Small Scope Observing/Thoughts

Back when Alan French asked for views at different apertures I started
thinking about selecting a short list of objects along with a list of
apertures for use in creating such a set of sketches. Buried
somewhere I have a set of (rough) Saturn sketches that were made with
a variety of apertures; but I have no equivalent set for DSOs.

Tonight I went out with Little-Red-Riding-Scope stopped down to a
2-inch aperture. After viewing a variety of DSOs at 11x I decided to
scrap the project -- at least from a deep-sky point of view.

I viewed M45, M31-32-110, M81-82, M57, M27, Albireo, M33, the Perseus
Double Cluster, NGC 752, M36, M37, M38 and M1. I took no charts out
with me, so I had to stick with objects I could find without charts.
The last object (M1) was no more than 20 degrees above my horizon at
the time of observation.

In this age of widespread air pollution, light pollution, and light
trespass I'm fortunate to have a pretty good backyard sky. Tonight's
observations were made within 50 feet of my back door. The walls of
my open-air observatory (the "Colosseum") blocked light trespass from
my nearest neighbors.

M31, the double cluster, M45, and M33 showed up quite nicely. The
rest of the list would have benefitted from additional magnification,
particularly M57 and M32.

The recent thread on the Crab Nebula combined with tonight's
observations got me thinking: What point is there to sketching
deepsky objects at 2-inch, 3-inch, 4.5-inch, etc. apertures when sky
conditions can make one person's 2-inch views superior to another
person's 8-inch views? Seriously, I think it would be a disservice
particularly to newbies who have no idea how good (or more likely, how
bad) their skies really are. Let's face reality. Most people,
amateur astronomers included, live in cities. My views from rural
Montana are obsolete, outdated, unrealistic. They no longer reflect
what most others might expect to see.

So I gave up.

Amateur astronomy has changed. Books and magazines concentrate more
on urban astronomy and less on dark sky astronomy. My sky and I are
headed for the same fate as the dinosaurs. It's time for a new
generation of amateurs to define the hobby in their terms. The old
ways are obsolete.

Sketcher
To sketch is to see.

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 22:08:55 -0700, Sketcher wrote:


My sky and I are
headed for the same fate as the dinosaurs. It's time for a new
generation of amateurs to define the hobby in their terms. The old
ways are obsolete.


You are a most foruntate man. I can't speak for others in this group, but
if it were possible I would swap places with you in a heartbeat.

Obsolete? Seems to me the old ways are just unobtainable now for the
masses and that, by nature of the profit driven system at work now, is the
group the marketer will always persue.

You are a traditionalist, Mr. Sketcher, and that is an honorable label in
my book. This world could use more of you.




--
Martin

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 07:10:59 GMT, Martin R. Howell wrote:


will always persue.


PURSUE

Sketcher wrote:

The recent thread on the Crab Nebula combined with tonight's
observations got me thinking: What point is there to sketching
deepsky objects at 2-inch, 3-inch, 4.5-inch, etc. apertures when
sky conditions can make one person's 2-inch views superior to
another person's 8-inch views? Seriously, I think it would be a
disservice particularly to newbies who have no idea how good (or
more likely, how bad) their skies really are. Let's face
reality. Most people, amateur astronomers included, live in
cities. My views from rural Montana are obsolete, outdated,
unrealistic. They no longer reflect what most others might
expect to see.


Personally, I think there's point enough! I for one would be very
interested to see what kind of difference aperture makes, even if
the sketches were made under different conditions than I'm used to.
Covering that one variable won't result in a complete, definitive
guide, but it would illustrate the relationship between it and other
factors.

A bit of collaborative effort could however result in a very useful
and valuable guide for beginners and intermediates alike. Imagine a
table of sketches cross-referenced by, for example, aperture and
limiting magnitude. An interested novice could, with a little help,
figure out his rough LVM and get an idea of what's visible with
different apertures. Extended with a few more variables, such as
seeing, transparency and... I don't know, altitude (the list goes
on...) you'd have a great reference for more advanced amateurs which
could be used for anything from troubleshooting problems to mere
satisfaction of curiosity.

