope.

The Celestron 114 reflector looks quite sturdy and it's light. The drawback is that the eyepieces don't give a sharp view. I quickly realised this. There's also the drawback of the Bird-Jones design, which I wasn't aware of when I bought it. That doesn't matter, I've not spent much and it's introduced me to telescopes.

I'll look into buying a 6x30 RACI or perhaps a 9x50.

Can you easily attach one to a telescope that's already got an RDF? Would the weight alter the balance of the scope, and would I need a stronger tripod?

I liked the link to the Stellarium site. I started off with a Planisphere, now I mainly use Sky Safari. Celestron's Starry Night came free with the telescope. I used it for a few minutes, thought it was a bit slow to respond, I've not used it since. Also, as it's on a big laptop, I can't easily take it outside to look at the stars.

Turn Left at Orion has lots of information, although it is rather bulky for using outside.  As a beginner, I thought most of the sights would be fairly easy to spot - in fact it takes a lot of experience and good viewing conditions.

I understand the advice on open clusters etc, I'll find out more about them.

Stellarium's download version ticks all the boxes for me : free open source software built and updated by enthusiasts. There is an online simplified version and , I believe, a quite cheap 'phone app version, but I've not used the app. You can print pages from the desktop version to take outside if you want a quick reference. Many times I've recommended the printable PDFs of the Moore winter Marathon https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/tv/skyatnight/moore-winter-marathon-guide-1-25.pdf and https://downloads.bbc.co.uk/tv/skyatnight/moore-winter-marathon-guide-26-50.pdf (ignore the mentions of planets, they were specific to the year the list was made) and the Loughton list https://las-astro.org.uk/docs/Loughton_List_v2_0.pdf which has very well set out pages with small handy maps to steer you to things. Easy to just print a few pages of specific targets for an evening.

You are absolutely right about experience and viewing conditions : I'm a raw beginner compared with many on here, and was surprised to find that I had to spend rather a long time actually learning how to look through the 'scope ... let alone find targets and point it at them. These are easy things to forget when they become second nature after a few years of practice I guess, a bit like changing gear when driving , now trivial, but on those first few lessons almost impossible !

Attaching a RACI to a 'scope might be very easy : best case scenario is if the RDF is on a standard base , in which case you could simply swap it for a RACI. However,if the base does not look something like this : https://www.firstlightoptics.com/finders/finder-mounting-shoe.html 

or if the RDF is held on by a couple of bolts (like the one on my 114eq was) you might be able to use something like this shoe https://www.firstlightoptics.com/finders/william-optics-vixen-style-finder-shoe-mounting-base.html with the existing bolt holes to mount a RACI .

If neither of those applies, you would have to add a finder shoe :  I wanted to test the suitability of the RACI location on my Heritage 150 , and used some 'no more nails' permanent sticky pads to glue the shoe on and to my surprise they held a 6x30 RACI on for 3 months . The sticky pad attachment started to wobble a bit recently, and a couple of days ago I summoned up the courage to take a drill to my beloved little 'scope and bolt the shoe on properly, which entailed removing the mirror cell for safety, swaddling the secondary with bubble wrap (it extends out of the solid tube on the heritage dob, so is reasonably out of the way, on a solid tube you'd need to remove it as well I suspect ...) The operation was a success , the patient has recovered and been reassembled and collimated, but it was a nerve wracking process for me. 

There are sort of add-on stem things which turn one shoe into 2 or three shoes, but they are expensive for what they are , and probably quite heavy

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/finders/astro-essentials-multi-finder-adapter-for-sky-watcher.html

Which brings me on to the query about weight : yes, the RACIs are quite solid little things (260 g for my 6x30)  , but if your 114 is similar to the one I had, it has rings which you can loosen and rotate or slide the tube up or down within them . If a finder will be staying on the 'scope while in use, (even if not when it is packed away) just balance the the tube with the RACi (or whatever) in place.

Hope that helps !

Heather

 

[Tiny Clanger]

29 minutes ago, Spile said:

Interesting - A RACI over a Telrad?

Don't get me wrong, I am glad I changed the straight through finder for a RACI but it wasn't as much as a Eureka moment as the Telrad or even the low power WA EP for me.

A RACI over a Rigel Quickfinder actually (the one which has never , ever dewed up on me yet ...  ) But yes, a RACI would be my first choice , in fact I've not installed the rigel on my dob, (it lives on the mak ) where I still make do (on the odd occasion when I want it) with the original RDF (it's on a non - standard bracket on the extending front section)  in combination with the RACI.

I suspect it is to do with the very sparse number of stars available to the naked eye/ non magnifying finder in my light polluted skies, too much empty, featureless,  grey to navigate across . Visible stars for hopping 5 degrees or so are much more plentiful in a RACI .

