Atlas advice

What's the BEST most comphrehensive set of charts---out to at least Mag 10,
on paper that will survive dew, and readable with a small red light...

I'm leaning toward: Herald-Bobroff AstroAtlas

I have Sky Atlas 2000---it seems more like a coffee table book. It's
beautiful, but not useable.

Are there others that are better? Why

Doink

On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 21:48:44 -0700, "Doink"
wrote:

What's the BEST most comphrehensive set of charts---out to at least Mag 10,
on paper that will survive dew, and readable with a small red light...

I'm leaning toward: Herald-Bobroff AstroAtlas
Hello

Get it.... I like it very much.... for me it is the best one..


Best Greetings From SWITZERLAND
Philippe HAAKE
ICQ 3128404
http://astrosurf.com/skylover/
http://astrosurf.com/skylover/meteo
http://www.astro-ge.net/
http://community.webshots.com/user/beruberu1


beruberu@NOSBSPAMfreesurfDOTch
!!!!!!REMOVE NOSBSPAM FROM MY E-MAIL!!!!!!

Spammers, here are some email addresses for your spambots:


$LOGIN@localhost $LOGNAME@localhost $USER@localhost
$USER@$HOST -h1024@localhost admin@loopback

"Doink" wrote in
:

What's the BEST most comphrehensive set of charts---out to at least
Mag 10, on paper that will survive dew, and readable with a small red
light...


Its called a 'photocopy'. Seriously, I often photocopy a page
of interest (for finding a comet etc...) and work with that rather
than the original book.

I have Sky Atlas 2000---it seems more like a coffee table book. It's=20
beautiful, but not useable.

Hi Doink,

Why to you say SA2000 is not usable? It's my MOST used atlas.=20
I have the laminated desk edition. Also, i tried the Herald-Bobroff=20
AstroAtlas but it just didn't suit me somehow. I sold it on AstroMart
a while ago.

-Florian

I used Sky Atlas for years. Still do and still have it. I was a teenager
when I first acquired the white stars on black charts and they were not
laminated. The Deluxe version was laminated, but I couldn't afford it. So,
I purchased contact paper and spend a day laminating them myself (front AND
back). They have been great ever since and are fully protected from dew.

You can't go wrong with SA2000!

Peoples

"Doink" wrote in message
...
What's the BEST most comphrehensive set of charts---out to at least Mag
10,
on paper that will survive dew, and readable with a small red light...

I'm leaning toward: Herald-Bobroff AstroAtlas

I have Sky Atlas 2000---it seems more like a coffee table book. It's
beautiful, but not useable.

Are there others that are better? Why

Doink

Peoples People wrote:
You can't go wrong with SA2000!

I think Jay Freeman would disagree. (Probably not too many people on
here have heard of Jay anymore...)

The issue is that it doesn't have quite enough stars to do some of the
serious star-hopping, especially in galaxy-rich, star-poor areas.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

Doink posted:

What's the BEST most comphrehensive set of charts---out to at least Mag 10,
on paper that will survive dew, and readable with a small red light...

I'm leaning toward: Herald-Bobroff AstroAtlas

I have Sky Atlas 2000---it seems more like a coffee table book. It's
beautiful, but not useable.

Are there others that are better? Why

Well, if you feel that S.A. 2000 is "not usable" then most of the other
Atlases you might run into might seem that way as well. For beginners
to intermediate amateurs, it isn't a bad start with stars plotted that
are visible in a finderscope and over 2000 Deep-sky objects. However,
if you want to go deeper with a lot more objects plotted, you are pretty
much limited to either Uranometria 2000 (a 3-volume atlas + reference
book) or the Herald-Bobroff atlas. I found the H.B. atlas a little too
clutered in places, with some rather bizarre symbology, so I stayed with
Uranometria, although the H.B. Atlas is definitely more portable. If
you are *really* serious about "going deep", then you probably will have
to go with software atlases and either print out your finder charts
before you observe, or use a laptop with the software out while you are
observing. The software method is definitely more flexable, and I
rarely go back to any of my print atlases anymore. Clear skies to you.
--
David W. Knisely
Prairie Astronomy Club: http://www.prairieastronomyclub.org
Hyde Memorial Observatory: http://www.hydeobservatory.info/

**********************************************
* Attend the 12th Annual NEBRASKA STAR PARTY *
* July 31 - Aug. 5, 2005, Merritt Reservoir *
* http://www.NebraskaStarParty.org *
**********************************************

This is really something more you have to come to grips with yourself.
The Atlas 2000 is large pages with a lot of the sky on them, The Uranomedia
is a lot of small (book size) pages with a little bit on each page and a lot
of pages, the AAVSO is a lot of larger pages (loose pages!) than the
Uranomedia but of about the same sky limits but doess have the nicety of
stars around marked variable stars having their magnitudes marked for
reference, the HB is moderately large in size but doesn't have a consisten
scaling or depth as it takes certain areas to deeper and larger scale.
Of these, only the Atlas 2000 is available in a laminated version for
protection against the dew.
There are also a fair number of electronic atlases available if you are
willing to get a laptop out into the field. You may want to consider that
as the computer stays warm enough that only a severe dew problem (when it
starts falling out of the sky!) will be a problem and making a box to hold
the computer while it is open can solve that one as well as the light
polution problem that laptops generate.

--
Why isn't there an Ozone Hole at the NORTH Pole?

I have the big huge version---it seems too "nice" and too fragile for
submitting to the damp outdoors. The laminated version might be
better---also, I'm finding I need it to go a bit deeper than it does. When
I was looking for Tempel1, my chart didn't give me a mag 10 field....

Doink.
"Florian" wrote in message
...
I have Sky Atlas 2000---it seems more like a coffee table book. It's
beautiful, but not useable.

Hi Doink,

Why to you say SA2000 is not usable? It's my MOST used atlas.
I have the laminated desk edition. Also, i tried the Herald-Bobroff
AstroAtlas but it just didn't suit me somehow. I sold it on AstroMart
a while ago.

-Florian

That was the problem I ran into looking for Tempel1 Brian. Not enough
detail in the small field.

Doink


"Brian Tung" wrote in message
...
Peoples People wrote:
You can't go wrong with SA2000!

I think Jay Freeman would disagree. (Probably not too many people on
here have heard of Jay anymore...)

The issue is that it doesn't have quite enough stars to do some of the
serious star-hopping, especially in galaxy-rich, star-poor areas.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt