Clusters, Galaxies, Doubles and Planetary Nebulae - a busy session!

[PeterC65]

I generally alternate my scopes from session to session so last night it was the turn of the Skymax 127 and therefore some smaller targets.

Quite a clear night but the neighbours outside light was on for most of it so there was some light pollution.

I aligned the mount with Regulus and Arcturus which spanned the section of sky I was planning to observe and the alignment remained very good until right near the end of the session when the filter wheel collided with the tripod when slewing to an object almost directly overhead!

I started with some clusters and galaxies:

M3

With the ES 14mm, this looked like a fuzzy blob rather than a star cluster and there was just a hint of the individual stars. This may be because it was relatively low in the sky and the horizon was a little hazy.

M67

First time on this target. A nicely framed open star cluster with the ES 24mm, containing lots of medium brightness and dimmer stars. Quite a nice target for the Mak.

M51

Another first, which I’ve been meaning to observe for a while as it gets regular mentions. With the ES 24mm I could see two fuzzy blobs, one brighter than the other, with a nearby bright star perpendicular to the pair. The brighter blob is M51 and the other is NGC 5195. All nicely framed with the ES 24mm and another nice target for the Mak.

M101

I think I got the right place but could see no sign of this, perhaps because it is quite diffuse.

M94

A small fuzzy blob. The ES 14mm gave too little magnification and the ES 6.7mm too much. The BCO 10mm and BHZ at 8mm framed the object better, so maybe I need an ES 8.8mm!

M66 / M65 / NGC 3628 Leo Triplet

With the ES 24mm I could see M66 and M65 together, both as faint fuzzy blobs, with M66 clearly the brighter of the two. I could just about convince myself I could see NGC 3628, the third part of the Leo Triplet, but only with averted vision and when slewing the scope. NGC 3628 was well outside of the field of view containing the other two so I’d say this target is better with the refractor.

Since I had the Mak out I thought I’d try some easy doubles next:

SAO 100160

Double star, magnitudes 5.2 and 6.7 with 20.3” separation, easily found and split with the ES 24mm but better with the ES 6.7mm. One star is slightly brighter than the other and slightly yellow in colour.

SAO 081998

Double star, magnitudes 4.6 and 9.0 with 74.9” separation, easily found and split with the ES 24mm but better with the ES 14mm. One star is clearly much brighter than the other.

SAO 118864

Double star, magnitudes 6.6 and 7.5 with 28.6” separation, easily found and split with the ES 24mm but better with the ES 6.7mm. Both stars are of similar brightness. I switched the Baader Neodymium filter in and out on this object and it noticeably dimmed the background sky, in the case of the ES 6.7mm making the edge of the circle of sky hard to see.

SAO 116929

Double star, magnitudes 6.0 and 7.2 with 10.3” separation, found with the ES 24mm and just possible to split, but better with the ES 6.7mm. One star is clearly brighter than the other.

SAO 028737 Mizar

Triple star, magnitudes 2.3, 4.0 and 4.0 with 709” and 14.4” separation, easily found and split with the ES 24mm. I needed the ES 24mm to include the distant star of the trio, Alcor, but this is so far out that it hardly merits being described as a double. The closer star of the trio is more like a normal double and merits the ES 6.7mm. It is clearly fainter than the main star, Mizar.

These doubles are a little too easy to be interesting I think, so maybe next time I will try for ones with less separation.

Finally some small and dim planetary nebulae, observing for the first time:

NGC 3242 Ghost of Jupiter Nebula

I found this planetary nebula with the ES 24mm then used the ES 6.7mm to get a better view. With the ES 24mm it is just a tiny fuzzy blob, distinguishable from the surrounding stars by the way I couldn’t bring it to a point focus. Another give away was that it remained bright even with the UHC filter which dimmed the surrounding stars.

NGC 2392 Eskimo Nebula

Even smaller and fainter than NGC 3242 but still possible to find in a similar way, with the ES 24mm, by checking that I couldn’t focus it to a point and that it wasn’t dimmed by the UHC filter. This seems like a good way to find planetary nebulae.

