2 swords in orions belt?

[leenewtoastro]

in a mosaic i looked at near the horses head a sword?

and lower down the one that looks like its in a huge rock up to the hilt.

so which is which chaps?

[acey]

One of the swords must have been King Arthur's. Probably his horse too - Orion doesn't have one. Or do you mean the Horsehead?

[leenewtoastro]

yes see i am a begineer lol

thought it was in the con of orion tho?

here

http://www.danilopivato.com/tabulae_coeli/0600_00/orion_belt_sword_mosaic.htm

[SlipperySquid]

Have a look here mate? Hope it helps?

Software Bisque

Matt.

[leenewtoastro]

well the pic that i see i see 2 sword handles

infact just looking thru imaging and many many images of "sword" in orion are of different locations so there is confusion

[ColB]

The sword is in the lower area of that mosaic. Remember that the sword is something that is seen with the naked eye, and looks to the naked eye like 3 stars in a line, with the centre one being a bit fuzzy (the Orion Nebula). It's not that obvious in the picture because it is taken in a wavelength of light that makes the nebula stand out more. Have a look in a planitarium program such as stellarium and you will see what I mean.

[acey]

The pic is beautiful but shows so much that it's a bit confusing.

Just above the Horsehead is the leftmost star of the belt (with another nebula, the "Flame", to its left). Going up to the right from there you get the other two bright stars of the belt.

The very bright region towards the bottom of the picture is the Orion Nebula, which is in the sword. But the sword itself - a small group of stars that points up towards the belt but doesn't actually connect with it - is very hard to make out.

[Lurker]

Where actually is the horse head nebula?

[John]

It's just below the lowest of the 3 stars in Orions belt, Alnitak:

eSky: Orion's Belt

[Moonshane]

don't forget though that almost none of what is being discussed can be seen with the average scope and conditions.

the main nebula is clearly visible in binoculars but other areas are either extremely tricky or almost impossible without the right filter, a large aperture and a dark site.

[leenewtoastro]

while i get the official dipiction of the sword in orions belt it appears there's confusion with the visual of 2 sword handles as i describe as to which one it is. several imagers label there thread as "sword in orion" or to words of that effect but clearly some are not the sword that most astronomers refer too? and i've not seen another name for them either.

[John]

My interpretation of the "sword" of Orion has always been that it is the line of star groupings that leads down from the "belt" of Orion and in the central part of the "sword" lies M42. It's a naked eye formation of stars rather than contrast features in nebulae. Or at least that my understanding.

Sword 2 in the picture you posted (95% of which is not visible even with scopes of course) is known as Messier 43 and somtimes the "running man" nebula. I believe.

[leenewtoastro]

further guessing seems to point to the lower sword (sword 2 in post #11) being the sword and the upper is the flame nebula. ?

[simon hicks]

The centre of the sword is where your "Sword 2" line ends. The top of the sword is the faint patch of nebulosity just above it, and the bottom of the sword is the two stars directly below it.

The Flame nebula is where you have the "Sword 1" line finishing, with the Horsehead Nebula just to the right and below it.

[Adrian]

Does this help?

The three stars of the belt are in the picture you have posted. 'sword 1' (flame nebula) is next to the left of these three stars.

'sword 2' is part of M42 which is the middle of the three sword stars, hanging down from the belt.

[Lurker]

What does the Horse head nebula look like thru a scope?

[leenewtoastro]

so imagers labelling sword in orion are doing so incorrectly at times.?

both "pretty" sword handles/guards are not infact the sword at all.

[John]

What does the Horse head nebula look like thru a scope?

Barely there !

I think you need a 12" plus scope, superb skies and the help of an H-beta filter to even glimpse it.

[Lurker]

Barely there !

I think you need a 12" plus scope, superb skies and the help of an H-beta filter to even glimpse it.

So bascially you can't see anything?

[John]

So bascially you can't see anything?

I would not say it's impossible but I think its an exceedingly challenging object from the UK. I've certainly not seen it with scopes I've owned up to 12" but I can't say I've made a concerted effort to find it and I'm a little reluctant to fund a filter that will only enhance a couple of deep sky objects.

From my back yard the skies have some light pollution so it's a non-starter really but I guess if I get my 10" scope to very dark, transparent skies and use the correct filter, it just might be possible to glimpse it.

[Lurker]

I would not say it's impossible but I think its an exceedingly challenging object from the UK. I've certainly not seen it with scopes I've owned up to 12" but I can't say I've made a concerted effort to find it and I'm a little reluctant to fund a filter that will only enhance a couple of deep sky objects.

From my back yard the skies have some light pollution so it's a non-starter really but I guess if I get my 10" scope to very dark, transparent skies and use the correct filter, it just might be possible to glimpse it.

Cheers mate. Thats for explaining it.

[acey]

I've "seen" the Horsehead with a 12" scope and UHC filter at a dark site. What you're actually looking at is the background emission nebula IC 434 - in the 12" this was extremely faint and I sketched the little parts as they came into view, though I couldn't hold them all at once. When I got my sketch into the light afterwards I found that there was a gap in my sketch in the shape of the horsehead (though on my sketch it was more like a dog). In other words you're looking for a bit of black sky amongst some very faint light at the edge of visibility.

It looks wonderful in photographs and that's why it's famous: the object was only discovered photographically, then people tried looking for it visually. Because of its fame it's become one of those "right of passage" objects that people feel they need to see, and even buy an H-beta filter in order to see (something that's only useful on a couple of other objects). With large aperture and very dark skies it's possible (judging from sketches I've seen) to see it truly resembling a chess knight, but no scope can give the effect you see in photographs, of a solid black object against a pillow of light - instead it's always a gap in a faint veil.

[Lurker]

At least you saw it Acey, Thats the main thing.

What Nebulas can be visable from a telescope? say approx 8" apart from the Orion Nebula. Or is it just only just the one nebula that we can see?

[acey]

At least you saw it Acey, Thats the main thing.

What Nebulas can be visable from a telescope? say approx 8" apart from the Orion Nebula. Or is it just only just the one nebula that we can see?

Do you really mean 8 arcseconds or do you mean "8 inches"? There's a lot to look at in Orion, really all depends how dark the sky is and how much aperture you've got. In the immediate vicinity of M42 you've also got M43 and the "Running Man" (NGC 1977).

[Lurker]

Do you really mean 8 arcseconds or do you mean "8 inches"? There's a lot to look at in Orion, really all depends how dark the sky is and how much aperture you've got. In the immediate vicinity of M42 you've also got M43 and the "Running Man" (NGC 1977).

8 inches dob.

I kinda live in LP area.