It may sound far-fetched, but far bigger things have been achieved
in amateur circles across the Internet. I'd be more than happy to
submit sketches made under my particular conditions with equipment
available to me.

--Steve

Sketcher wrote in message . ..

Hello Sketcher ,

Your dead on , this may be why all sales for ( what
we call the big two- ha ) S&T and Astronomy mags most likly amount to
less than 400,000 issues a month for both .
Light pollution and trespass are reflections of primal fears and just
plain foolishness on the part of the human mind . I know , I know all
new car dealers need at least 20,000 watts of eye blasting luminous
energy to keep us aware that they exist ! The only thing that will
ever change the situation will be enforced laws . I won't hold my
breath .............

Over time the interest in observing planets and the
moon with high quality refractors and reflectors may pick up but it
will never pick up the slack in amateur astronomy that the
incandescent light bulb is slowly killing.

Leonard


Back when Alan French asked for views at different apertures I started
thinking about selecting a short list of objects along with a list of
apertures for use in creating such a set of sketches. Buried
somewhere I have a set of (rough) Saturn sketches that were made with
a variety of apertures; but I have no equivalent set for DSOs.

Tonight I went out with Little-Red-Riding-Scope stopped down to a
2-inch aperture. After viewing a variety of DSOs at 11x I decided to
scrap the project -- at least from a deep-sky point of view.

I viewed M45, M31-32-110, M81-82, M57, M27, Albireo, M33, the Perseus
Double Cluster, NGC 752, M36, M37, M38 and M1. I took no charts out
with me, so I had to stick with objects I could find without charts.
The last object (M1) was no more than 20 degrees above my horizon at
the time of observation.

In this age of widespread air pollution, light pollution, and light
trespass I'm fortunate to have a pretty good backyard sky. Tonight's
observations were made within 50 feet of my back door. The walls of
my open-air observatory (the "Colosseum") blocked light trespass from
my nearest neighbors.

M31, the double cluster, M45, and M33 showed up quite nicely. The
rest of the list would have benefitted from additional magnification,
particularly M57 and M32.

The recent thread on the Crab Nebula combined with tonight's
observations got me thinking: What point is there to sketching
deepsky objects at 2-inch, 3-inch, 4.5-inch, etc. apertures when sky
conditions can make one person's 2-inch views superior to another
person's 8-inch views? Seriously, I think it would be a disservice
particularly to newbies who have no idea how good (or more likely, how
bad) their skies really are. Let's face reality. Most people,
amateur astronomers included, live in cities. My views from rural
Montana are obsolete, outdated, unrealistic. They no longer reflect
what most others might expect to see.

So I gave up.

Amateur astronomy has changed. Books and magazines concentrate more
on urban astronomy and less on dark sky astronomy. My sky and I are
headed for the same fate as the dinosaurs. It's time for a new
generation of amateurs to define the hobby in their terms. The old
ways are obsolete.

Sketcher
To sketch is to see.

"Sketcher" wrote in message
...
It's time for a new
generation of amateurs to define the hobby in their terms. The old
ways are obsolete.

It's a done deal.

1) Planets and moon are not subject to light pollution, and make the perfect
target for a nice refractor on a traditional GEM with RA drive.

2) For deep sky there's GoTo and CCD.

Sketcher wrote:

What point is there to sketching
deepsky objects at 2-inch, 3-inch, 4.5-inch, etc. apertures when sky
conditions can make one person's 2-inch views superior to another
person's 8-inch views?

Well for starters, sketching trains the eye. the more you sketch the
more you will see. That alone would make it worth while.

Bring your sketches to a hostel or some other place where there are
folks who will never again get to see the night sky.

It would help them dream just a little more easily.