M97 Owl Nebula

Thinking I was on a roll I tried for this even fainter planetary nebula but it was almost overhead and I think the filter wheel hit the tripod as the mount slewed to it. Anyway, I couldn’t find it, or anything else afterwards!

Quite a lot of first time targets here so a very satisfying session despite the neighbours light!

 

[Davesellars]

Great report!  What time were you observing?  If Gloucestershire was anything like Derbyshire the transparency was nowhere near good for really diffuse objects like M101 until much later (after midnight) and even then it was not quite good enough for the NGC 3628 in the Leo Triplet as by then it was dipping in lower haze... 

[PeterC65]

2 minutes ago, Davesellars said:

Great report!  What time were you observing?  If Gloucestershire was anything like Derbyshire the transparency was nowhere near good for really diffuse objects like M101 until much later (after midnight) and even then it was not quite good enough for the NGC 3628 in the Leo Triplet as by then it was dipping in lower haze... 

I was observing from 20:30 to 23:30. There was some haze on the horizon as the sun was setting which has been there all week so I was expecting poor transparency.

I'm often surprised by which objects I can see and which I can't, often it's the opposite way round to what their magnitudes would suggest. Last night for example I could see M65 (magnitude 10.25) but not really see NGC3628 (magnitude 9.48 - and right next to M65).

I keep thinking I should try for a session in the middle of the night!

 

[Davesellars]

50 minutes ago, PeterC65 said:

I was observing from 20:30 to 23:30. There was some haze on the horizon as the sun was setting which has been there all week so I was expecting poor transparency.

I'm often surprised by which objects I can see and which I can't, often it's the opposite way round to what their magnitudes would suggest. Last night for example I could see M65 (magnitude 10.25) but not really see NGC3628 (magnitude 9.48 - and right next to M65).

I keep thinking I should try for a session in the middle of the night!

 

 

The magnitude of a DSO like a galaxy means nothing on its own.  That is just its brightness if the whole thing was a stellar point.  That brightness is stretched out over an area so you need to take its size into account as well as how much of that brightness is centred on its core.  NGC 3628 doesn't have an overly bright core and its brightness is stretched of quite a good proportion of its size which makes the whole thing actually quite difficult to observe and moreso very susceptible to transparency conditions - Very much like M101!

I much prefer observing past midnight.  Neighbours haven't got lights on so I can dark adapt much easier and generally the clarity of the air mostly improves...  I'd definitely recommend it!

Edited March 27, 2022 by Davesellars

[SuburbanMak]

Another great report and some targets to add to my list - always on the lookout for Mak 127 friendly targets - sounds like a super session, thanks for posting! 

Edited March 27, 2022 by SuburbanMak

[Epick Crom]

Nice report Peter, thanks for the interesting read 👍

[Stu]

Good stuff @PeterC65, nicely written and enjoyable report 👍👍.

Which eyepiece were you using for M101? It’s quite large and very diffuse so is easily washed out by light pollution or poor transparency.

[PeterC65]

2 hours ago, Stu said:

Good stuff @PeterC65, nicely written and enjoyable report 👍👍.

Which eyepiece were you using for M101? It’s quite large and very diffuse so is easily washed out by light pollution or poor transparency.

I was using the ES 24mm which is my usual starting point. I could see a ring of stars with what looked like a big gap in the middle where I was expecting the galaxy to be. That seems to stack up with the Stellarium Ocular view and the GOTO was on its best behaviour so I think I'd got the right spot.

[Stu]

3 hours ago, PeterC65 said:

I was using the ES 24mm which is my usual starting point. I could see a ring of stars with what looked like a big gap in the middle where I was expecting the galaxy to be. That seems to stack up with the Stellarium Ocular view and the GOTO was on its best behaviour so I think I'd got the right spot.

Likely just a sky quality issue then, either LP or poor transparency or both. Hopefully the skies will improve once this high pressure moves away, and a little rain would help to wash the pollution away.