Another factor is that, very high alt, near overhead is the best part of the sky for anyone to observe in if they can (thinnest atmosphere to look through) , and that's especially important in high light pollution where we need to take any small advantage we can . The RACI is invaluable for this , unless I want to lie down on the grass to use a straight through finder 🙂

Heather

[Zermelo]

5 hours ago, keora said:

Can you easily attach one to a telescope that's already got an RDF? Would the weight alter the balance of the scope, and would I need a stronger tripod?

If your red-dot is attached via a standard "shoe", your options are (i) find an optical finder with the same fitting and replace it, or (ii) get an adapter that allows you to attach both - this thread discusses the topic. The best option, as stated above, is a combination of the two. You could also achieve this by replacing the red-dot with a RACI and getting a stick-on Telrad or Rigel.

Yes, it will increase the weight (a Skywatcher 6x30 RACI with bracket is 257g; A Telrad with its base is 300g). This may or may not be a problem, depending how close your scope currently is to the mount's weight limit. Although this is probably a real issue only if the mount is motorized. And yes, you will probably change the balance point if you swap; this may just require a re-position.

[PeterStudz]

22 hours ago, Tiny Clanger said:

Kudos to you for patience and persistence !

Standard RDFs just appear to project a red dot on the sky,  like a poundshop version of a pilot's heads - up display. They don't magnify , or do anything more useful than offer the ability to adjust that dot to line up with the view of the 'scope. They do have their uses though,especially ones like the Rigel quickfinder and the telrad which show you not a single aiming dot but target circles of known degree sizes to make it possible to do that degree moving stuff you used your family and many fingers for !

Optical finders come in many flavours and the usual sort of price range from around £40 to ....strewth, how much ?! Straight through ones ( straight tubes) have all the same astro-yoga , chiropractor business generating problems as am RDF, you still have to lay your head affectionately on the 'scope tube at whatever angle to try and line your eye up with the thing.

Hence the near universal popularity of right angled finders, which have a little prism in the back, like a tiny refractor telescope (which is exactly what they are) . So you look in from the side , so much easier :not only that, but all the ones I've seen can be rotated in the collar part of the mount they come with, so you can adjust the angle of the part you look through to be convenient for your particular telescope. Some right angle finders show the view reversed, the popular  RACI type does not, RACI stands for right angled correct image , i.e. it has a prism inside which corrects the image, and what you see through a RACI is a view the right way up, and the right way round , just like the view through binoculars.

I know the whole 'just spend more money on this accessory' thing is not always a welcome suggestion for folk who have other calls on their income, but honestly if I was going to only ever buy one extra item to make an existing telescope more useable , it would be a 6x30 RACI. Bigger ones are better ( the 6x30 is like binocular stat.s, 6 = front lens diameter in mm, 30 = magnification ) but bigger ones cost more , £60 ish plus for a 9x50

https://www.firstlightoptics.com/finders/astro-essentials-9x50-right-angled-erecting-finderscope.html

6x30 RACIs are around £40

https://www.harrisontelescopes.co.uk/acatalog/skywatcher-6x30-right-angled-erect-image-finder--bracket.html#SID=1693

https://www.bristolcameras.co.uk/p-sky-watcher-6x30-right-angle-erect-image-finderscope.htm

Mind you, the things are as rare as rocking horse manure at  the moment, out of stock everywhere, so there's no need to make a hasty choice !

Heather

 

Many thanks for these suggestions. 

I have thought about getting a better finder. But we’ve only had a telescope for 3 months now. And I’ve been more interested in getting some better eyepieces. My initial plan was going to get something once a month or so. But then I noticed stock being low, prices going up etc and I sort of “panicked” and bought several at once. Not that I now regret it though!

We are finding things if a bit slowly. And it’s disappointing to find a target only to be let down by a poor quality eyepiece. So these seemed far more important.

And at this level the other thing that we’ve found fun is just scanning the sky at random. Or after we’ve failed to locate something. Hard to do with a flimsy EQ1 but doable. Even boating the telescope about at what appears to the naked eye a black bit of sky with reveal a host of stars. And I’ve quickly learnt that as long as you are in focus and see something “fuzzy it’s something interesting.

Getting back to better finder. Something as light as possible would be best for us. Will take a good look at what’s around but not going to rush.

Peter

 

 

 

 

[Spile]

23 hours ago, PeterStudz said:

We are finding things if a bit slowly. And it’s disappointing to find a target only to be let down by a poor quality eyepiece. So these seemed far more important.

I adopt the same "slow" strategy and like you upgraded my eyepieces before my finder. The issue for me was as much my back. Bending down to use a straight-through finder was not a big deal 50 years ago 🙂 

Edited March 23, 2021 by Spile