Sketcher wrote in message . ..
Back when Alan French asked for views at different apertures I started
thinking about selecting a short list of objects along with a list of
apertures for use in creating such a set of sketches. Buried
somewhere I have a set of (rough) Saturn sketches that were made with
a variety of apertures; but I have no equivalent set for DSOs.

Tonight I went out with Little-Red-Riding-Scope stopped down to a
2-inch aperture. After viewing a variety of DSOs at 11x I decided to
scrap the project -- at least from a deep-sky point of view.

I viewed M45, M31-32-110, M81-82, M57, M27, Albireo, M33, the Perseus
Double Cluster, NGC 752, M36, M37, M38 and M1. I took no charts out
with me, so I had to stick with objects I could find without charts.
The last object (M1) was no more than 20 degrees above my horizon at
the time of observation.

In this age of widespread air pollution, light pollution, and light
trespass I'm fortunate to have a pretty good backyard sky. Tonight's
observations were made within 50 feet of my back door. The walls of
my open-air observatory (the "Colosseum") blocked light trespass from
my nearest neighbors.

M31, the double cluster, M45, and M33 showed up quite nicely. The
rest of the list would have benefitted from additional magnification,
particularly M57 and M32.

The recent thread on the Crab Nebula combined with tonight's
observations got me thinking: What point is there to sketching
deepsky objects at 2-inch, 3-inch, 4.5-inch, etc. apertures when sky
conditions can make one person's 2-inch views superior to another
person's 8-inch views? Seriously, I think it would be a disservice
particularly to newbies who have no idea how good (or more likely, how
bad) their skies really are. Let's face reality. Most people,
amateur astronomers included, live in cities. My views from rural
Montana are obsolete, outdated, unrealistic. They no longer reflect
what most others might expect to see.

So I gave up.

Amateur astronomy has changed. Books and magazines concentrate more
on urban astronomy and less on dark sky astronomy. My sky and I are
headed for the same fate as the dinosaurs. It's time for a new
generation of amateurs to define the hobby in their terms. The old
ways are obsolete.

Sketcher
To sketch is to see.

Sketcher,observers like you and I are in the silent minority.My name
is Gary Barabino and I am an observing sketcher myself.I first started
observing and sketching way back in August of 1970 and with small
telescopes ranging from 2" to 4.5".My joy is in the observing and
keeping the sketches over the years.My Vega Observatory Astronomical
Journals which have been done annually date back to 1970,and I do it
because observing is in my blood.Sure I have cameras and all that but
ours is a science that seeing and sketching is in the eye of the
observer.From the New Orleans area,we have no decent skies,and have to
go nearly 200 miles to even find skies 80 % to what you have above
you.Yes amatuer astronomy has changed but for the convenience of
dollars and time.How many observers are out there like you and I?I'm
sure that there are thousands who do it because their eyes can see
more detail in sky objects than does even the most sophisticated of
cameras.My work is based on 98 percent observing with the scopes,and
as I see all this new equipment out there I can sense that there are
some who still like to observe and sketch even through polluted
skies,so keep your head up my friend,maybe we can inspire a new group
of obsering sketchers!! Enjoy your posts! Gary Barabino Sr

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:37:10 -0500, John Kulczycki
wrote:

Well for starters, sketching trains the eye. the more you sketch the
more you will see. That alone would make it worth while.

Indeed! That's why sketching is likely to never completely die out
regardless of present and future technological innovations.

It was the specific project of producing a series of sketches of a
small set of objects with a variety of apertures under a dark sky --
in order to educate people on what can be seen -- that I was having
second thoughts on.

Sketcher
To sketch is to see.

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 11:38:49 -0500, "Stephen Paul"
wrote:

It's a done deal.

1) Planets and moon are not subject to light pollution, and make the perfect
target for a nice refractor on a traditional GEM with RA drive.

2) For deep sky there's GoTo and CCD.

and therein lies the 'bright' future of amateur astronomy.

Sketcher
To sketch is to see.