Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

3 galaxys and an Owl in Ursa Major

John

By John
in Observing - Deep Sky

Recommended Posts

John

John

Posted
Posted

I was quite chuffed to find M108 in Ursa Major with my Megrez 90. With a wide field eyepiece it's in the same field of view as M97 - the Owl Nebula but M108 is even fainter - a slightly elongated smudge. Once I had found it using the Baader UHC-S filter I removed the filter and found that while the Owl Nebula almost dissapeared, M108 looked about the same. Both these objects are near the star Beta Ursa Majoris. M108 is listed as Mag 10.1 and is 35 million light years away - the most distant object I have seen with my scope so far. I could make out the Owl neb as a faint ghostly circular spot of nebulosity.

Later I found M81 and M82 also in Ursa Major. These are brighter and much easier to find that M108 and both fit into the field of view of a wide field eyepiece. M81 is an oval shape while M82 is a cigar shape. These are about 7 million light years distant. These looked brighter without the UHC-S filter.

John.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Andrew*

Andrew*

Posted
Posted

nice one John. Always good to hear people going out with plans in mind not only to find new things, but read up on them and properly obeserve them. I'm about to get to that stage! My 8" has showed me so much more detail in M42, so I've been looking at the different shapes.

35 million light years?? That's some distance! Is it a galaxee?

Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AndyM

AndyM

Posted
Posted

My 8" has showed me so much more detail in M42

Have you got a UHC-S filter Andrew? The difference it made to M42 here last night was staggering :shock: so much more detail is brought out.

Andy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
  • Author
Posted

35 million light years?? That's some distance! Is it a galaxee?

Andrew

Yep - it's a galaxy as are M81 and M82.

I highly recommend the Baader UHC-S filter as well by the way - it does wonders with nebulae.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Andrew*

Andrew*

Posted
Posted

My 8" has showed me so much more detail in M42

Have you got a UHC-S filter Andrew? The difference it made to M42 here last night was staggering :shock: so much more detail is brought out.

Andy.

I used a neodymium filter the other night, but the difference to M42 was very subtle indeed. I thought neos were the best for that sort of thing. Maybe LP wasn't bad enough!

Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
  • Author
Posted

My 8" has showed me so much more detail in M42

Have you got a UHC-S filter Andrew? The difference it made to M42 here last night was staggering :shock: so much more detail is brought out.

Andy.

I used a neodymium filter the other night, but the difference to M42 was very subtle indeed. I thought neos were the best for that sort of thing. Maybe LP wasn't bad enough!

Andrew

I think that for emission and planetary nebulae (eg: M42, M97, The Veil, The Ring etc) UHC type filters might enhance to contrast more than the neodymium (depending on conditions). An OIII filter is supposed to do even more but you need a good apeture scope for that one - your 8 inch would be OK for that I guess.

In my 90mm scope, with the right objects, the effect of the UHC-S filter is not subtle - sometimes you can barely see the object without the filter but it it quite clear with it (eg: The Owl Nebula). The effect is supposed to be even more with larger scopes.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Andrew

Andrew

Posted
Posted

I looked at the owl nebula the other night with and without an OIII filter and the difference was huge. I also looked at the eskimo nebula and the difference was so significant that if anything the view was too bright with the OIII - the nebula was so bright that I could no longer see the central star!

I agree about M81/M82 - I'd love to see them under dark skies. Light pollution is an issue for me, but even so M82 shows something of the structure in its nucleus that you can see in photos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I looked at the owl nebula the other night with and without an OIII filter and the difference was huge. I also looked at the eskimo nebula and the difference was so significant that if anything the view was too bright with the OIII - the nebula was so bright that I could no longer see the central star!

I agree about M81/M82 - I'd love to see them under dark skies. Light pollution is an issue for me, but even so M82 shows something of the structure in its nucleus that you can see in photos.

What scope were you using Andrew ?.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I was using my only 8" newt. I thought the difference would be much greater than it was, considering neos are "the reflector filter" according to celestron uk, and for nebulae.

Andrew

Sorry Andrew - I didn't realise that you have 2 SGL ID's - or is the other "Andrew" not you ?.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Andrew

Andrew

Posted
Posted

Don't know - I've only looked at it quite briefly. The eyes certainly weren't obvious, but that might have been because the nebula was so bright with the filter. For example, the Eskimo showed an obvious difference between the central area and outer halo without the filter. With the filter the difference was still apparent, but the overall increase in brightness didn't help enhance the contrast between these areas. By comparison, the OIII filter seems to bring out a lot more detail in something like M42.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Andrew

Andrew

Posted
Posted

Sure, but on the up side you don't have to wait for 2 hours for the mirror to cool down :p

It's a nightmare at the moment - the chances of knowing that it's going to be worth setting it up to use in two hours time are pretty much nil.

Add to this that the frequent strong winds mean you don't really want to leave it outside to cool because you don't know where it will be when you come back :p

I've got a 4.5" reflector as well, but I'm sorely tempted to invest in something in between or possible a refractor in the 90-100 mm range. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I've got a 4.5" reflector as well, but I'm sorely tempted to invest in something in between or possible a refractor in the 90-100 mm range. :D

I used to have a Skywatcher ED100 which was a great scope and the cool down time was very short - it was usable straight out of the house. 100mm is a useful aperture as well - the ED was brilliant on the Moon, double stars and planets but could do some deep sky as well - I managed to spot the E & W sides of the Veil Nebula, using a UHC-S filter, with it.

John.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kain

Kain

Posted
Posted

M82 is by far my favourite galaxy, though the 10" it really does bring out so much detail. The central core looks great, and even with M81, I could make out a suggestion of the spiral arms.

I have yet to see many other galaxies at the moment, with the weather being pants, and myself being ill, I just haven't been out much.

However I hope to have a look at the galaxies in Leo, to see if there as good as M82 :D

Kain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.