[PeterC65]

19 hours ago, Davesellars said:

 

The magnitude of a DSO like a galaxy means nothing on its own.  That is just its brightness if the whole thing was a stellar point.  That brightness is stretched out over an area so you need to take its size into account as well as how much of that brightness is centred on its core.  NGC 3628 doesn't have an overly bright core and its brightness is stretched of quite a good proportion of its size which makes the whole thing actually quite difficult to observe and moreso very susceptible to transparency conditions - Very much like M101!

I added surface brightness data to my spreadsheet of objects to observe yesterday and these new figures certainly make more sense of what I am and am not able to see. Interestingly some of the planetary nebulae have the lowest (brightest) surface brightness figures on my list which I suppose explains why I could see them even thought they are small in size. I may try observing more of these PNs.

[Stu]

36 minutes ago, PeterC65 said:

I added surface brightness data to my spreadsheet of objects to observe yesterday and these new figures certainly make more sense of what I am and am not able to see. Interestingly some of the planetary nebulae have the lowest (brightest) surface brightness figures on my list which I suppose explains why I could see them even thought they are small in size. I may try observing more of these PNs.

That makes sense, PNs tend to be small, so the surface brightness is much higher than a larger, spread out Nebula or even a Galaxy.

Globs are decent targets too. In some ways they cut through LP more because the act like a gathering of point sources rather than an extended object, or at least like a combination of the two, so they take some more magnification which helps resolve the stars.

[Zermelo]

That's a nice mixed collection for the 127.
M101 is usually regarded as one of the more difficult fuzzies: https://starlust.org/messier-catalog/#infographic
I just checked back on my only observation so far, from a similar locale judging by your other comments, but on an evening that was a bit more transparent than we have had in this last week. I was using my 6" Newt with a 12mm Starguider, and saw a distinct nucleus and even hints of some structure, which surprised me - it showed better than some of the other Messier galaxies. I must have a go with the Mak next time I'm out.

22 hours ago, PeterC65 said:

These doubles are a little too easy to be interesting I think, so maybe next time I will try for ones with less separation.

Wookie put up a good list recently. I added several of those to my list for last night, though it looks like that will be our last of this current stretch of decent seeing.

22 hours ago, PeterC65 said:

maybe I need an ES 8.8mm

I was thinking that myself when I was out, or perhaps the Opticstar equivalent. The 6.7mm has been doing very well on doubles, and I've not been using my 8mm BST much. There was an 8.8 in the For Sale section last month, and I persuaded myself out of it 🙄

[OK Apricot]

Very capable scope, the 127 Mak - it's excellent on doubles! I get plenty of DSOs with this but still haven't got the Eskimo yet - I was looking for it the other night but no good. Depending on the sky quality, you'll just about make out some spiral structure on M51 👍

[PeterC65]

23 hours ago, Zermelo said:

M101 is usually regarded as one of the more difficult fuzzies: https://starlust.org/messier-catalog/#infographic

I hadn't checked this very useful chart and now feel much better knowing that M101 on the far right! I normally don't hold out much hope for anything in the right hand half!!

23 hours ago, Zermelo said:

I was thinking that myself when I was out, or perhaps the Opticstar equivalent. The 6.7mm has been doing very well on doubles, and I've not been using my 8mm BST much. There was an 8.8 in the For Sale section last month, and I persuaded myself out of it 🙄

I generally work through the ES eyepieces, 24mm then 14mm then 6.7mm, and 4.7mm if I'm using the refractor. I feel like there is a big jump between the 14mm and 6.7mm, like I'm going from widefield to high magnification. Having now properly worked out the focal length of my Mak, the 6.7mm is actually giving me x259 and so is right on the upper limit.

[Zermelo]

2 hours ago, PeterC65 said:

the 6.7mm is actually giving me x259 and so is right on the upper limit

Yes, if you're going with the usual "twice the aperture in millimetres" formula. And my ES 6.7mm does often give me the best views.
But on nights with the very best seeing (like we have had last week) I can use my 127 on tight doubles with a 6mm BCO, 5mm Starguider and even a 4mm Nirvana. On Sunday, I split Tegmine AB (1.1") with the 5mm, so that's probably above x300. It was rock solid.

[wookie1965]

Fantastic haul lovely read thanks for posting.